[Background Material and Data on Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Green Book)]
[Program Descriptions]
[Section 8. Child Support Enforcement Program]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[1998 Green Book] SECTION 8. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
CONTENTS
Background
Overview
Demographic Trends
Program Trends
The Federal Role
The State Role
The Child Support Enforcement Process
Locating Absent Parents
Establishing Paternity
Establishing Orders
Reviewing and Modifying Orders
Promoting Medical Support
Collecting Child Support
Interstate Enforcement
State Collection and Distribution of Support Payments
Bankruptcy and Child Support Enforcement
Automated Systems
Audits and Financial Penalties
Assignment and Distribution of Child Support Collections
Funding of State Programs
How Effective is Child Support Enforcement?
Impact on Taxpayers
Impact on Poverty
Impact on National Child Support Payments
Legislative History
Statistical Tables
References
BACKGROUND
Overview
In 1950, when only a small minority of children were in
mother-only families, the Federal Government took its first
steps into the child support arena. Congress amended the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) law by requiring State
welfare agencies to notify law enforcement officials when
benefits were being furnished to a child who had been abandoned
by one of her parents. Presumably, local officials would then
undertake to locate nonresident parents and make them pay child
support. From 1950 to 1975, the Federal Government confined its
child support efforts to these welfare children. With this
exception, most Americans thought that child support
establishment and collection was a domestic relations issue
that should be dealt with at the State level by the courts.
By the early 1970s, however, Congress recognized that the
composition of the AFDC caseload had changed. In earlier years
the majority of children needed financial assistance because
their fathers had died; by the 1970s, the majority needed aid
because their parents were separated, divorced, or never
married. The Child Support Enforcement and Paternity
Establishment Program (CSE), enacted in 1975, was a response by
Congress to reduce public expenditures on welfare by obtaining
support from noncustodial parents on an ongoing basis, to help
non-AFDC families get support so they could stay off public
assistance, and to establish paternity for children born
outside marriage so child support could be obtained for them.
The 1975 legislation (Public Law 93-647) added a new part D
to title IV of the Social Security Act. This statute, as
amended, authorizes Federal matching funds to be used for
enforcing support obligations by locating nonresident parents,
establishing paternity, establishing child support awards, and
collecting child support payments. Since 1981, child support
agencies have also been permitted to collect spousal support on
behalf of custodial parents, and in 1984 they were required to
petition for medical support as part of most child support
orders.
Basic responsibility for administering the program is left
to States, but the Federal Government plays a major role in:
dictating the major design features of State programs; funding,
monitoring and evaluating State programs; providing technical
assistance; and giving direct assistance to States in locating
absent parents and obtaining support payments. The program
requires the provision of child support enforcement services
for both welfare and nonwelfare families and requires States to
publicize frequently, through public service announcements, the
availability of child support enforcement services, together
with information about the application fee and a telephone
number or address to obtain additional information. Local
family and domestic courts and administrative agencies handle
the actual establishment and enforcement of child support
obligations according to Federal, State, and local laws.
The child support program generally does not provide
services aimed at other issues between parents, such as
property settlement, custody, and access to children. These
issues are handled by local courts with the help of private
attorneys.
Any parent who needs help in locating an absent parent,
establishing paternity, establishing a support obligation, or
enforcing a support obligation may apply for services. Parents
receiving benefits (or who formerly received benefits) under
the successor program to AFDC (Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families), the federally assisted foster care program, or the
Medicaid Program, automatically receive services. Services are
free to such recipients, but others are charged up to $25 for
services. In the nonwelfare program, States also can charge
fees on a sliding scale, pay the fee out of State funds, or
recover the fees from the noncustodial parent.
In 1996, Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, abolished AFDC
and related programs and replaced them with a block grant
program of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
States had to begin TANF by July 1, 1997. Under the new law,
each State must operate a CSE Program meeting Federal
requirements in order to be eligible for TANF funds.
In addition to abolishing AFDC, Public Law 104-193 made
about 50 changes to the CSE Program. These changes include
requiring States to increase the percentage of fathers
identified, establishing an integrated, automated network
linking all States to information about the location and assets
of parents, requiring States to implement more enforcement
techniques, and revising the rules governing the distribution
of past due (arrearage) child support payments to former
recipients of public assistance.
Demographic Trends
The need for an effective child support program is clearly
supported by a brief review of the demographic trends of the
American family. By 1996, there were an estimated 11.7 million
single-parent families with children under age 18; about 9.9
million (84 percent) maintained by the mother and roughly 1.9
million maintained by the father. It appears that the rate of
growth in the number of single parents has stabilized (Office
of Child Support, 1995a, p. 5). The average annual percent
increase in the number of one-parent families was 3.9 percent
from 1990 to 1994 and 3.4 percent from 1980 to 1990 as compared
with 6 percent from 1970 to 1980. In 1996, one-parent families
comprised nearly 32 percent of all families. The corresponding
share of single-parent families in 1970 was 13 percent. In
1996, about 38 percent of the mothers had never been married,
37 percent were divorced, 21 percent were separated from their
spouse, and about 4 percent were widowed (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1994, p. xviii).
Of equal concern, dynamic estimates indicate that at least
half of all children born in the United States during the late
1970s and early 1980s will live with a single parent before
reaching adulthood. For black children, the projection is about
80 percent (Bumpass, 1984). Currently, nearly one-fourth of the
69 million children under age 18 living in the United States
reside in a 1-parent family. Moreover, a 1990 current
population survey indicated that about 16 percent of children
living in married-coupled families were living with a
stepparent. Although the number of families with a mother who
has divorced has tripled since 1970, the number with a mother
who has never married has increased fifteenfold from 248,000 to
3,829,000. In these latter cases, paternity must be determined
before the other parent has a legal obligation to financially
support the child. The 3.7 million families maintained by a
never-married mother in 1996 represent a major concern because
only about one-third of the children in these families have had
their paternity established; for the other two-thirds, a child
support obligation cannot be established until a paternity
determination is made.
Poverty is endemic among mother-headed families. In 1995,
41.5 percent of the nearly 8.8 million families maintained
solely by the mother with children under 18 had incomes below
the poverty threshold. A little more than 13 percent of these
families were poor despite the fact that the mother worked year
round, full time. Today, an unprecedented number of children
live in single-parent homes, nearly half are poor, and many
lack adequate or any support from the nonresident parent.
Program Trends
In response to these demographic trends, the Federal-State
child support program grew rapidly. By 1996, about half of all
child support eligible families were actually receiving
government funded child support services. Most of the
information in this chapter applies to the families receiving
these government services.
Table 8-1 summarizes trends for the child support program
since 1978. In 1996, $3 billion was spent by State child
support programs to collect $12 billion in child support. The
combined Federal-State program had more than 51,600 employees.
A sum of $3.93 was collected for every dollar of administrative
expense, up by 36 percent from the low point of only $2.89 per
dollar of administrative expense in 1982, but down about 2
percent since 1992, the year of peak child support efficiency.
In addition, nearly 5.8 million absent parents were located;
717,000 paternities were established; over 1 million support
orders were established; 3.5 million cases had collections;
294,000 families were removed from AFDC because of child
support collections (not shown in table 8-1, fiscal year 1995
data); and 15.5 percent of AFDC payments were recovered as a
result of child support enforcement.
These program trends demonstrate that more and more
positive child support outcomes are achieved by the Federal-
State program. But whether these trends indicate program
success is a complex matter. We turn now to a detailed
explanation of the Federal-State program and both its
achievements and problems.
THE FEDERAL ROLE
The Federal statute requires the national child support
program to be administered by a separate organizational unit
under the control of a person designated by and reporting
directly to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). Presently, this office is known as the Federal
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). The Family Support
Act of 1988 required the appointment of an Assistant Secretary
for Family Support within HHS to administer a number of
programs, including the Child Support Enforcement Program.
Currently, this position is entitled the Assistant Secretary
for the Administration for Children and Families.
A primary responsibility of the Assistant Secretary is to
establish standards for State programs for locating absent
parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining child support
and support for the spouse (or former spouse) with whom the
child is living. In addition to this broad statutory mandate,
the Assistant Secretary is required to establish minimum
organizational and staffing requirements for State child
support agencies, and to review and approve State plans.
TABLE 8-1.--SUMMARY OF NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM STATISTICS, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1978-96
[Numbers in thousands, dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
Measure ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total child support collections.. $1,047 $1,478 $1,770 $2,378 $3,246 $4,605 $6,010 $6,886 $7,965 $8,907 $9,850 $10,827 $12,019
In 1996 dollars \1\.......... 2,555 2,882 2,885 3,591 4,609 6,125 7,272 7,919 8,921 9,620 10,441 11,152 12,019
Total AFDC collections \2\....... 472 603 786 1,000 1,225 1,486 1,750 1,984 2,259 2,416 2,550 2,689 2,855
Federal...................... 311 246 311 402 369 449 533 626 738 777 762 821 888
State........................ 148 274 354 448 424 525 620 700 787 847 891 939 1,013
Total non-AFDC collections....... 575 874 984 1,378 2,019 3,119 4,260 4,902 5,705 6,491 7,300 8,138 9,164
Total administrative expenditures 312 466 612 723 941 1,171 1,606 1,804 1,995 2,241 2,556 3,012 3,055
Federal...................... 236 349 459 507 633 804 1,061 1,212 1,343 1,517 1,741 2,095 2,040
State........................ 76 117 153 216 308 366 545 593 652 724 816 917 1,015
Federal incentive payments to
States and localities........... 54 72 107 134 158 222 264 278 299 339 407 400 409
Average number of AFDC cases in
which a collection was made..... 458 503 597 647 582 621 701 755 836 879 926 976 940
Average number of non-AFDC cases
in which a collection was made.. 249 243 448 547 786 1,083 1,363 1,555 1,749 1,958 2,169 2,409 2,564
Number of parents located........ 454 643 779 875 1,046 1,388 2,062 2,577 3,152 3,777 4,204 4,950 5,769
Number of paternities established 111 144 173 219 245 307 393 472 512 554 592 659 717
Number of support obligations
established..................... 315 374 462 573 731 871 1,022 \3\ 821 879 1,026 1,025 1,051 1,083
Percent of AFDC assistance
payments recovered through child
support collections............. NA 5.2 6.8 7.0 8.6 9.8 10.3 10.7 11.4 12.0 12.5 13.6 15.5
Total child support collections
per dollar of total
administrative expenses......... 3.35 3.17 2.89 3.29 3.45 3.93 3.74 3.82 3.99 3.98 3.86 3.60 3.93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Adjusted for inflation using fiscal CPI.
\2\ AFDC collections are divided into State/Federal shares and incentives are taken from the Federal share thereby reducing the Federal amounts.
\3\ Data beginning in 1991 exclude modifications of support orders.
NA--Not available.
Note.--Data is preliminary for fiscal year 1996. Paternities established do not include the paternities esablished through the In-Hospital Paternity
Acknowledgement Program. In fiscal year 1994, 84,411 paternities were established in hospitals; 244,078 paternities were established in hospitals in
fiscal year 1995, and 277,274 paternities were established in hospitals in fiscal year 1996.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The statute also requires the Assistant Secretary to
provide technical assistance to States to help them establish
effective systems for collecting support and establishing
paternity. To fulfill this requirement, OCSE operates a
National Child Support Enforcement Reference Center as a
central location for the collection and dissemination of
information about State and local programs. OCSE also provides,
under a contract with the American Bar Association Child
Support Project, training and information dissemination on
legal issues to persons working in the field of child support
enforcement. Special initiatives, such as assisting major urban
areas in improving program performance, have also been
undertaken by OCSE.
The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 (Public
Law 98-378) extended the research and demonstration authority
in section 1115 of the Social Security Act to the Child Support
Enforcement Program. This authority makes it possible for
States to test innovative approaches to support enforcement so
long as the modification does not disadvantage children in need
of support nor result in an increase in Federal AFDC costs. The
1984 amendments also authorize $15 million for each fiscal year
after 1986 for special project grants to promote improvement in
interstate enforcement. Currently 36 States have waivers which
directly impact child support: 23 States have waivers to
provide work and training services to noncustodial parents; 14
States have waivers to disregard a portion of child support
payments from being counted as income in determining TANF
eligibility and benefit amounts; 19 States have waivers that
modify cooperation standards and/or penalties; and several
States have waivers to provide paternity establishment bonuses,
child support assurance payments, custody and visitation
mediation and responsible fatherhood services.
The Assistant Secretary for Children and Families has full
responsibility for the evaluation of the CSE Program. Pursuant
to Public Law 104-193, States must annually review and report
to the HHS Secretary information adequate to determine the
State's compliance with Federal requirements for expedited
procedures, timely case processing, and improvement on the
performance indicators. To measure the quality of the data
reported by States and to assess the adequacy of financial
management of the State program, the Secretary must conduct an
audit of every State at least once every 3 years and more often
if a State fails to meet Federal requirements.
Under the penalty provision, a State's TANF Block Grant
must be reduced by an amount equal to at least 1 but not more
than 2 percent for the first failure to comply substantially
with the standards and requirements, at least 2 but not more
than 3 percent for the second failure, and at least 3 but not
more than 5 percent for the third and subsequent failures.
The statute creates several Federal mechanisms to assist
States in performing their paternity and child support
enforcement functions. These include use of the Internal
Revenue Service, the Federal courts, and the Federal Parent
Locator Service (FPLS). The Assistant Secretary must approve a
State's application for permission to use the courts of the
United States to enforce orders upon a finding that either
another State has not enforced the court order of the
originating State within a reasonable time or Federal courts
are the only reasonable method of enforcing the order. Although
Congress authorized the use of Federal courts to enforce
interstate cases, this mechanism has gone unused, apparently
because States view it as costly and complex.
Finally, the statute requires the establishment of a
Federal Parent Locator Service to be used to find absent
parents in order to secure and enforce child support
obligations. The role of the FPLS was expanded by Public Law
104-193. For purposes of establishing parentage, establishing,
setting the amount of, modifying, or enforcing child support
obligations, or enforcing child custody or visitation, the FPLS
is to provide information to locate any individual: (1) who is
under an obligation to pay child support or provide child
custody or visitation rights; (2) against whom such an
obligation is sought; or (3) to whom such an obligation is
owed. Upon request, the Secretary of HHS must provide to an
authorized person the most recent address and place of
employment of any noncustodial parent if the information is
contained in the records of the Department of Health and Human
Services or can be obtained from any other department or agency
of the United States or of any State. The Secretary also must
make available the services of the FPLS to any State that
wishes to locate a missing parent or child for the purpose of
enforcing any Federal or State law involving the unlawful
taking or restraint of a child or the establishment or
maintenance of a child custody or visitation order.
THE STATE ROLE
The Social Security Act requires every State operating a
TANF Program to conduct a Child Support Enforcement Program.
Federal law requires applicants for, and recipients of, TANF to
assign their support rights to the State in order to receive
benefits. In addition, each applicant or recipient must
cooperate with the State to establish the paternity of a child
born outside marriage and to obtain child support payments.
TANF recipients or applicants may be excused from the
requirement of cooperation if the CSE agency determines that
good cause for noncooperation exists, taking into consideration
the best interests of the child on whose behalf aid is claimed.
If good cause is found not to exist and if the relative with
whom a child is living still refuses to cooperate, then the
State must reduce the family's TANF benefit by at least 25
percent and may remove the family from the TANF Program.
(Federal law also stipulates that no TANF funds may be used for
a family that includes a person who has not assigned child
support rights to the State.) Before Public Law 104-193,
cooperation could have been found to be against the best
interests of the child if cooperation could be anticipated to
result in physical or emotional harm to the child or caretaker
relative; if the child was conceived as a result of incest or
rape; or if legal procedures were underway for the child's
adoption.
Unlike previous law, Public Law 104-193 provides States
rather than the Federal Government with the authority to define
``good cause.'' The law now requires States to develop both
``good cause'' and ``other exceptions'' to the cooperation
requirement. The only restriction is that both the ``good
cause'' and ``other exceptions'' must be based on the ``best
interests of the child.'' In addition to defining good cause
and other exceptions, States must establish the standard for
proving a claim. States also will have to decide which agency
will inform TANF caretaker relatives about the cooperation
exemptions, and which agency will make the decision about the
validity of a given claim. These responsibilities can be
delegated to the TANF agency, the CSE agency, or the Medicaid
agency.
Each State is required to designate a single and separate
organizational unit of State government to administer its child
support program. Earlier child support legislation, enacted in
1967, had required that the program be administered by the
welfare agency. The 1975 act deleted this requirement in order
to give each State the opportunity to select the most effective
administrative mechanism. Most States have placed the child
support agency within a social or human services umbrella
agency which also administers the TANF Program. However,
Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, and Alaska have placed the
agency in the department of revenue and Guam, Hawaii, Texas,
and the Virgin Islands have placed the agency in the office of
the attorney general. The law allows the programs to be
administered either at the State or local level. Ten programs
are locally administered. A few programs are State administered
in some counties and locally administered in others.
States must have plans, approved by the director of OCSE,
which set forth the details of their child support program.
States must also enter into cooperative arrangements with
courts and law enforcement officials to assist the child
support agency in administering the program. These agreements
may include provision for reimbursing courts and law
enforcement officials for their assistance. States also must
operate a parent locator service to find absent parents, and
they must maintain full records of collections and
disbursements and otherwise maintain an adequate reporting
system.
In order to facilitate the collection of support in
interstate cases, a State must cooperate with other States in
establishing paternity, locating absent parents, and securing
compliance with an order issued by another State.
States are required to use several enforcement tools. They
must use the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax refund offset
procedure for welfare and nonwelfare families, and they must
also determine periodically whether any individuals receiving
unemployment compensation owe child support. The State
Employment Security Agency (part of the Federal-State
Unemployment Insurance System), is required to withhold
unemployment benefits, and to pay the child support agency any
outstanding child support obligations established by an
agreement with the individual or through legal processes.
Other enforcement techniques States must use include:
1. Imposing liens against real and personal property for
amounts of overdue support;
2. Withholding State tax refunds payable to a parent who is
delinquent in support payments;
3. Reporting the amount of overdue support to a consumer
credit bureau upon request;
4. Requiring individuals who have demonstrated a pattern of
delinquent payments to post a bond or give some other
guarantee to secure payment of overdue support;
5. Establishing expedited processes within the State judicial
system or under administrative processes for obtaining
and enforcing child support orders and determining
paternity. These expedited procedures include giving
States authority to secure assets to satisfy payment of
past-due support by seizing or attaching unemployment
compensation, worker's compensation, judgments,
settlements, lotteries, asset held in financial
institutions, and public and private retirement funds;
6. Withholding, suspending, or restricting the use of driver's
licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and
recreational licenses of noncustodial parents who owe
past-due support;
7. Denying passports to persons owing more than $5,000 in
past-due support;
8. Requiring unemployed noncustodial parents who owe child
support to a child receiving TANF benefits to
participate in appropriate work activities;
9. Performing quarterly data matches with financial
institutions; and
10. Voiding of fraudulent transfers of assets to avoid payment
of child support.
Each State's plan must provide that the child support
agency will attempt to secure support for all TANF children.
The State must also provide in its plan that it will undertake
to establish the paternity of a TANF child born out of wedlock.
These requirements apply to all cases except those in which the
State finds, in accordance with standards established by the
Secretary, the best interests of the child would be violated.
For families whose TANF eligibility ends due to the receipt of
or an increase in child support, States must continue to
provide CSE services without imposing the application fee.
Foster care agencies are required to take steps, where
appropriate, to secure an assignment to the State of any rights
to support on behalf of a child receiving foster care
maintenance payments under title IV-E of the Social Security
Act.
State child support agencies are also required to petition
to include medical support as part of any child support order
whenever health care coverage is available to the noncustodial
parent at a reasonable cost. And, if a family loses TANF
eligibility as the result of increased collection of support
payments, the State must continue to provide Medicaid benefits
for 4 calendar months beginning with the month of
ineligibility. In addition, States must provide services to
families covered by Medicaid who are referred to the State IV-D
agency from the State Medicaid agency.
With respect to non-TANF families, States must provide,
once an application is filed with the State agency, the same
child support collection and paternity determination services
which are provided for TANF families. The State must charge
non-TANF families an application fee of up to $25. The amount
of the maximum allowable fee may be adjusted periodically by
the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to
reflect changes in administrative costs. States may charge the
fee against the custodial parent, pay the fee out of State
funds, or recover it from the noncustodial parent.
States also have the option of charging a late payment fee
equal to between 3 and 6 percent of the amount of overdue
support. Late payment fees may be charged to noncustodial
parents and are to be collected only after the full amount of
the support has been paid to the child. States may also recover
costs in excess of the application fee from either the
custodial or noncustodial parent. If a State chooses to make
recovery from the custodial parent, it must have in effect a
procedure whereby all persons in the State who have authority
to order support are informed that such costs are to be
collected from the custodial parent.
Child support enforcement services must include the
enforcement of spousal support, but only if a support
obligation has been established with respect to the spouse, the
child and spouse are living in the same household, and child
support is being collected along with spousal support.
Finally, each State must comply with any other requirements
and standards that the Secretary determines to be necessary to
the establishment of an effective child support program.
THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
The goal of the child support program is to combine these
Federal and State responsibilities and activities into an
efficient machine that provides seven basic products: locating
absent parents, establishing paternity, establishing child
support orders, reviewing and modifying orders, promoting
medical support, collecting and distributing support, and
enforcing child support across State lines. Each of these
services deserves extensive discussion.
Locating Absent Parents
In pursuing cases, child support officials try to obtain a
great deal of information and several documents from the
custodial parent or other sources. These include the name and
address of the noncustodial parent; the noncustodial parent's
Social Security number; children's birth certificates; the
child support order; the divorce decree or separation
agreement; the name and address of the most recent employer of
the noncustodial parent; the names of friends and relatives or
organizations to which the noncustodial parent might belong;
information about income and assets; and any other information
about noncustodial parents that might help locate them. Once
this information is provided, it is used in strictest
confidence.
If the Child Support Enforcement Program cannot locate the
noncustodial parent with the information provided by the
custodial parent, it must try to locate the noncustodial parent
through the State parent locator service. The State uses
various information sources such as telephone directories,
motor vehicle registries, tax files, and employment and
unemployment records. The State also can ask the Federal Parent
Locator Service (FPLS) to locate the noncustodial parent. The
FPLS can access data from the Social Security Administration,
the Internal Revenue Service, the Selective Service System, the
Department of Defense, the Veterans' Administration, the
National Personnel Records Center, and State Employment
Security Agencies. The FPLS provides Social Security numbers,
addresses, and employer and wage information to State and local
child support agencies to establish and enforce child support
orders.
The FPLS obtains employer addresses and wage and
unemployment compensation information from the State employment
security agencies. This information is very useful in helping
child support officials work cases in which the custodial
parent and children live in one State and the noncustodial
parent lives or works in another State. Employment data are
updated quarterly by employers reporting to their State
employment security agency; unemployment data are updated
continually from State unemployment compensation payment
records.
The FPLS conducts weekly or biweekly matches with most of
the agencies listed above. Each agency runs the cases against
its data base and the names and Social Security numbers that
match are returned to FPLS and through FPLS to the requesting
State or local child support office. During fiscal year 1995,
the FPLS processed approximately 4.3 million requests for
information from State and local CSE agencies.
Since October 1984, OCSE has participated in Project 1099
which provides State child support agencies access to all of
the earned and unearned income information reported to IRS by
employers and financial institutions. Project 1099, named after
the IRS form on which both earned and unearned income is
reported, is a cooperative effort involving State child support
agencies, the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, and
the Internal Revenue Service. Examples of reported earned and
unearned incomes include: interest paid on savings accounts,
stocks and bonds, and distribution of dividends and capital
gains; rent or royalty payments; prizes, awards, or winnings;
fees paid directors or subcontractors; and unemployment
compensation. The Project 1099 information is used to locate
noncustodial parents and to verify income and employment.
Project 1099 also helps locate additional nonwage income and
assets of noncustodial parents who are employees as well as
income and asset sources of self-employed and nonwage earning
obligors. In fiscal year 1995, OCSE submitted about 3.9 million
cases to the IRS under Project 1099 and over 2.5 million cases
were matched (65 percent).
To improve the CSE agency's ability to locate absent
parents, Public Law 104-193 requires States to have automated
registries of child support orders containing records of each
case in which CSE services are being provided and each support
order established or modified on or after October 1, 1998.
Under Public Law 104-193, local registries could be linked to
form the State registry. The State registry is to include a
record of the support owed under the order, arrearages,
interest or late penalty charges, amounts collected, amounts
distributed, child's date of birth, and any liens imposed. The
registry also will include standardized information on both
parents, such as name, Social Security number, date of birth,
and case identification number.
Beginning October 1, 1997, States are required to
establish an automated directory of new hires containing
information from employers, including Federal, State, and local
governments and labor organizations, for each newly hired
employee. The directory must include the name, address and
Social Security number of the employee and the employer's name,
address, and tax identification number. This information
generally is to be supplied to the State new hires directory
within 20 days after the employee is hired. Within 3 business
days after receipt of new hire information from the employer,
the State directory of new hires is required to furnish the
information to the national directory of new hires. The new law
also requires the establishment of a Federal case registry of
child support orders and a national directory of new hires. The
Federal directories are to consist of abstracts of information
from the State directories and are located in the FPLS.
Public Law 104-193 allows all States to link up to an
array of data bases and permits the FPLS to be used for the
purpose of establishing parentage; establishing, setting the
amount of, modifying, or enforcing child support obligations;
or enforcing child custody or visitation orders. By May 1,
1998, a designated State agency must directly or by contract
conduct automated comparisons of the Social Security numbers
reported by employers to the State directory of new hires and
the Social Security numbers of CSE cases that appear in the
records of the State registry of child support orders. (The new
law requires the HHS Secretary to conduct similar comparisons
of the Federal directories.) When a match occurs the State
directory of new hires is required to report to the State CSE
agency the name, date of birth, and Social Security number of
the employee, and the name, address, and identification number
of the employer. The CSE agency must, within 2 business days,
instruct appropriate employers to withhold child support
obligations from the employee's paycheck, unless the employee's
income is not subject to withholding.
There are two exceptions to the immediate income
withholding rule: (1) if one of the parties demonstrates, and
the court (or administrative process) finds, that there is good
cause not to require immediate withholding; or (2) if both
parties agree in writing to an alternative arrangement. Public
Law 104-193 requires employers to remit to the State
disbursement unit income withheld within 7 business days after
the employee's payday. States also are required to operate a
centralized collection and disbursement unit that sends child
support payments to custodial parents within 2 business days.
Moreover, Public Law 104-193 expands the scope of the FPLS
to provide information on the location of custodial parents.
Federal law requires the HHS Secretary to operate a FPLS that
contains information on, or that facilitates the discovery of,
the location of individuals who are under obligation to pay
child support, or against whom such an obligation is sought, or
to whom such an obligation is owed. The FPLS also is used to
find abducted children and to make or enforce a child custody
or visitation determination.
Establishing Paternity
Paternity establishment is a prerequisite for obtaining a
child support order. In 1994, 32.6 percent of children born in
the United States were born to unmarried women. According to
the OCSE, paternity is established in less than one-third of
these cases. Without paternity established, these children have
no legal claim on their fathers' income. A major weakness of
the child support program is its poor performance in securing
paternity for such children. In addition to financial benefits,
establishing paternity can provide social, psychological, and
emotional benefits and in some cases the father's medical
history may be needed to give a child proper care.
In the 1980s, legislation was enacted that contained
provisions aimed at increasing the number of paternities
established. Public Law 98-378, the Child Support Enforcement
Amendments of 1984, required States to implement laws that
permitted paternity to be established until a child's 18th
birthday. Under the Family Support Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-
485), States are required to initiate the establishment of
paternity for all children under the age of 18, including those
for whom an action to establish paternity was previously
dismissed because of the existence of a statute of limitations
of less than 18 years. The 1988 law encourages States to create
simple civil procedures for establishing paternity in contested
cases, requires States to have all parties in a contested
paternity case take a genetic test upon the request of any
party, requires the Federal Government to pay 90 percent of the
laboratory costs of these tests, and permits States to charge
persons not receiving AFDC for the cost of establishing
paternity. The 1988 law also sets paternity establishment
standards for the States and stipulates that each State is
required, in administering any law involving the issuance of
birth certificates, to require both parents to furnish their
Social Security number unless the State finds good cause for
not doing so.
Congress took additional action to improve paternity
establishment in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
This law required States to have in effect, by October 1, 1993,
the following:
1. A simple civil process for voluntarily acknowledging
paternity under which the State must explain the rights
and responsibilities of acknowledging paternity and
afford due process safeguards. Procedures must include
a hospital-based program for the voluntary
acknowledgment of paternity during the period
immediately preceding or following the birth of a
child;
2. A law under which the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity
creates a rebuttable, or at State option, conclusive
presumption of paternity, and under which such
voluntary acknowledgments are admissible as evidence of
paternity;
3. A law under which the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity
must be recognized as a basis for seeking a support
order without requiring any further proceedings to
establish paternity;
4. Procedures which provide that any objection to genetic
testing results must be made in writing within a
specified number of days prior to any hearing at which
such results may be introduced in evidence; if no
objection is made, the test results must be admissible
as evidence of paternity without the need for
foundation testimony or other proof of authenticity or
accuracy;
5. A law which creates a rebuttable or, at the option of the
State, conclusive presumption of paternity upon genetic
testing results indicating a threshold probability of
the alleged father being the father of the child;
6. Procedures which require default orders in paternity cases
upon a showing that process has been served on the
defendant and whatever additional showing may be
required by State law; and
7. Expedited processes for paternity establishment in
contested cases and full faith and credit to
determinations of paternity made by other States.
The 1993 reforms also revised the mandatory paternity
establishment requirements imposed on States by the Family
Support Act of 1988. The most notable provision increased the
mandatory paternity establishment percentage, which is backed
up by financial penalties linked to a reduction of Federal
matching funds for the State's TANF Program (see Audits and
Financial Penalties section). Legislation passed in 1996
further strengthened the Nation's paternity establishment
system. More specifically, Public Law 104-193 streamlines the
paternity determination process; raises the paternity
establishment requirement from 75 to 90 percent; implements a
simple civil process for establishing paternity; requires a
uniform affidavit to be completed by men voluntarily
acknowledging paternity and entitles such affidavit to full
faith and credit in any State; stipulates that a signed
acknowledgment of paternity be considered a legal finding of
paternity unless rescinded within 60 days and thereafter may be
challenged in court only on the basis of fraud, duress, or
material mistake of fact; and provides that no judicial or
administrative action is needed to ratify an acknowledgment
that is not challenged. The new law also requires States to
publicize the availability and encourage the use of procedures
for voluntary establishment of paternity and child support.
Paternity acknowledgments must be filed with the State
birth records agency. Public Law 104-193 requires that before a
mother or alleged father can sign a paternity acknowledgment,
each must be given notice (both orally and in writing) of the
alternatives to, legal consequences of, and rights and
responsibilities arising from the signed acknowledgment.
Moreover, in the case of unmarried parents, the father's name
shall not appear on the birth certificate unless he has signed
a voluntary acknowledgment or a court has issued an
adjudication of paternity.
While employing these laws and procedures to establish
paternity, States follow a predictable sequence of events. In
cases for which paternity is not voluntarily acknowledged
(which is still the majority of cases), the child support
agency locates the alleged father and brings him to court or
before an administrative agency where he can either acknowledge
or dispute paternity. If he claims he is not the father, the
court can require that he submit to parentage blood testing to
establish the probability that he is the father. If the father
denies paternity, a court usually decides the issue based on
scientific and testimonial evidence. Through the use of testing
techniques, a man may be excluded as a possible natural father,
in which case no further action against him is warranted. Most
States use one or more of several scientific methods for
establishing paternity. These include: ABO blood typing system,
human leukocyte antigen (HLA) testing, red cell enzyme and
serum protein electrophoresis, and DNA testing.
Public Law 104-193 mandates that the State CSE agency have
the power (without the need for permission from a court or
administrative tribunal) to order genetic tests in appropriate
CSE cases. These CSE agencies also must recognize and enforce
the ability of other State CSE agencies to take such actions.
Moreover, genetic test results must be admissible as evidence
so long as they are of a type generally acknowledged as
reliable by accreditation bodies recognized by HHS and
performed by an entity approved by such an accredited body.
Finally, in any case in which the CSE agency ordered the tests,
the State must pay for the initial tests. The State is allowed
to recoup the cost from the father if paternity is established.
If the original test result is contested, further testing can
be ordered by the CSE agency if the contestant pays the cost in
advance.
There are two types of testing procedures for paternity
cases: (1) probability of exclusion tests, and (2) probability
of paternity tests. Most laboratories perform probability of
exclusion tests. This type of testing can determine with 90-99
percent accuracy that a man is ``not'' the father of a given
child. There is a very high probability the test will exonerate
a falsely accused man (Office of Child Support Enforcement,
1985).
Since the question of paternity is essentially a scientific
one, it is important that the verification process include
available advanced scientific technology. Experts now agree
that use of the highly reliable deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
fingerprinting test greatly increases the likelihood of correct
identification of putative fathers. DNA tests can be used
either to exclude unlikely fathers or to establish a high
likelihood that a given man is the father (Office of Child
Support, 1990, see pp. 59-74). One expert, speaking at a child
support conference, summed up the effectiveness of DNA testing
as follows:
The DNA fingerprinting technique promises far superior
reliability than current blood grouping or HLA (human leukocyte
antigen) analyses. The probability of an unrelated individual
sharing the same patterns is practically zero. The ``DNA
fingerprinting'' test, developed in England in 1985, refines
the favorable statistics to an even greater degree, reducing
the probability that two unrelated individuals will have the
same DNA fingerprint to one in a quadrillion (Georgeson, 1989,
p. 568).
If the putative father is not excluded on the basis of the
scientific test results, authorities may still conclude on the
basis of witnesses, resemblance, and other evidence that they
do not have sufficient evidence to establish paternity and,
therefore, will drop charges against him. Tests resulting in
nonexclusion also may serve to convince the putative father
that he is, in fact, the father. If this occurs, a voluntary
admission often leads to a formal court order. When authorities
believe there is enough evidence to support the mother's
allegation, but the putative father continues to deny the
charges, the case proceeds to a formal adjudication of
paternity in a court of law (McKillop, 1981, pp. 22-23). Using
the results of the blood test and other evidence, the court or
the child support agency, often through an administrative
process, may dismiss the case or enter an order of paternity, a
prerequisite to obtaining a court order requiring a
noncustodial parent to pay support (U.S. General Accounting
Office, 1987).
In fiscal year 1996, 717,000 paternities were established,
up from 245,000 in fiscal year 1986. While the number of
paternities established through child support agencies reached
a record high in 1996, huge disparities exist among States. In
the previous year (latest available data), for example, the
percentage of children in the Child Support Enforcement Program
for whom paternity was established averaged 50 percent
nationally, but ranged from 14 percent in Wyoming to 91 percent
in Georgia.
Establishing Orders
A child support order legally obligates noncustodial
parents to provide financial support for their children and
stipulates the amount of the obligation (current weekly
obligation plus arrearages, if any) and how it is to be paid.
Many States have statutes that provide that, in the absence of
a child support award, the payment of TANF benefits to the
child of a noncustodial parent creates a debt due from the
parent or parents in the amount of the TANF benefit. Other
States operate under the common law principle, which maintains
that a father is obligated to reimburse any person who has
provided his child with food, shelter, clothing, medical
attention, or education. States can establish child support
obligations either by judicial or administrative process.
Judicial and administrative systems
The courts have traditionally played a major role in the
child support program. Judges establish orders, establish
paternity, and provide authority for all enforcement activity.
The child support literature generally concludes that the
judicial process offers several advantages, especially by
providing more adequate protection for the legal rights of the
noncustodial parent and by offering a wide range of enforcement
remedies, such as civil contempt and possible incarceration. A
major problem of using courts, however, is that they are often
cumbersome, expensive, and time consuming.
The advantages of an administrative process are very
compelling. These include offering quicker service because
documents do not have to be filed with the court clerk nor
await the signature of the judge, eliminating time consuming
problems in scheduling court time, providing a more uniform and
consistent obligation amount, and saving money because of
reduced court costs and attorney fees.
The 1984 child support amendments required States to limit
the role of the courts significantly by implementing
administrative or judicial expedited processes. States are
required to have quasi-judicial or administrative systems to
expedite the process for obtaining and enforcing a support
order. Since 1993, State have been required to extend these
expedited processes to paternity establishment. These
requirements can be waived--either statewide or in a locality--
if the judicial system is able to process cases expeditiously.
Most child support officials view the growth of expedited
administrative processes as an improvement in the child support
program. An expedited judicial process is a legal process in
effect under a State's judicial system that reduces the
processing time of establishing and enforcing a support order.
To expedite case processing, a ``judge surrogate'' is given
authority to: take testimony and establish a record, evaluate
and make initial decisions, enter default orders if the
noncustodial parent does not respond to ``notice'' or other
State ``service of process'' in a timely manner, accept
voluntary acknowledgment of support liability and approve
stipulated agreements to pay support. In addition, if the State
establishes paternity using the expedited judicial process, the
surrogate can accept voluntary acknowledgement of paternity.
Judge surrogates are sometimes referred to as court masters,
referees, hearing officers, commissioners, or presiding
officers.
The purpose of an expedited administrative process is to
increase effectiveness and meet specified processing times in
child support cases and, if the State so chose, paternity
actions. Federal regulations specify that 90 percent of cases
must be processed within 3 months, 98 percent within 6 months,
and 100 percent within 12 months.
The Federal regulations also contain additional
requirements related to the expedited process. Proceedings
conducted pursuant to either the expedited judicial or
expedited administrative process must be presided over by an
individual who is not a judge of the court. Orders established
by expedited process must have the same force and effect under
State law as orders established by full judicial process,
although either process may provide that a judge first ratify
the order. Within these broad limitations, each State is free
to design an expedited process that is best suited to its
administrative needs and legal traditions.
Under Public Law 104-193, the expedited procedure rules
were broadened to cover modification of support orders. The new
law also requires that State tribunals--whether quasi-judicial
or administrative--must have statewide jurisdiction over the
parties and permit intrastate case transfers from one tribunal
to another without the need to refile the case or re-serve the
respondent. In addition, once a support/paternity order is
entered, the tribunal must require each party to file and
periodically update certain information with both the tribunal
and the State's child support case registry. This information
includes the parent's Social Security number, residential and
mailing addresses, telephone number, driver's license number,
and employer's name, address and telephone number.
Moreover, the 1996 reforms require States to adopt laws
that give the CSE agency authority to initiate a series of
expedited procedures without the necessity of obtaining an
order from any other administrative agency or judicial
tribunal. These actions include: ordering genetic testing;
issuing subpoenas; requiring public and private employers and
other entities to provide information on employment,
compensation, and benefits or be subject to penalties;
obtaining access to vital statistics, State and local tax
records, real and personal property records, records of
occupational and professional licenses, business records,
employment security and public assistance records, motor
vehicle records, corrections records, customer records of
utilities and cable television companies pursuant to an
administrative subpoena, and records of financial institutions;
directing the obligor to make payments to the child support
agency in public assistance or income withholding cases;
ordering income withholding; securing assets to satisfy
judgments and settlements; and increasing the monthly support
due to make payments on arrearages.
Determining the amount of support orders
Before October 1989, the decision of how much a parent
should pay for child support was left primarily to the
discretion of the court. Typically, judges examined financial
statements from mothers and fathers and established awards
based on children's needs. The resulting awards varied greatly.
Moreover, this case-by-case approach resulted in very low
awards. As late as 1991, the average amount of child support
received by custodial parents was $2,961, less than $250 per
month.
In an attempt to increase the use of objective criteria,
the 1984 child support amendments required each State to
establish, by October 1987, guidelines for determining child
support award amounts ``by law or by judicial or administrative
action'' \1\ and to make the guidelines available ``to all
judges and other officials who have the power to determine
child support awards within the State.'' Federal regulations
made the provision more specific: State child support
guidelines must be based on specific descriptive and numeric
criteria and result in a computation of the support obligation.
The 1984 provision did not make the guidelines binding on
judges and other officials who had the authority to establish
child support obligations. However, the Family Support Act of
1988 required States to pass legislation making the State child
support guidelines a ``rebuttable presumption'' in any judicial
or administrative proceeding and establishing the amount of the
order which results from the application of the State-
established guidelines as the correct amount to be awarded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, No. 87-1259 (D.C. Ct. App. October
10, 1989): In October 1989, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
struck down child support guidelines adopted in October 1987 in
response to the Federal requirement. The court held that the superior
court committee that drafted the guidelines lacked authority to do so.
It did not rule on the fairness of the guidelines, which awarded
children a fixed fraction of the gross income of the noncustodial
parent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States generally use one of three basic types of guidelines
to determine award amounts: ``Income shares,'' which is based
on the combined income of both parents (31 States);
``percentage of income,'' in which the number of eligible
children is used to determine a percentage of the noncustodial
parents' income to be paid in child support (15 States); and
``Melson-Delaware,'' which provides a minimum self-support
reserve for parents before the cost of rearing the children is
prorated between the parents to determine the award amount
(Delaware, Hawaii, West Virginia). Two jurisdictions (the
District of Columbia and Massachusetts) use variants of one or
more of these three approaches (Williams, 1994; see table 8-24
below).
The income shares approach is designed to ensure that the
children of divorced parents suffer the lowest possible decline
in standard of living. The approach is intended to ensure that
the child receives the same proportion of parental income that
he would have received if the parents lived together. The first
step in the income shares approach is to determine the combined
income of the two parents. A percentage of that combined
income, which varies by income level, is used to calculate a
``primary support obligation.'' The percentages decline as
income rises, although the absolute amount of the primary
support obligation increases with income. Many States add child
care costs and extraordinary medical expenses to the primary
support obligation. The resulting total child support
obligation is apportioned between the parents on the basis of
their incomes. The noncustodial parent's share is the child
support award (Office of Child Support, 1987, pp. II 67-80).
The percentage of income approach is based on the
noncustodial parent's gross income and the number of children
to be supported (the child support obligation is not adjusted
for the income of the custodial parent). The percentages vary
by State. In Wisconsin, a highly publicized percentage of
income guideline State, child support is based on the following
proportions of the noncustodial parent's gross income: one
child--17 percent; two children--25 percent; three children--29
percent; four children--31 percent; and five or more children--
34 percent. There is no self support reserve in this approach
nor is there separate treatment for child care or extraordinary
medical expenses. The States that use a percentage of income
approach are Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The Melson-Delaware formula starts with net income. \2\
After determining net income for each parent, a primary support
allowance is subtracted from each parent's income. This reserve
represents the minimum amount required for adults to meet their
own subsistence requirements. The next step is to determine a
primary support amount for each dependent child. Work-related
child care expenses and extraordinary medical expenses are
added to the child's primary support amount. The child's
primary support needs are then apportioned between the parents.
To ensure that children share in any additional income the
parents might have, a percentage of the parents' remaining
income is allocated among the children (the percentage is based
on the number of dependent children). The States that use the
Melson-Delaware approach are Delaware, Hawaii, and West
Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Net income equals income from employment and other sources plus
business expense accounts if they provide the parent with an
automobile, lunches, etc., minus income taxes based on maximum
allowable exemptions, other deductions required by law, deductions
required by an employer or union, legitimate business expenses, and
benefits such as medical insurance maintained for dependents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pirog, Klotz, and Buyers (1997) have examined the
differences in child support guidelines across States. Their
approach was to define five hypothetical cases of custodial
mothers and noncustodial fathers that capture a range of
differences in income, expenses, and other factors that
influence the amount of child support payments computed under
the guidelines adopted by the various States. State 1997
guidelines were then applied to each of the five cases to
compute the amount of child support that would be due. In each
of the five cases, the mother and father are divorced. The
father lives alone while the mother lives with the couples' two
children, ages 7 and 13. The father pays union dues of $30 per
month and health insurance for the children of $25 per month.
The mother incurs monthly employment-related child care
expenses of $150. The income of the fathers and mothers are:
Case A: father--$530; mother--$300
Case B: father--$720; mother--$480
Case C: father--$2,500; mother--$1,000
Case D: father--$4,400; mother--$1,760
Case E: father--$6,300; mother--$4,200
Arguably, the most striking generalization that emerges
from table 8-2 is the remarkable differences across States in
the amount of the child support obligation established by the
guidelines, particularly at the lower income levels.
TABLE 8-2.--AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT AWARDED BY STATE GUIDELINES IN VARIOUS CASES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case
State ------------------------------------------------------
A B C D E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................. $216 $280 $433 $634 (\1\)
Alaska.................................................. 38 38 312 546 $1,193
Arizona................................................. (\1\) 75 482 628 1,061
Arkansas................................................ (\1\) 150 305 475 1,025
California.............................................. 236 278 478 770 1,457
Colorado................................................ 231 261 409 610 1,066
Connecticut............................................. 0 0 404 703 1,198
Delaware................................................ 91 91 467 626 1,157
District of Columbia.................................... 50 208 458 821 1,495
Florida................................................. 135 261 463 721 1,186
Georgia................................................. 210 210 383 673 1,607
Hawaii.................................................. 100 100 470 610 1,260
Idaho................................................... 122 166 345 566 913
Illinois................................................ 102 136 294 485 1,020
Indiana................................................. 215 327 692 899 1,462
Iowa.................................................... 50 189 358 566 1,047
Kansas.................................................. 188 227 390 582 1,195
Kentucky................................................ 221 293 445 637 1,017
Louisiana............................................... 207 292 451 667 1,052
Maine................................................... 52 290 437 619 1,031
Maryland................................................ 249 295 449 655 1,060
Massachusetts........................................... (\1\) 137 471 789 (\1\)
Michigan................................................ 128 141 468 657 1,078
Minnesota............................................... 62 84 376 606 1,228
Mississippi............................................. 92 124 251 427 908
Missouri................................................ 149 265 447 609 1,032
Montana................................................. 6 15 26 456 908
Nebraska................................................ 50 50 390 677 1,035
Nevada.................................................. 200 180 375 660 1,575
New Hampshire........................................... 50 50 424 667 1,473
New Jersey.............................................. 112 267 452 710 (\1\)
New Mexico.............................................. 183 291 468 588 1,095
New York................................................ 25 50 436 699 1,548
North Carolina.......................................... 50 57 463 600 1,012
North Dakota............................................ 68 126 356 582 1,231
Ohio.................................................... 150 278 465 609 1,045
Oklahoma................................................ 171 171 295 415 801
Oregon.................................................. 73 159 343 587 1,027
Pennsylvania............................................ (\1\) 257 415 554 (\1\)
Rhode Island............................................ 252 315 480 677 1,170
South Carolina.......................................... 58 183 463 574 1,000
South Dakota............................................ 275 275 486 652 1,032
Tennessee............................................... 153 200 393 665 1,422
Texas................................................... 109 147 298 517 1,114
Utah.................................................... 83 131 447 616 (\1\)
Vermont................................................. (\1\) (\1\) 428 642 1,025
Virginia................................................ 231 289 446 641 1,042
Washington.............................................. 50 50 412 641 1,054
West Virginia........................................... 50 117 364 539 1,742
Wisconsin............................................... 133 180 375 660 1,575
Wyoming................................................. 105 200 348 519 882
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In these cases, courts have the discretion to set the amount that seems appropriate to the court.
ANote.--See text for explanation of cases A, B, C, D, and E.
Source: Pirog, Klotz, & Buyers, 1997.
Award rates
In 1993, of the 11.5 million custodial mothers of children
under the age of 21 whose father was not living in the
household, only 6.9 million or 60 percent had a child support
award. About one-third of the 4.6 million custodial mothers
without awards chose not to pursue a child support award. In
other cases, custodial parents were unable to locate the
noncustodial parent or the noncustodial parent was unable to
pay. Never-married custodial parents were the group least
likely to have a child support award. Only 44 percent of never-
married custodial mothers had support awards compared with 70
percent of divorced custodial mothers. Moreover, black
custodial mothers and custodial mothers of Hispanic origin were
much less likely than their white counterparts to have child
support awards. About 57 percent of whites had child support
awards, compared with 46 percent of blacks and 38 percent of
Hispanics (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997).
Unresolved issues
As noted by Garfinkel, Melli, and Robertson (1994), there
are a host of controversial issues associated with child
support awards. These include whether child care costs,
extraordinary medical expenses, and college costs are taken
into account in determining the support order; how the income
of the noncustodial parent is allocated between first and
subsequent families; \3\ how the income of stepparents is
treated; whether a minimum child support award level regardless
of age or circumstance of the noncustodial parent should be
imposed; whether income earned as a result of a custodial
parent's participation in an AFDC work, education, and training
program is taken into account; and the duration of the support
order (i.e., does the support obligation end when the child
reaches age 18; what happens to arrearages).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Traditionally, the courts have taken the position that the
father's prior child support obligations take absolute precedence over
the needs of the new family. They have disregarded the father's plea
that his new responsibilities are a ``change in circumstance''
justifying a reduction in a prior child support award or at least
averting an increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewing and Modifying Orders
Without periodic modifications, child support obligations
can become inadequate and inequitable. Historically, the only
way to modify a child support order was to require a party to
petition the court for a modification based on a ``change in
circumstances.'' What constituted a change in circumstances
sufficient to modify the order depended on the State and the
court. The person requesting modification was responsible for
filing the motion, serving notice, hiring a lawyer, and proving
a change in circumstances of sufficient magnitude to satisfy
statutory standards. The modification proceeding was a two step
process. First the court determined whether a modification was
appropriate. Next, the amount of the new obligation was
determined.
Because this approach to updating orders was so cumbersome,
the Family Support Act of 1988 required States both to use
guidelines as a rebuttable presumption in all proceedings for
the award of child support and to review and adjust child
support orders in accordance with the guidelines. These
provisions reflected congressional intent to simplify the
updating of support orders by requiring a process in which the
standard for modification was the State child support
guidelines. They also reflect a recognition that the
traditional burden of proof for changing the amount of the
support order was a barrier to updating. Finally, the 1988 law
signaled a need for States to at least expand, if not replace,
the traditional ``change in circumstances'' test as the legal
prerequisite for updating support orders by making State
guidelines the presumptively correct amount of support to be
paid (Federal Register, 1992, p. 61560).
The Family Support Act also required States to review
guidelines at least once every 4 years and have procedures for
review and adjustment of orders, consistent with a plan
indicating how and when child support orders are to be reviewed
and adjusted. Review may take place at the request of either
parent subject to the order or at the request of a State child
support agency. Any adjustment to the award must be consistent
with the State's guidelines, which must be used as a rebuttable
presumption in establishing or adjusting the support order. The
Family Support Act also required States to review all orders
being enforced under the child support program within 36 months
after establishment or after the most recent review of the
order and to adjust the order in accord with the State's
guidelines.
Review is required in child support cases in which support
rights are assigned to the State, unless the State has
determined that review would not be in the best interests of
the child and neither parent has requested a review. This
provision applies to child support orders in cases in which
benefits under the TANF, foster care, or Medicaid Programs are
currently being provided, but does not include orders for
former TANF, foster care, or Medicaid cases, even if the State
retains an assignment of support rights for arrearages that
accumulated during the time the family was on welfare. In child
support cases in which there is no current assignment of
support rights to the State, including former recipients of
TANF, foster care, or Medicaid benefits receiving continued
child support services, review is required at least once every
36 months only if a parent requests it. If the review indicates
that adjustment of the support amount is appropriate, the State
must proceed to adjust the award accordingly.
The Family Support Act also required States to notify
parents in cases being enforced by the State both of their
right to request a review at least 30 days before it begins and
of any proposed adjustment or determination that there should
be no change in the award amount. In the latter case, the
parent must be given at least 30 days after notification to
initiate proceedings to challenge the proposed adjustment or
determination.
Public Law 104-193, the 1996 welfare reform law, somewhat
revised the review and modification requirements. The mandatory
3-year review of child support orders is slightly modified to
permit States some flexibility in determining which reviews of
welfare cases should be pursued and in choosing methods of
review. States must review orders every 3 years (or more often
at State option) if either parent or the State requests a
review in welfare cases or if either parent requests a review
in nonwelfare CSE cases. States must notify parents of their
review and adjustment rights at least once every 3 years.
States will be able to use one of three different methods for
adjusting orders: (1) the child support guidelines (i.e.,
current law); (2) an inflation adjustment in accordance with a
formula developed by the State; or (3) an automated method to
identify orders eligible for review followed by an appropriate
adjustment to the order, not to exceed any threshold amount
determined by the State. If either an inflation adjustment or
an automated method is used, the State must allow either parent
to contest the adjustment.
The frequency of review and updating of support orders has
increased greatly since the 1984 amendments. As a result,
several issues have become apparent. When an initial child
support amount is established under guidelines, it generally is
reasonable to apply the guidelines to later modification.
However, when newly adopted guidelines are used to modify old
orders, some noncustodial parents may have to pay substantially
higher child support. Noncustodial parents who decided to start
second families based on financial calculations which assumed
the amount of the original order argue that it is unfair for
States to use new State-established guidelines to update or
revise their preexisting award obligations (Malone, 1989, pp.
31-32). Other issues associated with updating child support
awards include the expected increased resources necessary to
review and update orders, and the disinclination of child
support staff to initiate downward modifications.
Another major issue in the modification of awards was that
18 States permitted retroactive modifications. The vast
majority of such retroactive modifications had the effect of
reducing the amount of child support ordered. Thus, for
example, an order for $200 a month for child support, which was
unpaid for 36 months, should accumulate an arrearage of $7,200.
Yet, if the obligor was brought to court, having made no prior
attempt to modify the order, the order might be reduced to $100
a month retroactive to 36 months prior to the date of
modification. This retroactive modification would reduce the
arrearage from $7,200 to $3,600. Cases such as this, which had
serious impacts on custodial parents and their children,
convinced Congress to take action.
Thus, in 1986 Congress enacted section 9103 of Public Law
99-509 (section 466(a)(9) of the Social Security Act) to change
State practices involving modification of child support
arrears. The provision required States to change their laws so
that any payment of child support, on and after the date due,
is a judgment (the official decision or finding of a court on
the respective rights and claims of the parties to an action)
by operation of law. The provision also requires that the
judgment be entitled to full faith and credit in the
originating State and in any other State. Full faith and credit
is a constitutional principle that the various States must
recognize the judgments of other States within the United
States and accord them the force and effect they would have in
their home State.
The 1986 provision also greatly restricts retroactive
modification to make it more difficult for courts and
administrative entities to forgive or reduce arrearages. More
specifically, orders can be retroactively modified only for a
period during which there is pending a petition for
modification and only from the date that notice of the petition
has been given to the custodial or noncustodial parent.
Promoting Medical Support
Section 16 of Public Law 98-378, enacted in 1984, requires
the Secretary of HHS to issue regulations to require that State
child support agencies petition for the inclusion of medical
support as part of any child support order whenever health care
coverage is available to the noncustodial parent at reasonable
cost. According to Federal regulations, any employment-related
or other group coverage is considered reasonable, under the
assumption that health insurance is inexpensive to the
employee/noncustodial parent. A 1993 study by Cooper and
Johnson that analyzed 1987 data from the Center for Health
Expenditures and Insurance Studies indicated that, for low-wage
(i.e., poor--income below poverty line) employees with
employer-provided family health insurance coverage, 77 percent
of the premium was paid for by the employer.
On October 16, 1985, OCSE published regulations amending
previous regulations and implementing section 16 of Public Law
98-378. The regulations require State child support agencies to
obtain basic medical support information and provide this
information to the State Medicaid agency. The purpose of
medical support enforcement is to expand the number of children
for whom private health insurance coverage is obtained by
increasing the availability of third party resources to pay for
medical care and thereby reduce Medicaid costs for both the
States and the Federal Government. If the custodial parent does
not have satisfactory health insurance coverage, the child
support agency must petition the court or administrative
authority to include medical support in new or modified support
orders and inform the State Medicaid agency of any new or
modified support orders that include a medical support
obligation. The regulations also require child support agencies
to enforce medical support that has been ordered by a court or
administrative process. These regulations also permit the use
of child support matching funds at the 66-percent rate for
required medical support activities. Before these regulations
were issued, medical support activities were pursued by child
support agencies only under optional cooperative agreements
with Medicaid agencies.
Some of the functions that the child support agency may
perform under a cooperative agreement with the Medicaid agency
include: receiving referrals from the Medicaid agency, locating
noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, determining
whether the noncustodial parent has a health insurance policy
or plan that covers the child, obtaining sufficient information
about the health insurance policy or plan to permit the filing
of a claim with the insurer, filing a claim with the insurer or
transmitting the necessary information to the Medicaid agency,
securing health insurance coverage through court or
administrative order (when it will not reduce the noncustodial
parent's ability to pay child support), and recovering amounts
necessary to reimburse medical assistance payments.
On September 16, 1988, OCSE issued regulations expanding
the medical support enforcement provisions. These regulations
require the child support agency to develop criteria to
identify existing child support cases that have a high
potential for obtaining medical support, and to petition the
court or administrative authority to modify support orders to
include medical support for targeted cases even if no other
modification is anticipated. The child support agency also is
required to provide the custodial parent with information
regarding the health insurance coverage obtained by the
noncustodial parent for the child. Moreover, the regulation
deletes the condition that child support agencies may secure
health insurance coverage under a cooperative agreement only
when it will not reduce the noncustodial parent's ability to
pay child support.
Before late 1993, employees covered under their employer's
health care plans generally could provide coverage to children
only if the children lived with the employee. However, as a
result of divorce proceedings, employees often lost custody of
their children but were nonetheless required to provide their
health care coverage. While the employee would be obliged to
follow the court's directive, the employer that sponsored the
employee's health care plan was under no similar obligation.
Even if the court ordered the employer to continue health care
coverage for the nonresident child of their employee, the
employer would be under no legal obligation to do so (Shulman,
1994, pp. 1-2). Aware of this situation, Congress took the
following legislative action in the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993:
1. Insurers were prohibited from denying enrollment of a child
under the health insurance coverage of the child's
parent on the grounds that the child was born out of
wedlock, is not claimed as a dependent on the parent's
Federal income tax return, or does not reside with the
parent or in the insurer's service area;
2. Insurers and employers were required, in any case in which
a parent is required by court order to provide health
coverage for a child and the child is otherwise
eligible for family health coverage through the
insurer: (a) to permit the parent, without regard to
any enrollment season restrictions, to enroll the child
under such family coverage; (b) if the parent fails to
provide health insurance coverage for a child, to
enroll the child upon application by the child's other
parent or the State child support or Medicaid agency;
and (c) with respect to employers, not to disenroll the
child unless there is satisfactory written evidence
that the order is no longer in effect or the child is
or will be enrolled in comparable health coverage
through another insurer that will take effect not later
than the effective date of the disenrollment;
3. Employers doing business in the State, if they offer health
insurance and if a court order is in effect, were
required to withhold from the employee's compensation
the employee's share of premiums for health insurance
and to pay that share to the insurer. The Secretary of
HHS may provide by regulation for such exceptions to
this requirement (and other requirements described
above that apply to employers) as the Secretary
determines necessary to ensure compliance with an
order, or with the limits on withholding that are
specified in section 303(b) of the Consumer Credit
Protection Act;
4. Insurers were prohibited from imposing requirements on a
State agency acting as an agent or assignee of an
individual eligible for medical assistance that are
different from requirements applicable to an agent or
assignee of any other individual;
5. Insurers were required, in the case of a child who has
coverage through the insurer of a noncustodial parent
to: (a) provide the custodial parent with the
information necessary for the child to obtain benefits;
(b) permit the custodial parent (or provider, with the
custodial parent's approval) to submit claims for
covered services without the approval of the
noncustodial parent; and (c) make payment on claims
directly to the custodial parent, the provider, or the
State agency; and
6. The State Medicaid agency was permitted to garnish the
wages, salary, or other employment income of, and to
withhold State tax refunds to, any person who: (a) is
required by court or administrative order to provide
health insurance coverage to an individual eligible for
Medicaid; (b) has received payment from a third party
for the costs of medical services to that individual;
and (c) has not reimbursed either the individual or the
provider. The amount subject to garnishment or
withholding is the amount required to reimburse the
State agency for expenditures for costs of medical
services provided under the Medicaid Program. Claims
for current or past due child support take priority
over any claims for the costs of medical services.
These provisions appear to be having an impact on the
number of children in single-parent families with medical
coverage. According to OCSE data, 67 percent of support orders
established in fiscal year 1996 included health insurance, up
from 46 percent in fiscal year 1991. Nevertheless, only 34
percent of support orders enforced or modified in fiscal year
1996 included health insurance, down slightly from 35 percent
in 1991. These figures indicate that many children still lack
coverage. One way to increase medical support may be to require
withholding of health insurance premiums in all cases with
medical support orders (Gordon, 1994).
Under last year's welfare reform legislation (Public Law
104-193), the definition of ``medical child support order'' in
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is expanded
to clarify that any judgment, decree, or order that is issued
by a court or by an administrative process has the force and
effect of law. In addition, the new law stipulates that all
orders enforced by the State CSE agency must include a
provision for health care coverage. If the noncustodial parent
changes jobs and the new employer provides health coverage, the
State must send notice of coverage to the new employer; the
notice must serve to enroll the child in the health plan of the
new employer.
Collecting Child Support
Local courts and child support enforcement agencies
attempt to collect child support when the noncustodial parent
does not pay. The most important collection method is wage
withholding. Other techniques for enforcing payments include
regular billings; delinquency notices; liens on property;
offset of unemployment compensation payments; seizure and sale
of property; reporting arrearages to credit agencies;
garnishment of wages; seizure of State and Federal income tax
refunds; revocation of various types of licenses (drivers',
business, occupational, recreational) to persons who are
delinquent in their child support payments; attachment of
lottery winnings and insurance settlements of debtor parents;
and Federal imprisonment, fines or both.
In addition to approaches authorized by the Federal
Government through the child support program, States use a
variety of other collection techniques. In fact, States have
been at the forefront in implementing innovative approaches.
Some States hire private collection agencies to collect child
support payments. Some States bring charges of criminal
nonsupport or civil or criminal contempt of court against
noncustodial parents who fail to pay child support. These court
proceedings are usually lengthy because of court backlogs,
delays, and continuances. Once a court decides the case,
noncustodial parents are often given probation or suspended
sentences, and occasionally they are even awarded lower support
payments and partial payment of arrearages. To combat problems
associated with court delays, the child support statute
requires States to implement expedited processes under the
State judicial system or State administrative processes for
obtaining and enforcing support orders.
Given the pivotal role of collections in the child support
process, this section now turns to detailed discussion of the
most effective collections procedures. Summary data on the
effectiveness of four top collection methods are presented in
table 8-3.
TABLE 8-3.--CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS MADE BY VARIOUS ENFORCEMENT TECHNIQUES, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1989-96
[Dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child support collections Percent of total collections
Enforcement technique -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1989 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wage withholding................................ $2,144 $3,266 $4,743 $5,429 $6,111 $6,731 40.9 47.4 53.1 55.1 56.9 56.0
Federal income tax offset....................... 411 476 570 623 734 906 7.9 6.9 6.4 6.3 6.8 7.5
State income tax offset......................... 62 72 78 88 97 112 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Unemployment compensation intercept............. 54 143 286 223 187 211 1.0 2.1 3.2 2.3 1.7 1.8
Other \1\....................................... 2,570 2,929 3,232 3,506 3,624 4,059 49.0 42.6 36.3 35.5 33.7 33.8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total collections......................... $5,241 $6,886 $8,907 $9,869 $10,753 $12,019 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) does not designate the source of most of these collections. According to the OCSE, the majority of
collections in the ``other'' category came from noncustodial parents who were complying with their support orders by sending their payments to the
child support agency. OCSE officials maintain that reliability of collection data lessen when specified by techniques of collection.
Note.--Data is preliminary for fiscal year 1996.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Wage withholding
The Family Support Act of 1988 greatly expanded wage
withholding by requiring immediate withholding to begin in
November 1990 for all new or modified orders being enforced by
States. Equally important, States were required, with some
exceptions, to implement immediate wage withholding in all
support orders initially issued on or after January 1, 1994,
regardless of whether a parent has applied for child support
services.
The child support amendments of 1984 also required that
States have in effect two distinct procedures for withholding
wages of noncustodial parents. First, for existing cases
enforced through the child support agency, States were required
to impose wage withholding whenever an arrearage accrued that
was equal to the amount of support payable for 1 month. Second,
for all child support cases, all new or modified orders were
required to include a provision for wage withholding when an
arrearage occurs. The intent of the second procedure was to
ensure that orders not enforced through the child support
agency contain the authority necessary to permit wage
withholding to be initiated by someone other than the child
support agency if and when an arrearage occurs.
According to the Federal statute, State due process
requirements govern the scope of notice that must be provided
to an obligor (i.e., noncustodial parent) when withholding is
triggered. As a general rule, the noncustodial parent is
entitled to advance notice of the withholding procedure. This
notice, where required, must inform the noncustodial parent of
the following: the amount that will be withheld; the
application of withholding to any current or subsequent period
of employment; the procedures available for contesting the
withholding and the sole basis for objection (i.e., mistake of
fact); the period allotted to contest the withholding and the
result of failure to contact the State within this timeframe
(i.e., issuance of notification to the employer to begin
withholding); and the steps the State will take if the
noncustodial parent contests the withholding, including the
procedure to resolve such contests.
If the noncustodial parent contests the withholding notice,
the State must conduct a hearing, determine if the withholding
is valid, notify the noncustodial parent of the decision, and
notify the employer to commence the deductions if withholding
is upheld. All of this must occur within 45 days of the initial
notice of withholding. Whether a State uses a judicial or an
administrative process, the only basis for a hearing is a
factual mistake about the amount owed (current, arrearage or
both) or the identity of the noncustodial parent.
When withholding is uncontested or when a contested case is
resolved in favor of withholding, the administering agency must
serve a withholding notice on the employer. The employer is
required to withhold as much of the noncustodial parent's wages
as is necessary to comply with the order, including the current
support amount plus an amount to be applied toward liquidation
of any arrearage. In addition, the employer may retain a fee to
offset the administrative cost of implementing withholding.
Employer fees per wage withholding transaction range from
nothing to $3 per pay period to $5 per attachment to $10 per
month (Office of Child Support, 1986, p. 7).
The Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act limits
garnishment to 50 percent of disposable earnings for a
noncustodial parent who is the head of a household, and 60
percent for a noncustodial parent who is not supporting a
second family. These percentages increase by 5 percentage
points, to 55 and 65 percent respectively, when the arrearages
represent support that was due more than 12 weeks before the
current pay period.
Upon receiving a withholding notice, the employer must
begin withholding the appropriate amount of the obligor's wages
no later than the first pay period that occurs after 14 days
following the date the notice was mailed. The 1984 amendments
regulate the language in State statutes on the other rights and
liabilities of the employer. For instance, the employer is
subject to a fine for discharging a noncustodial parent or
taking other forms of retaliation as a result of a withholding
order. In addition, the employer is held liable for amounts not
withheld as directed.
In addition to being able to charge the noncustodial parent
a fee for the administrative costs associated with wage
withholding, the employer can combine all support payments
required to be withheld for multiple obligors into a single
payment and forward it to the child support agency or court
with a list of the cases to which the payments apply. The
employer need not vary from the normal pay and disbursement
cycle to comply with withholding orders; however, support
payments must be forwarded to the State or other designated
agency within 10 days of the date on which the noncustodial
parent is paid.
When the noncustodial parent changes jobs, the previous
employer must notify the court or agency that entered the
withholding order. The State must then notify the new employer
or income source to begin withholding from the obligor's wages.
In addition, States must develop procedures to terminate income
withholding orders when all of the children are emancipated and
no arrearage exists.
Federal law provides two exceptions to the income
withholding rule: (1) if one of the parents demonstrates, and
the court (or administrative process) finds, that there is good
cause not to require immediate income withholding or (2) if
both parents agree in writing to an alternative payment
arrangement. For income withholding purposes, ``income'' means
any periodic form of payment due an individual, regardless of
source, including wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses,
worker's compensation, disability, payments from a pension or
retirement program, and interest.
As shown in table 8-3, the congressional emphasis on wage
withholding has paid off handsomely. Not only has the total
amount of support collected through wage withholding increased
each year, reaching $6.7 billion in 1996, but the percentage of
total collections achieved through wage withholding has also
increased steadily, growing from about 41 percent in 1989 to
nearly 57 percent in 1995; in 1996, it dropped back slightly to
56 percent.
Federal income tax refund offset
Under this program, the IRS, operating on request from a
State filed through the Secretary of HHS, simply intercepts tax
returns and deducts the amount of certified child support
arrearages. The money is then sent to the State for
distribution. The availability of the IRS collection mechanism
for child support was strengthened by the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35). IRS can now
withhold past due support from Federal tax refunds upon a
simple showing by the State that an individual owes at least
$150 in past due support which has been assigned to the State
as a condition of AFDC eligibility. The withheld amount is sent
to the State agency, together with notice of the taxpayer's
current address.
The 1984 amendments created a similar IRS offset program
for non-AFDC families owed child support. States must submit to
the IRS for withholding the names of absent parents who have
arrearages of at least $500 and who, on the basis of current
payment patterns and the enforcement efforts that have been
made, are unlikely to pay the arrearage before the IRS offset
can occur. The law establishes specific notice requirements and
mandates that the noncustodial parent and his spouse (if any)
be informed of the impending use of the tax offset procedure.
The purpose of this notice is to protect the unobligated
spouse's portion of the tax refund. The 1988 provision applied
to refunds payable after December 31, 1985, and before January
1, 1991. Public Law 101-508, enacted in 1990, makes permanent
the IRS offset program for non-AFDC families.
In fiscal year 1996, according to IRS, more than 1 million
cases were offset. The total amount intercepted was $1 billion,
up by a factor of well over three since 1986 ($308 million).
State income tax refund offset
The child support amendments of 1984 mandate that States
increase the effectiveness of the child support program by,
among other things, enacting several collection procedures.
Among the required procedures is the interception of State
income tax refunds payable to noncustodial parents up to the
amount of overdue support. As in the case of liens and bonds,
this procedure need not be used in cases found inappropriate
under State guidelines.
The State Tax Intercept Program allows a State to collect
overdue child support payments by intercepting State tax
refunds due a noncustodial parent. The State tax refund is
applied to a support arrearage to reduce or eliminate the debt
of an obligor that is owed either to the State or to the
custodial parent.
In order for the State tax refund offset to work
effectively, cooperation between the State's department of
revenue and the child support agency is crucial. The names and
Social Security numbers of delinquent noncustodial parents are
submitted to the department of revenue for matching with tax
return forms. If a match occurs and a refund is due, the refund
or a portion of it is transferred from the State department of
revenue to the child support agency and then credited to the
appropriate noncustodial parent to offset his support debt. The
child support agency must give advance notice of the impending
offset to the noncustodial parent and must also inform him of
the process for contesting and resolving the proposed action.
If the custodial parent does not respond to the notice, the
money is intercepted and forwarded to the child support agency
for distribution.
In fiscal year 1996, the State Tax Intercept Program
collected $112 million (table 8-3). Unlike the Federal program,
which requires that States certify a specified amount before
the offset can be applied ($150 for AFDC families and $500 for
non-AFDC families), States choose their own level for
certification. In many States, the amount is the same for both
AFDC and non-AFDC families. Although the amounts vary greatly
from State to State, the amount in the typical State is about
$100.
Unemployment compensation intercept
Public Law 97-35, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1981, requires State child support agencies to determine on a
periodic basis whether individuals receiving unemployment
compensation owe support obligations that are not being met.
The act also requires child support agencies to enforce support
obligations in accord with State-developed guidelines for
obtaining an agreement with the individual to have a specified
amount of support withheld from unemployment compensation or,
in the absence of an agreement, for bringing legal proceedings
to require the withholding. The child support agency must
reimburse the State employment security agency for the
administrative costs attributable to withholding unemployment
compensation.
The unemployment compensation intercept collected $211
million in fiscal year 1996 (table 8-3). A number of States,
especially those with high levels of unemployment (but where
the noncustodial parent has had some attachment to the labor
force), are finding that the unemployment offset procedure can
raise collections significantly.
Property liens
A lien is a legal claim on someone's property as security
against a just debt. The use of liens for child support
enforcement was characterized during congressional debate on
the child support amendments of 1984 as ``simple to execute and
cost effective and a catalyst for an absent parent to pay past
due support in order to clear title to the property in
question'' (U.S. House, 1983). A Ways and Means Committee
report stated that liens would complement the income
withholding provisions of the 1984 law and be particularly
helpful in enforcing support payments owed by noncustodial
parents with substantial assets or income but who are not
salaried employees.
The 1984 legislation required States to enact laws and
implement ``procedures under which liens are imposed against
real property for amount of overdue support owed by an absent
parent who resides or owns property in the State.'' Liens can
apply to property such as land, vehicles, houses, antique
furniture, and livestock. The law provides, however, that
States need not use liens in cases in which, on the basis of
guidelines that generally are available to the public, they
determine that lien procedures would be inappropriate. This
provision implicitly requires States to develop guidelines
about use of liens.
Generally, a lien for delinquent child support is a
statutorily created mechanism by which an obligee obtains a
nonpossessory interest in property belonging to the
noncustodial parent. The interest of the custodial parent is a
slumbering interest that allows the noncustodial parent to
retain possession of the property, but affects the noncustodial
parent's ability to transfer ownership of the property to
anyone else. A child support lien converts the custodial parent
from an unsecured to a secured creditor. As such, it gives the
custodial parent priority over unsecured creditors and
subsequent secured creditors. In some States a lien is
established automatically upon entry of a support order and the
first incidence of noncompliance by the obligor. Frequently,
the mere imposition of a lien will motivate the delinquent
parent to do whatever is necessary to remove the lien (i.e.,
pay past due support). When this is not the case, it may become
necessary to enforce the lien. Liens are not self-executory.
They merely impede the debtor's ability to transfer property.
If a lien exists, a debtor must satisfy the judgment before the
property may be sold or transferred. However, it is not
necessary for the obligee to wait until the obligor tries to
transfer the property before taking action. The obligee may
enforce her judgment by execution and levy against the property
if she believes the amount of equity in the property justifies
execution.
A procedure developed by the IRS, known as Project 1099
(that is, the number of the IRS form used), has helped several
States increase their use of liens by identifying individuals
who possess appropriate assets. Initiated in 1984 to assist in
location efforts, since the fall of 1988 Project 1099 has
routinely provided wage and employer information as well as
location and asset information on noncustodial parents.
The welfare reform legislation passed in 1996 (Public Law
104-193) requires States to have procedures under which liens
arise by operation of law against property for the amount of
the past-due support. States must grant full faith and credit
to liens of other States if the originating State agency or
party has complied with procedural rules relating to the
recording or serving of lien. These rules, however, cannot
require judicial notice or hearing before enforcement of the
lien.
Bonds, securities, and other guarantees
The 1984 child support amendments require States to have in
effect and use procedures under which noncustodial parents must
post security, bond, or some other guarantee to secure payment
of overdue child support. This technique is useful where
significant assets exist although the noncustodial parent's
income is sporadic, seasonal, or derived from self-employment.
As in the case of liens, this procedure need not be used in
cases found inappropriate under State guidelines. The State
guidelines should define and target assets that can
appropriately be sought to secure or guarantee payment without
hindering the noncustodial parent from effectively pursuing his
livelihood.
IRS full collection process
Since 1975, Congress has authorized the Internal Revenue
Service to collect certain child support arrearages as if they
were delinquent Federal taxes. This method is known as the IRS
full collection process. It works as follows. The Secretary of
HHS must, upon the request of a State, certify to the Secretary
of Treasury any amounts identified by the State as delinquent
child support. The Secretary of HHS may certify only the
amounts delinquent under a court or administrative order, and
only upon a showing by the State that it has made diligent and
reasonable efforts to collect amounts due using its own
collection mechanisms. States must reimburse the Federal
Government for any costs involved in making the collections.
This full collection process is used only when there is a good
chance that the IRS can make a collection and only for cases in
which a child support obligation is delinquent and the amount
owed has been certified to be at least $750. Use by the States
of this regular IRS collection mechanism, which may include
seizure of property, freezing of accounts, and use of other
aggressive procedures, has been relatively infrequent. In
fiscal year 1995, collections were made in 939 cases
nationwide, for a total collection of $764,697.
Credit bureau reporting
The 1984 Federal child support legislation required States
to develop procedures for providing child support debt
information to credit reporting agencies (sometimes referred to
as credit bureaus). The primary purposes for reporting
delinquent child support payers to credit reporting agencies
are to discourage noncustodial parents from not making their
child support payments, to prevent the undeserved extension of
credit, and to maintain the noncustodial parent's ability to
pay his child support obligation. Other benefits include access
by child support agencies to address, employment, and asset
information.
The 1984 amendments require States to report overdue child
support obligations exceeding $1,000 to consumer reporting
agencies if such information is requested by the credit bureau.
States have the option of reporting in cases in which the
noncustodial parent is less than $1,000 in arrears. States must
provide noncustodial parents with advance notice of intent to
release information on their child support arrearage and an
opportunity for them to contest the accuracy of the
information. The child support agency may charge the credit
bureau a fee for the information.
Although some States and counties had agreements in place
with credit bureaus to obtain information about the location of
absent parents, the 1984 provision requires States to authorize
the routine transfer of information concerning overdue child
support to credit bureaus on a much broader basis. Moreover, it
is in the interest of credit bureaus to request such
information because overdue child support adversely affects an
obligated parent's ability to pay other debts.
Public Law 102-537, the Ted Weiss Child Support Enforcement
Act of 1992, amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require
consumer credit reporting agencies to include in any consumer
report information on child support delinquencies. The
information is provided by or verified by State or local child
support agencies. Public Law 103-432, enacted in October 1994,
includes a provision that requires States to periodically
report to consumer reporting agencies the name of parents owing
at least 2 months of overdue child support, and the amount of
the child support overdue.
In order to facilitate the access of child support
officials to credit information, the 1996 welfare reform
legislation states that in response to a request by the head of
a State or local CSE agency (or by a State or local government
official authorized by the head of a CSE agency), consumer
credit agencies must release information if the person making
the request makes all of the following certifications: that the
consumer report is needed to establish and individual's
capacity to make child support payments or determine the level
of payments; that paternity has been established or
acknowledged; that the consumer has been given at least 10 days
notice by certified or registered mail that the report is being
requested; and that the consumer report will be kept
confidential, will be used solely for child support purposes,
and will not be used in connection with any other civil,
administrative, or criminal proceeding or for any other
purpose. Consumer reporting agencies also must give reports to
a CSE agency for use in setting an initial or modified award.
These provisions amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The new law also requires States to periodically report to
consumer reporting agencies the name of any noncustodial parent
who is delinquent in the payment of support and the amount of
past-due support owed by the parent. Before such a report can
be sent, the obligor must have been afforded all due process
rights, including notice and reasonable opportunity to contest
the claim of child support delinquency.
Enforcement against Federal employees
The 1975 child support legislation included a provision
allowing garnishment of wages and other payments by the Federal
Government for enforcement of child support and alimony
obligations. The law also provided that moneys payable by the
United States to any individual for employment are subject to
legal proceedings brought for the enforcement of child support
or alimony. The law sets forth in detail the procedures that
must be followed for service of legal process and specifies
that the term ``based upon remuneration for employment''
includes wages, periodic benefits for the payment of pensions,
retirement pay including Social Security, and other kinds of
Federal payments.
The 1996 welfare reform law substantially revised child
support enforcement for Federal employees, including retirees
and military personnel. As under prior law, Federal employees
are subject to income withholding and other actions taken
against them by State CSE agencies. However, every Federal
agency is responsible for responding to a State CSE Program as
if the Federal agency were a private business. The head of each
Federal agency must designate an agent, whose name and address
must be published annually in the Federal Register, to be
responsible for handling child support cases. The agency must
respond to withholding notices and other matters brought to its
attention by CSE officials. Child support claims are given
priority in the allocation of Federal employee income.
Enforcement against military personnel
Child support enforcement workers face unique difficulties
when working on cases in which the absent parent is an active
duty member of the military service. Learning to work through
military channels can prove both challenging and frustrating,
especially if the child support agency is not near a military
base. As a result, military cases are often ignored or not
given sufficient attention (Office of Child Support, 1991).
Public Law 97-248, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility
Act of 1982, requires allotments from the pay and allowances of
any active duty member of the uniformed service who fails to
make child or spousal support payments. This requirement arises
when the service member fails to make support payments in an
amount at least equal to the value of 2 months' worth of
support. Provisions of the Federal Consumer Credit Protection
Act apply, limiting the percentage of the member's pay that is
subject to allotment. The amount of the allotment is the amount
of the support payment, as established under a legally
enforceable administrative or judicial order.
Since October 1, 1995, the Department of Defense has
consolidated its garnishment operations at the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service in Cleveland, Ohio. Support orders
received by the Service are processed immediately and notices
are sent to the appropriate military pay center to start
payments in the first pay cycle (Office of Child Support,
1995c).
As a result of the 1996 welfare reform law, the Secretary
of Defense must establish a central personnel locator services,
which must be updated on a regular basis, that permits location
of every member of the Armed Services. The Secretary of each
branch of the military service must grant leave to facilitate
attendance at child support hearings and other child support
proceedings. The Secretary of each branch also must withhold
support from retirement pay and forward it to State
disbursement units.
Small business loans
The 103d Congress passed legislation, the Small Business
Administration Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-403), which included the requirement that
recipients of financial assistance from the Small Business
Administration, including direct loans and loan guarantees,
must certify that the recipient is not more than 60 days
delinquent in the payment of child support. The new law
requires the administration to promulgate, no later than 6
months after enactment, regulations to enforce compliance with
the provision.
Other provisions
On February 27, 1995, President Clinton signed an Executive
order establishing the executive branch of the Federal
Government, including its civilian employees and the uniformed
services members, as a model employer in promoting and
facilitating the establishment and enforcement of child
support. The Executive order states that the Federal Government
is the Nation's largest single employer and as such should set
an example of leadership and encouragement in ensuring that all
children are properly supported. Among other measures, the
order requires the Federal agencies and the uniformed services
to cooperate fully in efforts to establish paternity and child
support orders and to enforce the collection of child and
medical support. The order also requires Federal agencies to
provide information to their personnel concerning the services
that are available to them and to ensure that their children
are provided the support to which they are legally entitled
(Office of Child Support, 1995b).
The 1996 welfare reform law requires States to implement
expedited procedures that allow them to secure assets to
satisfy arrearages by intercepting or seizing periodic or lump
sum payments (such as unemployment and workers' compensation),
lottery winnings, awards, judgments, or settlements. States
must also have expedited procedures that allow them to seize
assets of the debtor parent held by public or private
retirement funds and financial institutions. States also must
have the authority to withhold, suspend, or restrict the use of
driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and
recreational licenses of persons who owe past-due support or
who fail to comply with subpoenas or warrants relating to
paternity or child support proceedings. The 1996 law also
authorizes the Secretary of State to deny, revoke, or restrict
passports of debtor parents.
Interstate Enforcement
The most difficult child support orders to enforce are
interstate cases. States are required to cooperate in
interstate child support enforcement, but problems arise from
the autonomy of local courts. Family law has traditionally been
under the jurisdiction of State and local governments, and
citizens fall under the jurisdiction of the courts where they
live.
During the 1930s and 1940s, such laws were used to
establish and enforce support obligations when the noncustodial
parent, custodial parent, and child lived in the same State.
But when noncustodial parents lived out of State, enforcing
child support was cumbersome and ineffective. Often the only
option in these cases was to extradite the noncustodial parent
and, when successful, to jail the person for nonsupport.
Extradition is the process used to bring an obligor charged
with or convicted of a crime (in this case, criminal
nonsupport) from an asylum State back to the State where the
children are located. This procedure, rarely used, generally
punished the irresponsible parent, but left the abandoned
family without financial support.
A University of Michigan study (Hill, 1988) of separated
parents found that 12 percent lived in different States 1 year
after divorce or separation. That proportion increased to 25
percent after 3 years, and to 40 percent after 8 years.
Estimates based on the Federal income tax refund offset and
other sources suggest that approximately 30 percent of all
child support cases involve interstate residency of the
custodial and noncustodial parents (Weaver & Williams, 1989, p.
510). According to U.S. Census Bureau data (1991), 20 percent
of noncustodial parents lived in a different State than their
children, 3 percent lived overseas, and the residence of 11
percent of the noncustodial parents was unknown.
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA)
Starting in 1950, interstate cooperation was promoted
through the adoption by the States of URESA. This act, which
was first proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws in 1950, has been enacted in all 50
States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands. The act was amended in 1952 and 1958 and
revised in 1968. Thus, even though every State has passed some
provisions of URESA, many provisions vary greatly from State to
State. URESA, in short, is uniform in name only.
The purpose of URESA was to provide a system for the
interstate enforcement of support orders without requiring the
person seeking support to go (or have her legal representative
go) to the State in which the noncustodial parent resided.
Where the URESA provisions between the two States are
compatible, the law can be used to establish paternity, locate
an absent parent, and establish, modify, or enforce a support
order across State lines. However, some observers note that the
use of URESA procedures often resulted in lower orders for both
current support and arrearages. They also contend that few
child support agencies attempted to use URESA procedures to
establish paternity or to obtain a modification in a support
order.
Long arm statutes
Unlike URESA, interstate cases established or enforced by
long arm statutes use the court system in the State of the
custodial parent rather than that of the noncustodial parent.
When a person commits certain acts in a State of which he is
not a resident, that person may be subjecting himself to the
jurisdiction of that State. The long arm of the law of the
State where the event occurs may reach out to grab the out-of-
State person so that issues relating to the event may be
resolved where it happened. Under the long arm procedure, the
State must authorize by statute that the acts allegedly
committed by the defendant are those that subject the defendant
to the State's jurisdiction. An example is a paternity statute
stating that if conception takes place in the State and the
child lives in the State, the State may exercise jurisdiction
over the alleged father even if he lives in another State. Long
arm statute language usually extends the State's jurisdiction
over an out-of-State defendant to the maximum extent permitted
by the U.S. Constitution under the 14th amendment's due process
clause. Long arm statutes may be used to establish paternity,
establish support awards, and enforce support orders.
Federal courts
The 1975 child support law mandated that the State plan for
child support require States to cooperate with other States in
establishing paternity, locating absent parents, and securing
compliance with court orders. Further, it authorized the use of
Federal courts as a last resort to enforce an existing order in
another State if that State were uncooperative.
Section 460 of the Social Security Act provides that the
district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction,
without regard to any amount in controversy, to hear and
determine any civil action certified by the Secretary of HHS
under section 452(a)(8) of the act. A civil action under
section 460 may be brought in any judicial district in which
the claim arose, the plaintiff resides, or the defendant
resides. Section 452(a)(8) states that the Secretary of HHS
shall receive applications from States for permission to use
the courts of the United States to enforce court orders for
support against noncustodial parents. The Secretary must
approve applications if she finds both that a given State has
not enforced a court order of another State within a reasonable
time and that using the Federal courts is the only reasonable
method of enforcing the order.
As a condition of obtaining certification from the
Secretary, the child support agency of the initiating State
must give the child support agency of the responding State at
least 60 days to enforce the order as well as a 30-day warning
of its intent to seek enforcement in Federal court. If the
initiating State receives no response within the 30-day limit,
or if the response is unsatisfactory, the initiating State may
apply to the OCSE Regional Office for certification. The
application must attest that all the requirements outlined
above have been satisfied. Upon certification of the case, a
civil action may be filed in the U.S. district court. Although
this interstate enforcement procedure has been available since
enactment of the child support program in 1975, there has only
been one reported case of its use by a State (the initiating
State was California; the responding State was Texas).
Interstate income withholding
Interstate income withholding is a process by which the
State of the custodial parent seeks the help of the State in
which the noncustodial parent's income is earned to enforce a
support order using the income withholding mechanism. Pursuant
to the child support amendments of 1984, income withholding was
authorized for all valid instate or out-of-State orders issued
or modified after October 1, 1985, and for all orders in child
support enforcement (i.e., IV-D) cases regardless of the date
the order was issued. Although Federal law requires a State to
enforce another State's valid orders through interstate
withholding, there is no Federal mandate that interstate income
withholding procedures be uniform. Approaches vary from the
Model Interstate Income Withholding Act to URESA registration.
The preferred way to handle an interstate income withholding
request is to use the interstate action transmittal form from
one child support agency to another. In child support
enforcement cases, Federal regulations required that by August
22, 1988, all interstate income withholding requests be sent to
the enforcing State's central registry for referral to the
appropriate State or local official. The actual wage
withholding procedure used by the State in which the
noncustodial parent lives is the same as that used in
intrastate cases. In a 1992 report (U.S. General Accounting
Office, 1992a, p. 4 & pp. 21-28), GAO indicated that the main
reason for the failure of interstate income withholding was the
lack of uniformity in its implementation.
The 1996 welfare law requires the HHS Secretary, in
consultation with State CSE directors, to issue forms by
October 1, 1996 that States must use for income withholding,
for imposing liens, and for issuing administrative subpoenas in
interstate cases. States must begin using the forms by March 1,
1997.
Full faith and credit
One of the most significant barriers to improved interstate
collections is that, because a child support order is not
considered a final judgment, the full faith and credit clause
of the U.S. Constitution does not preclude modification. Thus,
the order is subject to modification upon a showing of changed
circumstances by the issuing court or by another court with
jurisdiction. Congress could prohibit inter- or intrastate
modifications of child support orders, but many students of
child support hold that a complete ban on modifications would
be unrealistic and unfair. A more likely approach would be one
under which States were required to give full faith and credit
to each other's child support orders under most circumstances.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, Public Law
99-509, took a step in this direction by requiring States to
treat past due support obligations as final judgments entitled
to full faith and credit in every State. Thus, a person who has
a support order in one State does not have to obtain a second
order in another State to obtain the money due should the
debtor parent move from the issuing court's jurisdiction. The
second State can modify the order prospectively if it finds
that circumstances exist to justify a change, but the second
State may not retroactively modify a child support order.
Public Law 103-383, the Full Faith and Credit for Child
Support Orders Act (signed into law October 20, 1994),
restricts a State court's ability to modify a child support
order issued by another State unless the child and the
custodial parent have moved to the State where the modification
is sought or have agreed to the modification.
The full faith credit rules of Public Law 104-193 clarify
the definition of a child's home State, make several revisions
to ensure that the rules can be applied consistently with
UIFSA, and clarify the rules regarding which child support
order States must honor when there is more than one order.
Commission on interstate child support enforcement
The Family Support Act of 1988, Public Law 100-485,
included several provisions affecting interstate child support
enforcement. The law required States to establish automated
statewide, comprehensive case tracking and monitoring systems,
which would improve each State's ability to manage interstate
cases. But most importantly, the law required the establishment
of a 15-member commission to study interstate child support
establishment and enforcement.
The U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support's report to
Congress, issued in 1992, includes 120 recommendations for
improving the Child Support Enforcement Program. The report
highlights several recommendations deemed essential to
improving interstate enforcement:
1. Establishment of an integrated, automated network linking
all States to provide quick access to locate and income
information (which would include new hire information
based on W-4 forms);
2. Establishment of income withholding across State lines from
the person seeking enforcement directly to the income
source in the other State;
3. Enactment by States of the Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act (UIFSA; which would replace URESA);
4. State use of early, voluntary parentage determination for
children born outside marriage and uniform evidentiary
rules for contested paternity cases;
5. Universal access to health care insurance for children of
separated parents;
6. More emphasis on staff training and increased resources to
ensure that all child support cases are processed on a
more timely basis; and
7. Revision of child support funding to ensure that action is
taken on cases most in need of attention (U.S.
Commission on Interstate Child Support, 1992, p. xiii).
Federal criminal penalties
The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 imposed a Federal
criminal penalty for the willful failure to pay a past due
child support obligation to a child who resides in another
State and that has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is
greater than $5,000. For the first conviction, the penalty is a
fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment for not more than 6 months,
or both; for a second conviction, the penalty is a fine of not
more than $250,000, imprisonment for up to 2 years, or both.
In 1995, 748 cases were referred to U.S. attorneys. So far
42 (6 percent) of those cases have resulted in convictions and
a total of $1.2 million in restitution.
Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)
One of the Commission on Interstate Child Support
Enforcement's major recommendations to Congress was to replace
URESA with UIFSA, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, a
model State law for handling interstate child support cases.
The model law was drafted by the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and approved by the
Commissioners in August 1992.
UIFSA is designed to deal with desertion and nonsupport by
instituting uniform laws in all 50 States and the District of
Columbia. The core of UIFSA is limiting control of a child
support case to a single State, thereby ensuring that only one
child support order from one court or child support agency will
be in effect at any given time. It follows that the controlling
State will be able to effectively pursue interstate cases,
primarily through the use of long arm statutes, because its
jurisdiction is undisputed. Many, perhaps most, child support
officials believe UIFSA will help eliminate jurisdictional
disputes between States and lead to substantial increases in
interstate collections.
UIFSA allows: (1) direct income withholding by the
controlling State without second State involvement; (2)
administrative enforcement without registration; and (3)
registered enforcement based on the substantive laws of the
controlling State and the procedural laws of the registering
State. The order cannot be adjusted if only enforcement is
requested, and enforcement may begin upon registration (before
notice and hearing) if the receiving State's due process rules
allow such enforcement. Under UIFSA, the controlling State may
adjust the support order under its own standards. In addition,
UIFSA includes some uniform evidentiary rules to make
interstate case handling easier, such as using telephonic
hearings, easing admissibility of evidence requirements, and
admitting petitions into evidence without the need for live or
corroborative testimony to make a prima facie case.
Pursuant to Public Law 104-193, all States must enact
UIFSA, including all amendments, before January 1, 1998. States
are not required to use UIFSA in all cases if they determine
that using other interstate procedures would be more effective.
As of early September 1997, 42 States and the District of
Columbia had adopted UIFSA.
Other procedures that aid interstate enforcement
In 1948, the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws and the American Bar Association approved
the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), which
simplifies the collection of child support arrearages in
interstate cases. Revised in 1964 and adopted in only 30
States, UEFJA provides that upon the filing of an authenticated
foreign (i.e., out-of-State) judgment and notice to the
obligor, the judgment is to be treated in the same manner as a
local one. A judgment is the official decision or finding of a
court on the respective rights of the involved parties. UEFJA
applies only to final judgments. As a general rule, child
support arrearages that have been reduced to judgment are
considered final judgments and thus can be filed under UEFJA.
An advantage of UEFJA is that it does not require reciprocity
(i.e., it need only be in effect in the initiating State). A
disadvantage is that UEFJA is limited to collection of
arrearages; it cannot be used to establish an initial order or
to enforce current orders.
Summary information on collection methods
Table 8-3 shows that 66 percent of the $12 billion in child
support payments collected in fiscal year 1996 was obtained
through four enforcement techniques: wage withholding, Federal
income tax refund offset, State income tax refund offset, and
unemployment compensation intercept. The remaining 34 percent
is listed as collected by ``other'' means. Federal child
support officials informed us that most of these ``other''
collections came from noncustodial parents who comply with
their support orders by sending their payments to the CSE
agency. The ``other'' category also includes collections from
noncustodial parents who voluntarily sent money for their
children even though a support order had never been established
(about 1 percent of all collections), and enforcement
techniques such as liens against property, the posting of bonds
or securities, and use of the full IRS collection procedure.
Table 8-3 indicates that by fiscal year 1991 wage withholding
had become the primary enforcement method, producing nearly 47
percent of all child support collections. By 1996, the
percentage had increased even further, reaching 56 percent.
STATE COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF SUPPORT PAYMENTS
One of the major child support provisions of the 1996
welfare reform legislation was the requirement that by October
1, 1998, State CSE agencies must operate a centralized,
automated unit for collection and disbursement of payments on
two categories of child support orders: those enforced by the
CSE agency and those issued or modified after December 31, 1993
which are not enforced by the State CSE agency but for which
the noncustodial parent's income is subject to withholding.
The State disbursement unit must be operated directly by
the State CSE agency, by two or more State CSE agencies under a
regional cooperative agreement, or by a contractor responsible
directly to the State CSE agency. The State disbursement unit
may be established by linking local disbursement units through
an automated information network if the HHS Secretary agrees
that the system will not cost more, take more time to
establish, nor take more time to operate than a single State
system. All States, including those that operate a linked
system, must give employers one and only one location for
submitting withheld income.
The disbursement unit must be used to collect and disburse
support payments, to generate orders and notices of withholding
to employers, to keep an accurate identification of payments,
to promptly distribute money to custodial parents or other
States, and to furnish parents with a record of the current
status of support payments made after August 22, 1996. The
disbursement unit must use automated procedures, electronic
processes, and computer-driven technology to the maximum extent
feasible, efficient, and economical.
The disbursement unit must distribute all amounts payable
within 2 business days after receiving the money and
identifying information from the employer or other source of
periodic income if sufficient information identifying the payee
is provided. The unit may retain arrearages in the case of
appeals until they are resolved.
States must use their automated system to facilitate
collection and disbursement including at least: (1)
transmission of orders and notices to employers within 2 days
after receipt of the withholding notice; (2) monitoring to
identify missed payments of support; and (3) automatic use of
enforcement procedures when payments are missed.
The collection and disbursement unit provisions go into
effect on October 1, 1998. States that process child support
payments through local courts can continue court payments until
September 30, 1999.
Following enactment of this provision in August 1996, there
was widespread misunderstanding about its breadth of
application. Thus, it is useful to emphasize here that not all
child support orders must be a part of the State disbursement
unit. First, orders issued before 1994 that are not being
enforced by the State Child Support Enforcement Agency are
exempt. Second, parents can avoid both wage withholding and
involvement in the child support enforcement system if at the
time the original order is issued, the judge determines that
private payments directly between parents is acceptable.
BANKRUPTCY AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Giving debtors a fresh start is the goal of this country's
bankruptcy system. Depending on the type of bankruptcy, a
debtor may be able to discharge a debt completely, pay a
percentage of the debt, or pay the full amount of the debt over
a longer period of time. However, several types of debts are
not dischargeable, including debts for child support and
alimony (U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support, 1992, p.
209).
The 1975 child support legislation included a provision
stating that an assigned child support obligation was not
dischargeable in bankruptcy. In 1978 this provision was
incorporated into the uniform law on bankruptcy. The bankruptcy
law also listed exceptions to discharge including alimony and
maintenance or support due a spouse, former spouse, or child.
In 1981, a provision stating that a child support obligation
assigned to the State as a condition of eligibility for AFDC is
not dischargeable in bankruptcy was reinstated. In 1984, the
provision was expanded so that child support obligations
assigned to the State as part of the child support program may
not be discharged in bankruptcy, regardless of whether the
payments are to be made on behalf of an AFDC or a non-AFDC
family and regardless of whether the debtor was married to the
child's other parent.
Some noncustodial parents seek relief from their financial
obligations in the U.S. bankruptcy courts. Although child
support payments may not be discharged via a filing of
bankruptcy, the filing may cause long delays in securing child
support payments. Pursuant to Public Law 103-394, enacted in
1994, a filing of bankruptcy will not stay a paternity, child
support, or alimony proceeding. In addition, child support and
alimony payments will be priority claims and custodial parents
will be able to appear in bankruptcy court to protect their
interests without having to pay a fee or meet any local rules
for attorney appearances.
The 1996 welfare reform legislation amends the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code to ensure that any child support debt that is
owed to a State and that is enforceable under the CSE Program
cannot be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.
AUTOMATED SYSTEMS
In 1980, Congress authorized 90 percent Federal matching
funds on an open-ended basis for States to design and implement
automated data systems. Funds go to States that establish an
automated data processing and information retrieval system
designed to assist in administration of the State child support
plan, and to control, account for, and monitor all factors in
the enforcement, collection, and paternity determination
processes. Funds may be used to plan, design, develop, and
install or enhance the system. The Secretary of HHS must
approve the State system as meeting specified conditions before
matching is available.
In 1984, Congress made the 90-percent rate available to pay
for the acquisition of computer hardware and necessary
software. The 1984 legislation also specified that if a State
met the Federal requirement for 90 percent matching, it could
use its funds to pay for the development and improvement of
income withholding and other procedures required by the 1984
law. In May 1986, OCSE established a transfer policy requiring
States seeking the 90 percent Federal matching rate to transfer
existing automated systems from other States rather than to
develop new ones, unless there were a compelling reason not to
use the systems developed by other States.
In 1988, Congress required States without comprehensive
statewide automated systems to submit an advance planning
document to the OCSE by October 1, 1991, for the development of
such a system. Congress required that all States have a fully
operating system by October 1, 1995, at which time the 90
percent matching rate was to end. The 1988 law allowed many
requirements for automated systems to be waived under certain
circumstances. For instance, the HHS Secretary could waive a
requirement if a State demonstrated that it had an alternative
system enabling it to substantially comply with program
requirements or a State provided assurance that additional
steps would be taken to improve its program.
As of September 30, 1995, OCSE had approved the automated
data systems of only six States--Delaware, Georgia, Utah,
Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. Most observers agree
that States were delayed primarily by the lateness of Federal
regulations specifying the requirements for the data systems
and by the complexity of getting their final systems into
operation. Thus, on October 12, 1995, Congress enacted Public
Law 104-35 which extended for 2 years, from October 1, 1995 to
October 1, 1997, the deadline by which States are required to
have statewide automated systems for their child support
programs. On October 1, 1995, however, the 90 percent matching
rate was ended; the Federal matching rate for State spending on
data systems reverted back to the basic administrative rate of
66 percent.
The purpose of requiring States to operate statewide
automated and computerized systems is to ensure that child
support functions are carried out effectively and efficiently.
These requirements include case initiation, case management,
financial management, enforcement, security, privacy, and
reporting. Implementing these requirements can facilitate
locating noncustodial parents and monitoring child support
cases. For example, by linking automated child support systems
to other State databases, information can be obtained quickly
and cheaply about a noncustodial parent's current address,
assets, and employment status. Systems can also be connected to
the court system to access information on child support orders
(U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992b).
Under the 1996 welfare reform legislation, States are
required to have a statewide automated data processing and
information retrieval system which has the capacity to perform
a wide variety of functions with a specified frequency. The
State data system must be used to perform functions the HHS
Secretary specifies, including controlling and accounting for
the use of Federal, State, and local funds and maintaining the
data necessary to meet Federal reporting requirements in
carrying out the CSE Program. The automated system must
maintain the requisite data for Federal reporting, calculate
the State's performance for purposes of the incentive and
penalty provisions, and have in place systems controls to
ensure the completeness, reliability, and accuracy of the data.
Final regulations for implementation of automated systems must
be issued by the Secretary by August 22, 1998.
The statutory provisions for State implementation of
Federal automatic data processing requirements are revised to
provide that, first, all requirements enacted on or before the
date of enactment of the Family Support Act of 1988 (i.e.,
October 13, 1988) are to be met by October 1, 1997. Second,
requirements enacted on or before August 22, 1996 must be met
by October 1, 2000. The October 1, 2000 deadline is to be
extended by 1 day for each day by which the HHS Secretary fails
to meet the 2-year deadline for regulations. The Federal
Government will continue the 90 percent matching rate for 1996
and 1997 in the case of provision outlined in advanced planning
documents submitted before September 30, 1995; the enhanced
match also is provided retroactively for funds expended since
expiration of the enhanced rate on October 1, 1995.
The Secretary must create procedures to cap payments to
the States to meet the new requirements at $400 million for
fiscal years 1996-2001. The Federal matching rate for the new
requirements will be 80 percent. Funds are to be distributed
among States by a formula set in regulations which takes into
account the relative size of State caseloads and the level of
automation needed to meet applicable automatic data processing
requirements.
AUDITS AND FINANCIAL PENALTIES
Audits are required at least every 3 years to determine
whether the standards and requirements prescribed by law and
regulations have been met by the child support program of every
State. If a State fails the audit, Federal AFDC matching funds
must be reduced by an amount equal to at least 1 but not more
than 2 percent for the first failure to comply, at least 2 but
not more than 3 percent for the second failure, and at least 3
but not more than 5 percent for the third and subsequent
failures.
If a penalty is imposed after a followup review, a State
may appeal the audit penalty to the HHS Departmental Appeals
Board. Payment of the penalty is delayed while the appeal is
pending. The appeals board reviews the written records which
may be supplemented by informal conferences and evidentiary
hearings.
The penalty may be suspended for up to 1 year to allow a
State time to implement corrective actions to remedy the
program deficiency. At the end of the corrective action period,
a followup audit is conducted in the areas of deficiency. If
the followup audit shows that the deficiency has been
corrected, the penalty is rescinded. However, if the State
remains out of compliance with Federal requirements, a
graduated penalty, as provided by law, is assessed against the
State. The actual amount of the penalty--between 1 and 5
percent of the State's AFDC matching funds (see above)--depends
on the severity and the duration of the deficiency. If a State
is under penalty, a comprehensive audit is conducted annually
until the cited deficiencies are corrected (Office of Child
Support, 1994, pp. 14-16).
The welfare reform law of 1996 requires States to annually
review and report to the HHS Secretary, using data from their
automatic data processing system, both information adequate to
determine the State's compliance with Federal requirements for
expedited procedures and case processing as well as the
information necessary to calculate their levels of
accomplishment and rates of improvement on the performance
indicators.
The Secretary is required to determine the amount (if any)
of incentives or penalties. The Secretary also must review
State reports on compliance with Federal requirements and
provide States with recommendations for corrective action.
Audits must be conducted once every 3 years, or more often in
the case of States that fail to meet Federal requirements. The
purpose of the audits is to assess the completeness,
reliability, and security of data reported for use in
calculating the performance indicators and to assess the
adequacy of financial management of the State program.
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS
Two parties have claims on child support collections made
by the State. The children and custodial parent on behalf of
whom the payments are made, of course, have a claim on payments
by the noncustodial parent. However, in the case of families
that have received public aid, taxpayers who paid to support
the destitute family by providing a host of welfare benefits
also have a legitimate claim on the money.
Thus, over the years a series of somewhat complex rules has
developed to determine who actually gets the money. It is
helpful to think of these rules in two categories. First, there
are rules in both Federal and State law that stipulate who has
a legal claim on the payments owed by the noncustodial parent.
These are called assignment rules. Second, there are rules that
determine the order in which child support collections are paid
in accord with the assignment rules. These are called
distribution rules.
As long as families remain on welfare, the distribution of
child support is straightforward. When families apply for TANF,
the custodial parent must assign to the State the right to
collect any child support obligations that accumulated before
the family joined welfare as well as support that comes due
while the family is receiving welfare benefits. As long as the
family remains on welfare, child support collections are
generally kept by the State and split with the Federal
Government.
Consider a simple example. Suppose that when a given mother
signed up for welfare, the child support agency was successful
in locating the father, establishing a support order for $200
per month, and collecting the payments. Each month, the State
would retain the $200, which in turn would be split with the
Federal Government. In addition, the amount of welfare
reimbursement owed to the State by the noncustodial parent
would be reduced by $200 each month. If the TANF benefit were
$300 per month, the amount owed to the State by the
noncustodial parent would increase by only $100 each month
rather than the full $300.
Once families leave welfare, the amount of support assigned
to the State is the amount that equals total TANF payments to
the family minus any child support paid by the noncustodial
parent while the family was on welfare. At the moment the
family leaves welfare, then, the noncustodial parent usually
owes child support to both the government and the family. The
amount owed the family is the amount of payments that
accumulated before the family went on welfare plus any amount
that accumulates because of nonpayment after the family leaves
welfare.
The real issue, of course, is the order in which child
support collections will be paid against these debts once the
family leaves TANF. The first rule is straightforward: Payments
against current support always go to the family. In the case
above, no matter how long the mother was on welfare, the first
$200 of monthly payments is assigned to and distributed to the
mother once the family leaves welfare. If the father never pays
against arrearages, the government never gets repaid for the
TANF benefits it provided and the mother never gets repaid for
arrearages that accrued before or after the family was on
welfare.
Now assume that the father begins to make payments in
excess of the current support amount of $200. The issue arises
of whether the State can keep the amount above the current
support order as repayment for TANF benefits or whether the
State must give the arrearage payments to the family. Here we
see that distribution law trumps assignment law under some
circumstances; namely, whenever two or more parties have been
assigned child support that is past due. Both parties have
legal claims; the issue is which one is paid first.
Before the 1996 welfare reform law was enacted, Federal law
allowed States to design their own distribution rules to
determine who got arrearage collections. States could even keep
the entire arrearage payment and not share any of it with the
family. Only when the State and Federal Governments had been
repaid the entire amount of TANF benefits provided to the
family were States required to pay arrearage collections to the
family.
During the 1995-96 welfare reform debate, the Federal
policy of allowing States to decide who gets arrearage payments
once the family leaves welfare received intense criticism. With
the increased emphasis on helping mothers leave welfare and
achieve self support, the additional money mothers could
receive from past-due child support took on additional meaning.
Thus, Federal law on distribution of child support arrearage
payments was substantially revised and States were given both
mandates and options designed to increase the amount of money
received by families, especially after they left welfare. Here
is an overview of these new provisions.
In the case of families receiving assistance, the new law
gives States the option of passing the entire child support
payment through to families. If a State elects this option, it
must still pay the Federal share of the collection to the
Federal Government.
In the case of families that have left welfare, current
child support payments go to the family as they always have.
Payments on arrearages that accrued after the family stopped
receiving cash assistance and that are collected before October
1, 1997 are to be paid in accordance with the law in effect
before enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law, which means
that these arrearage payments generally are to be paid to the
State as reimbursement for welfare payments (with appropriate
reimbursement of the Federal share of the collection to the
Federal Government).
However, with respect to arrearages that accrued after the
family stopped receiving cash assistance that are collected on
or after October 1, 1997 (or at the option of the State, before
such date), the arrearage is to be paid to the family unless it
is collected through the Federal income tax offset program, in
which case it is to be paid to the State (and the State must
pay the Federal share). Any remaining money is paid to satisfy
arrearages that accrued before the family started receiving
cash assistance. If there is still money remaining, the State
retains its share of the amount and pays to the Federal
Government the Federal share of the collection (to the extent
necessary to reimburse amounts paid to the family as cash
assistance). Any remaining money is then paid to the family.
Arrearages that accrued before the family starting
receiving cash assistance and that are collected before October
1, 2000 are to be paid in accordance with the law in effect
before enactment of the welfare reform legislation of 1996,
which means that these arrearage payments generally are paid to
the State to reimburse it for any arrearages owed under the
welfare assignment (with appropriate reimbursement of the
Federal share of the collection to the Federal Government).
Arrearages that accrued before the family starting
receiving cash assistance and that are collected on or after
October 1, 2000 (or before such date, at the option of the
State), must be paid to the family unless it is collected
through the Federal income tax offset program, in which case it
is paid to the State (and the State pays the Federal share). If
any money remains, it is paid to satisfy arrearages that
accrued before the family starting receiving cash assistance.
If there is still money remaining, the State retains its share
of the amount and pays to the Federal Government the Federal
share of the collection (to the extent necessary to reimburse
amounts paid to the family as cash welfare). If any money
remains, it is paid to the family.
With respect to any arrearages that accrued while the
family received cash assistance, States are given the option of
passing the child support arrearage payment through to
families. If a State elects this option, it must pay the
Federal share of the collection to the Federal Government.
As noted above, arrearages collected through the Federal
income tax offset program must be paid to the State. The State
may only retain arrearages that have been assigned to the State
and only up to the amount necessary to reimburse amounts paid
to the family as cash welfare. If the amount collected through
the tax offset exceeds the amount of cash welfare, the State
must distribute the excess to the family.
Effective October 1, 2000, the State must treat any
support arrearages collected, except for those collected
through the Federal income tax offset program, as accruing in
the following order: (1) to the period after the family stopped
receiving cash assistance, (2) to the period before the family
received cash assistance, and (3) to the period while the
family was receiving cash assistance.
Finally, in the case of families that never received
assistance, the entire amount of the child support collection
is distributed directly to the family as it always has been.
FUNDING OF STATE PROGRAMS
The child support program conducted by States is financed
by three major streams of money. The first and largest is the
Federal Government's commitment to reimburse States for 66
percent of all allowable expenditures on child support
activities. Allowable expenditures include outlays for locating
parents, establishing paternity (with an exception noted
below), establishing orders, and collecting payments.
There are two mechanisms through which Federal financial
control of State expenditures is exercised. First, States must
submit plans to the Secretary of HHS outlining the specific
child support activities they intent to pursue. The State plan
provides the Secretary with the opportunity to review and
approve or disapprove child support activities that will
receive the 66 percent Federal reimbursement. Second, as
discussed previously, HHS conducts a financial audit of State
expenditures.
In addition to the general matching rate of 66 percent, the
Federal Government provides 90 percent matching for two
especially important child support activities. First, the
Federal Government pays 80-90 percent of approved State
expenditures on developing and improving management information
systems. Congress decided to pay this enhanced match rate
because data management, the construction of large data bases
containing information on location, income, and assets of child
support obligors, and computer access to and manipulation of
such large data bases were seen as the keys to a cost effective
child support system. In spending the additional Federal
dollars on these data systems, Congress hoped to provide an
incentive for States to adopt and aggressively employ efficient
data management technology.
Second, Congress also provides 90 percent funding for
laboratory costs of blood testing. As in the case of data
management systems, Congress justified enhanced funding of
blood tests because paternity establishment is an activity
vital to successful child support enforcement. Historically,
establishing paternity in cases of births outside marriage has
proven to be surprisingly difficult. Especially since the
1960s, more and more children have been born outside marriage;
today nearly a third of all children are born to unwed mothers,
and nearly 50 percent of these babies wind up on welfare. Thus,
establishing paternity has become more and more important
because a growing fraction of the welfare caseload is children
whose paternity has not been established. Congress hopes to
stimulate the use of blood tests as a way of improving State
performance in establishing paternity, especially given that
recent experience in the States shows that many men voluntarily
acknowledge paternity once blood tests reveal a high
probability of their paternity.
In addition to the Federal administrative matching
payments, the second stream of financing for State programs is
child support collections. As we have seen, when mothers apply
for welfare, they assign the child's claim rights against the
father to the State. As long as the family receives TANF
payments, the State can retain the entire payment. As explained
in detail above in the section on distribution of child support
payments, States retain the right to pursue repayment for TANF
benefits from the parent who owes child support even after the
family leaves welfare.
Recovered payments are split between the State and the
Federal Government in accord with the percentage of Federal
reimbursement of Medicaid benefits. In the Medicaid Program,
the Federal Government pays States a percentage of their
expenditures that varies inversely with State per capita
income--poor States have a high Federal reimbursement
percentage, wealthy States have a lower Federal reimbursement
percentage. Mississippi, for example, one of the poorest
States, receives a reimbursement of about 80 percent for its
Medicaid expenditures. By contrast, States like California and
New York that have high per capita income receive the minimum
Federal reimbursement of 50 percent.
Since Federal dollars are used to finance a portion of the
State TANF payment, States are required to split child support
collections from TANF cases with the Federal Government. The
rate at which States reimburse the Federal Government is the
Federal matching rate in the TANF Program. Thus, Mississippi
must send 80 percent of child support collections made on
behalf of TANF families to the Federal Government. New York and
California send only 50 percent of TANF collections back to
Washington.
The third stream of child support financing is Federal
incentive payments. The current incentive system is designed to
encourage States to collect child support from both TANF and
non-TANF cases. Under the incentive formula, each State
receives a payment equal to at least 6 percent of both TANF
collections and of non-TANF collections. States that perform
efficiently as indicated by the ratio of collections to
administrative expenditures can receive incentive payments of
up to 10 percent of collections in both the TANF and non-TANF
Programs. The specific incentive percentage between 6 and 10
for which a State qualifies is based on the collections-to-
expenditures ratios (see table 8-4).
TABLE 8-4.--INCENTIVE PAYMENT STRUCTURE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incentive
payment
Collection-to-cost ratio received
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 1.4 to 1...................................... 6.0
At least 1.4 to 1....................................... 6.5
At least 1.6 to 1....................................... 7.0
At least 1.8 to 1....................................... 7.5
At least 2.0 to 1....................................... 8.0
At least 2.2 to 1....................................... 8.5
At least 2.4 to 1....................................... 9.0
At least 2.6 to 1....................................... 9.5
At least 2.8 to 1....................................... 10.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
Incentive payments for non-TANF collections have been
controversial since the inception of the child support program,
especially given the guarantee of an incentive payment equal to
6 percent of collections (table 8-4). Until fiscal year 1985,
nonwelfare (AFDC) collections were not eligible for incentive
payments at all. Congress adopted this policy because welfare
collections are retained and split between State and Federal
Governments while all nonwelfare collections are paid to
custodial parents.
In 1984 (effective for 1985 and thereafter), Congress
extended incentive payments to nonwelfare collections. To limit
Federal costs and to retain a substantial incentive for welfare
collections, nonwelfare incentive payments were capped as a
percentage of welfare incentive payments. The 1984 law (Public
Law 98-378) stipulated that nonwelfare incentive payments were
not to exceed welfare incentive payments in fiscal years 1986
and 1987, were not to exceed 105 percent of welfare incentive
payments in 1988, and were not to exceed 110 percent in 1989.
Since 1990, the 1984 law has allowed States to receive
incentive payments in the nonwelfare program of up to 115
percent of those in the welfare program.
Two criticisms of the current incentive payment structure
are that it focuses only on comparing collections to the cost
of making them, while ignoring measures such as paternity and
support order establishment, and that States currently receive
a minimum level of incentive payments regardless of their
performance. The 1996 welfare reform law required the HHS
Secretary, in consultation with the State CSE directors, to
develop a performance-based, revenue neutral system of
incentive payments, and report to the appropriate congressional
committees the details of the proposed incentive system by
March 1, 1997.
The Secretary's report, submitted on March 13, responds to
the flaws in the current incentive system by recommending that:
(1) the incentive system provide additional payments to States
based on five performance measures related to establishment of
paternity and child support orders, collections of current and
past-due support payments, and cost effectiveness; (2)
incentive payments available to each State be based on a
percentage of the State's collections (with no cap on
nonwelfare collections); (3) the incentive system be phased in
over a 1-year period beginning in fiscal year 2000; (4)
incentive payments be reinvested in the State CSE Program; (5)
the Federal Government maintain its 66 percent matching rate of
CSE expenditures; and (6) the new incentive system be reviewed
on a periodic basis. It is expected that legislation based on
the Secretary's recommendations will be introduced and
considered during the 105th Congress.
Given this overview of the three streams of money that
support State CSE Programs, we can now examine the basic
financial operations of the child support system. Table 8-5
summarizes both child support income and expenditures for every
State. The first three columns show State income from each of
three funding streams just described; the fourth column shows
State spending on child support. As demonstrated in the fifth
column, the sum of the three streams of income exceeds
expenditures in some 34 States. In other words, most States
make a profit on their child support program. States are free
to spend this profit in any manner the State sees fit.
TABLE 8-5.--FINANCING OF THE FEDERAL/STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, FISCAL YEAR 1996
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State income
---------------------------------------- State Collections-
State Federal State share Federal administrative State net to-costs
administrative of incentive expenditures ratio
payments collections payments (costs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................... $31,161 $5,737 $3,548 $46,314 ($5,868) 3.41
Alaska........................ 11,517 8,085 2,973 17,439 5,136 3.31
Arizona....................... 31,177 6,647 3,842 46,909 (5,244) 2.41
Arkansas...................... 19,048 4,163 3,195 28,669 (2,263) 2.77
California.................... 293,731 222,548 66,752 437,991 145,040 2.36
Colorado...................... 25,399 15,001 5,590 38,361 7,628 2.82
Connecticut................... 29,035 12,645 7,086 43,027 5,740 2.91
Delaware...................... 9,941 3,393 1,112 14,168 279 2.50
District of Columbia.......... 7,731 2,526 1,103 11,696 (336) 2.38
Florida....................... 86,999 30,216 13,501 131,363 (647) 3.13
Georgia....................... 45,496 16,780 15,110 68,505 8,881 3.92
Guam.......................... 1,744 289 281 2,624 (310) 2.57
Hawaii........................ 16,113 5,396 1,758 23,907 (640) 2.18
Idaho......................... 12,535 2,942 1,961 18,928 (1,490) 2.32
Illinois...................... 68,905 28,513 10,691 103,803 4,304 2.41
Indiana....................... 21,416 14,186 7,658 30,091 13,170 6.54
Iowa.......................... 19,209 12,911 6,319 29,048 9,391 5.23
Kansas........................ 12,296 10,704 5,265 18,489 9,776 5.82
Kentucky...................... 27,927 9,646 5,514 42,210 877 3.43
Louisiana..................... 23,058 6,266 4,270 34,495 (900) 4.16
Maine......................... 10,224 9,459 4,907 15,435 9,155 4.05
Maryland...................... 43,688 19,120 6,540 66,017 3,332 4.36
Massachusetts................. 40,626 30,494 9,828 61,286 19,662 4.05
Michigan...................... 94,572 60,098 22,323 143,132 33,860 6.63
Minnesota..................... 48,457 25,680 9,017 73,195 9,960 4.36
Mississippi1.................. 9,522 3,959 3,553 29,463 (2,430) 2.87
Missouri...................... 52,173 22,161 9,635 74,419 9,549 3.75
Montana....................... 8,038 2,122 1,326 12,120 (634) 2.42
Nebraska...................... 20,007 3,964 1,750 30,179 (4,457) 3.16
Nevada........................ 14,782 3,737 2,279 22,346 (1,548) 2.53
New Hampshire................. 9,377 4,518 1,539 14,091 1,343 3.42
New Jersey.................... 73,147 39,238 12,698 110,735 14,348 4.52
New Mexico.................... 15,914 1,344 975 21,129 (2,896) 1.43
New York...................... 115,020 79,891 28,461 174,183 49,188 4.03
North Carolina................ 59,282 20,653 10,732 89,147 1,521 2.94
North Dakota.................. 4,352 1,662 990 6,563 441 4.34
Ohio.......................... 106,594 41,141 17,008 161,618 3,125 6.07
Oklahoma...................... 16,968 6,674 3,666 24,040 3,269 3.06
Oregon........................ 21,129 10,544 5,480 31,874 5,278 5.60
Pennsylvania.................. 82,784 49,576 18,619 123,808 27,171 7.74
Puerto Rico................... 19,504 291 372 28,569 (8,401) 4.44
Rhode Island.................. 5,451 6,839 3,262 8,251 7,300 4.31
South Carolina................ 23,296 6,797 4,154 35,100 (853) 3.37
South Dakota.................. 3,173 1,936 1,399 4,770 1,738 5.87
Tennessee..................... 26,165 10,195 5,328 39,342 2,347 4.06
Texas......................... 96,614 32,915 15,873 144,984 418 3.71
Utah.......................... 19,497 5,136 3,217 29,170 (1,321) 2.66
Vermont....................... 4,467 2,602 1,346 6,701 1,714 3.79
Virgin Islands................ 1,597 94 67 2,418 (660) 2.25
Virginia...................... 40,844 18,475 5,988 61,507 3,800 4.18
Washington.................... 76,319 49,348 16,449 115,322 26,795 3.53
West Virginia................. 15,578 3,230 2,065 23,358 (2,484) 3.61
Wisconsin..................... 50,394 19,115 10,659 74,058 6,110 5.94
Wyoming....................... 5,575 1,835 647 8,455 (398) 2.96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide................. 2,039,569 1,013,437 409,681 3,054,821 407,866 3.93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The ``State net'' column in this table is not the same as the comparable figure presented in annual
reports of the Office of Child Support Enforcement (see for example, 1996, p. 78 and table 8-23 below) because
estimated Federal incentive payments are used in the annual reports while final Federal incentive payments
were used in this table.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The method of financing child support enforcement has
received considerable attention in recent years. Perhaps the
most important issue is that States have little incentive to
control their administrative spending. The last column of table
8-5 presents a measure of State program efficiency obtained by
dividing total collections by total administrative expenses.
The table shows the dramatic differences among States in how
much child support is collected for each dollar of
administrative expenditure--a crude measure of efficiency--
ranging from only $1.43 in New Mexico to $7.74 in Pennsylvania.
And yet, most States, including those that spend up to three or
four times as much per dollar of collections as more efficient
States, still make a profit on the program.
Table 8-6 shows one consequence of child support's
financing system. The first two columns of the table show the
net impact of program financing on the Federal and State
governments respectively. The Federal Government has lost money
on child support every year since 1979, and the losses have
grown almost every year since then. Overall, losses jumped
sharply from $43 million in 1979 to $1.257 billion in 1995, and
then fell back slightly to $1.152 billion in 1996.
State governments by contrast have made a profit on the
program every year. In 1979, the first year for which data are
available, States cleared $244 million on child support. By
1996, States cleared $407 million (the peak year was 1994, when
States cleared $482 million). As Federal losses have mounted,
State profits have increased.
The last column in table 8-6 portrays an unfortunate
historical progression in child support financing. Beginning in
the very first year of the child support program and for nearly
a decade thereafter, the net impact of Federal losses and State
profits was a net savings for taxpayers. Thus, in 1979,
although the Federal Government lost money, State savings more
than made up for the loses. As a result, from a public finance
perspective, taxpayers were ahead by $201 million (see last
column). Total Federal and State child support expenditures, in
other words, were more than offset by collections from parents
whose children had been supported by AFDC payments. These AFDC
collections were retained and used to reimburse the Federal and
State governments for previous AFDC expenditures. The savings
produced in this manner exceeded overall expenditures.
TABLE 8-6.--FEDERAL AND STATE SHARE OF CHILD SUPPORT ``SAVINGS,'' FISCAL
YEARS 1979-96
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State
share of share of
Fiscal year child child Net public
support support savings \1\
savings \1\ savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1979............................... -$43 $244 $201
1980............................... -103 230 127
1981............................... -128 261 133
1982............................... -148 307 159
1983............................... -138 312 174
1984............................... -105 366 260
1985............................... -231 317 86
1986............................... -264 274 9
1987............................... -337 342 5
1988............................... -355 381 26
1989............................... -480 403 -77
1990............................... -528 338 -190
1991............................... -586 385 -201
1992............................... -605 434 -170
1993............................... -740 462 -278
1994............................... -978 482 -496
1995............................... -1,274 421 -853
1996 (preliminary)................. -1,152 407 -745
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative ``savings'' are costs.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Annual Reports to
Congress, 1996 and various years.
Unfortunately, net public savings declined over the years.
A major explanation for the negative public savings was that
beginning in 1985, as explained above, new Federal legislation
required States to give the first $50 per month of collections
in welfare cases to the custodial parent. This $50 passthrough
had an immediate impact; in its first year, combined Federal-
State savings fell to $86 million from $260 million the
previous year. By 1989 the overall ``savings'' in the combined
program went negative. For the first time that year, Federal
losses exceeded State gains--by $77 million. The net losses
have increased almost every year, reaching $853 million in 1995
before declining somewhat to $745 million in 1996.
Reflecting on these numbers, two perspectives should be
considered. One perspective, the finance perspective, attends
simply to the measurable costs and benefits of the child
support program. But a second, broader perspective includes
more diffuse social benefits of child support that are
difficult to measure.
From the finance perspective, perhaps the most important
question about child support financing is why the Federal
Government, which loses money on the program every year, should
provide such a high reimbursement level for State expenditures
when nearly all States make a profit on their child support
program. In the past, this issue has prompted Congress to
reduce the basic administrative reimbursement rate on several
occasions. As a result, the rate has declined from its original
level of 75 percent to 66 percent. But some Members of
Congresss have suggested that, because most States are still
making a profit while the Federal Government is losing money,
Congress should reduce the Federal administrative reimbursement
rate below 66 percent. Defenders of child support financing
respond by pointing out that allowing States to profit from the
program makes it very popular with State policymakers who
control funding of the State share of expenditures. Without
financing arrangements favorable to State interests, according
to this view, the child support program would not have posted
the impressive gains that have characterized the program since
its inception in 1975.
The 66 percent Federal reimbursement of State
administrative expenditures raises a second issue of program
financing: Why is such a large percentage of State expenditures
financed without regard to performance? Even if States spend a
great deal of money on activities of dubious value in
collecting child support, they can nonetheless count on 66
percent reimbursement from the Federal Government. The flat 66
percent reimbursement rate may provide States with an incentive
to spend money inefficiently. A potential solution would be for
the Federal Government to provide States with less money based
on gross spending and relatively more money based on
performance.
However, there is widespread criticism of the current
incentive system. First, some critics of child support
financing question whether incentives should be provided for
non-TANF collections. With regard to program financing, there
is a striking difference between the TANF and non-TANF
Programs; namely, government retains part of TANF collections
but non-TANF collections are given entirely to the family. When
Congress enacted the Child Support Enforcement Program in 1975,
the floor debate shows that members of the House and Senate
supported the program primarily because retaining AFDC
collections would help offset AFDC expenditures.
But program trends since 1975 show that the non-AFDC
Program is actually much bigger than the AFDC Program and grows
faster each year than the AFDC Program. As shown in table 8-1
above, AFDC collections have grown from about $0.5 billion in
1978 to $2.9 billion in 1996, a growth factor of five. But non-
AFDC collections have grown from about $0.6 billion to more
than $9 billion over the same period, for a growth factor of
nearly 15.
The point here is that although TANF collections are
growing, non-TANF collections are growing much faster. And
since the State and Federal Governments receive virtually no
direct reimbursement for non-TANF expenditures, the child
support program loses more and more money every year. Why,
then, critics ask, should the Federal Government encourage
greater expenditures by providing incentives for non-TANF
collections. Ignoring for the moment possible social benefits
from the non-TANF Program and based entirely on a finance
perspective, some critics argue that non-TANF incentives
encourage inefficiency.
A second issue raised about the current incentive system is
that it does not necessarily base rewards on the best measure
of performance. Just as the basic 66 percent reimbursement rate
ignores efficiency by relying exclusively on expenditures, the
incentive system ignores efficiency by relying exclusively on
collections. A better measure of efficiency may be one that
combines expenditures and collections in a single measure. If
incentive payments were based on child support collections per
dollar of administrative expenditure, States would have
incentive to collect more money while holding down
expenditures. An incentive system based just on expenditures or
just on collections is at best half an incentive system.
Third, the incentive system is also criticized because
States receive an incentive payment of 6 percent of collections
regardless of program efficiency. One might question whether a
system that guarantees substantial payments independent of
performance is really an incentive system.
A final issue of program financing is whether government
should pay such a high percentage of costs in the non-TANF
Program. States must charge an application fee that can be no
more than $25 for the non-TANF Program, but this amount doesn't
even pay the full cost of opening a case file. In 1996, more
than 2.5 million non-TANF families received services resulting
in child support collections that averaged around $3,600 per
case. By collecting this money, government is providing a
useful service to millions of families, many of which are not
poor. Rather than have taxpayers pick up the cost of this
service, some critics argue that families receiving the
services should pay more of the costs. Federal law allows
States to charge additional fees, but few do so. States argue
that, because many of the non-TANF families are poor or low-
income, charging them for child support services would decrease
their already tenuous financial stability. States also argue
that setting up an administrative system to establish and
collect the fees would cost more money than the fees actually
collected.
The account of child support from the finance perspective
given above relies on measurable spending and collections.
However, defenders of the current child support program argue
that it may produce social benefits that are not captured by
mere spending and collections data. These program defenders
claim that a strong child support program produces ``cost
avoidance'' by demonstrating to noncustodial parents who would
try to avoid child support that the system will eventually
catch up with them.
Although there is little evidence that would allow an
estimate of the cost avoidance effect, there is nonetheless
good reason to believe that at least some noncustodial parents
make child support payments in part because they fear detection
and prosecution. Even more to the point, a strong child support
program may change the way society thinks about child support.
As in the cases of civil rights and smoking, a persistent
effort over a period of years may convince millions of
Americans, both those who owe child support and those concerned
with the condition of single-parent families, that making
payments is a moral and civic duty. Those who avoid it would
then be subject to something even more potent than legal
prosecution--social ostracism.
To the extent that this reasoning is correct, the public
and policymakers may come to regard child support enforcement
as a long-term investment similar in many respects to
education, job training, and other policies that help families
support their children. In each of these cases, there is
expectation that society will be better off in the long run
because the government invests in helping individuals and
families. But the expectation that investments will lead to
immediate payoffs, or even that we can devise evaluation
methods that adequately capture the long-term payoffs, is much
less than the expectation of immediate and measurable payoffs
that characterizes the kind of public finance reasoning
outlined above. Of course, even if the public is willing to
continue paying for child support enforcement as a social
investment, Congress and child support administrators may
nonetheless find it desirable to intensify their efforts to
make the program as efficient as possible.
HOW EFFECTIVE IS CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT?
Since the inception of the Federal-State child support
program in 1975, there appears to have been growing public
awareness of the problem of nonpayment of child support and
increased willingness by taxpayers to spend money trying to
improve child support enforcement. As measured either by
expenditures or total collections, the Federal-State program
has grown about tenfold since 1978. To the extent that private
arrangements fail to ensure child support payments, our laws
and, increasingly, our practices bring child support cases into
the public domain. In view of these quite remarkable changes in
law and practice, it seems useful to provide a broad assessment
of the performance of the Nation's child support system in
general and of the IV-D program in particular.
Impact on Taxpayers
One useful measure of the Federal-State program is the
impact of collections on TANF costs. As outlined above, States
retain and split with the Federal Government collections from
parents whose children are on TANF. In addition, States can
often retain part of collections from parents whose children
were on TANF in the past as repayment for taxpayer-provided
TANF benefits.
As shown in table 8-1 above, TANF collections have in fact
been rising every year since 1978, growing from less than $0.5
billion in that year to nearly $2.9 billion in 1996. Equally
important, the child support agencies collected a level of
payments on behalf of TANF parents that equalled 15.5 percent
of all TANF benefits in 1995. This figure, which has been
rising every year since 1980, seems especially impressive in
view of the fact that even if States could collect all of the
child support due, it would not be possible for some States to
recover 100 percent of TANF benefits because TANF benefit
payments usually exceed child support award levels.
Of course, it will be recalled that despite this
impressive rise in TANF collections and cost offset, the
overall impact of the child support program on taxpayers is
negative. As shown in table 8-5, taxpayers lost over $0.7
billion on the program in 1996, although the loss has dropped
from its peak of $853 in 1995. The rise of TANF collections and
cost offset ratios suggests that with reform, the child support
program could become more efficient.
Impact on Poverty
Another good measure of child support performance is the
impact of collections on poverty. In 1991, 1.26 million (24
percent) of the 5.3 million women and men rearing children
alone who were supposed to receive child support payments had
incomes below the poverty level. If full payment had been made
to these custodial parents and if none of these families had
received welfare payments, only 140,000 of them would have
received enough income from child support payments to put them
above the poverty level (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995, pp. 7
& 26). Thus, the potential of child support to greatly reduce
poverty appears to be modest. Of course, if the child support
program could obtain orders and collect support for a
substantial fraction of the additional 5.3 million single
parents who don't even have an award, the antipoverty impact of
child support could be increased somewhat.
Despite the modest impact of child support on poverty,
many families on welfare have received enough of a financial
boost from child support payments that they were able to leave
the rolls. In 1995, 294,000 families with child support
collections, representing about 6 percent of the welfare
caseload, became ineligible for AFDC. Similarly, about 3
percent of families in the non-AFDC child support program were
lifted out of poverty by child support payments. This 3 percent
figure is more impressive than it appears at first because a
substantial fraction of the non-AFDC caseload had incomes above
the poverty level before receiving any child support payments.
For most of these nonpoor families, incomes and standards of
living were improved by child support payments. Presumably,
even poor families that received child support but remained in
poverty had their standard of living improved by the child
support payments.
Impact on National Child Support Payments
Perhaps the most important measure of the Federal-State
program is its impact on overall national rates of paying child
support. Although the original intent of Congress in creating
the child support program was primarily to offset welfare
payments, both Congress and the American public have come to
see the program as a means of improving the Nation's system of
ensuring that parents who no longer live with their children
continue to provide for their financial support. An examination
of whether the IV-D program has had an impact on national child
support payments must begin with an assessment of the record of
noncustodial parents in paying child support.
The U.S. Census Bureau periodically collects national
survey information on child support. By interviewing a random
sample of single-parent families, the Census Bureau is able to
generate a host of numbers that can be used to assess the
performance of noncustodial parents in paying child support.
Table 8-7 provides detailed information for 1993, the most
recent year for which national data are available, on child
support payments by fathers to families headed by mothers.
Although the 1993 survey like the 1991 survey included
custodial fathers, the following discussion is focused solely
on custodial mothers. Several points bear emphasis, the most
important of which is that many female-headed families do not
receive child support. As shown in the top panel of table 8-7,
of the 11.5 million female-headed families eligible for
support, only 60 percent even had a support award. Most
observers would say that a major failure of the Nation's child
support system is that entirely too many mothers do not have a
child support award.
Of the 5.9 million mothers who do have an award and who
were supposed to receive payments in 1993, 71 percent actually
received at least one payment. However, as shown in tables
appended to this chapter, only about half of those due money
actually received everything that was due. So in addition to
its failure to get orders for a significant percentage of
mothers, critics assert that a second failure of the child
support system is that a large proportion of the money owed is
not paid.
Table 8-7, which also summarizes child support information
by ethnic group, by years of schooling, and by poverty level,
suggests a number of interesting and important features of
child support payments. White mothers are more likely to have a
support order than black or Hispanic mothers (65 percent versus
about 50 percent for blacks and 41 percent for Hispanics).
Similarly, mothers with a college degree have a 73 percent
chance of having an order as compared with 48 percent for high
school dropouts and 60 percent for high school graduates. As
for payments, white mothers receive over $3,400 per year on
average as compared with around only $2,100 for black mothers
and $2,700 for Hispanic mothers. College graduates receive
$4,800 per year in support as compared with $1,700 and $2,800
for high school dropouts and graduates respectively.
Clearly, mothers who are already financially worse off get
less from child support than mothers who are financially better
off. This generalization is made especially clear by two
further pieces of information depicted in the table. First,
never-married mothers, one of the poorest demographic groups in
the Nation, are less likely to have an award than divorced
mothers (44 percent versus 73 percent); even never-married
mothers who actually receive support get considerably less than
divorced mothers ($1,700 versus $3,600). Second, as shown by
the data at the bottom of the table, poor mothers are less
likely to have orders and receive less money than nonpoor
mothers. Table 8-8 shows similar data for the award of
TABLE 8-7.--CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS AWARDED AND RECEIVED BY WOMEN WITH CHILDREN PRESENT, BY SELECTED
CHARACTERISTICS, 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposed to receive child support in
1993
Percent ----------------------------------------
Total awarded Received support in 1993
Characteristics of women (thousands) child ---------------------------
support Total Mean
payments \1\ (thousands) Percent child Mean
support income
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL WOMEN
Current marital status:
Married \2\............................. 2,408 70.5 1,547 74.3 $3,088 $17,538
Divorced................................ 3,813 73.3 2,488 75.7 3,632 21,760
Separated............................... 1,725 49.1 654 66.4 3,528 17,723
Widowed \3\............................. 126 42.1 38 55.3 (\5\) (\5\)
Never married........................... 3,398 43.6 1,177 59.6 1,738 10,689
Race and Hispanic origin:
White................................... 7,798 64.7 4,381 74.7 3,439 19,721
Black................................... 328.1 49.8 1,345 60.8 2,055 12,785
Hispanic origin \4\..................... 1,455 41.1 507 65.5 2,732 14,829
Years of school completed:
Less than high school graduate.......... 2,529 48.4 1,025 62.7 1,675 8,320
High school graduate or GED............. 4,273 60.3 2,161 70.7 2,797 15,053
Some college, no degree................. 2,688 62.6 1,504 73.3 3,548 19,363
Associate degree........................ 821 66.1 466 69.3 3,263 23,089
Bachelors degree or more................ 1,150 73.0 747 79.7 4,831 32,849
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 11,470 59.9 5,903 71.0 3,147 18,301
===================================================================
WOMEN BELOW POVERTY
Current marital status:
Married \2\............................. 299 55.5 148 65.5 1,224 5,318
Divorced................................ 1,135 69.7 691 71.1 2,360 6,851
Separated............................... 838 46.2 287 62.7 2,713 6,025
Widowed................................. 63 23.8 10 40.0 (\5\) (\5\)
Never married \3\....................... 1,894 44.3 654 59.8 1,526 5,298
Race:
White................................... 2,371 57.0 1,109 68.3 2,266 6,177
Black................................... 1,716 46.3 634 60.1 1,580 5,851
Hispanic origin \4\..................... 698 37.7 203 69.0 1,925 6,242
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 4,230 52.0 1,790 65.0 2,034 6,087
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Award status as of spring 1994.
\2\ Remarried women whose previous marriage ended in divorce.
\3\ Widowed women whose previous marriage ended in divorce.
\4\ Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
\5\ Sample too small to produce reliable estimate.
Note.--Women with own children under 21 years of age present from an absent father as of spring 1994.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997. Forthcoming report: child support for custodial mothers and fathers:
1993. Current Population Reports. (Advance copy of preliminary data furnished to CRS.)
TABLE 8-8.--CHILD SUPPORT AWARD STATUS AND INCLUSION OF HEALTH INSURANCE IN AWARD, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS
OF WOMEN, 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposed to receive child support
payments in 1993
----------------------------------------
Health insurance included
Characteristic Total in child support award
(thousands) Total ---------------------------
(thousands) Percent of
Number total
(thousands) awarded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current marital status: \1\
Remarried \2\......................................... 1,839 1,278 881 68.9
Divorced.............................................. 3,813 2,488 1,719 69.1
Separated............................................. 1,725 654 334 51.1
Never married......................................... 3,398 1,177 474 40.3
Race and Hispanic origin:
White................................................. 7,798 4,381 2,898 66.1
Black................................................. 3,281 1,345 568 42.2
Hispanic \3\.......................................... 1,455 507 223 44.0
Age:
15-17 years........................................... 99 25 11 44.0
18-29 years........................................... 3,445 1,451 723 49.8
30-39 years........................................... 5,022 2,852 1,729 60.6
40 years and over..................................... 2,904 1,576 1,100 69.8
Years of school completed:
Less than high school graduate........................ 2,539 1,025 423 41.3
High school graduate or GED........................... 4,273 2,161 1,292 59.8
Some college, no degree............................... 2,688 1,504 979 65.1
Associate degree...................................... 821 466 302 64.8
Bachelors degree or more.............................. 1,150 747 566 75.8
Number of own children present from an absent father:
One child............................................. 6,398 2,952 1,882 63.8
Two children.......................................... 3,299 1,982 1,179 59.5
Three children........................................ 1,225 699 388 55.5
Four children or more................................. 549 270 114 42.2
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 11,470 5,903 3,562 60.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes a small number of current widowed women whose previous marriage ended in divorce.
\2\ Remarried women whose previous marriage ended in divorce.
\3\ Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Note.--Women 15 years and older with own children under 21 years of age present from absent fathers as of
spring 1994.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997.
health insurance. While demonstrating that 60 percent of all
mothers have health insurance included in their award, the
table also shows that the probability of health insurance
coverage is greatly reduced for never-married women, black and
Hispanic women, and women with less schooling.
Table 8-9, which summarizes several child support measures
for selected years between 1978 and 1993, complements and
extends the conclusions drawn from the 1993 data. \4\ More
specifically, the pattern of poor women being less likely to
have an order and receive support is nothing new; the years
since 1978 show no change in this pattern. Overall, the
percentage of mothers with an award is only slightly higher
than in 1978, the percentage that actually receive any payment
is only slightly higher, and the aggregate payments have grown
less rapidly than the number of demographically eligible
mothers. Table 8-9 shows that while a slightly higher
percentage of women were awarded child support (60 percent in
1993 versus 59 percent in 1978), a significantly smaller
percentage of women received full payment (18 percent in 1993
versus 24 percent in 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Census Bureau changed its interview procedures before
obtaining the 1991 data. Specifically, Census asked whether adults had
any children under age 21 in their household who had a parent living
elsewhere. This question may have excluded some mothers who would have
answered the child support questions in previous surveys. In the
interviews for the years 1978 through 1989, all never-married mothers
were asked the child support questions. Because of this and other
differences in procedure, the Census Bureau recommends ``extreme
caution'' (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995, p. 40) in comparing data
from the 1992 interview with data from previous interviews. We present
the data from all the surveys and recommend that readers draw their own
conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, it appears that the performance of the Nation's
child support system is modest and that few if any of the
measures of national performance have improved in nearly two
decades. By contrast, as shown at the beginning of this chapter
(see table 8-1), the Federal-State child support program has
shown improved performance on a number of important measures
virtually every year since 1978. To promote comparison of
performance changes in the IV-D program with overall national
trends in child support performance, table 8-10 summarizes
several measures from both the IV-D program as revealed in
reports from the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement
and the national system of child support as revealed in U.S.
Census Bureau Surveys. The data are surprising and, at first,
confusing. As shown in the top panel, the Federal-State program
is showing impressive improvement on every measure. Total
collections, parents located, paternities established, and
awards established are all up by over 200 percent since 1978.
By contrast, the measures of overall national trends show
little improvement. In fact, the likelihood of having an award,
being legally entitled to a payment, and the percentage of
those with an award who received at least one payment have been
stagnant. Moreover, the percentage of mothers who received the
full amount due has decreased significantly, from 49 to 35
percent. On the other hand, total collections increased by
about 31 percent. This increase, however, is dwarfed by the 271
percent increase in IV-D collections. The increase must also be
interpreted in view of the fact that the number of single
mothers demographically eligible for child support increased by
62 percent over the same period.
TABLE 8-9.--CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS FOR ALL WOMEN, WOMEN ABOVE THE POVERTY LEVEL, AND WOMEN BELOW THE POVERTY
LEVEL, SELECTED YEARS 1978-93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category of women 1978 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 \3\ 1993 \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All women:
Total (in thousands)........ 7,094 8,387 8,690 8,808 9,415 9,955 9,918 11,470
Percent awarded \1\......... 59.1 59.2 57.7 61.3 59.0 57.7 55.9 59.9
Percent actually received
payment.................... 34.6 34.6 34.9 36.8 39.0 37.4 38.1 36.5
Percent received full
payment.................... 23.6 22.5 23.2 24.0 26.3 25.6 25.7 17.8
Women above poverty level:
Total (in thousands)........ 5,121 5,821 5,792 6,011 6,224 6,749 6,405 7,240
Percent awarded \1\......... 67.3 67.9 65.3 71.0 66.5 64.6 65.2 64.6
Percent actually received
payment.................... 41.1 41.4 42.6 44.1 44.8 43.1 45.9 41.8
Women below poverty level:
Total (in thousands)........ 1,973 2,566 2,898 2,797 3,191 3,206 3,513 4,230
Percent awarded \1\......... 38.1 39.7 42.5 40.4 44.3 43.3 38.9 52.0
Percent actually received
payment.................... 17.8 19.3 19.6 21.3 27.7 25.4 24.1 27.5
Aggregate payment (in billions
of dollars): \2\
Child support due........... 15.5 16.0 14.7 14.7 18.6 19.1 18.8 21.4
Child support received...... 10.1 9.8 10.3 9.7 12.8 13.1 12.6 13.2
Aggregate child support
deficit.................... 5.4 6.1 4.4 5.0 5.9 6.0 6.1 8.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Award status as of spring 1979, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992 and 1994.
\2\ In fiscal year 1993 dollars based on Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers.
\3\ Data for 1991 are not directly compatible with data from other years because of refinements to the survey
universe.
\4\ Data for 1993 are not directly compatible with data from other years because of changes to survey questions.
Note.--Payments for women with own children under age 21.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1995, 1997).
TABLE 8-10.--COMPARISON OF MEASURES OF IV-D EFFECTIVENESS WITH CENSUS CHILD SUPPORT DATA, 1978-93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Percent
Measure -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- change,
1978 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 \1\ 1993 \1\ 1978-93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-State IV-D Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total collections (1993 dollars, in billions) \2\............. 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.6 5.0 6.1 7.3 8.9 271
Parents located (thousands)................................... 454 696 831 878 1,145 1,624 2,577 3,777 732
Paternities established (thousands)........................... 111 164 208 232 269 339 472 554 399
Awards established (thousands)................................ 315 414 496 669 812 936 \3\ 821 1,026 226
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Trends
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total collections (1993 dollars, in billions) \2\............. 10.1 9.8 10.3 9.7 12.8 13.1 12.6 13.2 31
Of demographically eligible:
Percent with awards....................................... 59 59 58 61 59 58 56 60 2
Percent supposed to receive payment....................... 48 48 46 50 51 50 49 51 6
Percent who received some payment......................... 35 35 35 37 39 37 38 37 6
Of mothers supposed to receive payment, percent who received
full amount.................................................. 49 47 50 48 51 51 52 35 29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV-D Collections as a Percentage of National Collections
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV-D collections as a percent of total collections............ 24 27 28 37 39 47 58 67 179
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Census Bureau collected data on custodial fathers for the first time for 1991; only the data on custodial mothers is included here.
\2\ Constant fiscal year 1993 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers.
\3\ The definition of support orders established changed in 1991.
Note.--Demographically eligible means women with own children under 21 years of age living with them from an absent father.
Sources: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Annual Reports to Congress, 1994 and various years; U.S. Bureau of the Census (1981, 1983, 1985, 1987,
1990, 1991, 1995, and 1997).
Clearly, although the IV-D program has been growing
steadily since 1978, and although its performance on many
measures of child support has been improving, the improvement
appears to have had only modest impact on the national picture.
How can these two trends be reconciled?
The last panel of table 8-10 suggests an answer. This panel
shows collections by the Federal-State program as a percentage
of overall national child support payments. In 1978, less than
one-fourth of child support payments were collected through the
IV-D program. This percentage, however, has increased every
year since 1978. By 1993, more than two-thirds (67 percent) of
all child support payments were made through the IV-D program.
The implication of this trend is that the IV-D program may be
recruiting more and more cases from the private sector,
bringing them into the public sector, providing them with
subsidized services (or substituting Federal spending for State
spending), but not greatly improving child support collections.
Whatever the explanation, it seems that improved effectiveness
of the IV-D program has not led to significant improvement of
the Nation's child support performance.
The data in table 8-10 suffer from a potentially important
flaw. Given that Congress passed major child support
legislation in 1996, as part of the 1996 welfare reform
legislation, the impacts of these reforms have yet to be
studied. The 1993 Census data is too old to capture any of the
effects of the innovative reforms enacted in 1996.
Two additional statistics must be considered in any general
assessment of national child support payments. First, according
to Sorensen (1994), noncustodial parents owe over $30 billion
in overdue child support. Some perspective on the magnitude of
this figure is provided by recalling that the entire Federal
outlay on the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program
in 1996 was about $13 billion.
But many critics of the child support system contend that
this figure on arrearages, which is based on child support
orders currently in place, is actually an underestimate of the
shortcomings of the Nation's child support system. These
critics hold that too few noncustodial parents have orders,
that the amount of orders is too low, and that not enough of
the amount owed is actually paid. Considerations of this sort
have led to several studies of what might be called ``child
support collections potential''--the amount that could be
collected by a perfectly efficient child support system.
The most recent of these studies, conducted by researchers
at the Urban Institute (Sorensen, 1995), produced the estimate
that $47 billion could be collected in child support each year.
The assumptions underlying this estimate are that all custodial
parents had an order, that payments averaged $5,400 per year,
and that the full amount of every order was actually paid. Of
course, no one expects any program to be perfectly efficient.
Even so, comparing the $47 billion that could be generated by a
perfect system with the actual payments of around $17 billion
in 1996 provides a useful index of how far we need to go as a
Nation if we are to provide custodial parents and children with
the measure of financial security that is the major goal of our
child support system.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1950
The first Federal child support enforcement legislation was
Public Law 81-734, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1950,
which added section 402(a)(11) to the Social Security Act (42
USC 602(a)(11)). The legislation required State welfare
agencies to notify appropriate law enforcement officials upon
providing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to a
child who was abandoned or deserted by a parent. Also that
year, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws and the American Bar Association approved the Uniform
Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA; subsequent
amendments to this act were approved in 1952, 1958, and 1968).
1965
Public Law 89-97, the Social Security Amendments of 1965,
allowed a State or local welfare agency to obtain from the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare the address and
place of employment of an absent parent who owed child support
under a court order for support.
1967
Public Law 90-248, the Social Security Amendments of 1967,
allowed States to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) the address of nonresident parents who owed child support
under a court order for support. In addition, each State was
required to establish a single organizational unit to establish
paternity and collect child support for deserted children
receiving AFDC. States were also required to work cooperatively
with each other under child support reciprocity agreements and
with courts and law enforcement officials.
1975
Public Law 93-647, the Social Security Amendments of 1974,
created part D of title IV of the Social Security Act (sections
451, et seq.; 42 USC 651, et seq.). The key child support
enforcement provisions, which reflect 3 years of intense
congressional attention, are as follows: The Secretary of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (now the
Department of Health and Human Services or HHS) has primary
responsibility for the program and is required to establish a
separate organizational unit to operate the program.
Operational responsibilities include: (1) establishing a parent
locator service; (2) establishing standards for State program
organization, staffing, and operation; (3) reviewing and
approving State plans for the program; (4) evaluating State
program operations by conducting audits of each State's
program; (5) certifying cases for referral to the Federal
courts to enforce support obligations; (6) certifying cases for
referral to the IRS for support collections; (7) providing
technical assistance to States and assisting them with
reporting procedures; (8) maintaining records of program
operations, expenditures, and collections; and (9) submitting
an annual report to the Congress.
Primary responsibility for operating the Child Support
Enforcement Program was placed on the States pursuant to the
State plan. The major requirements of a State plan are that:
(1) the State designate a single and separate organizational
unit to administer the program; (2) the State undertake to
establish paternity and secure support for individuals
receiving AFDC and others who apply directly for child support
enforcement services; (3) child support payments be made to the
State for distribution; (4) the State enter into cooperative
agreements with appropriate courts and law enforcement
officials; (5) the State establish a State parent locator
service that uses State and local parent location resources and
the Federal Parent Locator Service; (6) the State cooperate
with any other State in locating an absent parent, establishing
paternity, and securing support; and (7) the State maintain a
full record of collections and disbursements made under the
plan.
In addition, the 1975 legislation established procedures
for the distribution of child support collections received on
behalf of families on AFDC, created an incentive system to
encourage States to collect payments from parents of children
on AFDC, and subjected moneys due and payable to Federal
employees to garnishment for the collection of child support.
New eligibility requirements were added to the AFDC Program
requiring applicants for, or recipients of, AFDC to make an
assignment of support rights to the State, to cooperate with
the State in establishing paternity and securing support, and
to furnish their Social Security number to the State. The
effective date of Public Law 93-647 was July 1, 1975, except
for the provision regarding garnishment of Federal employees,
which was effective upon enactment. However, several problems
were identified prior to the effective date and Congress passed
Public Law 94-46 to extend the effective date to August 1,
1975. In addition, Public Law 94-88 was passed in August 1975
to allow States to obtain waivers from certain program
requirements under certain conditions until June 30, 1976 and
to receive Federal reimbursement at a reduced rate. This law
also eased the requirement for AFDC recipients to cooperate
with State child support agencies when such cooperation would
not be in the best interests of the child and provided for
supplemental payments to AFDC recipients whose grants would be
reduced due to the implementation of the Child Support
Enforcement Program.
1976
Public Law 94-566, effective October 20, 1976, required
State employment agencies to provide absent parents' addresses
to State child support enforcement agencies.
1977
Public Law 95-30, effective May 23, 1977, made several
amendments to title IV-D. Provisions relating to the
garnishment of a Federal employee's wages for child support
were amended to: (1) include employees of the District of
Columbia; (2) specify the conditions and procedures to be
followed to serve garnishments on Federal agencies; (3)
authorize the issuance of garnishment regulations by the three
branches of the Federal Government and by the District; and (4)
clarify several terms used in the statute. Public Law 95-30
also amended section 454 of the Social Security Act (42 USC
654) to require the State plan to provide bonding for employees
who receive, handle, or disburse cash and to insure that the
accounting and collection functions are performed by different
individuals. In addition, the incentive payment provision,
under section 458(a) of the Social Security Act (42 USC
658(a)), was amended to change the rate to 15 percent of AFDC
collections (from 25 percent for the first 12 months and 10
percent thereafter).
Public Law 95-142, the Medicare-Medicaid Antifraud and
Abuse Amendments of 1977, established a medical support
enforcement program under which States could require Medicaid
applicants to assign to the State their rights to medical
support. State Medicaid agencies were allowed to enter into
cooperative agreements with any appropriate agency of any
State, including the IV-D agency, for assistance with the
enforcement and collection of medical support obligations.
Incentives were also made available to localities making child
support collections for States and for States securing
collections on behalf of other States.
1978
Public Law 95-598, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978,
repealed section 456(b) of the Social Security Act (42 USC
656(b)), which had barred the discharge in bankruptcy of
assigned child support debts. (This section of the act (now
546(h)) was restored by Public Law 97-35 in 1981.)
1980
Public Law 96-178 extended Federal financial participation
(FFP) for non-AFDC services to March 31, 1980, retroactive to
October 1, 1978.
Public Law 96-265, the Social Security Disability
Amendments of 1980, increased Federal matching funds to 90
percent, effective July 1, 1981, for the costs of developing,
implementing, and enhancing approved automated child support
management information systems. Federal matching funds were
also made available for child support enforcement duties
performed by certain court personnel. In another provision, the
law authorized IRS to collect child support arrearages on
behalf of non-AFDC families. Finally, the law provided State
and local IV-D agencies access to wage information held by the
Social Security Administration and State employment security
agencies for use in establishing and enforcing child support
obligations.
Public Law 96-272, the Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act of 1980, contained four amendments to title IV-D of
the Social Security Act. First, the law made FFP for non-AFDC
services available on a permanent basis. Second, it allowed
States to receive incentive payments on all AFDC collections as
well as interstate collections. Third, as of October 1, 1979,
States were required to claim reimbursement for expenditures
within 2 years, with some exceptions. The fourth change
postponed until October, 1980 the imposition of the 5 percent
penalty on AFDC reimbursement for States not having effective
Child Support Enforcement Programs.
1981
Public Law 97-35, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1981, amended IV-D in five ways. First, IRS was authorized to
withhold all or part of certain individuals' Federal income tax
refunds for collection of delinquent child support obligations.
Second, IV-D agencies were required to collect spousal support
for AFDC families. Third, for non-AFDC cases, IV-D agencies
were required to collect fees from absent parents who were
delinquent in their child support payments. Fourth, child
support obligations assigned to the State no longer were
dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings. Fifth, States were
required to withhold a portion of unemployment benefits from
absent parents delinquent in their support payments.
1982
Public Law 97-248, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility
Act of 1982, included the following provisions affecting the
IV-D program: FFP was reduced from 75 to 70 percent, effective
October 1, 1982; incentives were reduced from 15 to 12 percent,
effective October 1, 1983; the provision for reimbursement of
costs of certain court personnel that exceed the amount of
funds spent by a State on similar court expenses during
calendar year 1978 was repealed; the mandatory non-AFDC
collection fee imposed by Public Law 97-35 was repealed,
retroactive to August 13, 1981, and States were given the
option of recovering costs by imposing fees on non-AFDC
parents; States were allowed to collect spousal support in
certain non-AFDC cases; as of October 1, 1982, members of the
uniformed services on active duty were required to make
allotments from their pay when support arrearages reached the
equivalent of a 2-month delinquency; beginning October 1, 1982,
States were allowed to reimburse themselves for AFDC grants
paid to families for the first month in which the collection of
child support is sufficient to make a family ineligible for
AFDC.
Public Law 97-253, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1982, provided for the disclosure of information obtained under
authority of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to various programs,
including State child support enforcement agencies.
Public Law 97-252, the Uniformed Services Former Spouses'
Protection Act, authorized treatment of military retirement or
retainer pay as property to be divided by State courts in
connection with divorce, dissolution, annulment, or legal
separation proceedings.
1984
Public Law 98-378, the Child Support Enforcement Amendments
of 1984, featured provisions that required improvements in
State and local Child Support Enforcement Programs in four
major areas:
Mandatory enforcement practices
All States must enact statutes to improve enforcement
mechanisms, including: (1) mandatory income withholding
procedures; (2) expedited processes for establishing and
enforcing support orders; (3) State income tax refund
interceptions; (4) liens against real and personal property,
security or bonds to assure compliance with support
obligations; and (5) reports of support delinquency information
to consumer reporting agencies. State law must allow for the
bringing of paternity actions any time prior to a child's 18th
birthday and all support orders issued or modified after
October 1, 1985, must include a provision for wage withholding.
Federal financial participation and audit provisions
To encourage greater reliance on performance-based
incentives, Federal matching funds were reduced by 2 percent in
1988 (to 68 percent) and another 2 percent in 1990 (to 66
percent). Federal matching funds at 90 percent were made
available for the development and installation of automated
systems, including computer hardware purchases, to facilitate
income withholding and other newly required procedures. State
incentive payments were reset at 6 percent for both AFDC and
non-AFDC collections. These percentages could rise as high as
10 percent for each category for cost-effective States, but a
State's non-AFDC incentive payments could not exceed its AFDC
incentives. States were required to pass incentives through to
local child support enforcement agencies if these agencies had
accumulated child support enforcement costs. Annual State
audits were replaced with audits conducted at least once every
3 years. The focus of the audits was altered to evaluate a
State's effectiveness on the basis of program performance as
well as operational compliance. Penalties for noncompliance are
from 1 to 5 percent of the Federal share of the State's AFDC
funds. The Federal Government may suspend imposition of a
penalty based on a State's filing of, and complying with, an
acceptable corrective action plan.
Improved interstate enforcement
States were required to apply a host of enforcement
techniques to interstate cases as well as intrastate cases.
Both States involved in an interstate case may take credit for
the collection when reporting total collections for the purpose
of calculating incentives. Special demonstration grants were
authorized beginning in 1985 to fund innovative methods of
interstate enforcement and collection. Federal audits were
focused on States' effectiveness in establishing and enforcing
obligations across State lines.
Equal services for welfare and non-AFDC families
Several specific requirements were directed at improving
State services to non-AFDC families. All of the mandatory
practices must be made available for both classes of cases; the
interception of Federal income tax refunds was extended to non-
AFDC cases; incentive payments for non-AFDC cases became
available for the first time; States were required to continue
child support services to families terminated from the welfare
rolls without charging an application fee; and States were
required to publicize the availability of support enforcement
services for non-AFDC parents.
Other provisions
States were required to: (1) collect support in certain
foster care cases; (2) collect spousal support in addition to
child support where both are due in a case; (3) notify AFDC
recipients, at least yearly, of the collections made in their
behalf; (4) establish State commissions to study the operation
of the State's child support system and report findings to the
State's Governor; (5) formulate guidelines for determining
appropriate child support obligation amounts and distribute the
guidelines to judges and other individuals who possess
authority to establish obligation amounts; (6) offset the costs
of the program by charging various fees to non-AFDC families
and to delinquent nonresident parents; (7) allow families whose
AFDC eligibility is terminated as a result of the payment of
child support to remain eligible to receive Medicaid for 4
months (sunsets on October 1, 1988); and (8) establish medical
support orders in addition to monetary awards. The Federal
Parent Locator Service was made more accessible and effective
in locating absent parents. Sunset provisions were included in
the extension of Medicaid eligibility and Federal tax offsets
for non-AFDC families.
Public Law 98-369, the Tax Reform Act of 1984, included two
tax provisions pertaining to alimony and child support. Under
prior law, alimony was deductible by the payor and includable
in the income of the payee. The 1984 law revised the rules
relating to the definition of alimony. Generally, only cash
payments that terminate on the death of the payee spouse
qualify as alimony. Alimony payments, if in excess of $10,000
per year, generally must be payable for at least 6 years and
must not decline by more than $10,000. The prior law
requirement that the payment be based on a legal support
obligation was repealed and payors were required to furnish to
the IRS the Social Security number of the payee spouse. A $50
penalty for failure to do so was imposed. The provision was
effective for divorce or separation agreements or orders
executed after 1984. The 1984 law also provided that the $1,000
dependency exemption for a child of divorced or separated
parents be allocated to the custodial parent unless the
custodial parent signs a written declaration that she will not
claim the exemption for the year. For purposes of computing the
medical expense deduction for years after 1984, each parent may
claim the medical expenses that he or she pays for the child.
1986
Public Law 99-509, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1986, included one child support enforcement amendment
prohibiting the retroactive modification of child support
awards. Under this new requirement, State laws must provide for
either parent to apply for modification of an existing order
with notice provided to the other parent. No modification is
permitted before the date of this notification.
1987
Public Law 100-203, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1987, required States to provide child support enforcement
services to all families with an absent parent who receives
Medicaid and have assigned their support rights to the State,
regardless of whether they are receiving AFDC.
1988
Public Law 100-485, the Family Support Act of 1988,
emphasized the duties of parents to work and support their
children and, in particular, emphasized child support
enforcement as the first line of defense against welfare
dependence. The key child support provisions include:
Guidelines for child support awards
Judges and other officials are required to use State
guidelines for child support unless they rebut the guidelines
by a written finding that applying them would be unjust or
inappropriate in a particular case. States must review
guidelines for awards every four years. Beginning 5 years after
enactment, States generally must review and adjust individual
case awards every 3 years for AFDC cases. The same applies to
other IV-D cases, except review and adjustment must be at the
request of a parent.
Establishment of paternity
States are required to meet Federal standards for the
establishment of paternity. The primary standard relates to the
percentage obtained by dividing the number of children in the
State who are born out of wedlock, are receiving cash benefits
or IV-D child support services, and for whom paternity has been
established by the number of children who are born out of
wedlock and are receiving cash benefits or IV-D child support
services. To meet Federal requirements, this percentage in a
State must: (1) be at least 50 percent; (2) be at least equal
to the average for all States; or (3) have increased by 3
percentage points from fiscal years 1988 to 1991 and by 3
percentage points each year thereafter. States are mandated to
require all parties in a contested paternity case to take a
genetic test upon request of any party. The Federal matching
rate for laboratory testing to establish paternity is set at 90
percent.
Disregard of child support
The child support enforcement disregard authorized under
the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 is clarified so that it
applies to a payment made by the noncustodial parent in the
month it was due even though it was received in a subsequent
month.
Requirement for prompt State response
The Secretary of HHS was required to set time limits within
which States must accept and respond to requests for assistance
in establishing and enforcing support orders as well as time
limits within which child support payments collected by the
State IV-D agency must be distributed to the families to whom
they are owed.
Requirement for automated tracking and monitoring system
Every State that does not have a statewide automated
tracking and monitoring system in effect must submit an advance
planning document that meets Federal requirements by October 1,
1991. The Secretary must approve each document within 9 months
after submission. By October 1, 1995, every State must have an
approved system in effect. States were awarded 90 percent
Federal matching rates for this activity until September 30,
1995.
Interstate enforcement
A Commission on Interstate Child Support was created to
hold national conferences on interstate child support
enforcement reform and to report to Congress no later than
October 1, 1990 on recommendations for improvements in the
system and revisions in the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of
Support Act.
Computing incentive payments
Amounts spent by States for interstate demonstration
projects are excluded from calculating the amount of the
States' incentive payments.
Use of INTERNET system
The Secretaries of Labor and HHS are required to enter into
an agreement to give the Federal Parent Locator Service prompt
access to wage and unemployment compensation claims information
useful in locating absent parents.
Wage withholding
With respect to IV-D cases, each State must provide for
immediate wage withholding in the case of orders that are
issued or modified on or after the first day of the 25th month
beginning after the date of enactment unless: (1) one of the
parties demonstrates, and the court finds, that there is good
cause not to require such withholding; or (2) there is a
written agreement between both parties providing for an
alternative arrangement. Prior law requirements for mandatory
wage withholding in cases where payments are in arrears apply
to orders that are not subject to immediate wage withholding.
States are required to provide for immediate wage withholding
for all support orders initially issued on or after January 1,
1994, regardless of whether a parent has applied for IV-D
services.
Work and training demonstration programs for noncustodial parents
The Secretary of HHS is required to grant waivers to up to
five States to allow them to provide services to noncustodial
parents under the JOBS Program. No new power is granted to the
States to require participation by noncustodial parents.
Data collection and reporting
The Secretary of HHS is required to collect and maintain
State-by-State statistics on paternity establishment, location
of absent parent for the purpose of establishing a support
obligation, enforcement of a child support obligation, and
location of absent parents for the purpose of enforcing or
modifying an established obligation.
Use of Social Security number
Each State must, in the administration of any law involving
the issuance of a birth certificate, require each parent to
furnish his or her Social Security number (SSN), unless the
State finds good cause for not requiring the parent to furnish
it. The SSN shall appear in the birth record but not on the
birth certificate, and the use of the SSN obtained through the
birth record is restricted to child support enforcement
purposes, except under certain circumstances.
Notification of support collected
Each State is required to inform families receiving AFDC of
the amount of support collected on their behalf on a monthly
basis, rather than annually as provided under prior law. States
may provide quarterly notification if the Secretary of HHS
determines that monthly reporting imposes an unreasonable
administrative burden. This provision is effective 4 years
after the date of enactment. The Medicaid transition benefit in
child support cases is extended from October 1, 1988 to October
1, 1989.
1989
Public Law 101-239, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1989, made permanent the requirement that Medicaid benefits
continue for 4 months after a family loses AFDC eligibility as
a result of collection of child support payments.
1990
Public Law 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1990, permanently extended the Federal provision that allows
States to ask the IRS to collect child support arrearages of at
least $500 out of income tax refunds otherwise due to
noncustodial parents. The minor child restriction is eliminated
for adults with a current support order who are disabled, as
defined under OASDI or SSI. The IRS offset can be used for
spousal support when spousal and child support are included in
the same support order. The life of the Interstate Child
Support Commission was extended from July 1, 1991 to July 1,
1992, and the Commission was required to submit its report no
later than May 1, 1992. The Commission was allowed to hire its
own staff.
1992
Public Law 102-521, the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992,
imposed a Federal criminal penalty for the willful failure to
pay a past due child support obligation with respect to a child
who resides in another State that has remained unpaid for
longer than a year or is greater than $5,000. For the first
conviction the penalty is a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment
for not more than 6 months, or both; for a second conviction,
the penalty is a fine of not more than $250,000, imprisonment
for up to 2 years, or both.
Public Law 102-537, the Ted Weiss Child Support Enforcement
Act of 1992, amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require
consumer credit reporting agencies to include in any consumer
report information on child support delinquencies provided by
or verified by State or local child support agencies, which
antedates the report by 7 years.
1993
Public Law 103-66, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1993, increased the percentage of children, from 50 to 75, for
whom the State must establish paternity and required States to
adopt laws requiring civil procedures to voluntarily
acknowledge paternity (including hospital-based programs). The
act also required States to adopt laws to ensure the compliance
of health insurers and employers in carrying out court or
administrative orders for medical child support and included a
provision that forbids health insurers to deny coverage to
children who are not living with the covered individual or who
were born outside marriage.
1994
Public Law 103-383, the Full Faith and Credit for Child
Support Orders Act, requires each State to enforce, according
to its terms, a child support order by a court (or
administrative authority) of another State, with conditions and
specifications for resolving issues of jurisdiction.
Public Law 103-394, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994,
stipulates that a filing of bankruptcy does not stay a
paternity, child support, or alimony proceeding. In addition,
child support and alimony payments are made priority claims and
custodial parents are able to appear in bankruptcy court to
protect their interests without paying a fee or meeting any
local rules for attorney appearances.
Public Law 103-403, the Small Business Administration
Amendments of 1994, makes parents who fail to pay child support
ineligible for small business loans.
Public Law 103-432, the Social Security Act Amendments of
1994, includes a provision that requires States to implement
procedures that require the State to periodically report to
consumer reporting agencies the name of debtor parents owing at
least 2 months of overdue child support, and the amount of
child support overdue.
1995
Public Law 104-35 extends for 2 years the deadline by which
States are required to have in effect an automated data
processing and information retrieval system for use in the
administration of their Child Support Enforcement Program (from
October 1, 1995, to October 1, 1997). The 90 percent Federal
funding was not extended.
1996
Title III of the 1996 welfare reform bill (Public Law 104-
193) was devoted to major reforms of the Child Support
Enforcement Program. A section-by-section summary of these
reforms follows:
Sec. 301. State obligation to provide child support enforcement
services
Imposes a State obligation to provide child support
enforcement services for each child receiving assistance under
IV-A (TANF), IV-E (foster care and adoption), and title XIX
(Medicaid). Services must also be provided for others who
apply, including families ceasing to receive assistance (no
application is permitted for this group).
Sec. 302. Distribution of collected support
Changes distribution priorities to provide that families
leaving welfare receive priority in payment of arrears. Changes
are effective October 1, 1997 for postassistance arrears and
October 1, 2000 for preassistance arrears. Exception is made
for collections from the Tax Refund Intercept Program. Provides
a hold harmless provision so that States are protected if the
amount they lose because of changes in distribution exceeds
what they gain from the elimination of the $50 pass-through
(eliminated October 1, 1996).
Sec. 303. Privacy safeguards
Protects privacy rights with respect to confidential
information.
Sec. 304. Rights to notification of hearings
Requires States to have procedures for providing notices of
proceedings and copies of orders to recipients of program
services or parties to cases being served under title IV-D.
Sec. 311. State case registry
Specifies requirements for the central State registry,
including maintaining and updating a payment record and
extracting data for matching with other databases. Allows
automated linkages of local registries.
Sec. 312. Collection and disbursement of support payments
Specifies requirements for the centralized collection and
disbursement of support payments, including the monitoring of
payments, generating wage withholding notices, and automatic
use of administrative enforcement remedies. Under some
circumstances, permits linkages of local disbursement units to
form centralized State disbursement unit for collection and
disbursement of child support payments. Requires distribution
within 2 business days of receipt of collection; requires
transmission of withholding orders to employers within 2
business days of notice of income source subject to
withholding.
Sec. 313. State directory of new hires
Requires employers and labor organizations to report name,
address, Social Security number (SSN), and employer
identification number of new hires to State directory of new
hires within 20 days of hire (in the case of an employer
transmitting reports magnetically or electronically, reports
may be made by two monthly transmissions); requires the report
to be the W-4 or equivalent at option of the employer with
penalties assessed for failure to report. State directory must
perform database matching using SSNs and report findings to any
State; directory must also report information to the National
directory within 3 business days, and issue withholding notices
within 2 business days of match, among other requirements.
Sec. 314. Amendments concerning income withholding
Strengthens and expands income withholding from wages to
pay child support by reducing the time for employers to remit
withheld wages to 7 business days and adding a State law
requirement that allows issuance of electronic withholding
orders by State agency and without notice to obligor.
Sec. 315. Locator information from interstate networks
Includes requirements for access by State child support
agency to locator information from State motor vehicle and law
enforcement systems.
Sec. 316. Expansion of the Federal Parent Locator Service
Expands the authority of FPLS to obtain information and
locate individuals. Permits access to FPLS for the enforcement
of child custody and visitation orders but specifies that
requests must come through courts or child support agencies.
Requires establishment of a Federal case registry of child
support orders, and details guidelines for the National
directory of new hires. Allows disclosure of certain
information, including Federal tax offset amounts, to child
support enforcement agents.
Sec. 317. Collection and use of Social Security numbers for use in
child support enforcement
Requires use of Social Security numbers on applications for
professional licenses, commercial driver's licenses,
occupational license or marriage licenses, and in records for
divorce decrees, support orders, paternity determinations or
acknowledgments and death certificates.
Sec. 321. Adoption of uniform State laws
Mandates adoption by all States of the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act.
Sec. 322. Improvements to full faith and credit for child support
orders
Clarifies priorities for recognition of orders.
Sec. 323. Administrative enforcement in interstate cases
Requires States to respond within 5 business days to a
request from another State to enforce a support order;
electronic means are allowed for transmitting requests.
Sec. 324. Use of forms in interstate enforcement
Calls for the promulgation of forms, developed by the
Secretary of HHS, to be used in interstate income withholding
cases, the imposition of liens, and administrative subpoenas
across State lines.
Sec. 325. State laws providing expedited procedures
Grants authority to State IV-D programs to order genetic
testing for paternity establishment, issue a subpoena for
financial or other information, and require all entities to
respond to requests for information ``without the necessity of
obtaining an order from any other judicial or administrative
tribunal, but subject to due process safeguards as
appropriate.'' Grants States access to public records such as
vital statistics of marriage, birth and divorce, State and
local tax records, real and titled personal property, license
records, employment security records, public assistance
programs, motor vehicle records, and corrections records. Also
grants access to certain private records such as public utility
and cable television records and financial institution data,
among other administrative measures.
Sec. 331. State laws concerning paternity establishment
Streamlines the legal processes for establishment of
paternity, allows establishment of paternity anytime before a
child turns 18, and provides for mandatory genetic testing in
contested cases, among other provisions.
Sec. 332. Outreach for voluntary paternity establishment
Mandates that State programs publicize the availability and
encourage the use of procedures for voluntary establishment of
paternity and child support.
Sec. 333. Cooperation by applicants for and recipients of part A
assistance
Requires States to determine whether recipients of aid
under the TANF program or Medicaid are cooperating with the
State in conducting child support activities against the
noncustodial parent.
Sec. 341. Performance-based incentives and penalties
Requires the Secretary of HHS to develop a new cost-neutral
incentive system by March 1, 1997 which provides additional
payments to any State based on such State's performance.
Increases the mandatory IV-D paternity establishment percentage
in graduated phases from 75 to 90 percent.
Sec. 342. Federal and State reviews and audits
Changes the audit process to be based on performance
measures and requires the Secretary to ensure that State data
meets high standards of accuracy and completeness.
Sec. 343. Required reporting procedures
Requires States to collect and report program data in a
uniform manner as a State plan requirement.
Sec. 344. Automated data processing requirements
Creates additional requirements for the State automated
data processing systems, and sets a deadline of October 1, 2000
for implementation. Contains a new implementation timetable
that extends to October 1, 1997 the deadline by which a State
must have an automated case tracking and monitoring system
meeting all Federal IV-D requirements up through the enactment
of the Family Support Act of 1988. Caps aggregate spending on
the new automated system at $400,000 and requires the Secretary
to devise a formula for distributing these funds among the
States. The Federal Government will pay 80 percent of State
costs of meeting the new requirements.
Sec. 345. Technical assistance
Sets aside 1 percent of the Federal share of reimbursed
public assistance for information, training, and related
technical assistance concerning State automated systems and
research, demonstration, and special projects of regional or
national significance. An additional 2 percent is set aside for
the operation of the Federal Parent Locator Service.
Sec. 346. Reports and data collection by the Secretary
Clarifies data collection requirements and eliminates
requirements for unnecessary or duplicate information. Several
new data reports are to be included in the annual report to
Congress, including information about State compliance.
Sec. 351. Simplified process for review and adjustment of child support
orders
Requires processes for periodic modification of all child
support orders, with review occurring every 3 years, upon
request.
Sec. 352. Furnishing consumer reports for certain purposes relating to
child support
Expands access and use of consumer reports by child
support agencies for establishing and modifying child support.
Sec. 353. Nonliability for depository institutions providing financial
records to State child support enforcement agencies in child
support cases
Specifies that depository institutions are not liable for
disclosing financial information to the Child Support
Enforcement Agency; the Child Support Enforcement Agency is
prohibited from disclosing information obtained except for
child support purposes.
Sec. 361. Internal Revenue Service collection of arrearages
Makes technical corrections to the Social Security Act
section on IRS collection of arrearages.
Sec. 362. Authority to collect support from Federal employees
Eliminates separate withholding rules for all Federal
employees. Establishes procedures by which Federal agencies
must aggressively pursue child support collections from Federal
employees.
Sec. 363. Enforcement of child support obligations of members of the
Armed Forces
Establishes procedures by which all branches of the armed
forces must aggressively pursue child support collections from
Federal employees.
Sec. 364. Voiding of fraudulent transfers
Requires States to have laws that prevent obligor from
transferring income or property to avoid paying child support.
Sec. 365. Work requirement for persons owing past-due child support
Requires State child support officials to have the
authority to seek a judicial or administrative order that
requires any individual owing past-due support to pay such
support in accordance with a plan approved by the court or
participate in work activities.
Sec. 366. Definition of support order
Provides a definition of a support order.
Sec. 367. Reporting arrearages to credit bureaus
Requires all child support delinquencies and their amounts
to be reported to credit bureaus.
Sec. 368. Liens
Requires liens on real and personal property and the
extension of full faith and credit to liens arising in another
State in cases of past-due child support.
Sec. 369. State law authorizing suspension of licenses
Requires States to have laws providing for the suspension
of driver's, professional, occupational, and recreational
licenses.
Sec. 370. Denial of passports for nonpayment of child support
Establishes a process by which the Department of Health and
Human Services can submit the names of delinquent obligors who
are at least $5,000 in arrears to the State Department for the
denial of their passports.
Sec. 371. International support enforcement
Authorizes Federal officials to declare any foreign country
to be a foreign reciprocating country for purposes of
establishment and collection of child support obligations.
Sec. 372. Financial institution data matches
Requires States to enter agreements with financial
institutions doing business in the State to develop a data
match system by which records on individuals having accounts
with the financial institution are matched against the list of
child support obligors who have overdue payments.
Sec. 373. Enforcement of orders against paternal grandparents in cases
of minor parents
Adds a State option that a child support order of a child
of minor parents, if the mother is receiving cash assistance,
may be enforceable against parents of the noncustodial parent
of the child.
Sec. 374. Nondischargeability in bankruptcy of certain debts for the
support of a child
Clarifies that child support assigned to a State in
assistance cases is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Sec. 375. Child support enforcement for Indian tribes
Allows States to enter cooperative agreements with Indian
tribes; allows the Secretary to make direct Federal funding to
Indian tribes meeting certain criteria.
Sec. 381. Correction to ERISA definition of medical child support order
Requires the application of ERISA to support orders that
are judgments, decrees or orders issued by any court of
competent jurisdiction or through a State administrative
process.
Sec. 382. Enforcement of orders for health care coverage
Adds a new State law requirement providing that the State
IV-D agency have procedures for notifying a new employer of an
absent parent, when the absent parent was providing health care
coverage of the child in the previous job, of the medical
support obligation.
Sec. 391. Grants to States for access and visitation programs
Provides $10 million per year to the Secretary to award
grants to States for the purpose of establishing programs to
facilitate noncustodial parents' access to and visitation of
their children.
STATISTICAL TABLES
TABLE 8-11.--STATE PROFILE OF COLLECTIONS AND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEAR 1996 \1\
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child support collections
per dollar of administrative
Total AFDC Non-AFDC Total expenditures Incentive
State collections collections collections expenditures ------------------------------ payments
AFDC Non-AFDC (estimate)
Total total total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................. $157.9 $23.5 $134.4 $46.3 3.41 0.51 2.90 $3.2
Alaska................................................... 57.7 18.5 39.2 17.4 3.31 1.06 2.25 2.9
Arizona.................................................. 113.0 23.8 89.3 46.9 2.41 0.51 1.90 3.8
Arkansas................................................. 79.4 19.7 59.7 28.7 2.77 0.69 2.08 2.9
California............................................... 1,034.4 496.2 538.2 438.0 2.36 1.13 1.23 61.1
Colorado................................................. 108.3 35.6 72.7 38.4 2.82 0.93 1.89 5.2
Connecticut.............................................. 125.2 54.3 70.9 43.0 2.91 1.26 1.65 8.1
Delaware................................................. 35.4 8.3 27.1 14.2 2.50 0.59 1.91 1.3
District of Columbia..................................... 27.8 6.0 21.8 11.7 2.38 0.52 1.86 1.0
Florida.................................................. 411.8 80.7 331.1 131.4 3.13 0.61 2.52 15.6
Georgia.................................................. 268.6 102.4 166.2 68.5 3.92 1.49 2.43 16.6
Guam..................................................... 6.7 2.0 4.7 2.6 2.57 0.76 1.80 0.0
Hawaii................................................... 52.2 12.2 39.9 23.9 2.18 0.51 1.67 1.7
Idaho.................................................... 44.0 11.1 32.9 18.9 2.32 0.59 1.74 2.1
Illinois................................................. 249.8 72.4 177.4 103.8 2.41 0.70 1.71 10.7
Indiana.................................................. 196.9 45.0 151.9 30.17 6.54 1.50 5.05 13.0
Iowa..................................................... 151.9 40.1 111.8 29.0 5.23 1.38 3.85 6.5
Kansas................................................... 107.6 28.8 78.8 18.5 5.82 1.56 4.26 4.2
Kentucky................................................. 144.9 39.4 105.5 42.2 3.43 0.93 2.50 6.1
Louisiana................................................ 143.6 31.2 112.4 34.5 4.16 0.91 3.26 3.9
Maine.................................................... 62.6 29.5 33.0 15.4 4.05 1.91 2.14 5.3
Maryland................................................. 287.9 46.7 241.2 66.0 4.36 0.71 3.65 7.1
Massachusetts............................................ 247.9 71.4 176.5 61.3 4.05 1.17 2.88 10.9
Michigan................................................. 948.6 171.0 777.6 143.1 6.63 1.19 5.43 19.3
Minnesota................................................ 318.8 64.9 253.9 73.2 4.36 0.89 3.47 8.1
Mississippi.............................................. 84.6 24.4 60.1 29.5 2.87 0.83 2.04 3.4
Missouri................................................. 279.2 66.6 212.6 74.4 3.75 0.90 2.86 8.7
Montana.................................................. 29.4 8.2 21.2 12.1 2.42 0.67 1.75 1.1
Nebraska................................................. 95.4 12.4 82.9 30.2 3.16 0.41 2.75 1.6
Nevada................................................... 56.6 8.4 48.2 22.3 2.53 0.38 2.16 2.1
New Hampshire............................................ 48.2 10.5 37.7 14.1 3.42 0.75 2.68 1.2
New Jersey............................................... 500.2 90.6 409.5 110.7 4.52 0.82 3.70 12.4
New Mexico............................................... 30.1 6.3 23.9 21.1 1.43 0.30 1.13 2.0
New York................................................. 701.9 205.9 496.0 174.2 4.03 1.18 2.85 24.9
North Carolina........................................... 261.7 75.0 186.7 89.1 2.94 0.84 2.09 11.1
North Dakota............................................. 28.5 6.1 22.4 6.6 4.34 0.93 3.41 1.0
Ohio..................................................... 981.3 124.8 856.5 161.6 6.07 0.77 5.30 18.3
Oklahoma................................................. 73.5 24.3 49.1 24.0 3.06 1.01 2.04 3.6
Oregon................................................... 178.4 31.2 147.3 31.9 5.60 0.98 4.62 6.4
Pennsylvania............................................. 958.3 138.7 819.6 123.8 7.74 1.12 6.62 18.7
Puerto Rico.............................................. 126.7 2.8 123.9 28.6 4.44 0.10 4.34 0.6
Rhode Island............................................. 35.5 18.4 17.2 8.3 4.31 2.22 2.08 3.0
South Carolina........................................... 118.1 29.6 88.5 35.1 3.37 0.84 2.52 3.8
South Dakota............................................. 28.0 6.6 21.4 4.8 5.87 1.39 4.49 1.3
Tennessee................................................ 159.8 34.7 125.1 39.3 4.06 0.88 3.18 5.3
Texas.................................................... 538.3 102.8 435.5 145.0 3.71 0.71 3.00 14.2
Utah..................................................... 77.6 21.6 56.0 29.2 2.66 0.74 1.92 3.2
Vermont.................................................. 25.4 8.9 16.5 6.7 3.79 1.33 2.46 1.2
Virgin Islands........................................... 5.4 0.5 5.0 2.4 2.25 0.20 2.05 0.0
Virginia................................................. 257.2 46.4 210.8 61.5 4.18 0.75 3.43 7.1
Washington............................................... 407.0 112.8 294.2 115.3 3.53 0.98 2.55 16.4
West Virginia............................................ 84.2 15.3 68.9 23.4 3.61 0.66 2.95 2.1
Wisconsin................................................ 440.2 81.0 359.3 74.1 5.94 1.09 4.85 12.8
Wyoming.................................................. 25.0 4.9 20.1 8.5 2.96 0.58 2.37 0.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. totals........................................ 12,018.6 2,854.4 9,164.2 3,054.8 3.93 0.93 3.00 408.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals may not add due of rounding.
Note.--Data is preliminary for fiscal year 1996. AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-12.--TOTAL CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1979-96
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1979 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................................... $6,854 $66,174 $80,952 $98,141 $113,273 $127,908 $141,212 $157,887
Alaska........................................................ 3,844 26,788 30,721 35,613 39,148 45,851 51,734 57,708
Arizona....................................................... 6,411 27,837 33,277 46,447 66,580 77,419 93,812 113,037
Arkansas...................................................... 3,921 26,010 32,783 42,065 49,147 55,215 63,875 79,432
California.................................................... 199,945 522,646 591,243 653,681 736,855 811,493 857,282 1,034,409
Colorado...................................................... 4,020 39,601 46,997 58,030 67,723 80,288 91,870 108,259
Connecticut................................................... 23,033 66,724 75,778 84,190 93,454 98,448 117,723 125,234
Delaware...................................................... 5,814 20,161 22,692 25,926 26,663 29,663 31,551 35,395
District of Columbia.......................................... 1,086 13,598 16,578 19,733 21,798 24,079 26,040 27,791
Florida....................................................... 10,524 176,603 214,153 252,473 289,976 327,296 374,015 411,799
Georgia....................................................... 5,554 113,095 143,014 174,467 205,566 229,822 244,367 268,599
Guam.......................................................... 160 1,440 3,162 4,697 5,003 7,079 6,037 6,736
Hawaii........................................................ 5,150 27,638 30,096 34,404 37,327 45,107 48,751 52,182
Idaho......................................................... 2,501 22,909 23,442 27,846 32,127 36,942 40,747 44,003
Illinois...................................................... 10,740 136,019 150,134 183,308 183,889 202,191 219,340 249,834
Indiana....................................................... 9,073 96,145 110,117 124,614 141,164 151,626 174,450 196,935
Iowa.......................................................... 13,017 70,982 80,693 96,046 109,278 122,705 136,138 151,907
Kansas........................................................ 3,975 44,958 54,832 66,053 59,601 86,744 97,571 107,579
Kentucky...................................................... 4,881 59,998 73,928 93,902 103,587 121,427 130,640 144,901
Louisiana..................................................... 12,678 60,527 67,988 84,373 103,054 118,008 129,609 143,644
Maine......................................................... 4,574 35,741 36,554 38,005 44,963 51,184 57,361 62,585
Maryland...................................................... 20,856 151,352 163,626 194,009 219,085 244,645 265,344 287,923
Massachusetts................................................. 36,338 176,915 169,545 185,086 195,374 203,986 223,560 247,948
Michigan...................................................... 248,414 644,734 697,634 782,804 874,483 898,372 859,629 948,558
Minnesota..................................................... 21,370 139,345 160,363 189,495 214,480 246,252 283,538 318,773
Mississippi................................................... 1,662 30,532 40,277 48,289 53,505 62,379 68,205 84,551
Missouri...................................................... 5,829 129,851 141,372 166,339 189,161 214,362 238,700 279,225
Montana....................................................... 1,213 8,822 12,968 17,436 20,150 21,363 25,532 29,356
Nebraska...................................................... 2,468 52,378 57,055 66,177 71,708 81,082 90,055 95,373
Nevada........................................................ 3,487 16,210 23,346 32,080 37,641 43,722 50,066 56,620
New Hampshire................................................. 2,089 20,604 22,659 27,360 31,497 36,538 42,570 48,242
New Jersey.................................................... 94,005 281,923 326,879 372,506 407,849 439,748 480,327 500,157
New Mexico.................................................... 1,680 14,416 16,792 19,088 27,117 30,082 26,938 30,114
New York...................................................... 136,361 373,718 437,371 487,738 536,374 569,682 619,489 701,885
North Carolina................................................ 9,168 120,344 140,222 167,894 197,254 226,632 233,145 261,672
North Dakota.................................................. 1,723 10,414 12,309 15,599 18,693 21,878 25,522 28,470
Ohio.......................................................... 22,832 489,515 552,649 665,999 714,132 789,319 886,843 981,342
Oklahoma...................................................... 1,826 32,169 39,922 46,540 52,170 57,578 63,908 73,455
Oregon........................................................ 88,502 78,374 91,252 107,435 124,929 142,227 156,829 178,428
Pennsylvania.................................................. 186,718 614,222 699,676 775,782 814,480 861,653 895,720 958,281
Puerto Rico................................................... 1,916 74,535 77,252 84,329 97,357 98,628 107,397 126,711
Rhode Island.................................................. 3,575 20,044 21,609 24,880 26,671 29,900 32,634 35,524
South Carolina................................................ 3,545 52,320 58,857 68,798 79,280 90,628 102,912 118,147
South Dakota.................................................. 1,407 11,024 13,119 15,881 18,112 21,357 24,838 28,018
Tennessee..................................................... 8,976 71,502 77,032 84,818 116,152 141,388 156,904 159,804
Texas......................................................... 8,207 132,318 192,797 251,157 309,502 367,171 448,463 538,253
Utah.......................................................... 6,624 38,071 43,895 52,610 56,199 61,135 63,426 77,600
Vermont....................................................... 1,449 9,353 11,023 13,518 15,831 17,950 21,234 25,370
Virgin Islands................................................ 260 3,131 3,338 4,049 4,992 5,562 5,399 5,438
Virginia...................................................... 9,197 110,560 129,919 145,114 151,919 182,787 226,682 257,180
Washington.................................................... 27,018 175,750 222,409 267,455 307,251 340,488 375,257 407,002
West Virginia................................................. 1,592 21,658 23,527 35,561 49,016 54,402 72,796 84,233
Wisconsin..................................................... 34,267 241,272 276,712 293,460 332,814 380,584 427,487 440,239
Wyoming....................................................... 520 7,155 9,079 11,220 13,810 16,184 17,350 25,021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide total.......................................... 1,332,847 6,010,125 6,885,619 7,964,522 8,909,166 9,850,159 10,752,824 12,018,767
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-13.--TOTAL AFDC COLLECTIONS BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1979-96
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1979 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................................... $6,830 $19,484 $22,788 $23,001 $22,539 $21,148 $21,115 $23,464
Alaska.......................................................... 334 8,160 9,940 11,145 11,722 13,645 16,138 18,464
Arizona......................................................... 642 6,102 7,401 12,693 18,616 21,175 24,217 23,764
Arkansas........................................................ 2,428 11,799 13,800 15,766 16,249 15,662 16,831 19,746
California...................................................... 117,532 248,440 286,261 314,232 335,235 374,548 401,573 496,185
Colorado........................................................ 3,525 16,765 19,281 23,287 26,197 29,415 31,192 35,572
Connecticut..................................................... 11,416 27,405 33,816 37,744 41,292 41,465 54,100 54,323
Delaware........................................................ 1,386 5,826 6,661 7,306 7,798 7,855 8,029 8,315
District of Columbia............................................ 907 4,118 4,407 4,927 5,197 5,614 5,923 6,032
Florida......................................................... 8,598 48,364 57,071 69,765 78,081 80,368 85,244 80,685
Georgia......................................................... 4,772 45,937 57,765 74,546 84,627 84,820 84,932 102,399
Guam............................................................ 159 520 1,635 2,524 2,344 1,948 1,723 2,003
Hawaii.......................................................... 2,544 8,343 7,699 8,161 9,058 9,951 11,367 12,241
Idaho........................................................... 2,047 6,952 7,482 8,543 8,746 10,086 10,912 11,109
Illinois........................................................ 9,916 44,149 48,968 58,842 55,749 61,112 65,091 72,391
Indiana......................................................... 8,116 38,124 45,030 49,247 52,040 51,945 50,962 44,994
Iowa............................................................ 10,654 28,552 30,585 35,401 36,775 40,105 41,007 40,100
Kansas.......................................................... 3,454 15,209 17,454 20,869 22,402 24,732 27,567 28,779
Kentucky........................................................ 4,615 22,286 27,502 34,702 36,565 37,979 39,299 39,445
Louisiana....................................................... 5,244 20,861 23,089 25,975 26,827 26,714 28,133 31,228
Maine........................................................... 4,133 21,089 21,063 21,477 25,683 27,783 28,435 29,542
Maryland........................................................ 10,929 42,318 37,162 46,348 51,313 48,031 47,419 46,709
Massachusetts................................................... 29,145 68,968 66,969 71,784 77,292 76,899 77,085 71,421
Michigan........................................................ 76,375 145,251 153,690 168,317 169,581 176,100 167,673 170,955
Minnesota....................................................... 14,510 43,950 47,802 53,305 55,961 61,418 64,406 64,872
Mississippi..................................................... 1,556 14,530 19,494 21,523 21,641 22,962 22,067 24,450
Missouri........................................................ 4,165 38,056 37,021 49,653 51,153 55,959 57,788 66,610
Montana......................................................... 685 4,394 5,251 6,413 6,464 6,118 7,452 8,170
Nebraska........................................................ 2,083 6,990 7,431 9,195 9,797 10,158 11,337 12,437
Nevada.......................................................... 517 3,311 4,465 6,807 7,021 7,271 7,643 8,441
New Hampshire................................................... 2,089 3,606 4,385 6,337 7,638 9,446 10,776 10,532
New Jersey...................................................... 28,622 61,473 76,644 83,509 84,020 86,357 88,932 90,644
New Mexico...................................................... 1,160 5,573 6,421 7,850 12,922 13,389 9,257 6,253
New York........................................................ 56,588 134,040 157,582 174,587 184,583 183,707 187,205 205,855
North Carolina.................................................. 7,714 46,176 54,712 64,004 70,304 76,808 75,209 75,017
North Dakota.................................................... 1,379 5,103 5,600 6,016 6,098 6,148 6,334 6,108
Ohio............................................................ 21,974 76,888 84,304 100,833 105,719 113,425 120,127 124,814
Oklahoma........................................................ 1,260 11,875 14,894 17,682 18,784 20,817 22,287 24,345
Oregon.......................................................... 12,977 18,877 21,989 25,637 28,357 30,119 30,586 31,152
Pennsylvania.................................................... 33,190 96,328 113,735 123,784 124,490 26,932 134,995 138,685
Puerto Rico..................................................... 439 1,707 1,600 1,428 1,344 1,445 2,418 2,821
Rhode Island.................................................... 3,438 10,168 10,550 13,486 14,954 16,539 17,704 18,351
South Carolina.................................................. 3,065 15,933 17,779 21,066 24,588 27,063 27,933 29,614
South Dakota.................................................... 1,137 3,717 4,213 4,888 5,056 5,645 6,129 6,617
Tennessee....................................................... 3,871 22,926 27,865 22,777 33,422 34,852 47,576 34,740
Texas........................................................... 6,370 39,659 47,255 59,165 66,199 75,830 88,507 102,752
Utah............................................................ 5,442 14,999 16,261 18,939 19,488 20,691 20,948 21,555
Vermont......................................................... 1,201 5,578 6,380 6,649 7,638 7,424 8,312 8,912
Virgin Islands.................................................. 143 210 233 282 343 357 352 484
Virginia........................................................ 9,081 27,770 33,910 38,281 39,610 37,579 48,109 46,351
Washington...................................................... 18,319 65,291 77,402 91,083 100,337 104,063 109,763 112,819
West Virginia................................................... 1,430 4,085 6,859 9,500 16,867 12,377 13,846 15,307
Wisconsin....................................................... 26,044 59,303 61,179 63,813 65,439 81,437 94,558 80,986
Wyoming......................................................... 379 2,584 3,226 3,749 4,345 4,288 4,665 4,945
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide total............................................ 596,532 1,750,125 1,983,962 2,258,844 2,416,511 2,549,723 2,693,186 2,854,502
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-14.--TOTAL NON-AFDC COLLECTIONS BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1979-96
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1979 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................................................... $16 $46,691 $58,165 $75,140 $90,733 $106,760 $120,098 $134,423
Alaska........................................................... 3,510 18,628 20,781 24,468 27,426 32,207 35,596 39,245
Arizona.......................................................... 5,769 21,735 25,875 33,754 47,963 56,243 69,594 89,273
Arkansas......................................................... 1,494 14,211 18,984 26,299 32,899 39,553 47,045 59,686
California....................................................... 82,412 274,205 304,982 339,449 401,620 436,945 455,708 538,224
Colorado......................................................... 496 22,836 27,715 34,743 41,527 50,873 60,678 72,688
Connecticut...................................................... 11,617 39,319 41,960 46,445 52,161 56,983 63,623 70,911
Delaware......................................................... 4,428 14,335 16,032 18,620 18,865 21,809 23,522 27,080
District of Columbia............................................. 179 9,481 12,171 14,806 16,601 18,465 20,117 21,759
Florida.......................................................... 1,926 128,239 157,081 182,707 211,896 246,928 288,770 331,114
Georgia.......................................................... 783 67,158 85,249 99,921 120,939 145,002 159,435 166,200
Guam............................................................. (\1\) 920 1,527 2,172 2,659 5,131 4,314 4,733
Hawaii........................................................... 2,606 19,295 22,397 26,243 28,269 35,156 37,384 39,941
Idaho............................................................ 454 15,957 15,960 19,302 23,381 26,856 29,835 32,894
Illinois......................................................... 823 91,870 101,167 124,467 128,140 141,079 154,249 177,443
Indiana.......................................................... 957 58,021 65,087 75,368 89,125 99,680 123,488 151,941
Iowa............................................................. 2,363 42,430 50,109 60,645 72,503 82,599 95,131 111,807
Kansas........................................................... 520 29,749 37,379 45,183 37,199 62,012 70,003 78,799
Kentucky......................................................... 266 37,711 46,426 59,200 67,022 83,448 91,341 105,457
Louisiana........................................................ 7,434 39,665 44,898 58,398 76,227 91,293 101,476 112,416
Maine............................................................ 441 14,652 15,490 16,528 19,280 23,402 28,927 33,043
Maryland......................................................... 9,927 109,034 126,464 147,660 167,771 196,614 217,925 241,214
Massachusetts.................................................... 7,193 107,948 102,576 113,302 118,082 127,087 146,475 176,527
Michigan......................................................... 172,039 499,483 543,944 614,488 704,903 722,273 691,956 777,603
Minnesota........................................................ 6,861 95,395 112,561 136,190 158,519 184,834 219,131 253,900
Mississippi...................................................... 106 16,002 20,783 26,766 31,864 39,417 46,139 60,101
Missouri......................................................... 1,664 91,795 104,351 116,686 138,008 158,403 180,912 212,614
Montana.......................................................... 528 4,427 7,718 11,024 13,686 15,245 18,080 21,187
Nebraska......................................................... 385 45,387 49,624 56,983 61,911 70,925 78,718 82,936
Nevada........................................................... 2,970 12,899 18,881 25,273 30,620 36,451 42,423 48,179
New Hampshire.................................................... 0 16,999 18,274 21,023 23,859 27,092 31,793 37,710
New Jersey....................................................... 65,383 220,450 250,235 288,997 323,829 353,390 391,395 409,513
New Mexico....................................................... 520 8,843 10,371 11,239 14,195 16,693 17,681 23,860
New York......................................................... 79,773 239,678 279,289 313,151 351,791 385,974 432,284 496,030
North Carolina................................................... 1,454 74,167 85,510 103,890 126,951 149,824 157,936 186,655
North Dakota..................................................... 344 5,312 6,708 9,583 12,595 15,730 19,188 22,361
Ohio............................................................. 858 412,627 468,346 565,166 608,413 675,895 766,715 856,529
Oklahoma......................................................... 566 20,293 25,028 28,858 33,386 36,760 41,621 49,109
Oregon........................................................... 75,525 59,497 69,263 81,798 96,572 112,108 126,244 147,276
Pennsylvania..................................................... 153,528 517,893 517,893 651,998 689,990 734,721 760,725 819,596
Puerto Rico...................................................... 1,477 72,828 75,652 82,901 96,014 97,184 104,979 123,890
Rhode Island..................................................... 137 9,876 11,059 11,394 11,717 13,361 14,931 17,173
South Carolina................................................... 480 36,387 41,078 47,732 54,692 63,565 74,978 88,533
South Dakota..................................................... 270 7,307 8,906 10,993 13,056 15,711 18,709 21,401
Tennessee........................................................ 5,105 48,575 49,167 62,041 82,730 106,536 109,328 125,064
Texas............................................................ 1,837 92,659 145,543 191,993 243,303 291,341 359,956 435,501
Utah............................................................. 1,183 23,073 27,634 33,671 36,712 40,445 42,478 56,045
Vermont.......................................................... 249 3,775 4,643 6,869 8,193 10,526 12,922 16,458
Virgin Islands................................................... 116 2,920 3,105 3,767 4,649 5,205 5,047 4,955
Virginia......................................................... 116 82,789 96,008 106,833 112,309 145,207 178,572 210,828
Washington....................................................... 8,699 110,459 145,006 176,372 206,914 236,425 265,495 294,184
West Virginia.................................................... 162 17,574 16,668 26,061 32,149 42,025 58,951 68,926
Wisconsin........................................................ 8,224 181,969 215,533 229,647 267,374 299,147 332,929 359,253
Wyoming.......................................................... 141 4,571 5,853 7,471 9,465 11,896 12,685 20,076
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide total........................................... 736,315 4,260,000 4,901,657 5,705,678 6,492,655 7,300,436 8,059,637 9,164,265
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-15.--AVERAGE NUMBER OF AFDC CHILD SUPPORT CASES IN WHICH A COLLECTION WAS MADE, BY STATE FOR SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1978-96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1978 1985 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................ 7,966 9,133 11,572 12,316 10,860 8,347 9,209 9,077 7,679 6,961
Alaska............................................. 246 1,120 1,038 1,213 1,387 1,718 1,949 2,168 2,415 2,620
Arizona............................................ 819 1,851 1,470 2,545 3,128 1,930 2,822 3,343 7,384 6,764
Arkansas........................................... 2,509 5,207 5,506 6,278 6,372 7,071 8,188 8,301 6,773 6,589
California......................................... 92,325 103,742 74,081 84,367 89,304 104,903 116,118 123,776 173,547 224,932
Colorado........................................... 3,177 5,687 4,092 4,771 4,437 4,581 5,126 5,210 4,418 4,202
Connecticut........................................ 8,002 15,565 13,337 7,470 6,578 7,128 8,445 9,437 10,792 11,574
Delaware........................................... 1,156 2,891 2,858 2,111 2,223 2,495 2,663 2,913 2,880 2,543
District of Columbia............................... 708 1,925 2,138 2,553 1,758 1,940 2,281 2,437 2,534 2,357
Florida............................................ 7,376 16,468 30,114 34,883 38,500 40,687 40,135 44,727 49,284 41,195
Georgia............................................ 6,350 6,657 10,710 14,833 19,310 23,280 24,729 26,676 28,639 25,136
Guam............................................... (\1\) 206 197 182 339 573 616 683 646 559
Hawaii............................................. 1,757 4,622 3,175 3,831 2,658 2,773 4,651 4,551 2,920 3,428
Idaho.............................................. 1,346 4,343 1,245 1,522 1,752 1,992 2,356 2,719 3,130 3,073
Illinois........................................... 9,624 18,299 14,352 14,986 16,968 23,511 23,639 26,028 28,430 29,586
Indiana............................................ 9,488 22,058 16,188 17,716 20,444 26,344 30,823 31,159 111,078 30,119
Iowa............................................... 8,396 11,871 7,015 7,241 7,289 7,153 7,681 7,365 7,057 5,604
Kansas............................................. 2,859 4,769 3,798 3,565 4,595 5,268 6,120 6,857 7,515 7,064
Kentucky........................................... 3,083 6,729 6,853 8,699 10,741 12,513 13,516 15,217 12,679 11,607
Louisiana.......................................... 5,204 7,836 9,916 11,582 11,842 12,198 12,510 12,164 11,887 11,957
Maine.............................................. 2,368 7,178 4,734 5,200 5,515 5,767 5,287 7,013 8,793 8,981
Maryland........................................... 14,002 15,861 9,073 5,250 9,237 18,330 19,366 18,684 18,119 16,574
Massachusetts...................................... 17,782 25,350 17,211 16,610 16,029 16,106 17,961 18,378 22,245 17,118
Michigan........................................... 61,985 59,049 58,364 47,388 51,747 46,647 45,112 45,211 39,332 36,496
Minnesota.......................................... 9,818 14,872 12,442 13,822 14,192 12,658 14,563 16,440 17,170 15,778
Mississippi........................................ 1,846 3,742 4,544 6,410 7,237 8,808 9,604 10,157 9,970 9,732
Missouri........................................... (\2\) 7,716 6,483 9,894 11,178 11,241 13,430 14,135 13,096 13,987
Montana............................................ 748 1,600 849 1,086 1,140 1,298 1,551 1,816 2,169 2,319
Nebraska........................................... 1,509 2,362 2,555 2,666 2,811 3,255 4,802 4,811 5,538 5,737
Nevada............................................. 494 2,370 1,645 1,917 2,269 2,404 3,096 3,506 3,518 4,792
New Hampshire...................................... 1,530 1,021 981 988 1,091 1,454 2,240 2,703 3,328 3,215
New Jersey......................................... 16,243 27,686 25,182 18,415 17,591 19,728 24,376 26,241 26,899 27,310
New Mexico......................................... 1,429 2,034 2,175 3,147 3,766 4,383 3,865 4,385 6,613 7,427
New York........................................... 36,287 48,979 30,993 36,695 40,219 46,382 51,290 51,407 51,943 52,741
North Carolina..................................... 11,232 14,216 17,089 19,157 20,381 24,699 28,028 29,649 28,027 25,276
North Dakota....................................... 759 1,656 1,130 1,338 1,647 1,665 1,597 1,579 943 1,006
Ohio............................................... 24,419 32,582 35,273 40,308 35,973 34,446 38,445 39,857 47,323 45994
Oklahoma........................................... 1,101 3,543 1,468 6,605 7,787 3,895 4,794 5,294 5,671 5,157
Oregon............................................. 6,761 6,687 5,935 5,829 6,437 7,437 8,321 9,495 9,390 8,899
Pennsylvania....................................... 15,172 42,088 49,100 45,772 47,039 52,269 59,514 61,998 58,646 60,952
Puerto Rico........................................ 413 3,736 3,588 3,991 3,696 3,103 3,026 2,811 3,454 1,351
Rhode Island....................................... 2,419 3,233 3,092 4,141 4,295 3,100 3,346 4,070 4,830 4,739
South Carolina..................................... 3,343 5,785 10,495 13,954 14,614 15,349 16,764 19,026 20,964 21,547
South Dakota....................................... 1,087 1,532 1,887 1,744 1,234 1,262 1,526 1,642 1,809 2,268
Tennessee.......................................... 4,705 8,336 9,430 13,114 16,659 11,625 12,179 11,391 10,344 8,892
Texas.............................................. 5,446 5,652 9,167 13,509 15,447 18,229 20,387 23,075 26,570 27,897
Utah............................................... 3,784 5,209 3,627 3,652 3,333 3,669 3,973 4,033 3,979 4,034
Vermont............................................ 953 2,329 1,984 2,462 2,596 2,826 3,556 4,114 2,594 2,856
Virgin Islands..................................... 232 199 220 184 133 135 165 193 214 158
Virginia........................................... 4,729 13,054 10,813 11,854 14,138 16,761 18,679 19,399 45,576 19,188
Washington......................................... 14,860 15,895 18,110 22,921 27,063 23,263 28,618 27,020 29,026 24,317
West Virginia...................................... 1,430 2,331 2,107 2,426 2,484 2,622 3,347 4,108 6,185 4,488
Wisconsin.......................................... 16,868 44,799 26,847 31,438 30,143 30,426 32,693 31,984 32,140 10,681
Wyoming............................................ 294 453 738 1,034 1,197 1,681 2,094 2,146 2,058 675
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................ 458,439 684,114 608,986 657,585 700,803 755,328 831,172 872,579 1,050,163 940,452
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data not reported for this item or insufficient data reported to perform indicated computation. \2\ Less than $500.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-16.--AVERAGE NUMBER OF NON-AFDC CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CASES IN WHICH A COLLECTION WAS MADE BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1978-96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1978 1985 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................... 110 5,023 11,583 16,602 19,971 28,512 33,741 39,586 47,785 51,547
Alaska................................ 2,309 3,205 3,184 3,637 3,947 4,211 4,598 4,997 5,891 6,331
Arizona............................... (\1\) 4,770 4,668 6,740 7,333 9,144 11,107 10,283 21,881 25,800
Arkansas.............................. 764 3,613 5,074 7,241 8,473 11,232 15,088 18,449 23,243 27,015
California............................ 69,696 64,686 77,448 91,029 96,101 101,913 97,597 104,864 155,144 200,129
Colorado.............................. 1,017 3,976 4,537 6,054 7,281 9,008 10,492 11,360 14,524 16,883
Connecticut........................... (\1\) 9,392 9,884 10,606 11,289 13,289 14,441 15,721 17,950 20,071
Delaware.............................. 3,210 4,395 5,073 6,380 6,770 8,058 8,303 9,191 11,575 9,856
District of Columbia.................. 93 1,007 1,264 2,653 4,252 4,964 5,704 6,278 6,904 7,164
Florida............................... 1,200 7,593 25,573 50,995 56,329 66,748 67,948 77,734 96,394 102,045
Georgia............................... 1,207 5,487 14,883 24,992 30,217 34,545 35,419 40,698 50,178 55,749
Guam.................................. (\1\) 65 114 207 378 495 616 803 1,582 1,508
Hawaii................................ (\1\) 352 2,804 6,682 8,103 10,398 15,305 16,299 10,237 10,393
Idaho................................. 455 1,047 2,529 5,540 6,493 7,403 8,689 9,889 11,522 11,612
Illinois.............................. 196 10,030 14,479 21,781 26,184 36,363 36,246 40,744 48,174 54,714
Indiana............................... 450 2,881 12,759 17,990 25,586 27,111 34,855 36,865 39,155 45,017
Iowa.................................. 671 4,913 3,441 10,807 12,400 14,103 16,352 19,266 24,161 25,634
Kansas................................ 210 758 5,260 9,308 11,520 13,855 16,003 18,846 24,991 27,187
Kentucky.............................. 255 3,647 15,549 13,686 17,473 20,489 23,531 28,950 35,072 38,815
Louisiana............................. 6,866 10,636 11,695 14,883 16,739 20,001 24,194 28,146 37,396 42,588
Maine................................. 638 1,496 3,862 5,774 6,425 6,510 5,479 7,630 11,793 12,752
Maryland.............................. 130 26,154 12,685 15,969 27,339 49,380 52,024 54,989 61,259 65,038
Massachusetts......................... (\1\) 0 26,549 27,950 22,921 14,264 24,605 25,899 33,533 40,266
Michigan.............................. (\1\) 88,675 126,187 120,969 115,081 129,461 133,652 141,489 151,518 164,057
Minnesota............................. 2,766 12,615 16,137 23,502 26,712 27,174 35,791 43,272 56,720 64,251
Mississippi........................... 81 1,319 4,348 6,937 7,917 10,077 12,997 16,007 24,355 29,377
Missouri.............................. (\1\) 5,362 14,676 22,802 26,994 32,317 38,492 41,022 47,438 57,745
Montana............................... 444 344 800 1,012 1,448 2,208 2,748 3,750 6,148 7,488
Nebraska.............................. 176 7,874 10,540 13,464 14,748 14,883 15,185 17,771 18,399 19,113
Nevada................................ 4,026 5,360 3,212 4,085 4,451 5,327 6,676 7,819 9,387 10,072
New Hampshire......................... (\1\) 4,939 5,474 5,809 5,260 5,875 7,077 7,870 10,079 11,316
New Jersey............................ 20,000 45,868 51,706 65,947 66,885 68,753 78,789 84,267 89,409 97,360
New Mexico............................ 286 2,249 2,462 4,490 5,360 5,758 5,947 5,849 8,095 9,455
New York.............................. 39,623 63,829 67,460 78,638 83,651 94,031 103,924 108,419 152,556 136,975
North Carolina........................ 1,715 10,137 15,323 22,584 27,632 31,810 37,172 43,884 59,956 68,579
North Dakota.......................... 154 266 865 1,427 1,911 2,357 3,320 4,026 4,245 6,582
Ohio.................................. 1,430 10,853 39,114 100,069 101,553 107,806 135,535 149,104 191,748 158,967
Oklahoma.............................. (\1\) 1,968 4,867 8,635 10,509 8,558 8,479 10,707 13,730 15,347
Oregon................................ 17,957 19,331 20,620 23,747 25,657 19,754 21,810 25,063 31,968 35,821
Pennsylvania.......................... 49,621 108,498 123,248 140,750 147,885 171,525 182,098 190,671 195,144 209,436
Puerto Rico........................... 710 26,873 30,490 35,346 35,295 36,731 33,075 41,130 45,963 47,320
Rhode Island.......................... 57 1,969 2,750 3,559 3,705 3,017 3,060 3,291 4,271 4,670
South Carolina........................ 203 2,777 3,165 4,671 4,896 10,393 25,764 27,771 34,471 36,395
South Dakota.......................... 297 502 2,175 3,154 2,739 3,262 3,881 4,607 6,339 7,916
Tennessee............................. 6,360 12,156 14,957 21,649 28,174 31,554 35,358 40,003 53,498 55,076
Texas................................. 2,861 8,833 15,079 26,643 37,741 51,039 65,152 79,037 111,451 133,427
Utah.................................. 400 1,068 4,008 5,437 6,738 8,605 9,704 10,573 13,446 15,343
Vermont............................... 181 393 967 1,459 1,659 1,870 2,433 3,154 3,380 4,603
Virgin Islands........................ 1 1,288 1,252 1,499 1,247 1,301 1,348 1,538 1,655 1,410
Virginia.............................. 38 876 19,273 26,638 31,492 34,242 38,267 46,760 88,500 66,164
Washington............................ 4,822 9,802 13,656 24,331 34,791 46,930 55,788 64,929 74,479 69,233
West Virginia......................... 130 288 1,953 5,246 8,045 7,555 9,513 11,971 22,022 20,762
Wisconsin............................. 4,685 20,288 41,953 63,554 56,769 65,718 70,780 88,601 111,438 94,760
Wyoming............................... 89 77 563 1,669 2,352 2,853 3,275 1,738 3,564 6,582
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 248,590 653,803 934,177 1,247,228 1,362,821 1,554,740 1,749,427 1,953,580 2,404,716 2,563,716
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data not reported for this item or insufficient data reported to perform indicated computation.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-17.--SUPPORT ORDERS ESTABLISHED, ENFORCED, AND MODIFIED TO INCLUDE HEALTH INSURANCE BY STATE, FISCAL
YEAR 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total Percent Total number Total number Percent
number of number with with of orders enforced or with
State orders health health enforced or modified with health
established insurance insurance modified health insurance insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................... 11,932 2,525 21.16 436,090 5,047 1.16
Alaska...................... 3,264 3,182 97.49 3,934 3,707 94.23
Arizona..................... 10,918 10,918 100.00 233.943 20,583 8.80
Arkansas.................... 8,616 4,713 54.70 7,667 4,688 61.15
California.................. 196,585 162,782 82.80 922,802 764,840 82.88
Colorado.................... 8,906 7,570 85.00 54,576 26,501 48.56
Connecticut................. 25,478 15,028 58.98 114,459 55,855 48.80
Delaware.................... 3,022 2,172 71.87 13,039 9,598 73.61
District of Columbia........ 1,133 4 0.35 2,950 NA 0.00
Florida..................... 3,188 NA 0.00 13,224 NA 0.00
Georgia..................... 26,758 13,057 48.80 303,470 2,184 0.72
Guam........................ 644 370 57.45 891 466 52.30
Hawaii...................... 4,211 4,211 100.00 100,660 100,660 100.00
Idaho....................... 3,391 3,391 100.00 80,737 7,264 9.00
Illinois.................... 22,797 6,651 29.17 12,839 3,650 28.43
Indiana..................... 25,504 NA 0.00 NA NA 0.00
Iowa........................ 11,488 9,301 80.96 284,826 147,469 51.78
Kansas...................... 15,579 13,177 84.58 160,939 40,638 25.25
Kentucky.................... 29,328 6,294 21.46 111,247 19,834 17.83
Louisiana................... 14,357 13,290 92.57 136,946 97,558 71.24
Maine....................... 5,584 3,515 62.95 14,175 1,463 10.32
Maryland.................... 17,131 13,087 76.39 221,211 45,751 20.68
Massachusetts............... 13,824 9,121 65.98 8,235 3,951 47.98
Michigan.................... 35,067 32,674 93.18 1,072,008 69,033 6.44
Minnesota................... 20,182 11,447 56.72 52,386 40,050 76.45
Mississippi................. 18,518 5,374 29.02 6,396 1,549 24.22
Missouri.................... 30,397 22,844 75.15 111,592 66,890 59.94
Montana..................... 2,954 2,739 92.72 33,235 1,966 5.92
Nebraska.................... 5,227 2,885 55.19 2,674 736 27.52
Nevada...................... 5,208 4,045 77.67 44,875 1,916 4.27
New Hampshire............... 4,087 2,712 66.36 49,131 5,620 11.44
New Jersey.................. 25,416 22,053 86.77 22,104 20,586 93.13
New Mexico.................. 4,531 1,977 43.63 1,298 558 42.99
New York.................... 32,787 13,113 39.99 37,900 15,158 39.99
North Carolina.............. 40,127 26,926 67.10 253,396 4,257 1.68
North Dakota................ 2,005 1,938 96.66 6,817 182 2.67
Ohio........................ 55,203 26,956 48.83 459,054 141,145 30.75
Oklahoma.................... 8,357 6,109 73.10 30,709 2,538 8.26
Oregon...................... 15,542 13,364 85.99 60,286 23,712 39.33
Pennsylvania................ 134,067 91,532 68.27 395,227 248,263 62.82
Puerto Rico................. 480 18 3.75 75,776 NA 0.00
Rhode Island................ 3,103 2,086 67.23 12,975 8,392 64.68
South Carolina.............. 10,517 6,544 62.22 29,286 14,649 50.02
South Dakota................ 2,270 2,046 90.13 13,804 12,242 88.68
Tennessee................... 18,707 8,659 46.29 32,170 9,045 28.12
Texas....................... 40,480 40,480 100.00 112,062 29,954 26.73
Utah........................ 6,614 5,362 81.07 256,368 177,248 69.14
Vermont..................... 1,495 854 57.12 3,336 1,933 57.94
Virgin Islands.............. 555 3 0.54 1,110 NA 0.00
Virginia.................... 24,176 16,585 68.60 118,661 23,775 20.04
Washington.................. 32,776 27,922 85.19 657,158 335,479 51.05
West Virginia............... 6,509 3,324 51.07 642,413 55,174 8.59
Wisconsin................... 29,702 15,521 52.26 67,164 31,621 47.08
Wyoming..................... 2,367 390 16.48 2,836 433 15.27
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total............ 1,083,064 722,841 66.74 7,903,067 2,705,811 34.24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA--Not available.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-18.--PERCENTAGE OF AFDC PAYMENTS RECOVERED THROUGH CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1979-96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1979 1985 1987 1989 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................... 8.5 23.2 30.8 31.7 33.7 27.0 23.8 23.1 25.6 31.2
Alaska.................................... 1.5 8.3 12.6 13.7 14.6 12.7 11.9 13.6 16.2 18.9
Arizona................................... 2.0 5.1 3.8 4.4 4.2 5.4 7.1 8.2 9.8 10.6
Arkansas.................................. 4.8 17.6 21.0 20.7 23.6 26.5 28.0 28.0 32.5 41.3
California................................ 6.5 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.3 6.5 7.1 7.8 8.3 10.6
Colorado.................................. 4.8 9.5 11.4 12.3 13.0 15.0 16.7 19.5 22.7 28.6
Connecticut............................... 6.5 12.2 12.7 9.5 10.2 10.5 11.2 11.0 15.0 18.0
Delaware.................................. 4.4 17.3 21.2 20.3 20.6 19.7 19.8 20.2 22.1 24.5
District of Columbia...................... 1.0 3.8 4.7 4.9 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.7 5.0
Florida................................... 5.5 11.5 11.9 11.6 11.1 9.9 9.6 10.2 11.3 12.1
Georgia................................... 4.3 10.4 12.4 14.3 15.4 18.2 20.1 20.3 20.9 27.2
Guam...................................... 5.3 9.1 11.9 10.8 32.7 34.6 28.7 18.6 14.5 16.0
Hawaii.................................... 2.9 8.9 7.3 8.8 7.4 6.9 6.7 6.6 7.2 7.8
Idaho..................................... 8.9 25.0 33.2 35.7 34.7 36.5 35.3 36.3 35.1 38.1
Illinois.................................. 1.5 4.8 5.0 5.6 5.7 7.0 6.6 7.1 7.8 9.1
Indiana................................... 7.2 21.5 23.0 22.4 23.8 24.0 24.5 24.2 26.8 30.4
Iowa...................................... 9.0 19.3 19.2 20.1 20.6 23.2 24.3 26.3 30.4 34.1
Kansas.................................... 5.0 14.1 13.4 15.9 17.8 19.4 19.7 21.8 25.9 30.8
Kentucky.................................. 3.8 8.5 12.0 12.4 15.0 18.8 20.0 21.0 22.9 21.6
Louisiana................................. 5.2 9.1 10.5 11.1 12.4 14.2 15.3 16.1 18.7 23.8
Maine..................................... 7.3 20.6 26.1 22.9 21.5 18.8 24.5 28.3 30.4 33.5
Maryland.................................. 6.1 11.2 13.0 14.5 11.4 14.2 16.9 15.8 15.3 16.5
Massachusetts............................. 6.6 10.7 12.0 11.8 10.4 10.5 11.4 11.6 12.8 13.6
Michigan.................................. 9.0 12.5 13.0 13.9 15.1 15.7 16.6 17.7 18.7 21.9
Minnesota................................. 7.8 12.7 14.2 14.4 14.6 16.3 17.3 19.2 23.0 21.5
Mississippi............................... 2.9 9.4 13.7 16.8 22.3 24.2 24.9 28.0 29.3 35.9
Missouri.................................. 2.8 12.0 15.0 17.8 15.6 19.0 18.9 20.1 21.0 26.0
Montana................................... 4.4 8.6 9.9 11.1 12.9 16.0 15.0 14.2 17.3 20.3
Nebraska.................................. 5.4 11.5 12.9 13.0 13.2 16.0 16.9 18.1 21.4 24.6
Nevada.................................... 6.3 16.4 12.4 12.2 14.1 17.1 16.6 15.7 15.3 17.9
New Hampshire............................. 9.4 15.2 12.4 11.3 10.1 12.3 14.4 16.0 19.4 21.5
New Jersey................................ 5.9 12.5 14.4 14.0 16.4 16.5 16.4 16.9 18.3 20.2
New Mexico................................ 3.4 7.4 9.4 9.2 7.8 8.0 11.6 9.7 6.0 4.2
New York.................................. 3.5 5.0 5.6 6.4 6.7 7.2 7.0 6.7 6.9 8.0
North Carolina............................ 5.6 17.4 18.9 18.8 18.4 19.6 20.5 22.4 23.1 25.7
North Dakota.............................. 9.6 16.8 17.4 21.0 23.4 24.0 24.1 25.4 28.9 29.7
Ohio...................................... 4.8 10.1 9.9 10.0 10.3 11.7 12.2 13.4 15.5 17.5
Oklahoma.................................. 1.6 6.4 8.0 9.0 9.9 10.7 11.1 12.8 14.9 20.1
Oregon.................................... 9.0 13.0 13.0 13.5 13.5 12.5 13.4 14.3 15.0 16.9
Pennsylvania.............................. 4.6 11.0 13.2 12.6 13.7 14.0 13.7 13.6 14.5 16.2
Puerto Rico............................... 0.7 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.9 3.5 4.4
Rhode Island.............................. 6.1 7.6 8.9 10.4 9.2 10.8 11.6 12.6 13.9 15.2
South Carolina............................ 5.4 13.1 15.9 16.8 16.8 17.9 21.1 23.6 26.1 29.5
South Dakota.............................. 6.5 14.4 17.9 17.1 18.1 18.8 19.5 23.2 27.4 31.2
Tennessee................................. 5.0 10.3 14.1 13.7 14.3 11.2 15.7 15.9 23.3 17.7
Texas..................................... 5.4 6.2 9.4 9.5 10.2 11.8 12.9 14.5 17.6 22.2
Utah...................................... 13.7 19.6 22.1 23.4 23.2 25.6 26.2 28.3 29.7 34.5
Vermont................................... 4.1 11.1 13.4 12.7 13.0 12.7 14.7 14.6 17.7 21.4
Virgin Islands............................ 8.5 8.3 7.9 7.3 7.1 8.5 10.2 10.6 8.7 11.0
Virginia.................................. 6.3 9.0 13.5 15.7 17.2 17.3 17.3 16.2 21.8 23.8
Washington................................ 12.5 10.9 14.4 17.1 18.1 20.0 20.8 21.1 22.4 23.5
West Virginia............................. 2.6 7.8 6.1 5.1 8.1 10.6 18.2 13.8 15.1 17.5
Wisconsin................................. 9.5 12.4 15.4 15.5 15.7 16.2 17.0 21.6 27.3 28.5
Wyoming................................... 5.6 8.2 10.0 13.5 13.3 14.3 17.0 20.7 25.1 30.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 5.8 9.1 10.0 10.3 10.7 11.4 12.0 12.5 13.6 15.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Payments to AFDC Unemployed Parent (UP) families have been excluded from the payments totals in those States having AFDC-UP Programs.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-19.--FEDERAL INCOME TAX REFUND OFFSET COLLECTIONS BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1983-96
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1983 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................... $1,555 $5,135 $7,450 $8,009 $8,827 $20,586 $17,818 $18,688 $25,958
Alaska.................................................... 212 891 995 1,208 1,387 1,711 1,464 2,156 2,946
Arizona................................................... 385 2,049 2,592 2,605 2,876 4,007 8,381 7,538 8,763
Arkansas.................................................. 1,104 3,770 4,490 4,669 5,575 7,106 6,862 7,515 11,391
California................................................ 35,034 46,287 50,472 57,624 57,098 67,569 62,460 86,508 129,209
Colorado.................................................. 3,016 3,020 4,947 5,604 6,179 7,614 7,851 9,283 13,973
Connecticut............................................... 4,455 6,140 12,132 9,907 9,250 10,190 9,315 10,823 13,699
Delaware.................................................. 166 1,319 1,812 1,966 2,467 2,683 2,313 2,626 3,291
District of Columbia...................................... 567 779 1,202 1,942 1,606 1,788 1,701 1,992 2,555
Florida................................................... 1,980 7,318 21,294 21,038 24,880 31,569 30,689 38,045 50,377
Georgia................................................... 1,526 7,258 11,566 13,032 15,693 22,016 22,441 30,103 36,429
Guam...................................................... 13 44 26 13 11 51 43 70 92
Hawaii.................................................... 817 1,122 1,511 1,573 1,976 2,328 3,704 3,589 4,519
Idaho..................................................... 1,183 1,594 1,959 2,173 2,270 2,690 2,595 3,205 4,061
Illinois.................................................. 4,525 15,415 13,887 19,307 18,876 26,631 20,891 28,836 33,620
Indiana................................................... 4,940 11,390 15,642 15,860 16,853 21,169 19,809 23,429 27,690
Iowa...................................................... 5,526 7,798 8,990 8,828 9,439 11,240 10,633 13,055 15,623
Kansas.................................................... 2,525 3,704 4,947 5,300 6,101 7,525 7,207 9,196 12,633
Kentucky.................................................. 1,165 3,262 6,812 6,680 7,891 12,919 11,994 14,121 17,324
Louisiana................................................. 1,536 4,722 5,797 6,582 6,519 8,438 9,356 13,934 18,899
Maine..................................................... 1,844 3,377 4,866 5,383 4,925 5,477 4,862 6,103 7,302
Maryland.................................................. 5,688 9,646 17,039 14,343 14,182 15,542 15,454 17,936 22,683
Massachusetts............................................. 3,325 5,269 10,101 11,899 10,936 13,077 11,465 9,997 12,049
Michigan.................................................. 18,250 25,893 30,246 29,854 32,776 44,968 45,314 49,346 58,232
Minnesota................................................. 5,576 6,762 7,936 8,096 8,831 9,904 9,217 10,575 13,263
Mississippi............................................... 1,019 2,252 4,147 4,958 6,392 8,270 8,532 10,765 20,156
Missouri.................................................. 4,289 8,482 12,438 14,205 10,189 17,711 16,367 19,546 25,036
Montana................................................... 431 1,209 1,366 1,301 1,374 1,636 1,679 1,794 2,317
Nebraska.................................................. 502 1,395 2,598 2,485 2,548 3,121 3,213 3,671 4,811
Nevada.................................................... 354 433 630 768 1,363 2,449 2,291 3,127 4,334
New Hampshire............................................. 757 1,284 1,137 1,177 1,350 2,028 1,997 2,869 3,658
New Jersey................................................ 9,458 14,268 16,201 16,171 18,266 20,132 17,990 21,309 26,164
New Mexico................................................ 533 2,278 2,279 2,585 2,863 3,259 3,041 3,907 5,052
New York.................................................. 9,945 27,991 23,472 24,763 31,307 33,734 31,084 35,960 43,854
North Carolina............................................ 4,235 7,229 11,359 11,270 12,718 16,410 17,403 21,154 28,671
North Dakota.............................................. 352 848 773 1,302 1,501 1,767 1,656 2,303 2,521
Ohio...................................................... 2,886 11,186 14,346 16,514 21,027 27,476 28,651 46,843 60,010
Oklahoma.................................................. 703 2,218 4,197 4,647 5,803 7,575 7,077 9,148 11,235
Oregon.................................................... 3,782 4,863 5,113 5,381 5,622 6,259 5,694 7,997 10,497
Pennsylvania.............................................. 6,112 17,123 21,332 24,354 27,946 32,560 29,012 36,956 45,742
Puerto Rico............................................... 2 13 47 6 63 231 218 287 3,181
Rhode Island.............................................. 838 880 1,401 1,548 1,522 1,799 1,424 1,857 2,307
South Carolina............................................ 368 1,789 2,788 3,233 3,449 4,678 5,198 6,296 8,751
South Dakota.............................................. 374 998 1,465 1,498 1,648 2,110 2,018 2,465 3,066
Tennessee................................................. 642 3,025 7,110 7,539 8,341 16,033 12,577 16,865 20,874
Texas..................................................... 3,906 11,316 17,934 19,926 24,133 34,346 36,561 54,142 71,026
Utah...................................................... 2,540 2,991 3,730 4,066 4,297 5,604 5,431 6,270 6,206
Vermont................................................... 611 887 1,154 1,017 1,074 1,294 1,073 1,633 1,952
Virgin Islands............................................ ........ 37 34 7 25 44 68 81 68
Virginia.................................................. 1,674 6,840 8,913 9,761 10,298 12,594 12,601 16,898 19,507
Washington................................................ 4,278 10,510 12,537 13,732 13,957 17,417 17,236 19,506 23,801
West Virginia............................................. 1,038 2,013 2,944 3,066 3,265 3,705 3,551 7,221 7,863
Wisconsin................................................. 6,266 10,029 12,902 13,290 14,384 17,486 18,055 22,800 32,765
Wyoming................................................... 222 503 534 684 1,131 1,190 932 1,977 3,441
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide total.................................... 175,021 338,853 443,594 474,748 515,279 661,711 636,466 803,952 1,045,450
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-20.--TOTAL CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS PER DOLLAR OF TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1978-96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1978 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................................. 0.75 2.45 2.69 2.50 2.46 2.78 2.68 3.11 3.27 2.24 3.41
Alaska............................................... 3.19 2.61 3.05 3.46 4.06 4.14 3.64 3.92 3.71 2.93 3.31
Arizona.............................................. 0.88 1.46 2.21 2.11 1.84 1.49 1.54 1.57 1.79 1.48 2.41
Arkansas............................................. 1.00 2.62 2.94 2.94 3.38 2.80 3.00 3.15 3.20 2.75 2.77
California........................................... 2.15 2.37 2.52 2.75 2.66 2.59 2.63 2.59 2.54 2.17 2.36
Colorado............................................. 1.78 1.89 1.90 1.99 2.21 2.82 3.22 2.70 2.47 2.54 2.82
Connecticut.......................................... 4.20 3.49 2.91 2.73 2.76 2.46 2.73 2.97 3.19 2.88 2.91
Delaware............................................. 7.14 2.46 3.07 2.62 3.01 3.13 2.87 2.88 2.39 2.04 2.50
District of Columbia................................. 0.73 0.92 0.97 1.21 1.33 1.78 1.88 2.33 2.51 2.03 2.38
Florida.............................................. 1.20 2.12 1.98 2.28 2.58 2.66 2.86 3.03 3.78 3.53 3.13
Georgia.............................................. 2.22 2.59 3.16 2.88 3.06 3.06 3.61 4.26 4.47 3.50 3.92
Guam................................................. NA 1.39 1.53 1.62 1.28 1.24 1.98 1.87 1.89 1.33 2.57
Hawaii............................................... 1.71 2.26 3.10 3.62 3.62 3.64 4.06 3.94 3.79 2.36 2.18
Idaho................................................ 2.10 3.58 4.06 3.79 3.95 4.02 3.21 3.62 3.43 2.39 2.32
Illinois............................................. 2.10 2.40 2.51 2.68 2.77 2.61 2.63 2.90 2.36 2.23 2.41
Indiana.............................................. 2.42 4.82 5.22 5.49 5.34 6.15 7.27 6.56 6.45 5.18 6.54
Iowa................................................. 3.49 6.77 6.12 6.36 5.66 4.99 5.02 5.79 5.14 4.72 5.23
Kansas............................................... 3.01 2.15 2.58 2.51 2.00 2.76 3.43 3.73 2.57 1.69 5.82
Kentucky............................................. 1.14 2.52 2.59 2.44 2.63 2.55 2.33 2.97 3.05 3.21 3.43
Louisiana............................................ 1.82 1.99 2.28 2.60 2.85 3.12 2.51 2.74 3.19 3.37 4.16
Maine................................................ 3.40 3.74 3.75 4.01 4.14 3.82 3.06 2.84 3.39 4.28 4.05
Maryland............................................. 2.14 3.77 3.02 3.31 3.36 3.80 3.80 4.49 4.56 4.07 4.36
Massachusetts........................................ 5.12 3.50 3.46 4.09 3.24 3.80 3.41 4.18 4.30 3.54 4.05
Michigan............................................. 9.50 8.33 9.52 8.80 8.58 7.83 8.07 8.20 8.43 7.20 6.63
Minnesota............................................ 2.15 3.02 3.51 3.59 3.65 3.58 3.74 4.27 4.20 3.96 4.36
Mississippi.......................................... 0.87 2.29 3.36 3.06 2.23 1.56 1.76 2.22 2.20 2.16 2.87
Missouri............................................. 0.89 3.89 4.55 4.22 4.45 4.71 4.75 4.88 4.30 3.41 3.75
Montana.............................................. 1.58 2.59 3.16 2.97 4.21 2.74 2.78 2.38 2.76 2.87 2.42
Nebraska............................................. 2.10 5.44 5.20 5.02 4.69 4.48 3.83 3.54 4.17 3.44 3.16
Nevada............................................... 1.83 2.10 2.30 1.95 2.22 2.12 2.52 3.06 2.39 2.08 2.53
New Hampshire........................................ 4.05 4.39 5.33 4.93 3.18 3.71 2.86 3.26 2.87 2.50 3.42
New Jersey........................................... 4.16 4.64 4.47 4.12 3.85 3.66 3.49 4.02 4.02 6.13 4.52
New Mexico........................................... 1.17 2.27 1.99 1.76 1.96 2.00 2.00 2.30 3.08 1.54 1.43
New York............................................. 1.75 1.83 1.98 2.36 2.74 2.55 2.81 3.22 3.10 3.39 4.03
North Carolina....................................... 1.50 3.26 3.83 3.32 3.20 3.18 3.15 3.20 3.20 2.40 2.94
North Dakota......................................... 1.83 2.46 2.65 3.14 3.31 3.62 3.59 3.93 4.05 4.13 4.34
Ohio................................................. 2.50 4.41 5.65 10.83 6.07 7.21 6.01 5.35 5.48 5.63 6.07
Oklahoma............................................. 0.76 1.78 2.22 2.48 2.28 2.29 2.41 2.69 3.13 2.70 3.06
Oregon............................................... 9.48 4.47 4.03 4.27 4.45 4.49 4.48 5.10 4.95 4.81 5.60
Pennsylvania......................................... 9.14 7.78 7.56 8.52 8.97 8.71 8.03 9.27 9.09 8.15 7.74
Puerto Rico.......................................... 0.92 14.02 18.93 17.60 13.61 7.84 15.68 10.43 11.73 3.96 4.44
Rhode Island......................................... 3.51 3.90 3.31 3.65 3.67 2.52 2.22 2.31 4.35 3.45 4.31
South Carolina....................................... 2.38 2.37 3.01 3.23 3.01 2.60 3.01 3.59 3.88 2.84 3.37
South Dakota......................................... 0.99 2.74 2.96 3.50 3.99 3.96 4.43 4.82 4.90 5.27 5.87
Tennessee............................................ 2.49 3.31 3.07 4.09 3.57 4.28 4.27 3.87 5.42 3.75 4.06
Texas................................................ 0.74 2.01 2.60 2.81 2.41 1.93 2.50 2.53 2.31 3.01 3.71
Utah................................................. 1.99 2.21 2.39 2.86 2.92 3.09 2.80 3.08 2.86 1.96 2.66
Vermont.............................................. 2.24 2.34 2.95 3.31 2.93 3.61 3.77 2.82 3.06 2.69 3.79
Virgin Islands....................................... 0.40 2.14 4.13 4.16 3.11 4.18 2.07 4.10 4.50 0.86 2.25
Virginia............................................. 0.72 1.57 2.41 2.39 3.03 2.35 3.13 2.91 3.09 3.63 4.18
Washington........................................... 2.96 2.42 2.56 2.48 2.66 3.13 3.41 3.29 3.42 3.35 3.53
West Virginia........................................ 0.74 1.98 2.00 2.16 2.95 2.75 2.55 2.98 2.77 3.24 3.61
Wisconsin............................................ 3.80 4.78 6.20 6.01 6.18 5.76 6.68 6.83 7.15 6.09 5.94
Wyoming.............................................. 3.18 3.27 4.64 4.91 3.50 3.37 3.50 4.87 2.34 1.76 2.96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. ratio..................................... 3.35 3.45 3.68 3.94 3.85 3.75 3.82 3.99 3.98 3.60 3.93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA--Not available.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-21.--NUMBER OF PATERNITIES ESTABLISHED BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1979-96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1979 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................................... 6,161 6,998 7,839 6,517 6,612 7,942 10,779 7,816 7,103
Alaska........................................................ 3 364 797 767 673 906 1,070 1,576 929
Arizona....................................................... 154 1,009 1,327 1,237 2,674 3,056 5,007 11,608 10,389
Arkansas...................................................... 2,586 5,326 4,453 3,191 4,703 5,175 6,580 8,294 8,283
California.................................................... 19,364 28,570 35,193 41,065 56,912 65,062 77,324 129,593 183,424
Colorado...................................................... 1,046 1,291 1,939 1,864 2,887 4,135 5,258 6,201 5,908
Connecticut................................................... 3,029 3,908 3,888 4,499 5,309 6,196 5,368 7,578 8,318
Delaware...................................................... 205 1,867 1,641 801 728 1,573 1,395 2,292 3,522
District of Columbia.......................................... 386 1,021 2,079 2,791 3,895 2,792 2,884 1,683 1,482
Florida....................................................... 7,078 12,136 13,399 19,534 17,907 16,119 10,879 13,010 2,806
Georgia....................................................... 3,642 14,112 18,198 24,615 28,015 30,181 29,329 13,978 3,146
Guam.......................................................... NA 122 109 563 884 642 440 866 802
Hawaii........................................................ 854 1,061 1,295 1,843 1,672 1,419 1,746 1,493 1,785
Idaho......................................................... 287 384 1,100 1,310 1,551 1,722 1,509 2,079 2,533
Illinois...................................................... 3,025 20,848 29,926 25,496 21,157 18,900 19,017 22,236 26,483
Indiana....................................................... 1,644 3,570 4,943 5,309 6,291 5,631 4,950 4,202 4,484
Iowa.......................................................... 575 1,664 1,980 3,045 1,904 4,416 4,952 4,378 3,414
Kansas........................................................ 696 1,119 2,101 3,644 3,125 3,198 4,445 10,677 11,801
Kentucky...................................................... 784 3,881 4,498 6,092 6,816 7,951 7,979 8,950 9,994
Louisiana..................................................... 1,304 2,926 4,451 5,525 11,098 11,764 13,272 9,299 11,235
Maine......................................................... 382 951 1,609 1,381 1,376 3,189 1,370 1,704 2,129
Maryland...................................................... 13,307 6,671 9,995 7,538 12,081 11,259 9,993 9,052 10,931
Massachusetts................................................. 2,096 7,025 6,194 6,339 5,742 8,195 6,234 10,862 10,201
Michigan...................................................... 7,529 18,274 23,142 25,574 27,955 29,087 28,076 22,471 24,898
Minnesota..................................................... 1,786 3,856 6,098 5,661 7,695 5,348 3,749 8,936 9,696
Mississippi................................................... 932 1,824 7,929 10,740 11,950 8,978 8,588 12,734 14,246
Missouri...................................................... NA 14,308 11,146 16,242 21,976 23,982 24,292 24,679 24,800
Montana....................................................... 92 179 388 429 677 1,155 413 1,368 1,567
Nebraska...................................................... NA 710 759 885 1,280 1,628 2,019 4,329 4,299
Nevada........................................................ 233 531 664 1,033 1,655 1,702 1,602 1,797 2,252
New Hampshire................................................. 35 195 518 614 645 580 604 722 628
New Jersey.................................................... 8,242 13,938 13,182 12,243 10,595 10,314 7,453 13,239 14,768
New Mexico.................................................... 322 412 1,571 1,992 1,601 1,591 2,491 3,574 2,325
New York...................................................... 17,503 18,239 18,056 20,492 30,197 34,434 42,748 36,474 41,292
North Carolina................................................ 6,592 9,916 11,663 14,504 18,186 19,308 21,371 25,429 29,581
North Dakota.................................................. 293 1,134 820 784 935 1,446 1,386 906 1,427
Ohio.......................................................... 4,808 9,133 11,637 15,823 20,857 23,672 28,151 32,785 34,962
Oklahoma...................................................... 43 512 1,361 2,710 4,939 2,721 2,764 4,525 5,312
Oregon........................................................ 1,521 1,902 3,131 4,081 3,836 4,942 5,830 5,159 5,740
Pennsylvania.................................................. 4,450 15,277 18,921 20,231 23,063 24,239 23,246 27,642 29,592
Puerto Rico................................................... 22 6 144 216 264 198 206 204 11
Rhode Island.................................................. 347 601 673 868 764 1,425 2,001 3,971 5,489
South Carolina................................................ 1,378 3,994 5,243 5,273 6,066 6,996 8,331 8,038 8,925
South Dakota.................................................. 60 552 504 509 687 916 1,333 1,160 1,030
Tennessee..................................................... 5,003 7,666 9,647 8,976 10,309 10,902 11,463 14,358 11,524
Texas......................................................... 202 684 6,465 12,623 19,627 24,890 30,002 38,516 43,272
Utah.......................................................... 487 1,292 1,801 2,087 2,484 2,957 3,496 4,287 4,058
Vermont....................................................... 44 1,091 468 533 438 800 1,065 949 863
Virgin Islands................................................ 4 235 270 160 215 344 492 485 34
Virginia...................................................... 1,452 2,667 8,471 13,647 15,971 18,038 21,506 26,174 18,952
Washington.................................................... 656 4,066 5,762 6,985 8,601 10,540 12,539 13,608 16,963
West Virginia................................................. 156 288 820 997 1,324 2,373 2,790 7,077 4,219
Wisconsin..................................................... 4,803 8,750 8,695 10,808 12,931 15,435 17,678 20,982 21,689
Wyoming....................................................... 44 105 340 618 370 3,493 3,670 4,829 1,305
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 137,645 269,161 339,243 393,304 472,105 515,857 553,135 660,834 716,821
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA--Not available.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-22.--OUT-OF-WEDLOCK BIRTHS AND CHILD SUPPORT PATERNITIES ESTABLISHED BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1987-94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Births to unmarried women Paternities/births (percent)
State -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1987 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... 15,955 18,640 19,131 20,000 20,680 21,003 43.9 42.1 34.1 33.05 52.1 40.47
Alaska.......................... 2,564 2,869 3,113 3,148 3,101 3,125 14.2 27.8 24.6 21.3 34.5 48.19
Arizona......................... 17,227 20,708 22,532 23,899 26,151 27,162 5.9 6.4 5.5 11.19 19.2 33.18
Arkansas........................ 8,498 9,944 10,713 10,601 10,878 11,310 62.7 44.8 29.8 44.3 60.5 65.31
California...................... 136,785 171,189 193,559 204,229 206,376 202,803 20.9 20.6 21.2 27.8 37.4 45.11
Colorado........................ 10,171 10,787 11,374 12,684 13,373 13,510 12.7 18.0 16.4 22.7 39.3 41.56
Connecticut..................... 11,045 13,005 13,330 13,581 13,919 13,914 35.4 29.9 33.8 39.1 38.6 40.28
Delaware........................ 2,742 3,125 3,222 3,559 3,577 3,614 68.1 52.5 24.9 20.5 53.8 75.90
District of Columbia............ 6,094 7,580 7,692 7,806 7,211 6,831 16.8 27.4 36.3 49.9 40.0 36.39
Florida......................... 48,200 58,305 63,169 64,101 67,431 68,127 25.2 23.0 30.9 27.9 16.1 18.57
Georgia......................... 28,647 34,926 36,979 38,116 39,575 39,429 49.3 52.1 66.6 73.5 74.1 62.95
Hawaii.......................... 3,968 4,609 5,088 5,195 5,328 5,533 26.7 28.1 36.2 32.2 32.8 37.39
Idaho........................... 2,073 2,561 2,738 2,924 3,268 3,273 18.5 43.0 47.8 53.0 46.2 54.17
Illinois........................ 50,677 58,867 62,148 63,225 65,130 64,933 41.1 50.8 41.0 33.5 29.2 37.63
Indiana......................... 17,260 19,898 22,562 24,294 25,844 26,044 20.7 24.8 23.5 25.9 19.2 15.06
Iowa............................ 6,147 7,575 8,282 8,657 9,297 9,211 27.1 26.1 36.8 22.0 53.3 56.03
Kansas.......................... 6,633 7,577 8,397 8,746 9,696 9,709 16.9 27.7 43.4 35.7 45.8 89.20
Kentucky........................ 10,658 12,048 12,829 13,796 14,401 14,646 36.4 37.3 47.5 49.4 55.4 51.12
Louisiana....................... 23,594 25,692 26,601 27,694 29,179 28,918 12.4 17.3 20.8 40.0 45.5 42.42
Maine........................... 3,338 3,806 3,931 4,180 4,061 4,067 28.5 42.3 35.1 32.9 33.7 41.14
Maryland........................ 22,866 22,607 23,789 24,292 24,335 24,943 29.2 44.2 31.7 49.7 41.1 42.46
Massachusetts................... 17,616 21,798 22,886 22,873 22,380 22,291 39.9 28.4 27.7 25.1 23.9 40.96
Michigan........................ 28,724 36,441 40,289 40,941 36,326 48,339 63.6 63.5 63.5 68.3 77.3 55.57
Minnesota....................... 11,114 13,142 14,192 14,984 15,099 15,430 34.7 46.4 39.9 51.4 24.8 47.23
Mississippi..................... 14,499 16,958 17,627 18,317 18,718 19,067 12.6 46.8 60.9 65.2 45.9 51.92
Missouri........................ 17,823 21,123 22,643 23,736 24,353 23,913 80.3 52.8 71.7 92.6 99.8 96.09
Montana......................... 2,379 2,539 2,757 2,898 3,104 2,822 7.5 15.3 15.6 23.4 13.3 25.27
Nebraska........................ 4,006 4,662 5,056 5,181 5,449 5,739 17.7 16.3 17.5 24.7 38.2 41.51
Nevada.......................... 2,740 4,607 5,480 7,016 7,614 8,359 19.4 18.4 14.4 18.9 21.0 15.61
New Hampshire................... 2,511 2,797 2,967 2,996 3,179 3,338 7.8 18.5 20.7 21.5 19.0 21.93
New Jersey...................... 26,647 29,364 29,756 31,972 31,949 33,043 52.3 45.6 44.9 41.1 23.3 27.80
New Mexico...................... 8,067 9,447 9,704 10,445 11,526 11,496 5.1 16.6 20.5 15.3 21.6 25.66
New York........................ 80,939 92,996 98,110 99,738 105,101 104,732 22.5 19.4 20.9 30.3 41.1 36.55
North Carolina.................. 23,262 28,315 30,718 32,340 32,586 32,321 42.6 41.2 47.2 56.2 65.6 70.24
North Dakota.................... 1,429 1,615 1,699 1,952 1,999 1,971 79.4 50.8 46.1 47.9 69.3 70.47
Ohio............................ 39,237 45,921 48,289 50,826 52,385 51,363 23.3 19.7 25.3 32.8 55.6 63.41
Oklahoma........................ 9,892 11,258 11,998 12,973 13,441 13,616 5.2 12.1 22.6 38.1 20.6 26.53
Oregon.......................... 8,672 10,436 11,041 11,324 11,730 12,012 21.9 30.0 37.0 33.9 49.7 48.52
Pennsylvania.................... 41,143 47,093 49,258 51,360 51,783 51,518 37.1 40.2 41.1 44.9 44.9 44.17
Rhode Island.................... 3,064 3,684 3,997 4,073 4,436 4,327 19.6 18.3 21.7 18.8 45.1 61.45
South Carolina.................. 15,333 18,116 19,148 20,000 19,359 19,172 26.1 28.9 27.5 30.3 43.0 40.35
South Dakota.................... 2,225 2,415 2,515 2,720 2,968 2,914 24.8 20.9 20.2 25.3 44.9 45.92
Tennessee....................... 17,897 21,281 22,662 24,026 24,556 24,480 42.8 45.3 39.6 42.9 46.7 59.21
Texas........................... 57,464 60,303 55,435 56,528 54,670 92,721 1.2 10.7 22.8 34.7 54.9 35.88
Utah............................ 3,929 4,504 4,910 5,196 5,744 6,005 32.9 40.0 42.5 47.8 60.9 67.13
Vermont......................... 1,459 1,685 1,666 1,811 1,805 1,864 74.8 27.8 32.0 24.2 59.0 43.78
Virginia........................ 20,562 24,410 25,874 27,125 27,532 27,760 1.3 34.7 52.7 58.9 78.1 79.57
Washington...................... 14,629 17,638 18,746 19,861 20,670 20,090 27.8 32.7 37.3 43.3 60.7 66.70
West Virginia................... 4,722 5,212 5,743 6,040 6,328 6,454 6.1 15.7 17.4 21.9 44.1 30.68
Wisconsin....................... 14,698 16,815 17,656 18,235 18,882 18,565 59.5 51.7 61.2 70.9 93.6 92.51
Wyoming......................... 1,189 1,276 1,383 1,546 1,689 1,765 8.8 26.7 44.7 23.9 217.3 59.43
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total................ 933,013 1,094,169 1,165,384 1,213,769 1,240,172 1,289,592 28.8 31.0 33.7 38.8 44.6 45.78
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and National Center for Health Statistics (1995 and previous
years).
TABLE 8-23.--STATE SHARE OF PROGRAM SAVINGS BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1989-96
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................................... $380 -$518 -$1,982 -$3,053 -$2,529 -$6,319 -$8,672 -$6,250
Alaska.......................................................... 2,264 2,469 2,982 3,431 3,797 4,278 4,201 5,091
Arizona......................................................... -1,219 -2,899 -3,125 -3,320 -4,242 -4,761 -6,804 -5,252
Arkansas........................................................ 1,574 1,013 1,830 1,009 530 -283 -135 -2,595
California...................................................... 79,779 76,552 88,584 98,465 101,406 115,539 110,774 139,416
Colorado........................................................ 4,552 4,991 5,954 5,661 6,064 7,107 7,490 7,237
Connecticut..................................................... 11,330 7,310 10,332 11,711 13,396 12,523 5,671 6,770
Delaware........................................................ 797 812 923 902 455 312 -644 435
District of Columbia............................................ -3,145 -89 -574 144 757 -272 -585 -390
Florida......................................................... 5,601 2,932 7,179 11,482 14,368 14,863 11,797 1,471
Georgia......................................................... 2,861 1,299 3,930 7,937 12,856 13,099 10,801 10,379
Guam............................................................ -87 -227 -293 -450 -305 -375 -919 -591
Hawaii.......................................................... 1,648 1,622 1,502 1,655 1,873 1,618 539 -670
Idaho........................................................... 1,029 895 751 955 922 720 665 -1,317
Illinois........................................................ 10,935 5,159 5,785 9,767 3,716 3,711 3,965 4,304
Indiana......................................................... 14,027 11,731 16,134 20,359 20,257 22,131 18,262 18,475
Iowa............................................................ 11,767 11,631 10,840 11,765 11,000 12,048 12,560 9,599
Kansas.......................................................... 1,170 2,229 3,694 4,041 3,711 3,142 -3,222 8,701
Kentucky........................................................ 207 207 -475 1,958 3,467 5,104 3,696 1,449
Louisiana....................................................... 696 150 -1,049 -1,845 -1,241 -1,270 -2,098 -1,251
Maine........................................................... 5,236 4,229 3,852 3,890 5,877 5,509 6,359 9,590
Maryland........................................................ 6,860 8,631 6,120 10,366 12,037 8,926 4,819 3,844
Massachusetts................................................... 23,373 23,391 21,789 25,917 29,957 22,670 25,468 20,782
Michigan........................................................ 57,413 54,088 58,032 53,107 52,078 53,216 49,500 30,837
Minnesota....................................................... 13,969 12,083 11,468 12,377 12,274 11,880 11,950 9,009
Mississippi..................................................... -232 -2,987 -2,549 -1,243 -1,065 -2,843 -3,336 -2,599
Missouri........................................................ 8,046 9,002 7,846 11,772 10,303 10,566 7,695 8,598
Montana......................................................... 1,093 769 454 532 618 37,868 37,431 -850
Nebraska........................................................ -252 -572 -582 -2,093 -1,054 -574 -1,270 -4,617
Nevada.......................................................... -32 -417 -334 608 -172 604 -902 -1,774
New Hampshire................................................... 362 185 271 826 443 1,165 1,157 1,010
New Jersey...................................................... 15,081 6,836 9,100 13,551 11,876 13,809 24,571 14,092
New Mexico...................................................... 305 -148 -361 -224 1,278 456 -1,083 -1,917
New York........................................................ 24,201 22,865 30,313 41,091 41,790 46,036 43,880 45,673
North Carolina.................................................. 5,857 3,598 4,257 6,343 6,962 8,504 2,853 1,898
North Dakota.................................................... 955 1,074 1,231 973 989 888 788 441
Ohio............................................................ 21,558 12,040 6,054 445 3,453 6,800 5,761 4,422
Oklahoma........................................................ 705 69 380 1,110 2,457 2,412 2,241 3,205
Oregon.......................................................... 3,703 2,658 3,358 4,863 5,935 8,029 5,548 6,200
Pennsylvania.................................................... 22,018 19,846 21,226 27,102 29,234 33,738 30,971 27,231
Puerto Rico..................................................... -1,075 -3,121 -2,165 -2,008 -2,171 -3,073 -5,161 -8,179
Rhode Island.................................................... 2,999 3,439 3,940 4,375 5,427 5,466 6,142 7,013
South Carolina.................................................. 490 -1,639 91 437 1,309 1,049 191 -1,159
South Dakota.................................................... 969 1,254 820 672 1,048 967 1,338 1,629
Tennessee....................................................... 1,278 3,432 5,989 1,578 5,915 5,408 7,519 2,340
Texas........................................................... 2,163 -4,832 -4,774 -6,111 13,969 -12,335 -6,212 -1,274
Utah............................................................ 1,362 1,111 892 980 343 181 -1,526 -1,326
Vermont......................................................... 1,440 1,957 1,918 1,621 2,066 1,175 1,741 1,602
Virgin Islands.................................................. -223 -184 -459 -227 -256 -305 -885 -656
Virginia........................................................ 2,567 -1,113 4,292 4,324 6,347 5,109 7,348 4,889
Washington...................................................... 15,386 14,053 22,038 19,695 24,875 29,978 25,869 26,794
West Virginia................................................... -59 -1,214 -722 -1,047 16 -2,038 -2,484 -2,494
Wisconsin....................................................... 21,306 18,451 16,740 15,553 15,386 15,757 12,695 8,280
Wyoming......................................................... 574 363 340 589 226 159 86 -200
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total................................................ 403,400 338,469 384,691 433,317 462,092 482,243 431,013 407,314
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-24.--STATES USING THE INCOME SHARES AND PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
APPROACHES TO ESTABLISHING CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income shares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Maine Oklahoma
Arizona Maryland Oregon
California Michigan Pennsylvania
Colorado Missouri Rhode Island
Florida Montana South Carolina
Idaho Nebraska South Dakota
Indiana New Jersey Utah
Iowa New Mexico Vermont
Kansas North Carolina Virginia
Kentucky Ohio Washington
Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of income
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska New Hampshire Georgia
Arkansas North Dakota Mississippi
Connecticut Tennessee Nevada
Illinois Texas New York
Minnesota Wyoming Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Garfinkel, McLanahan, & Robins (1994).
REFERENCES
Bumpass, L. (1984). Children and marital disruption: A
replication and update. Demography, 21, pp. 71-82.
Cooper, P., & Johnson, A. (1993, April). Employment-related
health insurance in 1987 (AMCPR Pub. No. 93-0044).
Rockville, MD: Public Health Service.
Federal Register. (1992, December 28). Regulations for updating
child support orders. 57(249).
Garfinkel, I., McLanahan, S., & Robins, P.K. (1994). Child
support and child well-being, pp. 98-99. Washington,
DC: Urban Institute Press.
Garfinkel, I., Melli, M.S., & Robertson, J.G. (1994, Spring).
Child support orders: A perspective on reform. In R.E.
Behrman (Ed.), The future of children: Children and
divorce, 4(1), pp. 88-93. Los Altos, California: David
and Lucille Packard Foundation.
Georgeson, L.M. (1989, May). DNA in paternity cases. Paper
prepared for American Bar Association Third National
Child Support Conference, Arlington, VA.
Gordon, A.R. (1994). Implementation of the income withholding
and medical support provisions of the 1984 child
support enforcement amendments (pp. 86-87). In I.
Garfinkel, S. McLanahan, & P. Robins (Eds.), Child
support and child well-being. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.
Hill, M.S. (1988, May). The role of economic resources and
dual-family status in child support payments. Ann
Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan.
Malone, T.P. (1989, May). Modification lives: Guidelines don't
mean an end to changing circumstances. Paper prepared
for American Bar Association Third National Child
Support Conference, Washington, DC.
McKillop, L.T. (1981). Benefits of establishing paternity.
Washington, DC: Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of Health and Human Services.
National Center for Health Statistics. (1995, September).
Advance report of final natality statistics: 1993.
Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 44 (3, Supplement).
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. (1985). Paternity establishment (2d
ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. (1986). Employer fees for wage
withholding. Child Support Report, 8(10), p. 7.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. (1987, September). Development of
guidelines for child support orders: Advisory panel
recommendations and final report. Washington, DC:
Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. (1990). Paternity establishment (3d
ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. (1991, June). Child support
enforcement in the military. Washington, DC: Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. (1992). Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act proposed to replace URESA. Child Support
Report, 14 (8), pp. 4-5.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. (1996 and various years). Annual
Report to Congress (21 annual reports for the years
1976-96). Washington, DC: Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. (1995a). Fiscal year I-Census
report: Single parent growth rate stabilizes. Child
Support Report, 17 (11), p. 5.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. (1995b). President Clinton signs
executive order: Federal agencies to facilitate support
order establishment and enforcement. Child Support
Report, 17(3), pp. 1-2.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. (1995c). DOD consolidates
garnishment operation. Child Support Report, 17 (3), p.
3.
Pirog, M.A., Klotz, M., & Buyers, K.V. (1997). Interstate
comparisons of child support awards using State
guidelines, 1997. Bloomington, IN: Institute for Family
and Social Responsibility, Indiana University.
Shulman, G.A. (1994). Qualified medical child support order
handbook. New York: Wiley Law Publications.
Sorensen, E. (1994, January). Noncustodial fathers: Can they
afford to pay more child support? Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.
Sorensen, E. (1995, April). The benefits of increased child
support enforcement (Welfare Reform Briefs, No. 2).
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1981). Child support and alimony:
1978. Current Population Reports, Series P-60-112.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1983). Child support and alimony:
1981. Current Population Reports, Series P-60-124.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1985). Child support and alimony:
1983. Current Population Reports, Series P-60-141.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1987). Child support and alimony:
1985. Current Population Reports, Series P-60-152.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990). Child support and alimony:
1987. Current Population Reports, Series P-60-167.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1991). Child support and alimony:
1989. Current Population Reports, Series P-60-173.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1994). Household and family
characteristics: March 1994. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1995). Child support for custodial
mothers and fathers: 1991. Current Population Reports,
Series P60-187. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1997). Child support for custodial
mothers and fathers: 1993. Current Population Reports.
(advance copy of preliminary data furnished to the
Congressional Research Service.)
U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support. (1992). Supporting
our children: A blueprint for reform. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1987). Child support: Need to
improve efforts to identify fathers and obtain support
orders (GAO/HRD-87-37). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1992a). Interstate child
support: Wage withholding not fulfilling expectations
(GAO/HRD-92-65BR). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1992b). Child support
enforcement--timely action needed to correct system
development problems (GAO/IMTEC-92-46). Washington, DC:
Author.
U.S. House of Representatives. (1983). Child support
enforcement amendments of 1983 (House Report No. 98-
527). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Weaver, R.L., & Williams, R.G. (1989, May). Problems with
URESA: Interstate child support enforcement isn't
working but could. Paper prepared for American Bar
Association Third National Child Support Conference,
Washington, DC.
Williams, R.G. (1994). Implementation of the child support
provisions of the Family Support Act: Child support
guidelines, updating of awards, and routine income
withholding (pp. 93-132). In I. Garfinkel, S.
McLanahan, & P. Robins (Eds.), Child support and child
well-being. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.