[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]
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
Private Collection Activities
State Collection and Disbursement of Support Payments
Bankruptcy and Child Support Enforcement
Automated Systems
Audits and Financial Penalties
Assignment and Distribution of Child Support Collections
Distribution of Payments While the Family Receives Public
Assistance
Distribution of Payments After the Family Leaves Public
Assistance
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
female-headed 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 drastically. 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 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 (TANF, 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 TANF. 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, many of
them major. 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 1998, there were an estimated 11.9 million
single-parent families with children under age 18; about 9.8
million (82 percent) maintained by the mother and roughly 2.1
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 2.3 percent
from 1990 to 1998 and 4.1 percent from 1980 to 1990 as compared
with 8.2 percent from 1970 to 1980. In 1998, one-parent
families comprised nearly 32 percent of all families. The
corresponding share of single-parent families in 1970 was 13
percent. In 1998, about 40 percent of the mothers had never
been married, 34 percent were divorced, 21 percent were
separated from their spouse, and about 4 percent were widowed
(U.S. Census Bureau, 1998, p. 36).
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, about 29 percent of the
68 million children under age 18 living in the United States
reside in a one-parent family. 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 3,831,000. In these latter cases,
paternity must be determined before the other parent has a
legal obligation to financially support the child. The 3.8
million families maintained by a never-married mother in 1998
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 1998,
38.7 percent of the 8.9 million families maintained solely by a
mother with children under 18 had incomes below the poverty
threshold (U.S. Census Bureau, 1998, p.17). A little more than
16 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 40 percent 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 1998, 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 1998, almost $3.6 billion was spent by State
child support programs to collect $14.3 billion in child
support. The combined Federal-State program had 55,300
employees. A sum of $4 was collected for every dollar of
administrative expense, up by 38 percent from the low point of
only $2.89 in 1982. In addition, in 1998 nearly 6.6 million
absent parents were located; 848,000 paternities were
established; over 1.1 million support orders were established;
3.5 million cases had collections; 356,000 families were
removed from TANF because of child support collections (not
shown in table 8-1, fiscal year 1997 data); and 16.1 percent of
TANF 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 that will be discussed in more
detail below. 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 U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS). 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 DHHS 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 1978-98
[Numbers in thousands, dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure 1978 1982 1986 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total child support collections $1,047 $1,770 $3,246 $4,605 $6,010 $6,886 $7,965 $8,907 $9,850 $10,827 $12,019 $13,363 $14,347
In 1996 dollars \1\........ 2,555 2,885 4,609 6,125 7,272 7,919 8,921 9,620 10,441 11,152 12,019 13,363 14,347
Total TANF collections \2\..... 472 786 1,225 1,486 1,750 1,984 2,259 2,416 2,550 2,689 2,855 2,842 2,649
Federal.................... 311 311 369 449 533 626 738 777 762 821 888 1,046 960
State...................... 148 354 424 525 620 700 787 847 891 939 1,013 1,158 1,089
Total non-TANF collections..... 575 984 2,019 3,119 4,260 4,902 5,705 6,491 7,300 8,138 9,164 10,521 11,697
Total administrative 312 612 941 1,171 1,606 1,804 1,995 2,241 2,556 3,012 3,049 3,427 3,584
expenditures..................
Federal.................... 236 459 633 804 1,061 1,212 1,343 1,517 1,741 2,095 2,040 2,327 2,385
State...................... 76 153 308 366 545 593 652 724 816 917 1,015 1,100 1,199
Federal incentive payments to 54 107 158 222 264 278 299 339 407 400 409 409 396
States and localities.........
Average number of TANF cases in 458 597 582 621 701 755 836 879 926 976 940 865 790
which a collection was made...
Average number of non-TANF 249 448 786 1,083 1,363 1,555 1,749 1,958 2,169 2,408 2,618 2,850 3,071
cases in which a collection
was made......................
Average number of AFDC/TANF NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 308 343 404 493 651
arrears only cases............
Number of parents located...... 454 779 1,046 1,388 2,062 2,577 3,152 3,777 4,204 4,950 5,808 6,441 6,585
Number of paternities 111 173 245 307 393 472 512 554 592 659 733 814 848
established...................
Number of support obligations 315 462 731 871 1,022 \3\ 821 879 1,026 1,025 1,051 1,093 1,156 1,148
established...................
Percent of TANF assistance NA 6.8 8.6 9.8 10.3 10.7 11.4 12.0 12.5 13.6 15.5 22.0 20.0
payments recovered through
child support collections.....
Total child support collections 3.35 2.89 3.45 3.93 3.74 3.82 3.99 3.98 3.86 3.60 3.93 3.90 4.00
per dollar of total
administrative expenses.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Adjusted for inflation using fiscal Consumer Price Index.
\2\ TANF 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 1998. 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; 272,729 paternities were established in hospitals in
fiscal year 1995; 324,595 paternities were established in hospitals in fiscal year 1996; 486,551 paternities were established in hospitals in fiscal
year 1997; and 614,081 paternities were established in hospitals in fiscal year 1998.
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 TANF costs. The
1984 amendments also authorize $15 million for each fiscal year
after 1986 for special project grants to promote improvement in
interstate enforcement. In fiscal year 1999, 38 States had
section 1115 grants or waivers which directly impacted child
support: 6 States had waivers to implement models of
collaboration among the CSE agency, Head Start Programs, and
child care programs; 4 States had waivers to test new ways of
reviewing and modifying orders; 4 States had waivers designed
to improve CSE for Native Americans; 3 States had waivers to
test different approaches to handling CSE cases with a history
of domestic violence; 3 States had waivers to measure and
improve CSE Program performance; and other States had waivers
related to access and visitation, child support assurance,
fatherhood initiatives, job training, parenting, interviewing
and client referral, paternity establishment, and staffing
standards.
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 DHHS 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
audit's 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 1996 welfare reform law set aside 1 percent of the
Federal share of retained child support collections for
information dissemination and technical assistance to States
(including technical assistance related to automated systems),
training of State and Federal staff, staffing studies, and
related activities needed to improve the CSE Program, and
research, demonstration, and special projects of regional or
national significance relating to the operation of the CSE
Program. An additional 2 percent of the Federal share of
retained child support collections is set aside for the
operation of the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS).
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 (IRS), the Federal courts, and the 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 CSE statute requires the establishment of a
FPLS to be used to find absent parents in order to secure and
enforce child support obligations. The role of the FPLS was
expanded by the 1996 welfare reform law. 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 DHHS
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 DHHS or can be
obtained from any other department or agency of the United
States or of any State. Public Law 105-33, which was enacted in
1997 and made numerous changes to the 1996 welfare reform law,
allows FPLS information to be disclosed to noncustodial parents
except in cases where there is evidence of domestic violence or
child abuse and the local court determines that disclosure may
result in harm to the custodial parent or child. 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.
Historically, the Federal Government held the view that
visitation (also referred to as child access) and child support
should be legally separate issues, and that only child support
should be under the purview of the CSE Program. Both Federal
and State policymakers have maintained that denial of
visitation rights should be treated separately and should not
be considered a reason for stopping support payments.
Nonetheless, Census Bureau data indicate that it was more
likely for noncustodial parents to make payments of child
support if they had either joint custody or visitation rights.
Thus, in order to promote visitation and better relations
between custodial and noncustodial parents, the 1996 welfare
reform law provided $10 million per year for grants to States
for access and visitation programs, including mediation,
counseling, education, and supervised visitation. In addition,
as mentioned above, the 1996 law also expanded the scope of the
FPLS to allow certain noncustodial parents to obtain
information regarding the location of the custodial parent.
All States and territories applied for and received
funding for access and visitation grants in fiscal year 1997.
According to a preliminary report on the grant program
(American Institutes, 1999), most participating individuals
received parenting education, help in developing parenting
plans, and mediation services. Based on data from 28 States and
2 territories, nearly 20,000 individuals were served by the
grant program in its first year of operation.
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 the 1996 welfare reform
law, 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, the welfare reform law 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 State
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 State 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,
Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, and Massachusetts 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 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, workers' 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 and sporting 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. 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 (SSN); children's birth certificates;
the child support order; the divorce decree or separation
agreement; the name and address of the current or 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 FPLS to locate
the noncustodial parent. The FPLS can access data from the
Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Selective Service
System, the Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration,
the National Personnel Records Center, and State Employment
Security Agencies. The FPLS provides SSNs, 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 SSNs that match are returned to
FPLS and through FPLS to the requesting State or local child
support office. During fiscal year 1997, the FPLS processed
approximately 4.9 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 OCSE, and the IRS. 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).
The SSN is the key piece of information around which the
child support information system is constructed. Most computer
searches need the SSN in order to operate effectively. Thus, in
the 1996 welfare reform law, Congress gave CSE agencies access
to new sources for obtaining SSNs. Federal CSE law requires
States to implement procedures requiring that the SSN of any
applicant for a professional, driver's, occupational,
recreational, or marriage license be recorded on the
application (not on the face of the license itself). In
addition, the 1996 law requires that the SSN of any individual
subject to a divorce decree, support order, or paternity
determination or acknowledgment be placed in the records
relating to the matter and that the SSN of any individual who
has died be placed in the death records and recorded on the
death certificate.
To further improve CSE's ability to locate absent parents,
the 1996 law also 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. 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, SSN,
date of birth, and case identification number.
In one of the most important child support reforms in
recent years, the 1996 law required States, by October 1, 1997,
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 SSN
of the employee and the employer's name, address, and tax
identification number. This information is to be supplied by
employers to the State new hires directory within 20 days after
the employee is hired. Within 3 business days after receipt of
new hire information, 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. In fiscal year 1998, there were more than
1 million matches in which employment and address information
was returned to States to assist in the location of
noncustodial parents who owed child support. In fiscal year
1999, with the addition of the case registry to the matching
system, there were 2.8 million matches.
The 1996 reforms allow 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 SSNs reported by employers to the
State directory of new hires and the SSNs of CSE cases that
appear in the records of the State registry of child support
orders. The Secretary of DHHS is required 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 SSN 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.
Employers must 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.
Establishing Paternity
Paternity establishment is a prerequisite for obtaining a
child support order. In 1998, 32.8 percent of children born in
the United States were born to unmarried women. According to
the OCSE, in fiscal year 1997 paternity was established for
only 34 percent of the children who needed paternity
established. However, in recent years the CSE Program has made
great strides in establishing paternity. Between 1994 and 1998,
for example, the new In-Hospital Paternity Acknowledgement
Program grew from 84,411 to 614,081 paternities established, a
jump of well over 600 percent.
But experts agree that the CSE Program must continue to
improve paternity establishment. Without paternity established,
children have no legal claim on their fathers' income. 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 Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(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 SSN 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 was backed
up by financial penalties linked to a reduction of Federal
matching funds for the State's AFDC (now TANF) Program (see
Audits and Financial Penalties section). The welfare reform law
of 1996 further strengthened the Nation's paternity
establishment system. More specifically, the new law
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. However, 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 testing, red cell enzyme and serum
protein electrophoresis, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
testing.
The State CSE agency has 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 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) 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 the initial costs. 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,
1990).
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 reliableDNA 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 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 1998, 848,000 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 1998, huge disparities exist among States. For
example, the percentage of children in the Child Support
Enforcement Program for whom paternity was established averaged
64 percent nationally, but ranged from 16 percent in Iowa to
155 percent in Maryland (some paternities established are for
children born in previous years). In addition to the 848,000
paternities established in fiscal year 1998, 614,000
paternities were voluntarily acknowledged in the hospital (see
table 8-1).
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 Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (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.
Thus, 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 appearances, 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, States have been required to extend these
expedited processes to paternity establishment.
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 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 the 1996 welfare reform law, 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 SSN, 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 (DC 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, 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.
Note.--See text for explanation of cases A, B, C, D, and E.
Source: Pirog, Klotz, & Buyers, 1997.
Award rates
In 1995, of the 11.6 million custodial mothers of children
under the age of 21 whose father was not living in the
household, only 7.1 million or 61 percent had a child support
award and were owed child support. About one-third of the 4.5
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, had a nonlegal
agreement with 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 76 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 72 percent of
whites had child support awards, compared with 45 percent of
blacks and 47 percent of Hispanics (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999).
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, 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 of their right to
request a review, of their right to be informed of the
forthcoming review at least 30 days before the review 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.
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 cases. States must notify parents of their review
and adjustment rights at least once every 3 years. States can
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.
Especially during the early 1980s, a major issue in the
modification of awards was the practice of 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 DHHS 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 workers with income below the poverty line and employer-
provided family health insurance coverage, 77 percent of the
premium was paid for by the employer.
On October 16, 1985, the Office of Child Support
Enforcement (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. States receive 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, 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 these 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
DHHS 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, 61 percent of support orders
established in fiscal year 1997 included health insurance, up
from 46 percent in fiscal year 1991 but down somewhat from 67
percent in fiscal year 1996. Nevertheless, only 39 percent of
support orders enforced or modified in fiscal year 1997
included health insurance, up only 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 the 1996 welfare reform legislation, the definition
of ``medical child support order'' in the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) was 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.
Public Law 105-200, enacted in 1998, provides for a uniform
manner for States to inform employers about their need to
enroll the children of noncustodial parents in employer-
sponsored health plans. It requires the CSE agency to use a
standardized national medical support notice (developed by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the
Department of Labor) to communicate to employers the issuance
of a medical support order. Employers are required to accept
the form as a ``qualified medical support order'' under ERISA.
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.
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.
TABLE 8-3.--CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS MADE BY VARIOUS ENFORCEMENT TECHNIQUES, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1989-98
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child support collections Percent of total collections
Enforcement technique ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 1991 1995 1996 1997 1998 1989 1991 1995 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wage withholding.............................. $2,144 $3,266 $6,111 $6,731 $7,472 $8,003 40.9 47.4 56.9 56.0 55.9 55.8
Federal income tax offset..................... 411 476 734 906 1,015 1,026 7.9 6.9 6.8 7.5 7.6 7.2
State income tax offset....................... 62 72 97 112 120 136 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Unemployment compensation intercept........... 54 143 187 211 207 204 1.0 2.1 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.4
Other \1\..................................... 2,570 2,929 3,624 4,059 4,549 4,978 49.0 42.6 33.7 33.8 34.0 34.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total collections....................... 5,241 6,886 10,753 12,019 13,363 14,347 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 1998.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human 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 three 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, (2) if both
parents agree in writing to an alternative payment arrangement,
or (3) at the DHHS Secretary's discretion, if a State can
demonstrate that the rule will not increase the effectiveness
or efficiency of the State's CSE Program. For income
withholding purposes, ``income'' means any periodic form of
payment due an individual, regardless of source, including
wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, workers' 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. Although the total amount
of support collected through wage withholding increased each
year, reaching $8.0 billion in 1998, the percentage of total
collections achieved through wage withholding appears to have
leveled off at about 56 percent.
Federal income tax refund offset
Under this program, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
operating on request from a State filed through the Secretary
of DHHS, 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 Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(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 tax year 1998, according to DHHS, more than 1.4 million
cases were offset. The total amount intercepted was about $1.3
billion, up by a factor of well over four since 1986 ($308
million). In tax year 1998, the average collection for
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) families was
$923; the average collection for non-TANF families was $952.
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.
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 (SSNs) 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 1998, the State Tax Intercept Program
collected $136 million (table 8-3). Unlike the Federal program,
which requires that States certify a specified amount before
the offset can be applied ($150 for TANF families and $500 for
non-TANF families), States choose their own level for
certification. In many States, the amount is the same for both
TANF and non-TANF 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 $204
million in fiscal year 1998 (table 8-3). A number of States,
especially those with high levels of unemployment, 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). The House report also 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 sell the property or transfer ownership 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 pay past-due support to remove the lien. When this is
not the case, it may become necessary to enforce the lien.
Liens are not self-executory. 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.
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 IRS 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 DHHS 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 DHHS 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 463 cases
nationwide, for a total collection of $1,153,473.
Withholding of passports and various types of licenses
The 1996 welfare reform law required States to implement
procedures under which the State would have authority to
withhold, suspend, or restrict use of driver's licenses,
professional and occupational licenses, and recreational and
sporting 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 law also authorized the
Secretary of State to deny, revoke, or restrict passports of
debtor parents whose child support arrearages exceed $5,000.
According to DHHS, the passport denial program has collected
more than $2.25 million in lump sum child support payments and
is currently denying 30 to 40 passports daily to delinquent
noncustodial parents.
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.
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 other authorized official;
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 1996 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 service,
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.
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.
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. 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 (1991) data, 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 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 DHHS
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 DHHS
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 Office of Child Support Enforcement (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 being
enforced by the IV-D program, 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 required the DHHS 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 were required to 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 of 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 and credit rules of the 1996 welfare reform
law clarify the definition of a child's home State, make
several revisions to ensure that the rules can be applied
consistently with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
(UIFSA), and clarify the rules regarding which child support
order States must honor when there is more than one order.
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 response to concerns of law enforcement officials and
prosecutors that the 1992 law did not adequately address more
serious instances of nonpayment of child support obligations,
Congress passed the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998
(Public Law 105-187). The law establishes two new categories of
felony offenses, subject to a 2-year maximum prison term. The
offenses are: (1) traveling in interstate or foreign commerce
with the intent to evade a support obligation if the obligation
has remained unpaid for more than 1 year or is greater than
$5,000; and (2) willfully failing to pay a child support
obligation regarding a child residing in another State if the
obligation has remained unpaid for more than 2 years or is
greater than $10,000. According to the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS), the administration's criminal
child support enforcement initiative, ``Project Save Our
Children,'' has investigated 800 cases resulting in 275
arrests, 210 convictions, and the payment of $5.3 million in
past-due child support payments. The initiative is conducted by
officials from the DHHS Office of Inspector General, the OCSE,
the Department of Justice, State CSE agencies, and local law
enforcement organizations working together to pursue chronic
delinquent parents who owe large sums of child support.
Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)
UIFSA was drafted by the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and approved by the
Commissioners in August 1992. It 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 is 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. 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.
The 1996 welfare reform law required all States to 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 February 1998, all States and jurisdictions had adopted
UIFSA, except Guam, Kentucky, New Jersey, and the Virgin
Islands.
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.
In fiscal year 1997, there were 2.4 million interstate
cases in which collections were sent to or received from other
States. This represents a 60 percent increase over the 1.5
million interstate cases that yielded a payment in fiscal year
1990. Similarly, in fiscal year 1997, $1.824 billion was
collected for interstate cases, up from $825 million (21
percent) in fiscal year 1990.
Expedited procedures and the financial institution data match program
Regardless of whether a State uses judicial processes,
administrative processes, or a combination, the 1996 welfare
reform law required States to adopt a series of procedures to
expedite both the establishment of paternity and the
establishment, enforcement, and modification of child support.
These procedures must give the State CSE agency the authority
to take several enforcement actions, subject to due process
safeguards, without the necessity of obtaining an order from
any other judicial or administrative tribunal. For example,
States must have expedited procedures to secure assets to
satisfy an arrearage by intercepting or seizing periodic or
lump sum payments (such as unemployment and workers'
compensation), lottery winnings, awards, judgments, or
settlements, and assets of the debtor parent held by public or
private retirement funds and financial institutions.
The 1996 law also required States to enter into agreements
with financial institutions conducting business within their
State for the purpose of conducting a quarterly data match. The
data match is intended to identify financial accounts (in
banks, credit unions, money-market mutual funds, etc.)
belonging to parents who are delinquent in the payment of their
child support obligation. When a match is identified, State CSE
agencies may issue liens or levies on the account(s) of the
delinquent parent to collect the past-due child support. In
1998, Congress made it easier for multistate financial
institutions to match records by permitting the Federal Parent
Locator Service (FPLS) to help them coordinate their
information. According to DHHS, 662,000 financial accounts with
a value of about $1 billion have been matched since August
1999. States are using their expedited procedures to seize the
accounts and thereby force debtor noncustodial parents to meet
their child support obligations.
Summary information on collection methods
Table 8-3 shows that 65 percent of the $14.3 billion in
child support payments collected in fiscal year 1998 was
obtained through four enforcement techniques: wage withholding,
Federal income tax refund offset, State income tax refund
offset, and unemployment compensation intercept. The remaining
35 percent is listed as collected by ``other'' means. The
``other'' category includes collections from parents who have
informal agreements, collections from noncustodial parents who
voluntarily sent money for their children even though a support
order had never been established (about 4 percent of all
collections), and enforcement techniques such as liens against
property, license and passport revocation, seizure of assets
from financial institutions, 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 1998, the percentage had
increased even further, reaching 56 percent.
Private Collection Activities
According to the OCSE, the Child Support Enforcement
Program handles about 50 percent of all child support cases.
The rest are handled by private attorneys, private collection
agencies, locally-funded public child support enforcement
agencies, or through mutual agreements between the parents.
Nonfederal CSE activities.--Some localities have taken it
upon themselves to operate a child support program using local
funding sources and fees levied against noncustodial parents. A
major complaint of these localities is that the enforcement
tools (e.g., Federal and State tax refund intercepts, license
sanctions, passport sanctions, data matches with financial
institutions, reporting of delinquencies to credit bureaus)
that are now available only to the Federal/State CSE Program
should be extended to the entities working outside the Federal/
State system and to private contractors as well. However, State
child support agencies, advocates representing both
noncustodial and custodial parents, and privacy rights
organizations have voiced concerns about such an approach,
particularly as it relates to private agencies.
CSE privatization.--While doing business with public and
private sector entities outside the CSE Program for such things
as laboratory testing for paternity establishment, service of
process, and automated systems development is not new in the
CSE Program, contracting out all of the program's functions is
new. This approach is usually referred to as privatization.
According to a December 1996 U.S. General Accounting Office
report, 15 States had turned to full-service privatization of
selected local CSE offices as a way to improve performance that
had been hampered by growing caseloads, resource constraints,
and increased Federal requirements. For some localities,
privatization is also a response to State restrictions on
hiring additional public employees.
In many more States, the State or locality had a contract
with a private entity to perform one or several services to
supplement the efforts of the State or local program. Most
commonly, States contract with the private sector for the
collection of past-due support, especially support considered
hard to collect. Under the terms of most collection contracts,
States pay contractors only if collections are made and
payments to contractors are often a fixed percentage of the
recovered arrearage payments.
STATE COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT 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 DHHS 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 went into
effect on October 1, 1998. States that process child support
payments through local courts were allowed to 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 payment directly between parents is acceptable.
Because of the total loss of CSE funding plus possible loss
of TANF Block Grant funding for States that are not in
compliance with the State plan requirement related to State
disbursement units, in November 1999, Congress passed
legislation (Public Law 106-113) that imposes a lesser
alternative penalty for these States. To qualify, States must
have submitted a corrective compliance plan by April l, 2000,
that describes how, by when, and at what cost the State would
achieve compliance with the State disbursement unit
requirement. The DHHS Secretary is required to reduce the
amount the State would otherwise have received in Federal child
support payments by the penalty amount for the fiscal year. The
penalty amount percentage is 4 percent in the case of the first
fiscal year of noncompliance; 8 percent in the second year; 16
percent in the third year; 25 percent in the fourth year; and
30 percent in the fifth and subsequent years. If a State that
is subject to a penalty achieves compliance on or before April
l, 2000, the DHHS Secretary is required to waive the first year
penalty. If a State achieves compliance on or after April 1,
2000, and on or before September 30, 2000, the penalty
percentage will be 1. In addition, Public Law 106-113 provides
that States that fail to implement both the CSE automated data
processing requirement and the State disbursement unit
requirement are subject to only one alternative penalty
process.
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 Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (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 a Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
or a non-TANF 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 are priority claims and custodial parents are
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 DHHS 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 DHHS Secretary could waive a
requirement if a State demonstrated that it had an alternative
system enabling it to substantially comply with program
requirements.
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 were 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 DHHS
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. 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 were issued by the Secretary in
August 1998.
The 1996 welfare reform law stipulated that, first, all
automatic data processing 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 Federal Government continued the 90
percent matching rate in 1996 and 1997 for provisions outlined
in advanced planning documents submitted before September 30,
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.
The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998
(Public Law 105-200), gives the DHHS Secretary an alternative
to assessing a 100 percent penalty (i.e., loss of all CSE
funding) on States that failed to comply with the October 1,
1997 statewide automated system requirements. The alternative
penalty is available to States that the Secretary determines
have made and are continuing to make good faith efforts to
comply with the automated system requirements (and have
submitted a ``corrective action plan'' that describes how, by
when, and at what cost the State will achieve compliance with
the automated system requirements). The alternative percentage
penalty is equal to 4, 8, 16, 25, and 30 percent respectively
for the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth or subsequent
years of failing to comply with the data processing
requirements. The percentage penalty is to be applied to the
amount payable to the State in the previous year as Federal
administrative reimbursement under the child support program
(i.e., the 66 percent Federal matching funds). A State that
fails to comply with the 1996 automated system requirements may
nonetheless have its annual penalty reduced by 20 percent for
each performance measure under the new incentive system for
which it achieves a maximum score. Thus, for example, a State
being penalized would have its penalty for a given year reduced
by 60 percent if it achieved maximum performance on three of
the five proposed performance measures. Further, the Secretary
is to reduce the annual penalty amount by 90 percent in the
year in which a State achieves compliance with the automated
system requirements. These alternative penalties apply to all
CSE automated system requirements (i.e., those required by both
Public Law 100-485 and Public Law 104-193). However, Public Law
105-200 only allows the Secretary to impose one penalty in any
given year. This means that if a State is not in compliance in
fiscal year 2000 with either the 1988 automated system
requirements or the 1996 requirements, it can only be penalized
once. The 1998 law also stipulates that because States are
subject to the alternative penalty procedures for violations of
the CSE automated system requirements, they are exempt from the
TANF penalty procedure for such violations.
As of January 6, 2000, 11 jurisdictions had not been
certified as meeting the October 1, 1997 CSE automated systems
requirements; 7 States had not yet scheduled a certification
review (California, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, South
Carolina, and the Virgin Islands), and 4 States had reports
pending (District of Columbia, Indiana, Kansas, and North
Dakota).
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 TANF 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 DHHS 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 TANF 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. 17-19).
The welfare reform law of 1996 requires States to annually
review and report to the DHHS 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. She also must review State reports
on compliance with Federal requirements and provide States with
recommendations for corrective action. 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.
In addition to the 1-5 percent penalty for States that the
DHHS Secretary has found, via an audit, to have failed to
substantially comply with CSE State plan requirements, there is
the possibility of complete elimination of CSE funding in cases
in which a State's program has been disapproved. The Secretary
must disapprove the plans of States which fail to implement the
CSE State plan requirements under section 454 of the Social
Security Act. Disapproval of a State's plan will result in the
cessation of all Federal child support funding for the State.
In addition, because operating an approved Child Support
Enforcement Program is a prerequisite to a State's receiving
funds under the TANF Program, a State's TANF funds also would
be terminated. (See above sections on Automated Systems and
State Collection and Disbursement of Support Payments for more
details.)
As mentioned elsewhere in this chapter, there are two
exceptions to this rule. First, CSE law establishes an
alternative penalty for a State's failure to meet the automated
data systems requirements. Second, CSE law (Public Law 106-113)
establishes an alternative penalty for a State's failure to
meet the automated centralized disbursement unit requirements.
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.
Since the child support program's inception, the rules
determining the distribution of arrearage payments have been
complex, but not nearly as complicated as they are currently.
It is helpful to think of the 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.
Distribution of Payments While the Family Receives Public Assistance
When a family applies for TANF, the custodial parent must
assign to the State the right to collect both current child
support payments and past-due child support obligations which
accrue while the family is on the TANF rolls. Arrearages that
accrued to the family before it went on public assistance are
called ``preassistance'' arrearages; those that accrue while
the family is on public assistance are called ``permanently-
assigned arrearages.'' While the family receives TANF benefits,
the State is permitted to retain any current support and any
arrearages it collects up to the cumulative amount of TANF
benefits which has been paid to the family. Before the 1996
reforms, States were required by Federal law to pay (or ``pass
through'') the first $50 of collections to the family. This
provision was repealed by the 1996 legislation and States were
given the right to decide for themselves how much, if any, of
their collections would be passed through to the family,
although they must pay the Federal share of collections. Thus,
amounts passed through come entirely out of the State share of
collections. States also have the right to decide whether they
treat any child support passed through to the family as income,
in which case they may reduce or even eliminate TANF payments.
Distribution of Payments After the Family Leaves Public Assistance
Distribution rules after the family leaves public
assistance are far more complicated. Most of the problems stem
from the requirements that preassistance arrears be assigned to
the State, and that certain arrearages otherwise owed to the
former welfare family are deemed to be owed to the State when
the collection is made by Federal tax refund intercept.
When a family leaves welfare, States are required to keep
track of six categories of arrearages: (1) permanently
assigned; (2) temporarily assigned; (3) conditionally assigned;
(4) never assigned; (5) unassigned during assistance; and (6)
unassigned preassistance. On the computer, these different
categories are called ``buckets.'' The money shifts among the
buckets according to the source of the collection, the family's
status on or off assistance when the arrearage accrued, the
amount of the unreimbursed public assistance balance, and the
date of the assignment of support rights as well as the date
the TANF case closed (because of phased-in implementation
dates). Moreover, the distribution rules differ depending on
whether the family went on welfare before or after October 1,
1997.
Families that assigned their rights to preassistance
arrearages to the State before October 1, 1997, have
``permanently-assigned arrearages,'' which are owed to the
State. Families that assign their rights to preassistance
arrearages to the State on or after October 1, 1997, have
``temporarily-assigned arrearages.'' Temporarily-assigned
arrearages and permanently-assigned arrearages are treated
differently after a family leaves public assistance.
Temporarily-assigned arrearages become ``conditionally-assigned
arrearages'' when the family leaves welfare or on October 1,
2000, whichever is later. These are called conditionally-
assigned arrearages because, as will be seen below, if they are
collected by Federal tax refund intercept, they will be paid to
the State, not the family.
There are also categories for ``never-assigned
arrearages,'' which accrue after the family's most recent
period of assistance ends. These can become temporarily-
assigned arrearages if the family goes back on public
assistance. In addition, there are ``unassigned during
assistance arrearages'' and ``unassigned preassistance
arrearages.'' These are previously assigned arrearages which
exceed the cumulative amount of unreimbursed assistance when
the family leaves public assistance, and which accrued either
during (unassigned during assistance arrearages) or prior to
(unassigned preassistance arrearages) receipt of assistance.
When the family leaves public assistance, the order of
distribution of any collection depends not only on when the
arrearages accrued--preassistance, during-assistance, or
postassistance--and when they were assigned, but also on when
and how the past-due support was collected. If the collection
was made by any means other than the Federal tax refund
intercept, the collection is first paid to the family up to the
amount of the monthly child support obligation. Any remaining
collection is distributed to certain categories of arrearages
owed to the family (conditionally assigned, never assigned and
unassigned preassistance), and then to arrearages owed to the
State (permanently assigned), with the remainder to the family
(unassigned during assistance).
Once current support is paid, collections on past-due
support made between October 1, 1997, and September 30, 2000,
or earlier at State option, are paid to the family to satisfy
any arrearages that accrued to the family after leaving public
assistance (never-assigned arrearages). Once never-assigned
arrearages are satisfied, the collection is to be applied
either to other arrearages owed to the family or to the State
(permanently-assigned arrearages). A family that leaves welfare
before October 1, 2000, maintains its permanently-assigned
arrearages, that is, those which accrued before the family went
on welfare and while the family received public assistance.
These arrearages are always owed to the State and, unlike
temporarily-assigned arrearages, never revert to the family.
On October 1, 2000, the rules change again (although States
can opt to implement these changes sooner). As noted above, the
temporarily-assigned arrearages for a former welfare family
that leaves public assistance on or after October 1, 2000, or
when the case closes, whichever is later, become
``conditionally-assigned arrearages.'' The distribution of
these conditionally-assigned arrearages is ``conditioned'' upon
whether the money is collected by Federal tax refund intercept
or by some other method, such as levy of a bank account, a
workers' compensation lump sum payment, or a payment agreement
to avoid a driver's license revocation. If the collection is
from a tax refund intercept, it will be paid to the State
rather than to the family, up to the cumulative amount of
unreimbursed assistance. The distribution from any other method
of collection is first made to the family, with current support
being paid first and any balance allocated to any arrearages.
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 DHHS outlining the specific
child support activities they intend 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, DHHS 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 all child support payments. 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 77 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.
Though TANF is not a matching grant program, the Federal
Government and the States still share the costs of providing
help to needy families with children. TANF includes a
maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement that requires States to
expend 75 percent (80 percent if they fail to meet TANF work
requirements) of what they spent under prior law programs in
fiscal year 1994 on families with children that meet TANF
eligibility requirements. The fact that the Federal Government
and the States split the costs of TANF explains why 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 Medicaid matching rate.
The details of this cost-recovery procedure means that poorer
States are rewarded less for their CSE efforts than wealthier
States.
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.
Public Law 105-200, the Child Support Performance and
Incentive Act of 1998 (enacted July 16, 1998), replaced the old
incentive payment system with a new cost-neutral system of
incentive payments that provides: (1) incentive payments based
on a percentage of the State's collections (with no cap on non-
TANF collections); (2) incorporation of five performance
measures related to establishment of paternity and child
support orders, collections of current and past-due support
payments, and cost-effectiveness; (3) mandatory reinvestment of
incentive payments into the CSE Program; and (4) an incentive
payment formula weighted in favor of TANF and former TANF
families.
The new incentive system is scheduled to be gradually
phased in between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2002. The
system caps the Federal incentive pool, thereby forcing States
for the first time to compete against each other for incentive
dollars. Under the new incentive system, a State may be
eligible to receive an incentive payment for good performance.
The total amount of the incentive payment received by a State
depends on four factors: (1) the total amount of money
available in a given fiscal year from which to make incentive
payments; (2) the State's success in making collections on
behalf of its caseload; (3) the State's performance in five
areas (mentioned earlier); and (4) the relative success or
failure of other States in making collections and meeting these
performance criteria.
In fiscal year 1998, the incentive payment, which comes
out of the gross Federal share of child support collected on
behalf of TANF families, was $395 million. Federal law (Public
Law 105-200) stipulates that the incentive payment pool cannot
exceed $422 million for fiscal year 2000; $429 million for
fiscal year 2001; $450 million for fiscal year 2002; $461
million for fiscal year 2003; $454 million for fiscal year
2004; $446 million for fiscal year 2005; $458 million for
fiscal year 2006; $471 million for fiscal year 2007; and $483
million for fiscal year 2008. For years after fiscal year 2008,
the incentive pool is increased to reflect changes in inflation
in the previous year as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
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 8-4
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 25 States. In other words, most States
make a profit on their child support program. States are free
to spend the State share of collections in any manner the State
sees fit, but States must spend Federal incentive payments
solely on the CSE Program or on activities approved by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Secretary which
contribute to the effectiveness or efficiency of the CSE
Program.
TABLE 8-4.--FINANCING OF THE FEDERAL/STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, FISCAL YEAR 1998
[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........................ $33,866 $4,102 $2,576 50,747 (10,203) 3.40
Alaska......................... 12,059 8,322 2,733 18,245 4,869 3.52
Arizona........................ 35,982 6,918 3,595 54,189 (7,693) 2.66
Arkansas....................... 22,858 3,392 2,554 34,541 (5,737) 2.88
California..................... 341,359 288,800 83,629 515,391 198,398 2.66
Colorado....................... 29,878 13,830 5,023 45,084 3,646 3.11
Connecticut.................... 32,031 23,836 7,409 47,853 15,423 3.23
Delaware....................... 10,933 2,939 1,008 16,490 (1,611) 2.55
District of Columbia........... 11,125 2,270 878 16,545 (2,272) 1.98
Florida........................ 110,491 26,584 12,150 166,882 (17,656) 3.04
Georgia........................ 56,402 16,082 8,732 85,109 (3,893) 3.53
Guam........................... 2,790 252 231 4,214 (941) 1.72
Hawaii......................... 15,829 5,743 1,678 23,960 (710) 2.60
Idaho.......................... 9,641 2,935 1,563 14,562 (422) 3.69
Illinois....................... 79,325 37,947 11,846 119,900 9,219 2.50
Indiana........................ 26,978 14,024 5,579 41,695 4,886 5.45
Iowa........................... 25,830 15,210 6,215 38,646 8,608 4.79
Kansas......................... 26,568 9,975 3,724 40,066 201 3.05
Kentucky....................... 31,589 11,304 5,390 47,619 664 3.90
Louisiana...................... 28,255 6,351 3,077 42,329 (4,646) 4.03
Maine.......................... 11,490 8,258 5,052 17,363 7,438 4.25
Maryland....................... 54,827 16,897 4,121 82,899 (7,054) 4.31
Massachusetts.................. 39,897 29,043 7,706 59,950 16,696 4.58
Michigan....................... 105,950 77,609 19,689 160,376 42,871 7.18
Minnesota...................... 69,974 28,649 7,906 102,462 4,068 3.85
Mississippi.................... 20,339 3,411 2,646 30,377 (3,981) 3.69
Missouri....................... 56,044 20,512 8,353 85,274 (365) 3.36
Montana........................ 7,753 2,113 1,261 11,706 (579) 3.15
Nebraska....................... 16,675 5,530 1,882 25,109 (1,021) 4.66
Nevada......................... 15,789 3,603 2,314 23,866 (2,160) 2.90
New Hampshire.................. 8,973 4,379 1,383 13,561 1,174 4.50
New Jersey..................... 83,306 38,638 10,970 125,290 7,624 4.64
New Mexico..................... 15,464 2,570 1,367 23,406 (4,005) 1.59
New York....................... 132,900 96,815 26,667 200,762 55,620 4.16
North Carolina................. 73,071 17,358 7,489 108,863 (10,945) 2.86
North Dakota................... 5,169 1,399 827 7,594 (199) 4.75
Ohio........................... 140,004 44,084 14,384 202,888 (4,416) 5.67
Oklahoma....................... 18,673 6,629 3,515 27,934 882 3.10
Oregon......................... 26,111 9,980 4,859 39,516 1,434 5.29
Pennsylvania................... 98,316 52,426 15,829 147,723 18,847 7.06
Puerto Rico.................... 17,820 471 350 26,994 (8,353) 5.38
Rhode Island................... 6,625 8,826 3,487 10,017 8,922 4.18
South Carolina................. 21,594 3,729 2,947 32,650 (4,381) 4.71
South Dakota................... 3,807 1,696 966 5,629 840 6.13
Tennessee...................... 34,872 5,427 4,607 52,613 (7,706) 3.58
Texas.......................... 120,677 40,135 18,474 181,979 (2,692) 3.76
Utah........................... 21,357 6,441 3,248 32,058 (1,012) 3.03
Vermont........................ 5,009 2,715 1,202 7,557 1,369 4.20
Virginia....................... 40,628 19,827 7,006 61,083 6,377 2.67
Virgin Islands................. 1,521 136 87 2,294 (550) 4.53
Washington..................... 83,997 48,575 15,205 126,830 20,947 3.74
West Virginia.................. 16,249 3,420 1,874 24,470 (2,927) 4.47
Wisconsin...................... 60,145 27,990 7,230 90,924 4,442 5.49
Wyoming........................ 6,198 1,047 468 8,891 (1,178) 3.72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 2,385,011 1,141,151 384,963 3,584,972 326,153 4.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 tables 8-5 and 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. One of the
most important issues is that States have little incentive to
control their administrative spending. The last column of table
8-4 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 $1.59 in New Mexico to $7.06 in Pennsylvania.
And yet, about half of the 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 8-5 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 $1.427 billion in 1998.
TABLE 8-5.--FEDERAL AND STATE SHARE OF CHILD SUPPORT ``SAVINGS,'' FISCAL
YEARS 1979-98
[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............................... -359 363 4
1988............................... -363 388 25
1989............................... -454 377 -77
1990............................... -523 333 -190
1991............................... -599 398 -201
1992............................... -645 475 -170
1993............................... -765 494 -271
1994............................... -947 450 -497
1995............................... -1,262 410 -852
1996............................... -1,171 433 -738
1997............................... -1,283 470 -813
1998............................... -1,427 \2\ 340 -1,087
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative ``savings'' are costs.
\2\ Includes $14 million in Federal hold-harmless payments.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Annual Reports to
Congress; Congressional Research Service, based on data from Office of
Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. The Congressional Research Service analysis slightly changed
numbers for years 1987-96 published in previous editions.
State governments by contrast have made a profit on the
program every year. In 1979, the first year for which data are
available, States in the aggregate cleared $244 million. In
1998, States cleared $340 million (the peak year was 1993, when
States cleared $494 million).
The last column in table 8-5 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 losses. 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.
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 $852 million in 1995
before declining somewhat to $738 million in 1996. By 1998, the
net loss was $1.087 billion.
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 Congress
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. Moreover, many defenders of the current
financing structure view retained collections as reimbursement
for a portion of a State's welfare expenditures, rather than
``income'' to the State. In fiscal year 1998 the State's share
of retained collections accounted for just 10 percent of all
States' expenditures on TANF.
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, 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 welfare
collections would help offset welfare expenditures.
But program trends since 1975 show that the non-TANF
Program is actually much bigger than the TANF Program and grows
faster each year than the TANF Program. As shown in table 8-1
above, welfare collections increased from about $0.5 billion in
1978 to a high point of $2.9 billion in 1996, a growth factor
of five. Between 1996 and 1998, welfare collections actually
declined somewhat. But non-TANF collections have grown steadily
from about $0.6 billion to $11.7 billion over the same period,
for a growth factor of nearly 20.
The point here is that non-TANF collections are growing
much faster than TANF collections and probably will continue to
do so in light of the 1996 welfare reforms. 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.
Another issue regarding 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 1998, more than 3 million non-TANF families received
services resulting in child support collections that averaged
around $3,800 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 currently there is only modest evidence that would
allow an estimate of the cost avoidance effect (Wheaton &
Sorensen, 1998), 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 a
much lower criterion of success 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 rapidly 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, after a long period of steady
growth TANF collections have started declining, from a high of
nearly $2.9 billion in 1996 to $2.6 billion in 1998.
Nonetheless, the child support agencies collected a level of
payments on behalf of TANF parents that equalled 20 percent of
all TANF benefits in 1998, up from only 7 percent in 1982.
Despite this improvement, the overall impact of the child
support program on taxpayers is negative. As shown in table 8-
5, taxpayers lost over $0.9 billion on the program in 1998.
Impact on Poverty
In 1995, about 30 percent of the 13.7 million women and men
rearing children alone had incomes below the poverty level. By
comparison, only 22 percent of the custodial parents who
received child support payments had incomes below the poverty
level (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, p. 5). Thus, child support
appears to be associated with a modest reduction in poverty. If
the child support program could collect support for a
substantial fraction of the additional 9 million single parents
who did not receive payments in 1995, the antipoverty impact of
the program could be substantially improved.
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 1997, 356,000 families with child support
collections, representing about 10 percent of the welfare
caseload, became ineligible for TANF. Similarly, about 3
percent of families in the non-TANF 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-TANF 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 all parents who no longer live with their
children continue to provide for their financial 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 non-
TABLE 8-6.--CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS AWARDED AND RECEIVED BY WOMEN WITH CHILDREN PRESENT, BY SELECTED
CHARACTERISTICS, 1997 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposed to receive child support in
1997
Percent ----------------------------------------
Total awarded Received support in 1997
Characteristics of women (thousands) child ---------------------------
support Total Mean
payments \2\ (thousands) Percent child Mean
support income
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL WOMEN
Current marital status:
Married................................. 2,607 65.3 1,559 75.3 $3,977 $21,087
Divorced................................ 3,673 70.4 2,357 73.7 4,326 29,752
Separated............................... 1,565 56.2 765 66.3 3,547 20,510
Widowed \3\............................. 230 54.3 104 59.6 (\5\) (\5\)
Never married........................... 3,831 46.7 1,547 55.3 1,966 13,769
Race and Hispanic origin:
White................................... 8,264 64.2 4,752 73.1 3,886 24,098
Black................................... 3321 48.4 1,434 53.3 2,600 18,612
Hispanic origin \4\..................... 1,710 46.7 688 62.9 3,012 17,023
Years of school completed:
Less than high school graduate.......... 2,385 47.5 976 54.9 2,127 10,131
High school graduate or GED............. 4,399 59.3 2,336 64.8 3,398 19,413
Some college, no degree................. 2,624 62.0 1,476 70.5 3,615 21,520
Associate degree........................ 1,043 69.8 653 78.9 3,737 25,607
Bachelors degree or more................ 1,454 67.9 891 81.9 5,312 41,656
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 11,905 59.5 6,331 68.5 3,655 23,249
===================================================================
WOMEN BELOW POVERTY
Current marital status:
Married................................. 238 50.4 109 59.6 (\5\) (\5\)
Divorced................................ 977 60.6 513 62.4 2,839 8,224
Separated............................... 657 53.9 310 57.4 2,960 7,383
Widowed \3\............................. 60 68.3 30 36.7 (\5\) (\5\)
Never married........................... 1,884 48.5 761 49.0 1,577 6,890
Race:
White................................... 2,292 57.6 1,122 59.4 2,428 7,386
Black................................... 1,407 46.2 565 47.4 1,963 7,187
Hispanic origin \4\..................... 820 44.0 286 52.4 2,759 8,485
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 3,816 53.0 1,723 55.0 2,290 7,306
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
\2\ Award status as of spring 1998.
\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 1998.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, in press. (Advance copy of preliminary data furnished to the Congressional Research
Service.)
custodial parents in paying child support. Table 8-6 provides
detailed information for 1997, the most recent year for which
national data are available, on child support payments by
fathers to families headed by mothers. Although the 1997
survey, like the 1995, 1993, and 1991 surveys, 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 bottom row of the upper
panel in table 8-6, of the 11.9 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 6.3 million mothers who had an award and who were
supposed to receive payments in 1997, 68.5 percent actually
received at least one payment (table 8-6). However, as shown in
table 8-7, only about 36 percent of the total of 11.9 million
women who did not live with their children's father in 1997
actually received at least one payment and only 22 percent
received everything due. So in addition to its failure to get
orders for about 40 percent of eligible 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 8-6, 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 (64 percent versus
49 percent for blacks and 47 percent for Hispanics). Similarly,
mothers with a college degree have a 68 percent chance of
having an order as compared with 48 percent for high school
dropouts and 59 percent for high school graduates. As for
payments, white mothers receive about $3,900 per year on
average as compared with $2,600 for black mothers and $3,000
for Hispanic mothers. College graduates receive $5,300 per year
in support as compared with $2,100 and $3,400 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 (47 percent versus 70 percent); even never-married
mothers who actually receive support get considerably less than
divorced mothers ($2,000 versus $4,300). 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 health
insurance. While demonstrating that 58 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 8-7, which summarizes several child support measures
for selected years from 1978 to 1997, complements and puts into
context the conclusions drawn from the 1997 data.\4\ More
specifically,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. Census Bureau, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the pattern of poor women being less likely to have an order
and receive support is nothing new; but the years since 1978
show a narrowing of the difference. The percentage of poor
women who had an order was up 39 percent over the 19-year
period, compared with a decline of 7 percent for all women.
Similarly, the percentage of poor women who received child
support payments increased 39 percent from 1978 to 1997,
compared to a decrease of nearly 2 percent for all women. The
percentage of all women 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. Equally discouraging, while a slightly higher
percentage of women were awarded child support (59.5 percent in
1997 versus 59.1 percent in 1978), a smaller percentage of
women received full payment (22 percent in 1997 versus 24
percent in 1978).
In summary, it appears that the performance of the Nation's
child support system is modest and that only a few 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 8-9 summarizes
several measures from both the IV-D program as revealed in
reports from the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) 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 250 percent since 1978,
and the average increase in these four measures is over 670
percent.
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 receiving at least one
payment have been nearly stagnant. Moreover, the percentage of
mothers who received the full amount due has decreased from 49
to 42 percent. On the other hand, total collections increased
by 42 percent. This increase, however, is dwarfed by the 415
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
64 percent over the same period.
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 significantly, the
improvement appears to have had only modest impact on the
national picture. How can these two trends be reconciled?
TABLE 8-7.--CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS FOR ALL WOMEN, WOMEN ABOVE THE POVERTY LEVEL, AND WOMEN BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL, SELECTED YEARS 1978-97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category of women 1978 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 \3\ 1993 \4\ 1995 1997 \5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All women:
Total (in thousands).................................. 7,094 8,387 8,690 8,808 9,415 9,955 9,918 11,505 11,634 11,905
Percent awarded \1\................................... 59.1 59.2 57.7 61.3 59.0 57.7 55.9 59.8 61.2 59.5
Percent actually received payment..................... 34.6 34.6 34.9 36.8 39.0 37.4 37.6 36.4 37.4 36.4
Percent received full payment......................... 23.6 22.5 23.2 24.0 26.3 25.6 25.7 17.8 21.3 22.3
Women above poverty level:
Total (in thousands).................................. 5,121 5,821 5,792 6,011 6,224 6,749 6,405 7,271 7,763 8,089
Percent awarded \1\................................... 67.3 67.9 65.3 71.0 66.5 64.6 65.2 64.4 66.3 62.5
Percent actually received payment..................... 41.1 41.4 42.6 44.1 44.8 43.1 45.0 41.6 42.9 41.9
Women below poverty level:
Total (in thousands).................................. 1,973 2,566 2,898 2,797 3,191 3,206 3,513 4,234 3,871 3,816
Percent awarded \1\................................... 38.1 39.7 42.5 40.4 44.3 43.3 38.9 51.9 51.1 53.0
Percent actually received payment..................... 17.8 19.3 19.6 21.3 27.7 25.4 24.1 27.5 26.5 24.8
Aggregate payment (in billions of dollars): \2\
Child support due..................................... 16.3 17.7 16.2 16.3 20.6 21.1 19.4 23.7 27.1 26.4
Child support received................................ 10.5 10.9 11.5 10.7 14.1 14.4 13.2 15.0 17.3 15.8
Aggregate child support deficit....................... 5.8 6.8 4.8 5.6 6.5 6.7 6.2 8.7 9.8 10.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Award status as of spring 1979, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998.
\2\ In 1997 dollars based on Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
\3\ Data for 1991 are not directly compatible with data from prior years because of refinements to the survey universe.
\4\ Data for 1993 are not directly compatible with data from prior years because of changes to survey questions.
\5\ Preliminary data.
Note.--Payments for women with own children under age 21.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2000).
TABLE 8-8.--CHILD SUPPORT AWARD STATUS AND INCLUSION OF HEALTH INSURANCE IN AWARD, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS
OF WOMEN, 1997 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposed to receive child support
payments in 1997
----------------------------------------
Health insurance included
Characteristic Total in child support award
(thousands) Total ---------------------------
(thousands) Percent of
Number total
(thousands) awarded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current marital status: \2\
Married............................................... 2,607 1,559 1134 66.6
Divorced.............................................. 3,673 2,357 1,702 65.8
Separated............................................. 1,565 765 474 53.9
Never married......................................... 3,831 1,547 726 40.6
Race and Hispanic origin:
White................................................. 8,264 4,752 3,367 63.4
Black................................................. 3,321 1,434 652 40.6
Hispanic \3\.......................................... 1,710 688 381 47.7
Age:
15-17 years........................................... 103 37 17 43.6
18-29 years........................................... 3,204 1,561 885 49.8
30-39 years........................................... 4,714 2,653 1,749 60.2
40 years and over..................................... 3,883 2,080 1,461 62.0
Years of school completed:
Less than high school graduate........................ 2,385 976 455 40.2
High school graduate or GED........................... 4,399 2,336 1,509 57.9
Some college, no degree............................... 2,624 1,476 1,053 64.8
Associate degree...................................... 1,043 653 459 63.0
Bachelors degree or more.............................. 1,454 891 635 64.3
Number of own children present from an absent father:
One child............................................. 6,602 3,181 2,179 60.4
Two children.......................................... 3,450 2,031 1,276 57.4
Three children........................................ 1,335 818 491 54.0
Four children or more................................. 578 301 166 49.0
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 11,905 6,331 4,112 58.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
\2\ Excludes a small number of currently widowed 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 1998.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.
The last panel of table 8-9 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. By 1997, fully 85 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 and local spending),
but not greatly improving overall collections. Whatever the
explanation, it seems that improved effectiveness of
TABLE 8-9.--COMPARISON OF MEASURES OF IV-D EFFECTIVENESS WITH CENSUS CHILD SUPPORT DATA, 1978-95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Percent
Measure ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- change,
1978 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 \1\ 1993 \1\ 1995 1997 1978-97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-State IV-D program
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total IV-D collections (1997 dollars, in billions) \2\...... 2.6 3.3 3.8 5.5 6.8 8.1 9.9 11.4 13.4 415
Parents located (thousands)................................. 454 831 878 1,145 1,624 2,577 3,777 4,950 6,585 1,350
Paternities established (thousands)......................... 111 208 232 269 339 472 554 659 848 664
Awards established (thousands).............................. 315 496 669 812 936 \3\ 821 1,026 1,051 1,156 267
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National trends
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total collections (1997 dollars, in billions) \2\........... 11.1 11.4 10.2 14.1 14.5 14.0 14.7 18.7 15.8 42
Of demographically eligible:
Percent with awards..................................... 59 58 61 59 58 56 60 61 60 2
Percent supposed to receive payment..................... 48 46 50 51 50 49 51 54 53 10
Percent who received some payment....................... 35 35 37 39 37 38 37 37 36 3
Of mothers supposed to receive payment, percent who received 49 50 48 51 51 52 35 40 42 14
full amount................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV-D collections as a percentage of national collections
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV-D collections as a percent of total collections.......... 23 28 37 40 47 58 64 61 85 270
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 All 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. Census Bureau (1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1990,
1991, 1995, and 1997).
the IV-D program has not led to significant improvement of the
Nation's child support performance.
The data in table 8-9 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 not yet had time
to become fully manifest. Thus, collections may now be
improving rapidly, as State level data for 1998 seem to
suggest, but national data through 1997 may not yet reflect the
improvement.
Two additional statistics must be considered in any general
assessment of national child support payments. First, according
to Sorensen (1997), 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 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
welfare program in 1999 was about $16.5 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, 1997), produced the estimate
that $51 billion could be collected in child support each year.
The assumptions underlying this estimate are that all custodial
parents had an order, that payments were made in accordance
with the Wisconsin guidelines (17 percent for one child, 25
percent for two children, 29 percent for three children, 31
percent for four children, and 34 percent for five or more
children), 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 $51 billion that could be
generated by a perfect system with the actual payments of
around $16 billion in 1997 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.
Finally, there does appear to be one area in which the
Federal-State program is having some success. As discussed in
detail in appendix N, nonmarital births have exploded since the
1960s. These cases are the most difficult ones in which to
establish a child support order and make collections. Because
there are more and more of these difficult cases each year,
improved performance with other types of cases is being masked
to some degree. Despite the difficulty of those cases, the
Federal-State program has increased the probability of
collections for never-married mothers from 4 percent in 1976 to
18 percent in 1997 (Sorensen and Halpern, 1999). Even so, the
huge increase in these cases in recent decades has served to
reduce the overall effectiveness of the Federal-State program.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Note: For legislative history before 1996, see previous
editions of the Green Book.
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.--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.--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 Federal Tax
Refund Offset 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 passthrough (eliminated October 1,
1996).
Sec. 303.--Protects privacy rights with respect to
confidential information.
Sec. 304.--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.--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.--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.--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.--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.--Includes requirements for access by State child
support agency to locator information from State motor vehicle
and law enforcement systems.
Sec. 316.--Expands the authority of FPLS to obtain
information and locate individuals. Permits access to the
Federal Parent Locator Service (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.--Requires use of SSNs 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.--Mandates adoption by all States of the Uniform
Interstate Family Support Act.
Sec. 322.--Clarifies priorities for recognition of orders.
Sec. 323.--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.--Calls for the promulgation of forms, developed
by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS), to be used in interstate income withholding
cases, the imposition of liens, and administrative subpoenas
across State lines.
Sec. 325.--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.--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.--Mandates that State programs publicize the
availability and encourage the use of procedures for voluntary
establishment of paternity and child support.
Sec. 333.--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.--Requires the Secretary of DHHS 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.--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.--Requires States to collect and report program
data in a uniform manner as a State plan requirement.
Sec. 344.--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.--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 FPLS.
Sec. 346.--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.--Requires processes for periodic modification of
all child support orders, with review occurring every 3 years,
upon request.
Sec. 352.--Expands access and use of consumer reports by
child support agencies for establishing and modifying child
support.
Sec. 353.--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.--Makes technical corrections to the Social
Security Act section on Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
collection of arrearages.
Sec. 362.--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.--Establishes procedures by which all branches of
the armed forces must aggressively pursue child support
collections from Federal employees.
Sec. 364.--Requires States to have laws that prevent
obligor from transferring income or property to avoid paying
child support.
Sec. 365.--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.--Provides a definition of a support order.
Sec. 367.--Requires all child support delinquencies and
their amounts to be reported to credit bureaus.
Sec. 368.--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.--Requires States to have laws providing for the
suspension of driver's, professional, occupational, and
recreational licenses.
Sec. 370.--Establishes a process by which the U.S.
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.--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.--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.--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.--Clarifies that child support assigned to a State
in assistance cases is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Sec. 375.--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.--Requires the application of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (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.--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.--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.
1997
Public Law 105-33, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, made 28
technical changes to the 1996 welfare reform law (Public Law
104-193).
1998
Public Law 105-187, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of
1998, established two new categories of felony offenses,
subject to a 2-year maximum prison term: (1) traveling in
interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to evade a
support obligation if the obligation has remained unpaid for
more than 1 year or is greater than $5,000; and (2) willfully
failing to pay a child support obligation regarding a child
residing in another State if the obligation has remained unpaid
for more than 2 years or is greater than $10,000.
Public Law 105-200, the Child Support Performance and
Incentive Act of 1998, established a new cost/budget-neutral
incentive system based on five performance measures that create
strong incentives for States to operate efficient and effective
programs. The law also imposes less severe financial penalties
on States that failed to meet the October 1997 deadline for
implementing a statewide CSE automated data processing and
information retrieval system. It also includes provisions
related to medical support and privacy protections, and makes
other minor changes.
Public Law 105-306, the Noncitizen Benefit Clarification
and Other Technical Amendments Act of 1998, includes a
correction to Public Law 105-200 that allows a State that
failed to comply with the 1996 child support data processing
requirements to have its annual penalty reduced by 20 percent
for each of the five performance measures under the child
support incentive system for which it achieves a maximum score.
In addition, the provision would clarify the date by which
States must pass laws implementing medical child support
provisions to allow time for State legislatures that meet
biennially to pass laws after final Federal regulations are
issued in year 2000.
1999
Public Law 106-113, the Fiscal Year 2000 Consolidated
Appropriations Bill, provides an alternative penalty for States
that are not in compliance with the centralized State
disbursement unit requirement, but which have submitted a
corrective compliance plan by April l, 2000, that describes
how, by when, and at what cost the State would achieve
compliance with the State disbursement unit requirement. The
DHHS Secretary is required to reduce the amount the State would
otherwise have received in Federal child support payments by
the penalty amount for the fiscal year. The penalty amount
percentage is 4 percent in the case of the first fiscal year of
noncompliance; 8 percent in the second year; 16 percent in the
third year; 25 percent in the fourth year; or 30 percent in the
fifth or any subsequent year. In addition, the law provides for
coordination of the alternative disbursement unit penalty with
the automated systems penalty so that States that fail to
implement both the automated data processing requirement and
the State disbursement unit requirement are subject to only one
alternative penalty.
Public Law 106-169, the Foster Care Independence Act of
1999, limits the hold harmless requirement of current law by
stipulating that States would only be entitled to hold harmless
funds if the State's share of child support collections are
less than they were in fiscal year 1995 and the State has
distributed and disregarded to welfare families at least 80
percent of child support collected on their behalf in the
preceding fiscal year or the State has distributed to former
welfare recipients the State share of child support payments
collected via the Federal Income Tax Offset Program. If these
conditions are met, the State's share of child support
collections would be increased by 50 percent of the difference
between what the State would have received in fiscal year 1995
and its share of child support collections in the pertinent
fiscal year. Public Law 106-169 repeals the hold harmless
provision effective October 1, 2001.
STATISTICAL TABLES
TABLE 8-10.--STATE PROFILE OF COLLECTIONS AND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEAR 1998 \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.................................................. $172.4 $15.5 $156.9 $50.7 $3.40 $0.31 $3.09 $2.6
Alaska................................................... 64.3 17.7 46.6 18.2 3.52 0.97 2.55 2.7
Arizona.................................................. 144.3 20.6 123.7 54.2 2.66 0.38 2.28 3.6
Arkansas................................................. 99.4 14.8 84.6 34.5 2.88 0.43 2.45 2.6
California............................................... 1,372.4 611.0 761.3 515.4 2.66 1.19 1.48 83.6
Colorado................................................. 140.3 30.0 110.4 45.1 3.11 0.66 2.45 5.0
Connecticut.............................................. 154.4 56.9 97.5 47.9 3.23 1.19 2.04 7.4
Delaware................................................. 42.0 7.6 34.4 16.5 2.55 0.46 2.09 1.0
District of Columbia..................................... 32.7 4.7 28.0 16.5 1.98 0.28 1.69 0.9
Florida.................................................. 507.1 61.6 445.5 166.9 3.04 0.37 2.67 12.2
Georgia.................................................. 300.8 58.4 242.4 85.1 3.53 0.69 2.85 8.7
Guam..................................................... 7.3 1.5 5.8 4.2 1.72 0.35 1.37 0.2
Hawaii................................................... 62.3 11.6 50.7 24.0 2.60 0.48 2.12 1.7
Idaho.................................................... 53.8 7.9 45.9 14.6 3.69 0.54 3.15 1.6
Illinois................................................. 300.2 80.6 219.7 119.9 2.50 0.67 1.83 11.8
Indiana.................................................. 227.2 38.1 189.1 41.7 5.45 0.91 4.54 5.6
Iowa..................................................... 185.1 42.4 142.7 38.6 4.79 1.10 3.69 6.2
Kansas................................................... 122.2 24.8 97.5 40.1 3.05 0.62 2.43 3.7
Kentucky................................................. 185.5 37.8 147.8 47.6 3.90 0.79 3.10 5.4
Louisiana................................................ 170.6 21.6 149.0 42.3 4.03 0.51 3.52 3.1
Maine.................................................... 73.8 30.4 43.4 17.4 4.25 1.75 2.50 5.1
Maryland................................................. 357.1 31.5 325.6 82.9 4.31 0.38 3.93 4.1
Massachusetts............................................ 274.7 58.2 216.4 59.9 4.58 0.97 3.61 7.7
Michigan................................................. 1,151.8 150.4 1,001.5 160.4 7.18 0.94 6.24 20.0
Minnesota................................................ 394.7 56.2 338.5 102.5 3.85 0.55 3.30 7.9
Mississippi.............................................. 112.2 16.9 95.3 30.4 3.69 0.56 3.14 2.6
Missouri................................................. 286.7 58.1 228.6 85.3 3.36 0.68 2.68 8.4
Montana.................................................. 36.9 7.2 30.0 11.7 3.15 0.62 2.54 1.3
Nebraska................................................. 117.1 12.9 104.2 25.1 4.66 0.51 4.15 1.9
Nevada................................................... 69.1 7.5 61.6 23.9 2.90 0.31 2.58 2.3
New Hampshire............................................ 61.0 9.0 52.0 13.6 4.50 0.66 3.83 1.4
New Jersey............................................... 581.9 77.5 504.4 125.3 4.64 0.62 4.03 11.0
New Mexico............................................... 37.3 9.4 27.9 23.4 1.59 0.40 1.19 1.4
New York................................................. 834.5 187.6 646.9 200.8 4.16 0.93 3.22 26.7
North Carolina........................................... 311.7 51.2 260.5 108.9 2.86 0.47 2.39 7.5
North Dakota............................................. 36.1 4.7 31.3 7.6 4.75 0.62 4.12 0.8
Ohio..................................................... 1,151.2 102.3 1,048.9 202.9 5.67 0.50 5.17 14.4
Oklahoma................................................. 86.7 22.5 64.2 27.9 3.10 0.80 2.30 3.5
Oregon................................................... 209.2 25.0 184.2 39.5 5.29 0.63 4.66 4.9
Pennsylvania............................................. 1,043.0 117.7 925.3 147.7 7.06 0.80 6.26 15.9
Puerto Rico.............................................. 145.1 2.3 142.8 27.0 5.38 0.09 5.29 0.3
Rhode Island............................................. 41.9 19.1 22.8 10.0 4.18 1.91 2.27 3.5
South Carolina........................................... 153.9 20.1 133.8 32.6 4.71 0.61 4.10 2.9
South Dakota............................................. 34.5 5.3 29.2 5.6 6.13 0.94 5.19 1.0
Tennessee................................................ 188.4 34.2 154.2 52.6 3.58 0.65 2.93 4.6
Texas.................................................... 685.0 122.0 563.0 182.0 3.76 0.67 3.09 18.5
Utah..................................................... 97.0 21.3 75.8 32.1 3.03 0.66 2.36 3.2
Vermont.................................................. 31.7 8.6 23.2 7.6 4.20 1.13 3.06 1.2
Virginia................................................. 276.9 43.3 233.5 61.1 4.53 0.71 3.82 7.0
Virgin Islands........................................... 6.1 0.6 5.5 2.3 2.67 0.25 2.42 0.1
Washington............................................... 474.4 102.5 371.9 126.8 3.74 0.81 2.93 15.2
West Virginia............................................ 109.4 13.2 96.2 24.5 4.47 0.54 3.93 1.9
Wisconsin................................................ 499.3 53.6 445.7 90.9 5.49 0.59 4.90 7.2
Wyoming.................................................. 33.1 2.8 30.3 8.9 3.72 0.32 3.41 0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 14,347.7 2,649.9 11,697.8 3,585.0 4.00 0.74 3.26 385.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 8-11.--TOTAL CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1979-98
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1979 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................... $6,854 $66,174 $80,952 $98,141 $113,273 $127,908 $141,212 $157,887 $170,581 172,407
Alaska................................ 3,844 26,788 30,721 35,613 39,148 45,851 51,734 57,708 64,919 64,262
Arizona............................... 6,411 27,837 33,277 46,447 66,580 77,419 93,812 113,481 132,049 144,348
Arkansas.............................. 3,921 26,010 32,783 42,065 49,147 55,215 63,875 79,432 91,457 99,373
California............................ 199,945 522,646 591,243 653,681 736,855 811,493 857,282 1,034,409 1,174,214 1,372,354
Colorado.............................. 4,020 39,601 46,997 58,030 67,723 80,288 91,870 108,259 123,565 140,311
Connecticut........................... 23,033 66,724 75,778 84,190 93,454 98,448 117,723 125,234 141,543 154,374
Delaware.............................. 5,814 20,161 22,692 25,926 26,663 29,663 31,551 35,395 38,616 42,006
District of Columbia.................. 1,086 13,598 16,578 19,733 21,798 24,079 26,040 27,791 29,906 32,716
Florida............................... 10,524 176,603 214,153 252,473 289,976 327,296 374,015 411,799 484,630 507,113
Georgia............................... 5,554 113,095 143,014 174,467 205,566 229,822 244,367 268,599 278,060 300,772
Guam.................................. 160 1,440 3,162 4,697 5,003 7,079 6,037 6,736 6,682 7,251
Hawaii................................ 5,150 27,638 30,096 34,404 37,327 45,107 48,751 52,182 55,016 62,314
Idaho................................. 2,501 22,909 23,442 27,846 32,127 36,942 40,747 44,003 48,025 53,779
Illinois.............................. 10,740 136,019 150,134 183,308 183,889 202,191 219,340 249,834 267,360 300,240
Indiana............................... 9,073 96,145 110,117 124,614 141,164 151,626 174,450 196,935 208,444 227,203
Iowa.................................. 13,017 70,982 80,693 96,046 109,278 122,705 136,138 151,907 166,155 185,099
Kansas................................ 3,975 44,958 54,832 66,053 59,601 86,744 97,571 107,579 114,979 122,230
Kentucky.............................. 4,881 59,998 73,928 93,902 103,587 121,427 130,640 144,901 164,357 185,550
Louisiana............................. 12,678 60,527 67,988 84,373 103,054 118,008 129,609 143,644 154,821 170,555
Maine................................. 4,574 35,741 36,554 38,005 44,963 51,184 57,361 62,585 68,615 73,783
Maryland.............................. 20,856 151,352 163,626 194,009 219,085 244,645 265,344 287,923 322.363 357.095
Massachusetts......................... 36,338 176,915 169,545 185,086 195,374 203,986 223,560 247,948 258,584 274,662
Michigan.............................. 248,414 644,734 697,634 782,804 874,483 898,372 859,629 948,558 1,092,176 1,151,824
Minnesota............................. 21,370 139,345 160,363 189,495 214,480 246,252 283,538 318,773 355,372 394,671
Mississippi........................... 1,662 30,532 40,277 48,289 53,505 62,379 68,205 84,551 97,018 112,224
Missouri.............................. 5,829 129,851 141,372 166,339 189,161 214,362 238,700 279,225 318,310 286,735
Montana............................... 1,213 8,822 12,968 17,436 20,150 21,363 25,532 29,356 33,401 36,922
Nebraska.............................. 2,468 52,378 57,055 66,177 71,708 81,082 90,055 95,373 108,624 117,127
Nevada................................ 3,487 16,210 23,346 32,080 37,641 43,722 50,066 56,620 60,063 69,133
New Hampshire......................... 2,089 20,604 22,659 27,360 31,497 36,538 42,570 48,242 54,469 60,976
New Jersey............................ 94,005 281,923 326,879 372,506 407,849 439,748 480,327 500,157 553,713 581,902
New Mexico............................ 1,680 14,416 16,792 19,088 27,117 30,082 26,938 30,114 34,417 37,310
New York.............................. 136,361 373,718 437,371 487,738 536,374 569,682 619,489 701,885 803,826 834,477
North Carolina........................ 9,168 120,344 140,222 167,894 197,254 226,632 233,145 261,672 298,908 311,684
North Dakota.......................... 1,723 10,414 12,309 15,599 18,693 21,878 25,522 28,470 32,209 36,065
Ohio.................................. 22,832 489,515 552,649 665,999 714,132 789,319 886,843 981,342 1,083,543 1,151,229
Oklahoma.............................. 1,826 32,169 39,922 46,540 52,170 57,578 63,908 73,455 79,782 86,665
Oregon................................ 88,502 78,374 91,252 107,435 124,929 142,227 156,829 178,428 197,911 209,182
Pennsylvania.......................... 186,718 614,222 699,676 775,782 814,480 861,653 895,720 958,281 1,006,860 1,042,987
Puerto Rico........................... 1,916 74,535 77,252 84,329 97,357 98,628 107,397 126,711 142,555 145,132
Rhode Island.......................... 3,575 20,044 21,609 24,880 26,671 29,900 32,634 35,524 38,825 41,902
South Carolina........................ 3,545 52,320 58,857 68,798 79,280 90,628 102,912 118,147 135,657 153,916
South Dakota.......................... 1,407 11,024 13,119 15,881 18,112 21,357 24,838 28,018 30,888 34,489
Tennessee............................. 8,976 71,502 77,032 84,818 116,152 141,388 156,904 159,804 172,823 188,406
Texas................................. 8,207 132,318 192,797 251,157 309,502 367,171 448,463 538,253 618,066 685,028
Utah.................................. 6,624 38,071 43,895 52,610 56,199 61,135 63,426 77,600 84,542 97,014
Vermont............................... 1,449 9,353 11,023 13,518 15,831 17,950 21,234 25,370 27,878 31,712
Virginia.............................. 9,197 110,560 129,919 145,114 151,919 182,787 226,682 257,180 292,830 276,876
Virgin Islands........................ 260 3,131 3,338 4,049 4,992 5,562 5,399 5,438 5,921 6,123
Washington............................ 27,018 175,750 222,409 267,455 307,251 340,488 375,257 407,002 451,730 474,433
West Virginia......................... 1,592 21,658 23,527 35,561 49,016 54,402 72,796 84,233 98,148 109,384
Wisconsin............................. 34,267 241,272 276,712 293,460 332,814 380,584 427,487 440,239 459,882 499,272
Wyoming............................... 520 7,155 9,079 11,220 13,810 16,184 17,350 25,021 28,683 33,110
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 13,363,972 14,347,707
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-12.--TOTAL AFDC COLLECTIONS BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1979-98
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1979 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................... $6,830 $19,484 $22,788 $23,001 $22,539 $21,148 $21,115 $23,464 $23,361 $15,486
Alaska.................................... 334 8,160 9,940 11,145 11,722 13,645 16,138 18,464 20,637 17,691
Arizona................................... 642 6,102 7,401 12,693 18,616 21,175 24,217 23,764 26,031 20,632
Arkansas.................................. 2,428 11,799 13,800 15,766 16,249 15,662 16,831 19,746 19,876 14,760
California................................ 117,532 248,440 286,261 314,232 335,235 374,548 401,573 496,185 544,639 611,023
Colorado.................................. 3,525 16,765 19,281 23,287 26,197 29,415 31,192 35,572 36,950 29,958
Connecticut............................... 11,416 27,405 33,816 37,744 41,292 41,465 54,100 54,323 60,342 56,904
Delaware.................................. 1,386 5,826 6,661 7,306 7,798 7,855 8,029 8,315 7,962 7,595
District of Columbia...................... 907 4,118 4,407 4,927 5,197 5,614 5,923 6,032 5,631 4,689
Florida................................... 8,598 48,364 57,071 69,765 78,081 80,368 85,244 80,685 100,231 61,625
Georgia................................... 4,772 45,937 57,765 74,546 84,627 84,820 84,932 102,399 77,173 58,405
Guam...................................... 159 520 1,635 2,524 2,344 1,948 1,723 2,003 1,320 1,465
Hawaii.................................... 2,544 8,343 7,699 8,161 9,058 9,951 11,367 12,241 11,510 11,578
Idaho..................................... 2,047 6,952 7,482 8,543 8,746 10,086 10,912 11,109 10,225 7,874
Illinois.................................. 9,916 44,149 48,968 58,842 55,749 61,112 65,091 72,391 77,683 80,566
Indiana................................... 8,116 38,124 45,030 49,247 52,040 51,945 50,962 44,994 39,853 38,070
Iowa...................................... 10,654 28,552 30,585 35,401 36,775 40,105 41,007 40,100 40,773 42,358
Kansas.................................... 3,454 15,209 17,454 20,869 22,402 24,732 27,567 28,779 27,072 24,764
Kentucky.................................. 4,615 22,286 27,502 34,702 36,565 37,979 39,299 39,445 39,449 37,786
Louisiana................................. 5,244 20,861 23,089 25,975 26,827 26,714 28,133 31,228 27,123 21,553
Maine..................................... 4,133 21,089 21,063 21,477 25,683 27,783 28,435 29,542 31,810 30,409
Maryland.................................. 10,929 42,318 37,162 46,348 51,313 48,031 47,419 46,709 38,008 31,480
Massachusetts............................. 29,145 68,968 66,969 71,784 77,292 76,899 77,085 71,421 67,382 58,242
Michigan.................................. 76,375 145,251 153,690 168,317 169,581 176,100 167,673 170,955 161,658 150,357
Minnesota................................. 14,510 43,950 47,802 53,305 55,961 61,418 64,406 64,872 64,572 56,177
Mississippi............................... 1,556 14,530 19,494 21,523 21,641 22,962 22,067 24,450 21,857 16,927
Missouri.................................. 4,165 38,056 37,021 49,653 51,153 55,959 57,788 66,610 51,858 58,140
Montana................................... 685 4,394 5,251 6,413 6,464 6,118 7,452 8,170 8,328 7,213
Nebraska.................................. 2,083 6,990 7,431 9,195 9,797 10,158 11,337 12,437 12,675 12,893
Nevada.................................... 517 3,311 4,465 6,807 7,021 7,271 7,643 8,441 8,433 7,508
New Hampshire............................. 2,089 3,606 4,385 6,337 7,638 9,446 10,776 10,532 9,845 8,995
New Jersey................................ 28,622 61,473 76,644 83,509 84,020 86,357 88,932 90,644 88,149 77,520
New Mexico................................ 1,160 5,573 6,421 7,850 12,922 13,389 9,257 6,253 9,498 9,381
New York.................................. 56,588 134,040 157,582 174,587 184,583 183,707 187,205 205,855 224,751 187,613
North Carolina............................ 7,714 46,176 54,712 64,004 70,304 76,808 75,209 75,017 74,283 51,171
North Dakota.............................. 1,379 5,103 5,600 6,016 6,098 6,148 6,334 6,108 5,967 4,744
Ohio...................................... 21,974 76,888 84,304 100,833 105,719 113,425 120,127 124,814 123,515 102,348
Oklahoma.................................. 1,260 11,875 14,894 17,682 18,784 20,817 22,287 24,345 23,980 22,483
Oregon.................................... 12,977 18,877 21,989 25,637 28,357 30,119 30,586 31,152 29,283 25,003
Pennsylvania.............................. 33,190 96,328 113,735 123,784 124,490 26,932 134,995 138,685 123,350 117,670
Puerto Rico............................... 439 1,707 1,600 1,428 1,344 1,445 2,418 2,821 2,814 2,323
Rhode Island.............................. 3,438 10,168 10,550 13,486 14,954 16,539 17,704 18,351 18,869 19,131
South Carolina............................ 3,065 15,933 17,779 21,066 24,588 27,063 27,933 29,614 24,935 20,072
South Dakota.............................. 1,137 3,717 4,213 4,888 5,056 5,645 6,129 6,617 6,163 5,294
Tennessee................................. 3,871 22,926 27,865 22,777 33,422 34,852 47,576 34,740 31,556 34,187
Texas..................................... 6,370 39,659 47,255 59,165 66,199 75,830 88,507 102,752 108,101 121,982
Utah...................................... 5,442 14,999 16,261 18,939 19,488 20,691 20,948 21,555 21,001 21,262
Vermont................................... 1,201 5,578 6,380 6,649 7,638 7,424 8,312 8,912 8,379 8,555
Virginia.................................. 9,081 27,770 33,910 38,281 39,610 37,579 48,109 46,351 46,883 43,326
Virgin Islands............................ 143 210 233 282 343 357 352 484 628 573
Washington................................ 18,319 65,291 77,402 91,083 100,337 104,063 109,763 112,819 112,561 102,533
West Virginia............................. 1,430 4,085 6,859 9,500 16,867 12,377 13,846 15,307 15,919 13,213
Wisconsin................................. 26,044 59,303 61,179 63,813 65,439 81,437 94,558 80,986 63,592 53,597
Wyoming................................... 379 2,584 3,226 3,749 4,345 4,288 4,665 4,945 4,233 2,827
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 596,532 1,750,125 1,983,962 2,258,844 2,416,511 2,549,723 2,693,186 2,854,502 2,842,681 2,649,930
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-13.--TOTAL NON-AFDC COLLECTIONS BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1979-98
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1979 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................. $16 $46,691 $58,165 $75,140 $90,733 $106,760 $120,098 $134,423 $147,221 $156,921
Alaska................................... 3,510 18,628 20,781 24,468 27,426 32,207 35,596 39,245 44,283 46,572
Arizona.................................. 5,769 21,735 25,875 33,754 47,963 56,243 69,594 89,273 106,018 123,716
Arkansas................................. 1,494 14,211 18,984 26,299 32,899 39,553 47,045 59,686 71,581 84,614
California............................... 82,412 274,205 304,982 339,449 401,620 436,945 455,708 538,224 629,575 761,331
Colorado................................. 496 22,836 27,715 34,743 41,527 50,873 60,678 72,688 86,614 110,353
Connecticut.............................. 11,617 39,319 41,960 46,445 52,161 56,983 63,623 70,911 81,201 97,470
Delaware................................. 4,428 14,335 16,032 18,620 18,865 21,809 23,522 27,080 30,654 34,411
District of Columbia..................... 179 9,481 12,171 14,806 16,601 18,465 20,117 21,759 24,275 28,026
Florida.................................. 1,926 128,239 157,081 182,707 211,896 246,928 288,770 331,114 384,399 445,488
Georgia.................................. 783 67,158 85,249 99,921 120,939 145,002 159,435 166,200 200,887 242,368
Guam..................................... (\1\) 920 1,527 2,172 2,659 5,131 4,314 4,733 5,361 5,786
Hawaii................................... 2,606 19,295 22,397 26,243 28,269 35,156 37,384 39,941 43,505 50,737
Idaho.................................... 454 15,957 15,960 19,302 23,381 26,856 29,835 32,894 37,800 45,905
Illinois................................. 823 91,870 101,167 124,467 128,140 141,079 154,249 177,443 189,677 219,674
Indiana.................................. 957 58,021 65,087 75,368 89,125 99,680 123,488 151,941 168,591 189,133
Iowa..................................... 2,363 42,430 50,109 60,645 72,503 82,599 95,131 111,807 125,383 142,741
Kansas................................... 520 29,749 37,379 45,183 37,199 62,012 70,003 78,799 87,907 97,466
Kentucky................................. 266 37,711 46,426 59,200 67,022 83,448 91,341 105,457 124,908 147,764
Louisiana................................ 7,434 39,665 44,898 58,398 76,227 91,293 101,476 112,416 127,699 149,003
Maine.................................... 441 14,652 15,490 16,528 19,280 23,402 28,927 33,043 36,806 43,374
Maryland................................. 9,927 109,034 126,464 147,660 167,771 196,614 217,925 241,214 284,355 325,615
Massachusetts............................ 7,193 107,948 102,576 113,302 118,082 127,087 146,475 176,527 191,202 216,421
Michigan................................. 172,039 499,483 543,944 614,488 704,903 722,273 691,956 777,603 930,518 1,001,467
Minnesota................................ 6,861 95,395 112,561 136,190 158,519 184,834 219,131 253,900 290,799 338,494
Mississippi.............................. 106 16,002 20,783 26,766 31,864 39,417 46,139 60,101 75,161 95,298
Missouri................................. 1,664 91,795 104,351 116,686 138,008 158,403 180,912 212,614 266,452 228,595
Montana.................................. 528 4,427 7,718 11,024 13,686 15,245 18,080 21,187 25,073 29,709
Nebraska................................. 385 45,387 49,624 56,983 61,911 70,925 78,718 82,936 95,949 104,234
Nevada................................... 2,970 12,899 18,881 25,273 30,620 36,451 42,423 48,179 51,630 61,625
New Hampshire............................ 0 16,999 18,274 21,023 23,859 27,092 31,793 37,710 44,624 51,981
New Jersey............................... 65,383 220,450 250,235 288,997 323,829 353,390 391,395 409,513 465,564 504,382
New Mexico............................... 520 8,843 10,371 11,239 14,195 16,693 17,681 23,860 24,919 27,929
New York................................. 79,773 239,678 279,289 313,151 351,791 385,974 432,284 496,030 579,075 646,864
North Carolina........................... 1,454 74,167 85,510 103,890 126,951 149,824 157,936 186,655 224,625 260,513
North Dakota............................. 344 5,312 6,708 9,583 12,595 15,730 19,188 22,361 26,242 31,321
Ohio..................................... 858 412,627 468,346 565,166 608,413 675,895 766,715 856,529 960,029 1,048,880
Oklahoma................................. 566 20,293 25,028 28,858 33,386 36,760 41,621 49,109 55,802 64,182
Oregon................................... 75,525 59,497 69,263 81,798 96,572 112,108 126,244 147,276 168,627 184,179
Pennsylvania............................. 153,528 517,893 517,893 651,998 689,990 734,721 760,725 819,596 883,510 925,317
Puerto Rico.............................. 1,477 72,828 75,652 82,901 96,014 97,184 104,979 123,890 139,741 142,808
Rhode Island............................. 137 9,876 11,059 11,394 11,717 13,361 14,931 17,173 19,955 22,771
South Carolina........................... 480 36,387 41,078 47,732 54,692 63,565 74,978 88,533 110,722 133,844
South Dakota............................. 270 7,307 8,906 10,993 13,056 15,711 18,709 21,401 24,724 29,195
Tennessee................................ 5,105 48,575 49,167 62,041 82,730 106,536 109,328 125,064 141,267 154,220
Texas.................................... 1,837 92,659 145,543 191,993 243,303 291,341 359,956 435,501 509,964 563,046
Utah..................................... 1,183 23,073 27,634 33,671 36,712 40,445 42,478 56,045 63,541 75,752
Vermont.................................. 249 3,775 4,643 6,869 8,193 10,526 12,922 16,458 19,498 23,157
Virginia................................. 116 82,789 96,008 106,833 112,309 145,207 178,572 210,828 245,946 233,549
Virgin Islands........................... 116 2,920 3,105 3,767 4,649 5,205 5,047 4,955 5,293 5,549
Washington............................... 8,699 110,459 145,006 176,372 206,914 236,425 265,495 294,184 339,169 371,900
West Virginia............................ 162 17,574 16,668 26,061 32,149 42,025 58,951 68,926 82,229 96,171
Wisconsin................................ 8,224 181,969 215,533 229,647 267,374 299,147 332,929 359,253 396,290 445,675
Wyoming.................................. 141 4,571 5,853 7,471 9,465 11,896 12,685 20,076 24,449 30,283
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 736,315 4,260,000 4,901,657 5,705,678 6,492,655 7,300,436 8,059,637 9,164,265 10,521,291 11,697,777
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-14.--AVERAGE NUMBER OF AFDC CHILD SUPPORT CASES IN WHICH A COLLECTION WAS MADE, BY STATE FOR SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1978-98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1978 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................................... 7,966 9,133 10,860 8,347 9,209 9,077 7,679 6,961 5,749 3,843
Alaska........................................... 246 1,120 1,387 1,718 1,949 2,168 2,415 2,620 2,700 2,627
Arizona.......................................... 819 1,851 3,128 1,930 2,822 3,343 7,384 6,764 6,805 4,614
Arkansas......................................... 2,509 5,207 6,372 7,071 8,188 8,301 6,773 6,589 5,673 6,070
California....................................... 92,325 103,742 89,304 104,903 116,118 123,776 173,547 224,932 258,104 303,129
Colorado......................................... 3,177 5,687 4,437 4,581 5,126 5,210 4,418 4,202 3,730 2,577
Connecticut...................................... 8,002 15,565 6,578 7,128 8,445 9,437 10,792 11,574 12,127 10,734
Delaware......................................... 1,156 2,891 2,223 2,495 2,663 2,913 2,880 2,543 2,205 1,807
District of Columbia............................. 708 1,925 1,758 1,940 2,281 2,437 2,534 2,357 2,109 2,334
Florida.......................................... 7,376 16,468 38,500 40,687 40,135 44,727 49,284 41,195 14,477 10,538
Georgia.......................................... 6,350 6,657 19,310 23,280 24,729 26,676 28,639 25,136 23,768 19,964
Guam............................................. (\1\) 206 197 573 616 683 646 559 442 477
Hawaii........................................... 1,757 4,622 2,658 2,773 4,651 4,551 2,920 3,428 2,930 2,983
Idaho............................................ 1,346 4,343 1,752 1,992 2,356 2,719 3,130 3,073 2,155 1,274
Illinois......................................... 9,624 18,299 16,968 23,511 23,639 26,028 28,430 29,586 20,045 24,470
Indiana.......................................... 9,488 22,058 20,444 26,344 30,823 31,159 111,078 30,119 5,927 3,402
Iowa............................................. 8,396 11,871 7,289 7,153 7,681 7,365 7,057 5,604 5,006 5,077
Kansas........................................... 2,859 4,769 4,595 5,268 6,120 6,857 7,515 7,064 5,241 3,854
Kentucky......................................... 3,083 6,729 10,741 12,513 13,516 15,217 12,679 11,607 10,272 8,723
Louisiana........................................ 5,204 7,836 11,842 12,198 12,510 12,164 11,887 11,957 30,353 7,177
Maine............................................ 2,368 7,178 5,515 5,767 5,287 7,013 8,793 8,981 8,946 8,230
Maryland......................................... 14,002 15,861 9,237 18,330 19,366 18,684 18,119 16,574 12,786 9,109
Massachusetts.................................... 17,782 25,350 16,029 16,106 17,961 18,378 22,245 17,118 15,458 11,282
Michigan......................................... 61,985 59,049 51,747 46,647 45,112 45,211 39,332 36,496 30,641 33,606
Minnesota........................................ 9,818 14,872 14,192 12,658 14,563 16,440 17,170 15,778 14,733 10,852
Mississippi...................................... 1,846 3,742 7,237 8,808 9,604 10,157 9,970 9,732 7,300 4,621
Missouri......................................... (\2\) 7,716 6,483 11,241 13,430 14,135 13,096 13,987 9,880 11,824
Montana.......................................... 748 1,600 1,140 1,298 1,551 1,816 2,169 2,319 2,051 1,442
Nebraska......................................... 1,509 2,362 2,811 3,255 4,802 4,811 5,538 5,737 5,608 5,171
Nevada........................................... 494 2,370 2,269 2,404 3,096 3,506 3,518 4,792 4,603 4,990
New Hampshire.................................... 1,530 1,021 1,091 1,454 2,240 2,703 3,328 3,215 2,889 2,628
New Jersey....................................... 16,243 27,686 17,591 19,728 24,376 26,241 26,899 27,310 24,833 18,753
New Mexico....................................... 1,429 2,034 3,766 4,383 3,865 4,385 6,613 7,427 6,609 1,897
New York......................................... 36,287 48,979 40,219 46,382 51,290 51,407 51,943 52,741 51,495 50,846
North Carolina................................... 11,232 14,216 20,381 24,699 28,028 29,649 28,027 25,276 18,728 844
North Dakota..................................... 759 1,656 1,647 1,665 1,597 1,579 943 1,006 769 572
Ohio............................................. 24,419 32,582 35,973 34,446 38,445 39,857 47,323 45994 48,117 40,424
Oklahoma......................................... 1,101 3,543 7,787 3,895 4,794 5,294 5,671 5,157 4,332 3,636
Oregon........................................... 6,761 6,687 6,437 7,437 8,321 9,495 9,390 8,899 8,112 7,313
Pennsylvania..................................... 15,172 42,088 47,039 52,269 59,514 61,998 58,646 60,952 48,946 32,634
Puerto Rico...................................... 413 3,736 3,696 3,103 3,026 2,811 3,454 1,351 1,177 1,333
Rhode Island..................................... 2,419 3,233 4,295 3,100 3,346 4,070 4,830 4,739 4,530 4,552
South Carolina................................... 3,343 5,785 14,614 15,349 16,764 19,026 20,964 21,547 20,832 22,209
South Dakota..................................... 1,087 1,532 1,234 1,262 1,526 1,642 1,809 2,268 1,341 1,104
Tennessee........................................ 4,705 8,336 16,659 11,625 12,179 11,391 10,344 8,892 3,269 9,899
Texas............................................ 5,446 5,652 15,447 18,229 20,387 23,075 26,570 27,897 26,169 12,043
Utah............................................. 3,784 5,209 3,333 3,669 3,973 4,033 3,979 4,034 3,718 3,179
Vermont.......................................... 953 2,329 2,596 2,826 3,556 4,114 2,594 2,856 2,678 2,511
Virginia......................................... 4,729 13,054 14,138 16,761 18,679 19,399 45,576 19,188 16,965 16,057
Virgin Islands................................... 232 199 133 135 165 193 214 158 234 246
Washington....................................... 14,860 15,895 27,063 23,263 28,618 27,020 29,026 24,317 23,648 19,536
West Virginia.................................... 1,430 2,331 2,484 2,622 3,347 4,108 6,185 4,488 4,219 2,750
Wisconsin........................................ 16,868 44,799 30,143 30,426 32,693 31,984 32,140 10,681 8,728 6,956
Wyoming.......................................... 294 453 1,197 1,681 2,094 2,146 2,058 675 547 554
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................ 458,439 684,114 700,803 755,328 831,172 872,579 1,050,163 940,452 864,709 789,277
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 8-15.--AVERAGE NUMBER OF NON-AFDC CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CASES IN WHICH A COLLECTION WAS MADE BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1978-98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1978 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................. 110 5,023 19,971 28,512 33,741 39,586 47,785 51,547 57,479 57,751
Alaska.............................. 2,309 3,205 3,947 4,211 4,598 4,997 5,891 6,331 6,714 9,662
Arizona............................. (\1\) 4,770 4,668 9,144 11,107 10,283 21,881 25,800 25,788 35,524
Arkansas............................ 764 3,613 8,473 11,232 15,088 18,449 23,243 27,015 31,538 33,648
California.......................... 69,696 64,686 96,101 101,913 97,597 104,864 155,144 200,129 237,234 285,220
Colorado............................ 1,017 3,976 7,281 9,008 10,492 11,360 14,524 16,883 19,858 24,187
Connecticut......................... (\1\) 9,392 9,884 13,289 14,441 15,721 17,950 20,071 22,526 26,477
Delaware............................ 3,210 4,395 6,770 8,058 8,303 9,191 11,575 9,856 10,259 11,204
District of Columbia................ 93 1,007 4,252 4,964 5,704 6,278 6,904 7,164 7,520 12,054
Florida............................. 1,200 7,593 56,329 66,748 67,948 77,734 96,394 102,045 92,641 102,959
Georgia............................. 1,207 5,487 30,217 34,545 35,419 40,698 50,178 55,749 81,366 105,275
Guam................................ (\1\) 65 114 495 616 803 1,582 1,508 1,398 1,494
Hawaii.............................. (\1\) 352 2,804 10,398 15,305 16,299 10,237 10,393 11,637 12,609
Idaho............................... 455 1,047 6,493 7,403 8,689 9,889 11,522 11,612 11,599 13,194
Illinois............................ 196 10,030 26,184 36,363 36,246 40,744 48,174 54,714 62,397 62,763
Indiana............................. 450 2,881 25,586 27,111 34,855 36,865 39,155 45,017 57,723 48,065
Iowa................................ 671 4,913 12,400 14,103 16,352 19,266 24,161 25,634 28,661 33,162
Kansas.............................. 210 758 11,520 13,855 16,003 18,846 24,991 27,187 30,415 33,193
Kentucky............................ 255 3,647 17,473 20,489 23,531 28,950 35,072 38,815 43,479 49,190
Louisiana........................... 6,866 10,636 16,739 20,001 24,194 28,146 37,396 42,588 47,949 53,144
Maine............................... 638 1,496 6,425 6,510 5,479 7,630 11,793 12,752 14,070 14,004
Maryland............................ 130 26,154 27,339 49,380 52,024 54,989 61,259 65,038 70,096 75,372
Massachusetts....................... (\1\) 0 22,921 14,264 24,605 25,899 33,533 40,266 44,261 47,520
Michigan............................ (\1\) 88,675 115,081 129,461 133,652 141,489 151,518 164,057 179,822 201,862
Minnesota........................... 2,766 12,615 26,712 27,174 35,791 43,272 56,720 64,251 72,944 73,253
Mississippi......................... 81 1,319 7,917 10,077 12,997 16,007 24,355 29,377 29,626 35,172
Missouri............................ (\1\) 5,362 26,994 32,317 38,492 41,022 47,438 57,745 50,365 67,848
Montana............................. 444 344 1,448 2,208 2,748 3,750 6,148 7,488 8,711 10,231
Nebraska............................ 176 7,874 14,748 14,883 15,185 17,771 18,399 19,113 18,524 15,239
Nevada.............................. 4,026 5,360 4,451 5,327 6,676 7,819 9,387 10,072 11,146 12,256
New Hampshire....................... (\1\) 4,939 5,260 5,875 7,077 7,870 10,079 11,316 12,784 14,186
New Jersey.......................... 20,000 45,868 66,885 68,753 78,789 84,267 89,409 97,360 103,379 105,719
New Mexico.......................... 286 2,249 5,360 5,758 5,947 5,849 8,095 9,455 9,509 6,465
New York............................ 39,623 63,829 83,651 94,031 103,924 108,419 152,556 136,975 152,311 173,196
North Carolina...................... 1,715 10,137 27,632 31,810 37,172 43,884 59,956 68,579 61,255 2,724
North Dakota........................ 154 266 1,911 2,357 3,320 4,026 4,245 6,582 7,028 7,789
Ohio................................ 1,430 10,853 101,553 107,806 135,535 149,104 191,748 158,967 234,784 260,203
Oklahoma............................ (\1\) 1,968 10,509 8,558 8,479 10,707 13,730 15,347 17,094 18,548
Oregon.............................. 17,957 19,331 25,657 19,754 21,810 25,063 31,968 35,821 31,931 44,005
Pennsylvania........................ 49,621 108,498 147,885 171,525 182,098 190,671 195,144 209,436 219,075 169,472
Puerto Rico......................... 710 26,873 35,295 36,731 33,075 41,130 45,963 47,320 48,994 50,848
Rhode Island........................ 57 1,969 3,705 3,017 3,060 3,291 4,271 4,670 5,341 6,161
South Carolina...................... 203 2,777 4,896 10,393 25,764 27,771 34,471 36,395 42,911 48,375
South Dakota........................ 297 502 2,739 3,262 3,881 4,607 6,339 7,916 7,709 8,825
Tennessee........................... 6,360 12,156 28,174 31,554 35,358 40,003 53,498 55,076 42,622 69,067
Texas............................... 2,861 8,833 37,741 51,039 65,152 79,037 111,451 133,427 151,245 169,850
Utah................................ 400 1,068 6,738 8,605 9,704 10,573 13,446 15,343 18,848 22,458
Vermont............................. 181 393 1,659 1,870 2,433 3,154 3,380 4,603 5,644 6,742
Virginia............................ 38 876 31,492 34,242 38,267 46,760 88,500 66,164 72,765 80,067
Virgin Islands...................... 1 1,288 1,247 1,301 1,348 1,538 1,655 1,410 1,790 1,926
Washington.......................... 4,822 9,802 34,791 46,930 55,788 64,929 74,479 69,233 80,647 90,587
West Virginia....................... 130 288 8,045 7,555 9,513 11,971 22,022 20,762 22,932 26,807
Wisconsin........................... 4,685 20,288 56,769 65,718 70,780 88,601 111,438 94,760 104,860 113,704
Wyoming............................. 89 77 2,352 2,853 3,275 1,738 3,564 6,582 7,287 8,326
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 248,590 653,803 1,362,821 1,554,740 1,749,427 1,953,580 2,404,716 2,563,716 2,850,491 3,069,582
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 8-16.--SUPPORT ORDERS ESTABLISHED, ENFORCED, AND MODIFIED TO INCLUDE HEALTH INSURANCE BY STATE, FISCAL
YEAR 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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..................... 21,176 11,399 53.83 608,877 123,919 20.35
Alaska...................... 3,146 3,119 99.14 3,655 3,540 96.85
Arizona..................... 9,121 9,121 100.00 624,217 8,807 1.41
Arkansas.................... 9,070 6,030 66.48 157,368 6,002 3.81
California.................. 223,541 175,227 78.39 1,378,352 1,043,809 75.73
Colorado.................... 9,982 8,287 83.02 75,453 44,838 59.43
Connecticut................. 31,995 20,726 64.78 169,970 90,931 53.50
Delaware.................... 2,354 2,354 100.00 18,205 15,114 83.02
District of Columbia........ 6,814 79 1.16 6,092 39 0.64
Florida..................... 25,958 3,486 13.43 66,747 13,772 20.63
Georgia..................... 31,092 13,362 42.98 508,876 156,667 30.79
Guam........................ 336 141 41.96 698 267 38.25
Hawaii...................... 4,150 4,150 100.00 117,044 117,044 100.00
Idaho....................... 3,218 3,160 98.20 204,583 144,380 70.57
Illinois.................... 30,765 13,419 43.62 647,959 141,839 21.89
Indiana..................... 32,272 695 2.15 7,271 16 0.22
Iowa........................ 14,930 12,373 82.87 166,137 93,595 56.34
Kansas...................... 17,318 14,473 83.57 172,949 45,405 26.25
Kentucky.................... 27,190 9,849 36.22 161,396 30,602 18.96
Louisiana................... 17,419 16,594 95.26 169,646 137,112 80.82
Maine....................... 4,687 3,386 72.24 12,759 1,359 10.65
Maryland.................... 20,933 13,949 66.64 1,199,586 265,442 22.13
Massachusetts............... 12,297 6,469 52.61 81,744 1,806 2.21
Michigan.................... 28,212 24,952 88.44 1,407,431 76,904 5.46
Minnesota................... 18,657 8,134 43.60 371,521 43,957 11.83
Mississippi................. 14,561 6,542 44.93 92,695 25,344 27.34
Missouri.................... 22,756 17,064 74.99 88,191 59,112 67.03
Montana..................... 2,232 2,062 92.38 44,300 9,124 20.60
Nebraska.................... 4,887 2,233 45.69 1,613 391 24.24
Nevada...................... 4,186 3,172 75.78 65,302 2,033 3.11
New Hampshire............... 3,877 2,057 53.06 64,798 4,426 6.83
New Jersey.................. 23,192 16,235 70.00 30,712 11,926 38.83
New Mexico.................. 3,633 1,833 50.45 9,436 393 4.16
New York.................... 49,481 19,790 40.00 43,048 17,218 40.00
North Carolina.............. 35,959 35,959 100.00 71,839 NA 0.00
North Dakota................ 2,177 2,076 95.36 13,861 118 0.85
Ohio........................ 63,014 44,891 71.24 723,398 345,704 47.79
Oklahoma.................... 9,272 7,366 79.44 8,651 6,258 72.34
Oregon...................... 12,850 10,915 84.94 58,760 20,161 34.31
Pennsylvania................ 108,510 89,286 82.28 352,843 265,558 75.26
Puerto Rico................. 9,359 NA 0.00 78,542 8 0.01
Rhode Island................ 2,283 1,480 64.83 19,614 14,187 72.33
South Carolina.............. 13,641 8,649 63.40 34,463 17,234 50.01
South Dakota................ 3,792 3,430 90.45 26,354 21,507 81.61
Tennessee................... 28,842 6,804 23.59 50,799 30,365 59.77
Texas....................... 37,019 24,417 65.96 52,081 8,486 16.29
Utah........................ 4,386 3,405 77.63 170,415 149,609 87.79
Vermont..................... 2,229 900 40.38 28,924 13,937 48.18
Virginia.................... 20,298 16,198 79.80 137,783 32,192 23.36
Virgin Islands.............. 556 9 1.62 1,216 NA 0.00
Washington.................. 27,248 24,536 90.05 851,861 395,963 46.48
West Virginia............... 9,712 4,658 47.96 89,607 2,898 3.23
Wisconsin................... 19,418 8,677 44.69 175,076 22,386 12.79
Wyoming..................... 1,698 874 51.47 47,500 18,475 38.89
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 1,147,701 750,452 65.39 11,772,218 4,102,179 34.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA--Not available.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-17.--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
Virginia.................................. 6.3 9.0 13.5 15.7 17.2 17.3 17.3 16.2 21.8 23.8
Virgin Islands............................ 8.5 8.3 7.9 7.3 7.1 8.5 10.2 10.6 8.7 11.0
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 Aid to Families with Dependent Children--Unemployed Parent (AFDC-UP) families have been excluded from the payment totals in those
States having AFDC-UP Programs.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-18.--FEDERAL INCOME TAX REFUND OFFSET COLLECTIONS BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1983-98
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1983 1987 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................... $1,555 $5,135 $8,009 $8,827 $20,586 $17,818 $18,688 $25,609 $25,208 $26,068
Alaska........................................ 212 891 1,208 1,387 1,711 1,464 2,156 2,946 2,917 4,011
Arizona....................................... 385 2,049 2,605 2,876 4,007 8,381 7,538 8,763 12,923 11,520
Arkansas...................................... 1,104 3,770 4,669 5,575 7,106 6,862 7,515 11,391 12,176 13,729
California.................................... 35,034 46,287 57,624 57,098 67,569 62,460 86,508 129,209 132,838 152,738
Colorado...................................... 3,016 3,020 5,604 6,179 7,614 7,851 9,283 13,973 13,932 15,000
Connecticut................................... 4,455 6,140 9,907 9,250 10,190 9,315 10,823 13,699 14,034 15,073
Delaware...................................... 166 1,319 1,966 2,467 2,683 2,313 2,626 3,291 3,424 3,730
District of Columbia.......................... 567 779 1,942 1,606 1,788 1,701 1,992 2,555 2,832 2,913
Florida....................................... 1,980 7,318 21,038 24,880 31,569 30,689 38,045 50,377 51,709 54,020
Georgia....................................... 1,526 7,258 13,032 15,693 22,016 22,441 30,103 36,429 31,895 31,363
Guam.......................................... 13 44 13 11 51 43 70 92 99 285
Hawaii........................................ 817 1,122 1,573 1,976 2,328 3,704 3,589 4,519 4,567 5,543
Idaho......................................... 1,183 1,594 2,173 2,270 2,690 2,595 3,205 4,061 4,441 4,867
Illinois...................................... 4,525 15,415 19,307 18,876 26,631 20,891 28,836 33,620 37,064 39,738
Indiana....................................... 4,940 11,390 15,860 16,853 21,169 19,809 23,429 27,690 26,129 24,179
Iowa.......................................... 5,526 7,798 8,828 9,439 11,240 10,633 13,055 15,623 15,189 18,285
Kansas........................................ 2,525 3,704 5,300 6,101 7,525 7,207 9,196 12,292 13,626 13,489
Kentucky...................................... 1,165 3,262 6,680 7,891 12,919 11,994 14,121 16,550 18,097 18,491
Louisiana..................................... 1,536 4,722 6,582 6,519 8,438 9,356 13,934 18,758 21,696 19,524
Maine......................................... 1,844 3,377 5,383 4,925 5,477 4,862 6,103 7,140 7,406 8,094
Maryland...................................... 5,688 9,646 14,343 14,182 15,542 15,454 17,936 22,333 23,833 22,704
Massachusetts................................. 3,325 5,269 11,899 10,936 13,077 11,465 9,997 11,739 13,229 15,158
Michigan...................................... 18,250 25,893 29,854 32,776 44,968 45,314 49,346 56,625 59,784 62,184
Minnesota..................................... 5,576 6,762 8,096 8,831 9,904 9,217 10,575 12,886 13,607 9,621
Mississippi................................... 1,019 2,252 4,958 6,392 8,270 8,532 10,765 19,839 15,959 16,949
Missouri...................................... 4,289 8,482 14,205 10,189 17,711 16,367 19,546 24,207 26,814 27,772
Montana....................................... 431 1,209 1,301 1,374 1,636 1,679 1,794 2,242 2,712 2,871
Nebraska...................................... 502 1,395 2,485 2,548 3,121 3,213 3,671 4,684 5,411 5,218
Nevada........................................ 354 433 768 1,363 2,449 2,291 3,127 4,235 5,144 5,264
New Hampshire................................. 757 1,284 1,177 1,350 2,028 1,997 2,869 3,551 3,845 4,145
New Jersey.................................... 9,458 14,268 16,171 18,266 20,132 17,990 21,309 25,717 27,200 27,063
New Mexico.................................... 533 2,278 2,585 2,863 3,259 3,041 3,907 4,908 5,468 5,368
New York...................................... 9,945 27,991 24,763 31,307 33,734 31,084 35,960 42,715 49,517 49,824
North Carolina................................ 4,235 7,229 11,270 12,718 16,410 17,403 21,154 28,187 30,002 27,682
North Dakota.................................. 352 848 1,302 1,501 1,767 1,656 2,303 2,465 2,715 2,916
Ohio.......................................... 2,886 11,186 16,514 21,027 27,476 28,651 46,843 58,189 60,171 65,003
Oklahoma...................................... 703 2,218 4,647 5,803 7,575 7,077 9,148 10,938 12,469 12,816
Oregon........................................ 3,782 4,863 5,381 5,622 6,259 5,694 7,997 10,199 10,451 11,540
Pennsylvania.................................. 6,112 17,123 24,354 27,946 32,560 29,012 36,956 44,673 47,174 47,776
Puerto Rico................................... 2 13 6 63 231 218 287 3,107 3,997 3,200
Rhode Island.................................. 838 880 1,548 1,522 1,799 1,424 1,857 2,242 2,438 2,701
South Carolina................................ 368 1,789 3,233 3,449 4,678 5,198 6,296 8,643 10,153 10,292
South Dakota.................................. 374 998 1,498 1,648 2,110 2,018 2,465 3,018 3,239 3,106
Tennessee..................................... 642 3,025 7,539 8,341 16,033 12,577 16,865 20,384 19,971 25,389
Texas......................................... 3,906 11,316 19,926 24,133 34,346 36,561 54,142 70,006 78,613 95,996
Utah.......................................... 2,540 2,991 4,066 4,297 5,604 5,431 6,270 6,056 5,804 6,289
Vermont....................................... 611 887 1,017 1,074 1,294 1,073 1,633 1,881 2,127 2,234
Virginia...................................... 1,674 6,840 9,761 10,298 12,594 12,601 16,898 18,962 22,028 22,207
Virgin Islands................................ ........ 37 7 25 44 68 81 68 306 284
Washington.................................... 4,278 10,510 13,732 13,957 17,417 17,236 19,506 23,271 26,012 27,853
West Virginia................................. 1,038 2,013 3,066 3,265 3,705 3,551 7,221 7,566 8,741 8,912
Wisconsin..................................... 6,266 10,029 13,290 14,384 17,486 18,055 22,800 31,773 27,956 27,696
Wyoming....................................... 222 503 684 1,131 1,190 932 1,977 3,328 3,217 2,920
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 175,021 338,853 474,748 515,279 661,711 636,466 803,952 1,021,449 1,082,309 1,143,616
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-19.--TOTAL CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS PER DOLLAR OF TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1978-98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1978 1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................................... 0.75 2.45 2.50 2.46 2.78 2.68 3.11 3.27 2.24 3.41 4.14 3.40
Alaska...................................... 3.19 2.61 3.46 4.06 4.14 3.64 3.92 3.71 2.93 3.31 3.48 3.52
Arizona..................................... 0.88 1.46 2.11 1.84 1.49 1.54 1.57 1.79 1.48 2.41 2.69 2.66
Arkansas.................................... 1.00 2.62 2.94 3.38 2.80 3.00 3.15 3.20 2.75 2.77 1.98 2.88
California.................................. 2.15 2.37 2.75 2.66 2.59 2.63 2.59 2.54 2.17 2.36 2.29 2.66
Colorado.................................... 1.78 1.89 1.99 2.21 2.82 3.22 2.70 2.47 2.54 2.82 3.07 3.11
Connecticut................................. 4.20 3.49 2.73 2.76 2.46 2.73 2.97 3.19 2.88 2.91 3.09 3.23
Delaware.................................... 7.14 2.46 2.62 3.01 3.13 2.87 2.88 2.39 2.04 2.50 2.23 2.55
District of Columbia........................ 0.73 0.92 1.21 1.33 1.78 1.88 2.33 2.51 2.03 2.38 4.10 1.98
Florida..................................... 1.20 2.12 2.28 2.58 2.66 2.86 3.03 3.78 3.53 3.13 3.45 3.04
Georgia..................................... 2.22 2.59 2.88 3.06 3.06 3.61 4.26 4.47 3.50 3.92 3.88 3.53
Guam........................................ NA 1.39 1.62 1.28 1.24 1.98 1.87 1.89 1.33 2.57 1.89 1.72
Hawaii...................................... 1.71 2.26 3.62 3.62 3.64 4.06 3.94 3.79 2.36 2.18 2.35 2.60
Idaho....................................... 2.10 3.58 3.79 3.95 4.02 3.21 3.62 3.43 2.39 2.32 2.73 3.69
Illinois.................................... 2.10 2.40 2.68 2.77 2.61 2.63 2.90 2.36 2.23 2.41 2.05 2.50
Indiana..................................... 2.42 4.82 5.49 5.34 6.15 7.27 6.56 6.45 5.18 6.54 6.18 5.45
Iowa........................................ 3.49 6.77 6.36 5.66 4.99 5.02 5.79 5.14 4.72 5.23 4.87 4.79
Kansas...................................... 3.01 2.15 2.51 2.00 2.76 3.43 3.73 2.57 1.69 5.82 3.06 3.05
Kentucky.................................... 1.14 2.52 2.44 2.63 2.55 2.33 2.97 3.05 3.21 3.43 3.80 3.90
Louisiana................................... 1.82 1.99 2.60 2.85 3.12 2.51 2.74 3.19 3.37 4.16 4.33 4.03
Maine....................................... 3.40 3.74 4.01 4.14 3.82 3.06 2.84 3.39 4.28 4.05 4.23 4.25
Maryland.................................... 2.14 3.77 3.31 3.36 3.80 3.80 4.49 4.56 4.07 4.36 4.41 4.31
Massachusetts............................... 5.12 3.50 4.09 3.24 3.80 3.41 4.18 4.30 3.54 4.05 4.05 4.50
Michigan.................................... 9.50 8.33 8.80 8.58 7.83 8.07 8.20 8.43 7.20 6.63 6.76 7.18
Minnesota................................... 2.15 3.02 3.59 3.65 3.58 3.74 4.27 4.20 3.96 4.36 4.14 3.85
Mississippi................................. 0.87 2.29 3.06 2.23 1.56 1.76 2.22 2.20 2.16 2.87 3.15 3.69
Missouri.................................... 0.89 3.89 4.22 4.45 4.71 4.75 4.88 4.30 3.41 3.75 4.05 3.36
Montana..................................... 1.58 2.59 2.97 4.21 2.74 2.78 2.38 2.76 2.87 2.42 2.75 3.15
Nebraska.................................... 2.10 5.44 5.02 4.69 4.48 3.83 3.54 4.17 3.44 3.16 3.70 4.66
Nevada...................................... 1.83 2.10 1.95 2.22 2.12 2.52 3.06 2.39 2.08 2.53 1.61 2.90
New Hampshire............................... 4.05 4.39 4.93 3.18 3.71 2.86 3.26 2.87 2.50 3.42 4.01 4.50
New Jersey.................................. 4.16 4.64 4.12 3.85 3.66 3.49 4.02 4.02 6.13 4.52 4.78 4.64
New Mexico.................................. 1.17 2.27 1.76 1.96 2.00 2.00 2.30 3.08 1.54 1.43 1.45 1.59
New York.................................... 1.75 1.83 2.36 2.74 2.55 2.81 3.22 3.10 3.39 4.03 4.01 4.16
North Carolina.............................. 1.50 3.26 3.32 3.20 3.18 3.15 3.20 3.20 2.40 2.94 2.83 2.86
North Dakota................................ 1.83 2.46 3.14 3.31 3.62 3.59 3.93 4.05 4.13 4.34 5.14 4.75
Ohio........................................ 2.50 4.41 10.83 6.07 7.21 6.01 5.35 5.48 5.63 6.07 5.19 5.67
Oklahoma.................................... 0.76 1.78 2.48 2.28 2.29 2.41 2.69 3.13 2.70 3.06 3.03 3.10
Oregon...................................... 9.48 4.47 4.27 4.45 4.49 4.48 5.10 4.95 4.81 5.60 4.65 5.28
Pennsylvania................................ 9.14 7.78 8.52 8.97 8.71 8.03 9.27 9.09 8.15 7.74 7.42 7.06
Puerto Rico................................. 0.92 14.02 17.60 13.61 7.84 15.68 10.43 11.73 3.96 4.44 5.37 5.38
Rhode Island................................ 3.51 3.90 3.65 3.67 2.52 2.22 2.31 4.35 3.45 4.31 4.33 4.18
South Carolina.............................. 2.38 2.37 3.23 3.01 2.60 3.01 3.59 3.88 2.84 3.37 4.30 4.71
South Dakota................................ 0.99 2.74 3.50 3.99 3.96 4.43 4.82 4.90 5.27 5.87 5.79 6.13
Tennessee................................... 2.49 3.31 4.09 3.57 4.28 4.27 3.87 5.42 3.75 4.06 3.85 3.58
Texas....................................... 0.74 2.01 2.81 2.41 1.93 2.50 2.53 2.31 3.01 3.71 3.59 3.76
Utah........................................ 1.99 2.21 2.86 2.92 3.09 2.80 3.08 2.86 1.96 2.66 2.84 3.03
Vermont..................................... 2.24 2.34 3.31 2.93 3.61 3.77 2.82 3.06 2.69 3.79 3.57 4.20
Virginia.................................... 0.72 1.57 2.39 3.03 2.35 3.13 2.91 3.09 3.63 4.18 5.23 4.53
Virgin Islands.............................. 0.40 2.14 4.16 3.11 4.18 2.07 4.10 4.50 0.86 2.25 2.44 2.67
Washington.................................. 2.96 2.42 2.48 2.66 3.13 3.41 3.29 3.42 3.35 3.53 4.06 3.74
West Virginia............................... 0.74 1.98 2.16 2.95 2.75 2.55 2.98 2.77 3.24 3.61 4.03 4.47
Wisconsin................................... 3.80 4.78 6.01 6.18 5.76 6.68 6.83 7.15 6.09 5.94 5.81 5.49
Wyoming..................................... 3.18 3.27 4.91 3.50 3.37 3.50 4.87 2.34 1.76 2.96 3.34 3.72
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 3.35 3.45 3.94 3.85 3.75 3.82 3.99 3.98 3.60 3.93 3.90 4.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA--Not available.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-20.--NUMBER OF PATERNITIES ESTABLISHED BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1979-98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1979 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................... 6,161 6,998 7,839 6,517 6,612 7,942 10,779 7,816 7,103 6,558 5,418
Alaska.................................... 3 364 797 767 673 906 1,070 1,576 929 1.025 1,806
Arizona................................... 154 1,009 1,327 1,237 2,674 3,056 5,007 11,608 10,389 10,454 14,544
Arkansas.................................. 2,586 5,326 4,453 3,191 4,703 5,175 6,580 8,294 8,283 7,122 9,273
California................................ 19,364 28,570 35,193 41,065 56,912 65,062 77,324 129,593 183,424 200,272 210,340
Colorado.................................. 1,046 1,291 1,939 1,864 2,887 4,135 5,258 6,201 5,908 5,294 5,065
Connecticut............................... 3,029 3,908 3,888 4,499 5,309 6,196 5,368 7,578 8,318 8,333 7,082
Delaware.................................. 205 1,867 1,641 801 728 1,573 1,395 2,292 3,522 3,085 2,946
District of Columbia...................... 386 1,021 2,079 2,791 3,895 2,792 2,884 1,683 1,482 1,760 2,364
Florida................................... 7,078 12,136 13,399 19,534 17,907 16,119 10,879 13,010 2,806 20,535 48,385
Georgia................................... 3,642 14,112 18,198 24,615 28,015 30,181 29,329 13,978 3,146 6,923 9,970
Guam...................................... NA 122 109 563 884 642 440 866 802 461 526
Hawaii.................................... 854 1,061 1,295 1,843 1,672 1,419 1,746 1,493 1,785 1,761 1,671
Idaho..................................... 287 384 1,100 1,310 1,551 1,722 1,509 2,079 2,533 1,942 2,910
Illinois.................................. 3,025 20,848 29,926 25,496 21,157 18,900 19,017 22,236 26,483 47,516 50,456
Indiana................................... 1,644 3,570 4,943 5,309 6,291 5,631 4,950 4,202 4,484 19,857 2,260
Iowa...................................... 575 1,664 1,980 3,045 1,904 4,416 4,952 4,378 3,414 1,881 614
Kansas.................................... 696 1,119 2,101 3,644 3,125 3,198 4,445 10,677 11,801 9,218 10,404
Kentucky.................................. 784 3,881 4,498 6,092 6,816 7,951 7,979 8,950 9,994 9,747 9,345
Louisiana................................. 1,304 2,926 4,451 5,525 11,098 11,764 13,272 9,299 11,235 12,560 22,391
Maine..................................... 382 951 1,609 1,381 1,376 3,189 1,370 1,704 2,129 2,274 2,243
Maryland.................................. 13,307 6,671 9,995 7,538 12,081 11,259 9,993 9,052 10,931 12,716 38,392
Massachusetts............................. 2,096 7,025 6,194 6,339 5,742 8,195 6,234 10,862 10,201 10,145 10,047
Michigan.................................. 7,529 18,274 23,142 25,574 27,955 29,087 28,076 22,471 24,898 17,656 13,443
Minnesota................................. 1,786 3,856 6,098 5,661 7,695 5,348 3,749 8,936 9,696 8,801 4,510
Mississippi............................... 932 1,824 7,929 10,740 11,950 8,978 8,588 12,734 14,246 14,560 13,218
Missouri.................................. NA 14,308 11,146 16,242 21,976 23,982 24,292 24,679 24,800 19,731 23,970
Montana................................... 92 179 388 429 677 1,155 413 1,368 1,567 1,404 1,187
Nebraska.................................. NA 710 759 885 1,280 1,628 2,019 4,329 4,598 4,031 3,536
Nevada.................................... 233 531 664 1,033 1,655 1,702 1,602 1,797 2,252 1,832 2,293
New Hampshire............................. 35 195 518 614 645 580 604 722 628 580 920
New Jersey................................ 8,242 13,938 13,182 12,243 10,595 10,314 7,453 13,239 14,768 12,574 11,273
New Mexico................................ 322 412 1,571 1,992 1,601 1,591 2,491 3,574 2,325 2,774 9,563
New York.................................. 17,503 18,239 18,056 20,492 30,197 34,434 42,748 36,474 41,292 49,694 38,001
North Carolina............................ 6,592 9,916 11,663 14,504 18,186 19,308 21,371 25,429 29,581 24,777 30,592
North Dakota.............................. 293 1,134 820 784 935 1,446 1,386 906 1,427 1,337 1,699
Ohio...................................... 4,808 9,133 11,637 15,823 20,857 23,672 28,151 32,785 34,962 38,239 37,784
Oklahoma.................................. 43 512 1,361 2,710 4,939 2,721 2,764 4,525 5,312 6,295 7,124
Oregon.................................... 1,521 1,902 3,131 4,081 3,836 4,942 5,830 5,159 5,740 5,244 3,674
Pennsylvania.............................. 4,450 15,277 18,921 20,231 23,063 24,239 23,246 27,642 29,592 80,822 30,555
Puerto Rico............................... 22 6 144 216 264 198 206 204 11 21 33
Rhode Island.............................. 347 601 673 868 764 1,425 2,001 3,971 5,489 4,518 3,585
South Carolina............................ 1,378 3,994 5,243 5,273 6,066 6,996 8,331 8,038 8,925 13,378 13,941
South Dakota.............................. 60 552 504 509 687 916 1,333 1,160 1,030 798 725
Tennessee................................. 5,003 7,666 9,647 8,976 10,309 10,902 11,463 14,358 11,524 10,057 6,785
Texas..................................... 202 684 6,465 12,623 19,627 24,890 30,002 38,516 43,272 44,628 71,571
Utah...................................... 487 1,292 1,801 2,087 2,484 2,957 3,496 4,287 4,058 2,918 1,985
Vermont................................... 44 1,091 468 533 438 800 1,065 949 863 747 978
Virginia.................................. 1,452 2,667 8,471 13,647 15,971 18,038 21,506 26,174 18,952 11,570 11,793
Virgin Islands............................ 4 235 270 160 215 344 492 485 34 120 31
Washington................................ 656 4,066 5,762 6,985 8,601 10,540 12,539 13,608 16,963 12,667 13,726
West Virginia............................. 156 288 820 997 1,324 2,373 2,790 7,077 4,219 6,521 6,964
Wisconsin................................. 4,803 8,750 8,695 10,808 12,931 15,435 17,678 20,982 21,689 13,776 13,361
Wyoming................................... 44 105 340 618 370 3,493 3,670 4,829 1,305 627 906
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 137,645 269,161 339,243 393,304 472,105 515,857 553,135 660,834 716,821 814,136 848,178
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA--Not available.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-21.--OUT-OF-WEDLOCK BIRTHS BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1987-98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1987 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... 15,955 18,640 19,131 20,000 20,680 21,003 20,798 20,366 20,635 21,185
Alaska.......................... 2,564 2,869 3,113 3,148 3,101 3,125 3.061 3,110 3,048 3,090
Arizona......................... 17,227 20,708 22,532 23,899 26,151 27,162 27,709 29,243 28,495 30,006
Arkansas........................ 8,498 9,944 10,713 10,601 10,878 11,310 11,589 12,335 12,478 12,949
California...................... 136,785 171,189 193,559 204,229 206,376 202,803 177,131 169,313 172,017 170,629
Colorado........................ 10,171 10,787 11,374 12,684 13,373 13,510 13,502 13,863 14,273 15,309
Connecticut..................... 11,045 13,005 13,330 13,581 13,919 13,914 13,575 13,940 14,116 13,713
Delaware........................ 2,742 3,125 3,222 3,559 3,577 3,614 3,586 3,603 3,693 3,926
District of Columbia............ 6,094 7,580 7,692 7,806 7,211 6,831 5,935 5,547 5,041 4,832
Florida......................... 48,200 58,305 63,169 64,101 67,431 68,127 67,474 68,077 69,285 71,603
Georgia......................... 28,647 34,926 36,979 38,116 39,575 39,429 39,474 39,928 41,879 44,299
Guam............................ NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,940 2,066 2,125 2,338
Hawaii.......................... 3,968 4,609 5,088 5,195 5,328 5,533 5,428 5,569 5,202 5,522
Idaho........................... 2,073 2,561 2,738 2,924 3,268 3,273 3,590 3,969 3,848 4,266
Illinois........................ 50,677 58,867 62,148 63,225 65,130 64,933 62,829 61,743 60,443 62,229
Indiana......................... 17,260 19,898 22,562 24,294 25,844 26,044 26,456 27,002 27,184 28,100
Iowa............................ 6,147 7,575 8,282 8,657 9,297 9,211 9,267 9,760 9,601 10,141
Kansas.......................... 6,633 7,577 8,397 8,746 9,696 9,709 9,619 9,847 10,274 10,677
Kentucky........................ 10,658 12,048 12,829 13,796 14,401 14,646 14,935 15,693 15,669 16,236
Louisiana....................... 23,594 25,692 26,601 27,694 29,179 28,918 27,863 28,320 29,011 30,031
Maine........................... 3,338 3,806 3,931 4,180 4,061 4,067 3,859 3,959 4,060 4,207
Maryland........................ 22,866 22,607 23,789 24,292 24,335 24,943 24,124 23,977 23,493 24,778
Massachusetts................... 17,616 21,798 22,886 22,873 22,380 22,291 20,880 20,458 20,836 21,284
Michigan........................ 28,724 36,441 40,289 40,941 36,326 48,339 46,211 45,052 44,454 43,981
Minnesota....................... 11,114 13,142 14,192 14,984 15,099 15,430 15,099 15,798 16,141 16,692
Mississippi..................... 14,499 16,958 17,627 18,317 18,718 19,067 18,747 18,463 18,859 19,534
Missouri........................ 17,823 21,123 22,643 23,736 24,353 23,913 23,421 24,483 24,516 25,705
Montana......................... 2,379 2,539 2,757 2,898 3,104 2,822 2,950 3,026 3,119 3,193
Nebraska........................ 4,006 4,662 5,056 5,181 5,449 5,739 5,650 5,765 6,021 6,167
Nevada.......................... 2,740 4,607 5,480 7,016 7,614 8,359 10,513 11,145 9,555 9,948
New Hampshire................... 2,511 2,797 2,967 2,996 3,179 3,338 3,259 3,400 3,404 3,521
New Jersey...................... 26,647 29,364 29,756 31,972 31,949 33,043 31,711 31,959 31,738 32,975
New Mexico...................... 8,067 9,447 9,704 10,445 11,526 11,496 11,459 11,470 11,696 12,260
New York........................ 80,939 92,996 98,110 99,738 105,101 104,732 102,791 104,416 90,673 90,088
North Carolina.................. 23,262 28,315 30,718 32,340 32,586 32,321 31,923 33,419 34,468 36,632
North Dakota.................... 1,429 1,615 1,699 1,952 1,999 1,971 1,996 2,099 2,174 2,142
Ohio............................ 39,237 45,921 48,289 50,826 52,385 51,363 50,852 50,265 51,544 51,986
Oklahoma........................ 9,892 11,258 11,998 12,973 13,441 13,616 13,927 14,267 15,660 16,427
Oregon.......................... 8,672 10,436 11,041 11,324 11,730 12,012 12,365 12,959 12,631 13,447
Pennsylvania.................... 41,143 47,093 49,258 51,360 51,783 51,518 49,228 47,976 47,234 47,907
Puerto Rico..................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 27,069 27,886 29,345 27,737
Rhode Island.................... 3,064 3,684 3,997 4,073 4,436 4,327 3,975 4,208 4,128 4,271
South Carolina.................. 15,333 18,116 19,148 20,000 19,359 19,172 19,071 19,075 19,857 20,855
South Dakota.................... 2,225 2,415 2,515 2,720 2,968 2,914 2,932 3,091 3,166 3,292
Tennessee....................... 17,897 21,281 22,662 24,026 24,556 24,480 24,185 24,645 25,383 27,008
Texas........................... 57,464 60,303 55,435 56,528 54,670 92,721 96,816 100,573 102,496 107,818
Utah............................ 3,929 4,504 4,910 5,196 5,744 6,005 6,224 6,809 7,145 7,722
Vermont......................... 1,459 1,685 1,666 1,811 1,805 1,864 1,689 1,786 1,726 1,842
Virginia........................ 20,562 24,410 25,874 27,125 27,532 27,760 27,090 26,634 26,908 28,165
Virgin Islands.................. NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,288 1,224 1,368 1,245
Washington...................... 14,629 17,638 18,746 19,861 20,670 20,090 20,635 21,287 21,218 22,225
West Virginia................... 4,722 5,212 5,743 6,040 6,328 6,454 6,463 6,504 6,495 6,725
Wisconsin....................... 14,698 16,815 17,656 18,235 18,882 18,565 18,457 18,413 18,707 19,224
Wyoming......................... 1,189 1,276 1,383 1,546 1,689 1,765 1,653 1,697 1,747 1,853
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 933,013 1,094,169 1,165,384 1,213,769 1,240,172 1,289,592 1,253,976 1,260,306 1,257,444 1,323,997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA--Not available.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and National Center for Health Statistics (1995 and previous
years).
TABLE 8-22.--PERCENTAGE OF CHILD SUPPORT PATERNITIES ESTABLISHED BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1987-94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1987 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................... 43.9 42.1 34.1 33.05 52.1 40.47 37.6 34.9 31.8 25.6
Alaska.................................... 14.2 27.8 24.6 21.3 34.5 48.19 51.5 29.9 33.6 58.4
Arizona................................... 5.9 6.4 5.5 11.19 19.2 33.18 35.9 34.0 36.7 48.5
Arkansas.................................. 62.7 44.8 29.8 44.3 60.5 65.31 71.6 67.2 57.1 71.6
California................................ 20.9 20.6 21.2 27.8 37.4 45.11 73.2 108.3 116.4 123.3
Colorado.................................. 12.7 18.0 16.4 22.7 39.3 41.56 45.9 42.6 37.1 33.1
Connecticut............................... 35.4 29.9 33.8 39.1 38.6 40.28 55.8 59.7 59.0 51.6
Delaware.................................. 68.1 52.5 24.9 20.5 53.8 75.90 63.9 97.8 83.5 75.0
District of Columbia...................... 16.8 27.4 36.3 49.9 40.0 36.39 28.4 26.7 34.9 48.9
Florida................................... 25.2 23.0 30.9 27.9 16.1 18.57 19.3 27.0 29.6 67.7
Georgia................................... 49.3 52.1 66.6 73.5 74.1 62.95 35.4 7.9 16.5 22.5
Guam...................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 44.6 38.8 21.7 22.5
Hawaii.................................... 26.7 28.1 36.2 32.2 32.8 37.39 27.5 32.1 33.9 30.3
Idaho..................................... 18.5 43.0 47.8 53.0 46.2 54.17 57.9 63.8 50.5 68.2
Illinois.................................. 41.1 50.8 41.0 33.5 29.2 37.63 35.4 42.9 78.6 81.1
Indiana................................... 20.7 24.8 23.5 25.9 19.2 15.06 15.9 16.6 73.0 8.0
Iowa...................................... 27.1 26.1 36.8 22.0 53.3 56.03 47.2 35.0 19.6 6.1
Kansas.................................... 16.9 27.7 43.4 35.7 45.8 89.20 111.0 119.8 89.7 97.4
Kentucky.................................. 36.4 37.3 47.5 49.4 55.4 51.12 59.9 63.7 62.2 57.6
Louisiana................................. 12.4 17.3 20.8 40.0 45.5 42.42 33.4 39.7 43.3 74.6
Maine..................................... 28.5 42.3 35.1 32.9 33.7 41.14 44.2 53.8 56.0 53.3
Maryland.................................. 29.2 44.2 31.7 49.7 41.1 42.46 37.5 45.6 54.1 154.9
Massachusetts............................. 39.9 28.4 27.7 25.1 23.9 40.96 51.0 49.9 48.7 47.2
Michigan.................................. 63.6 63.5 63.5 68.3 77.3 55.57 48.6 55.3 39.7 30.6
Minnesota................................. 34.7 46.4 39.9 51.4 24.8 47.23 59.2 61.4 54.5 27.0
Mississippi............................... 12.6 46.8 60.9 65.2 45.9 51.92 67.9 77.2 77.2 67.7
Missouri.................................. 80.3 52.8 71.7 92.6 99.8 96.09 105.4 101.3 80.5 93.3
Montana................................... 7.5 15.3 15.6 23.4 13.3 25.27 46.3 51.8 45.0 37.2
Nebraska.................................. 17.7 16.3 17.5 24.7 38.2 41.51 76.6 79.8 66.9 57.3
Nevada.................................... 19.4 18.4 14.4 18.9 21.0 15.61 17.1 20.2 19.2 23.0
New Hampshire............................. 7.8 18.5 20.7 21.5 19.0 21.93 22.2 18.5 17.0 26.1
New Jersey................................ 52.3 45.6 44.9 41.1 23.3 27.80 41.7 46.2 39.6 34.2
New Mexico................................ 5.1 16.6 20.5 15.3 21.6 25.66 31.2 20.3 23.7 78.0
New York.................................. 22.5 19.4 20.9 30.3 41.1 36.55 35.5 39.5 54.8 42.2
North Carolina............................ 42.6 41.2 47.2 56.2 65.6 70.24 79.7 88.5 71.9 83.5
North Dakota.............................. 79.4 50.8 46.1 47.9 69.3 70.47 62.8 68.0 61.5 79.3
Ohio...................................... 23.3 19.7 25.3 32.8 55.6 63.41 64.5 69.6 74.2 72.7
Oklahoma.................................. 5.2 12.1 22.6 38.1 20.6 26.53 32.5 37.2 40.2 43.4
Oregon.................................... 21.9 30.0 37.0 33.9 49.7 48.52 41.7 44.3 41.5 27.3
Pennsylvania.............................. 37.1 40.2 41.1 44.9 44.9 44.17 56.2 61.7 171.1 63.8
Puerto Rico............................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.1
Rhode Island.............................. 19.6 18.3 21.7 18.8 45.1 61.45 99.9 130.4 109.4 83.9
South Carolina............................ 26.1 28.9 27.5 30.3 43.0 40.35 42.1 46.8 67.4 66.8
South Dakota.............................. 24.8 20.9 20.2 25.3 44.9 45.92 39.6 33.3 25.2 22.0
Tennessee................................. 42.8 45.3 39.6 42.9 46.7 59.21 59.4 46.8 39.6 25.1
Texas..................................... 1.2 10.7 22.8 34.7 54.9 35.88 39.8 43.0 43.5 66.4
Utah...................................... 32.9 40.0 42.5 47.8 60.9 67.13 68.9 59.6 40.8 25.7
Vermont................................... 74.8 27.8 32.0 24.2 59.0 43.78 56.2 48.3 43.3 53.1
Virginia.................................. 1.3 34.7 52.7 58.9 78.1 79.57 96.8 71.2 43.0 41.9
Virgin Islands............................ NA NA NA NA NA NA 37.7 2.8 8.8 2.5
Washington................................ 27.8 32.7 37.3 43.3 60.7 66.70 65.9 79.7 59.7 61.8
West Virginia............................. 6.1 15.7 17.4 21.9 44.1 30.68 109.5 87.4 100.4 103.6
Wisconsin................................. 59.5 51.7 61.2 70.9 93.6 92.51 113.7 117.8 73.6 69.5
Wyoming................................... 26.7 44.7 23.9 217.3 59.43 292.1 76.9 35.9 48.9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 28.8 31.0 33.7 38.8 44.6 45.78 52.6 58.2 64.7 64.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA--Not available.
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 1989-98
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................. $380 -$518 -$1,982 -$3,053 -$2,529 -$6,319 -$8,672 -$6,250 -$3,291 -$10,203
Alaska................................... 2,264 2,469 2,982 3,431 3,797 4,278 4,201 5,091 5,629 4,869
Arizona.................................. -1,219 -2,899 -3,125 -3,320 -4,242 -4,761 -6,804 -5,252 -3,343 -7,693
Arkansas................................. 1,574 1,013 1,830 1,009 530 -283 -135 -2,595 -5,642 -5,737
California............................... 79,779 76,552 88,584 98,465 101,406 115,539 110,774 139,416 177,731 198,398
Colorado................................. 4,552 4,991 5,954 5,661 6,064 7,107 7,490 7,237 8,999 3,646
Connecticut.............................. 11,330 7,310 10,332 11,711 13,396 12,523 5,671 6,770 17,118 15,423
Delaware................................. 797 812 923 902 455 312 -644 435 -1,282 -1,611
District of Columbia..................... -3,145 -89 -574 144 757 -272 -585 -390 2,274 -2,272
Florida.................................. 5,601 2,932 7,179 11,482 14,368 14,863 11,797 1,471 11,546 -17,656
Georgia.................................. 2,861 1,299 3,930 7,937 12,856 13,099 10,801 10,379 4,950 -3,893
Guam..................................... -87 -227 -293 -450 -305 -375 -919 -591 -727 -941
Hawaii................................... 1,648 1,622 1,502 1,655 1,873 1,618 539 -670 1,645 -710
Idaho.................................... 1,029 895 751 955 922 720 665 -1,317 -359 -422
Illinois................................. 10,935 5,159 5,785 9,767 3,716 3,711 3,965 4,304 6,611 9,219
Indiana.................................. 14,027 11,731 16,134 20,359 20,257 22,131 18,262 18,475 10,312 4,886
Iowa..................................... 11,767 11,631 10,840 11,765 11,000 12,048 12,560 9,599 10,173 8,608
Kansas................................... 1,170 2,229 3,694 4,041 3,711 3,142 -3,222 8,701 3,652 201
Kentucky................................. 207 207 -475 1,958 3,467 5,104 3,696 1,449 1,691 664
Louisiana................................ 696 150 -1,049 -1,845 -1,241 -1,270 -2,098 -1,251 -1,027 -4,646
Maine.................................... 5,236 4,229 3,852 3,890 5,877 5,509 6,359 9,590 10,147 7,438
Maryland................................. 6,860 8,631 6,120 10,366 12,037 8,926 4,819 3,844 -322 -7,054
Massachusetts............................ 23,373 23,391 21,789 25,917 29,957 22,670 25,468 20,782 22,964 16,696
Michigan................................. 57,413 54,088 58,032 53,107 52,078 53,216 49,500 30,837 32,654 42,871
Minnesota................................ 13,969 12,083 11,468 12,377 12,274 11,880 11,950 9,009 10,559 4,068
Mississippi.............................. -232 -2,987 -2,549 -1,243 -1,065 -2,843 -3,336 -2,599 -2,524 -3,981
Missouri................................. 8,046 9,002 7,846 11,772 10,303 10,566 7,695 8,598 1,850 -365
Montana.................................. 1,093 769 454 532 618 37,868 37,431 -850 -160 -579
Nebraska................................. -252 -572 -582 -2,093 -1,054 -574 -1,270 -4,617 -3,410 -1,021
Nevada................................... -32 -417 -334 608 -172 604 -902 -1,774 -4,159 -2,160
New Hampshire............................ 362 185 271 826 443 1,165 1,157 1,010 1,579 1,174
New Jersey............................... 15,081 6,836 9,100 13,551 11,876 13,809 24,571 14,092 17,561 7,624
New Mexico............................... 305 -148 -361 -224 1,278 456 -1,083 -1,917 -4,074 -4,005
New York................................. 24,201 22,865 30,313 41,091 41,790 46,036 43,880 45,673 63,963 55,620
North Carolina........................... 5,857 3,598 4,257 6,343 6,962 8,504 2,853 1,898 1,588 -10,945
North Dakota............................. 955 1,074 1,231 973 989 888 788 441 1,006 -199
Ohio..................................... 21,558 12,040 6,054 445 3,453 6,800 5,761 4,422 -3,673 -4,416
Oklahoma................................. 705 69 380 1,110 2,457 2,412 2,241 3,205 3,150 882
Oregon................................... 3,703 2,658 3,358 4,863 5,935 8,029 5,548 6,200 1,768 1,434
Pennsylvania............................. 22,018 19,846 21,226 27,102 29,234 33,738 30,971 27,231 30,183 18,847
Puerto Rico.............................. -1,075 -3,121 -2,165 -2,008 -2,171 -3,073 -5,161 -8,179 -7,391 -8,353
Rhode Island............................. 2,999 3,439 3,940 4,375 5,427 5,466 6,142 7,013 9,256 8,922
South Carolina........................... 490 -1,639 91 437 1,309 1,049 191 -1,159 -818 -4,381
South Dakota............................. 969 1,254 820 672 1,048 967 1,338 1,629 1,451 840
Tennessee................................ 1,278 3,432 5,989 1,578 5,915 5,408 7,519 2,340 -947 -7,706
Texas.................................... 2,163 -4,832 -4,774 -6,111 13,969 -12,335 -6,212 -1,274 410 -2,692
Utah..................................... 1,362 1,111 892 980 343 181 -1,526 -1,326 -1,395 -1,012
Vermont.................................. 1,440 1,957 1,918 1,621 2,066 1,175 1,741 1,602 746 1,369
Virginia................................. 2,567 -1,113 4,292 4,324 6,347 5,109 7,348 4,889 9,216 6,377
Virgin Islands........................... -223 -184 -459 -227 -256 -305 -885 -656 -226 -550
Washington............................... 15,386 14,053 22,038 19,695 24,875 29,978 25,869 26,794 33,265 20,947
West Virginia............................ -59 -1,214 -722 -1,047 16 -2,038 -2,484 -2,494 -1,778 -2,927
Wisconsin................................ 21,306 18,451 16,740 15,553 15,386 15,757 12,695 8,280 1,983 4,442
Wyoming.................................. 574 363 340 589 226 159 86 -200 -681 -1,178
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 403,400 338,469 384,691 433,317 462,092 482,243 431,013 407,314 470,398 326,153
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding. 1997 and 1998 data include actual incentive payments. 1998 data include Federal hold-harmless
payments.
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
American Institutes for Research. (1999). State child access
and visitation programs: A preliminary report, Fiscal
Year 1997 Funding. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Bumpass, L. (1984). Children and marital disruption: A
replication and update. Demography, 21, 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. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.
Garfinkel, I., Melli, M.S., & Robertson, J.G. (1994, Spring).
Child support orders: A perspective on reform (pp. 88-
93). In R.E. Behrman (Ed.), The future of children:
Children and divorce, 4(1). Los Altos, California:
Packard Foundation.
Georgeson, L.M. (1989, May). DNA in paternity cases. Paper
presented at the 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.
McKillop, L.T. (1981). Benefits of establishing paternity.
Washington, DC: Office of Child Support Enforcement.
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. (1986). Employer fees for
wage withholding. Child Support Report, 8(10), p. 7.
Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1987, September).
Development of guidelines for child support orders:
Advisory panel recommendations and final report.
Washington, DC: Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1990). Paternity
establishment (3d ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1991, June). Child
support enforcement in the military. Washington, DC:
Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1992). Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act proposed to replace URESA. Child
Support Report, 14(8), pp. 4-5.
Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1994). Annual Report to
Congress (for period ending September 30, 1994).
Washington, DC: Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1996 and various years).
Annual Report to Congress (21 annual reports for the
years 1976-96). Washington, DC: Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1995a). FYI--Census
report: Single parent growth rate stabilizes. Child
Support Report, 17(11), p. 5.
Office of Child Support Enforcement. (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. (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.
Smith, M.R. (2000). More money for former welfare moms:
Simplify the distribution rules. Child Support
Quarterly, 32(1), pp. 10-12.
Sorensen, E. (1997, November). A national profile of
nonresident fathers and their ability to pay child
support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 785-
97.
Sorensen, E., & Halpern, A. (1999, April). Child support
enforcement is working better than we think. New
Federalism: Issues and options for States (Series A,
No. A-31). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1981). Child support and alimony: 1978.
Current Population Reports, Series P-60-112.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1983). Child support and alimony: 1981.
Current Population Reports, Series P-60-124.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1985). Child support and alimony: 1983.
Current Population Reports, Series P-60-141.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1987). Child support and alimony: 1985.
Current Population Reports, Series P-60-152.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1990). Child support and alimony: 1987.
Current Population Reports, Series P-60-167.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1991). Child support and alimony: 1989.
Current Population Reports, Series P-60-173.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1994). Household and family
characteristics: March 1994. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1995). Child support for custodial mothers
and fathers: 1991. Current Population Reports, Series
P-60-187. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1998). Poverty in the U.S.: 1998. Current
Population Reports, Series P-60-207. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1999). Child support for custodial mothers
and fathers: 1995. Current Population Reports, Series
P-60-196. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Census Bureau. (in press). Child support and alimony:
1997. Current Population Reports, Series P-60.
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 (HRD-87-37). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1992a). Interstate child
support: Wage withholding not fulfilling expectations
(HRD-92-65BR). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1992b). Child support
enforcement--timely action needed to correct system
development problems (IMTEC-92-46). Washington, DC:
Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1996). Child support
enforcement: Early results on comparability of
privatized and public offices. (HEHS-97-4). 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 presented at the American Bar
Association Third National Child Support Conference,
Washington, DC.
Wheaton, L., & Sorensen, E. (1998). Reducing welfare costs and
dependency: How much bang for the child support buck?
Georgetown Public Policy Review, 4(1), 23-37.
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.