**Statistics in Brief**

**An Analysis of Full Time Equivalent Staff Per State Workload As it
Appears in Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998**

By: Renée R. Jackson

Program Analyst

February 2000

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and should not
be construed as representing the official position or policy of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services or any office therein.

**BACKGROUND**

This **[Statistics in Brief]{.underline}** is an analysis of State
staffing, salary, and fringe benefits information as they compare to
average caseload, paternities established, administrative expenditures,
total collections TANF/FC and Non-TANF collections, and cases in which a
collection was made on an obligation. The information was taken from
reports received in the Office of Child Support Enforcement from the 54
States and jurisdictions.

There are several ways in which State Child Support Enforcement (CSE)
agencies administer their programs. States are required by federal
regulation to designate a single and separate organizational unit of
State government to administer the child support program. Some States
either designate the Social Services Agency, the Department of Revenue
or the Office of the Attorney General as their administrative agency.
Operations of the Child Support program can either be at the state level
(state-administered) or local level (county-administered); the majority
of State programs are State-administered and operated.

Staff that work in the Child Support program can either work directly
for the State or county in the Child Support office, or through
cooperative or purchase of service agreements. A **cooperative
agreement** is a written agreement between CSE agencies and other
agencies who provide certain child support services. The agreement must
meet specified requirements including the reimbursement of actual costs
incurred in providing these services.

The State Child Support agency may have cooperative agreements with:
Prosecuting Attorneys, District Attorneys, Attorney General's Office,
Department of Health and Social Services, Sheriff's Department, Clerk of
Court, Family Law Referees, Department of Administrative Services,
Bureau of Collection Services, Department of Income and Maintenance,
Division of State Police, Welfare Investigation Unit, Department of
Children and Youth Services, Department of Justice, Vital Records, U.S.
Marshall's Office (applies only to D.C.), Department of Employment
Services, and others.

A **purchase of service agreement** is an agreement between CSE agencies
and other providers of services. Purchase of service agreements are used
by State and local IV-D agencies to obtain IV-D services. These
agreements can be with a for-profit private organization or business to
run the IV-D program in a particular jurisdiction. Purchase of service
agreements are also used when a State or local IV-D agency purchases
services from another public agency. Sometimes when the services are
being purchased from elsewhere in the same umbrella agency a memorandum
of understanding (MOU) is used.

**FULL TIME EQUIVALENT STAFF**

State Child Support Enforcement agencies report annual information on
the number of staff and costs associated with staff, for state and local
employees and also for employees under purchase of service and
cooperative agreements. The number of staff is reported in Full Time
Equivalents (FTEs). This means the number of hours worked by all
part-time staff is divided by 2080 for conversion to full-time status
for reporting purposes. This paper examines current FTE staffing
arrangements and levels in the 54 States and jurisdictions that operate
the Child Support Program. It also reviews total FTE trends over a ten
year period from fiscal year 1989 through 1998.

The following table shows FTE staff from FY 1989-1998. Chart 1 shows FTE
staff per total average caseload for the ten year period, FY 1989-1998
increased substantially.

**[TOTAL FULL TIME EQUIVALENT STAFF FOR TEN FISCAL YEARS]{.underline}**

###### FY 1989-1998

**COOPERATIVE/**

**PURCHASE OF**

**STATE &LOCAL SERVICE %**

**[FY]{.underline}** **[U.S. TOTAL]{.underline}** **[IV-D
AGENCY]{.underline} [AGREEMENTS]{.underline} [CHANGE]{.underline}**

**1989 35,110 22,778 12,332**

**1990 37,043 24,546 12,497 5.5**

**1991 39,632 26,505 13,127 7.0**

**1992 42,146 28,180 13,966 6.3**

**1993 44,811 30,184 14,627 6.3**

**1994 49,230 32,977 16,092 9.9**

**1995 51,432 35,276 16,156 4.9**

**1996 53,932 33,783 16,951 9.7**

**1997 52,483 34,725 16,843 3.4**

**\*1998 56,268 35,452 15,276 7.2**

**Note: \* Illinois is estimated using previous years' data.**

A total of 52,483 FTE staff working in the Child Support program was
reported as of FY 1997 and 56,268 in FY 1998. **Table 1** represents the
number of FTE staff for each State for fiscal years 1997 and 1998. The
State with the largest total staff was California (6,436) in both FY 97
and FY 98 (8,122). The Virgin Islands had the smallest staff (38) in FY
97 and FY 98 (33). Seventeen States had over 1,000 FTEs in FY 97 and 15
States in FY 98. Six States (Guam, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, South
Carolina, and Vermont) did not report cooperative or purchase of service
agreements in FY 97 and eight States (Florida, Guam, Illinois, Kansas,
Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, and Virgin Islands) did not
report cooperative agreements in FY 98.

**Table 2** shows the percent change in FTE data by State between FY 97
and FY 98. Twenty-eight States increased their FTEs in FY 98 from the
previous year. The change in the number of FTEs between FY 97 and FY 98
ranged from a high of 26 percent (Nevada and California) to a low of
-14.4 percent (Delaware). A total of 21 States decreased their FTEs, and
a total of 27 increased their FTEs.

**Table 3** shows the total salary and fringe benefits for State and
local IV-D agency staff and staff under cooperative or purchase of
service agreements. Total salary and fringe benefits for State and local
IV-D agency staff and cost for staff under cooperative agreements both
increased in 1998 from the previous fiscal year. State and local IV-D
agency salary and fringe benefits were \$1.5 billion in 1997 and \$1.4
billion in 1998, a 8 percent decrease. Costs associated with staff under
cooperative or purchase of service agreement were \$563 million for 1997
and \$575 million for 1998, a 2.1 percent increase.

Total salary and fringe benefits per FTE are shown in **Table 4**. In FY
1997 a total of \$39,428 was paid in salary and fringe benefits per FTE
and for FY 1998 a total of \$34,730 was paid in salary and fringe
benefits per FTE, a 11.9 percent decrease between the two years. Some
States did not report total salary and fringe benefits in both years.

Total distributed child support collections were \$13 billion for 1997
and \$14 billion in 1998, a 7.4 percent increase between the two years.
Total distributed collections per FTE were \$254,634 for 1997 and
\$254,989 in 1998. South Carolina collected the highest amount per FTE
in 1997 (\$579,731) and also in FY 98 (\$657,759). Nationally, there was
a 1 percent increase in distributed collections per FTE between 1997 and
1998. Collections per FTE decreased for 15 States, and increased by 17
percent or more for 9 States between fiscal years 1997 and 1998. This
information can be found in **Table 5**.

TANF/FC distributed collections were \$2.8 billion in 1997 and \$2.6
billion in 1998, a 6.8 decrease between the two years. This may be
attributed to the decrease in the TANF caseload. **Table 6** shows
TANF/FC collections per FTE were \$54,164 for FY 97 and \$47,095 for FY
98. Maine collected the highest amount per FTE in FY 97 (\$131,991). In
FY 98, the highest amount collected per FTE was \$124,228 by Rhode
Island. The national percent change in TANF/FC collections per FTE was a
decrease of 13 percent between FY 97 and FY 98. Forty-four States
decreased in TANF/FC collections per FTE between the two years, and two
States increased by 5 percent or more.

Non-TANF distributed collections were \$10.5 billion in FY 97 and \$11.7
billion in FY 98, a 11.2 percent increase between the two years. For FY
97, South Carolina collected the highest amount per FTE (\$473,169) (as
shown in **Table 7**). In FY 98, the highest amount collected per FTE
was also \$571,982 by South Carolina. The national percent increase in
non-TANF distributed collections per FTE was 3.7 percent between 1997
and 1998. As shown, twelve States decreased TANF/FC collections per FTE
between FY 97 and FY 98, twelve States increased by 20 percent or more.

Total administrative expenditures were \$3.4 billion in FY 1997 and
\$3.6 billion in FY 1998, a 4.5 percent increase. Total administrative
expenditures per FTE were \$65,364 for FY 1997. South Carolina had the
highest amount expended per FTE (\$134,970) and Puerto Rico had the
lowest amount expended (\$37,487) for FY 1997. Total expenditures per
FTE were \$63,712 for 1998. In 1998, South Carolina again had the
highest amount expended per FTE (\$139,526) and Puerto Rico was again
the lowest \$34,519. Twenty-two States decreased expenditures per FTE
between 1997 and 1998. **Table 8** shows total administrative
expenditures per FTE. There was a national percent change total of --2.5
percent for FY 1997 and FY 1998.

**Table 9** shows FTE per total caseload. Total average caseload was
19,057,164 in FY 1997 and 19,419,449 in FY 1998, a 1.9 percent increase.
Average caseload per FTE was 363 for FY 1997. States ranged from a high
of 950 (South Carolina) cases to a low of 169 (Guam) cases per FTE. In
FY 1998, average caseload per FTE was 345. States ranged from a high of
935 (South Carolina) cases to a low of 172 (Guam) cases per FTE. The
national percent change was a 5.0 percent decrease between 1997 and
1998.

**Table 10** shows that total cases with collections were 4,207,824 in
1997 and 4,502,729 in 1998, a 7 percent increase. Total cases with
collections per FTE was 80 in 1997. States ranged from a high of 273
(South Carolina) cases with collections per FTE to a low of 34 (Arizona)
cases with collections per FTE. In 1998, total cases with collections
per FTE was 80; the highest number of cases with collections per FTE was
302 (South Carolina) and the lowest number was 2 (North Carolina). There
was no change in cases with collections per FTE between 1997 and 1998
(80).

Nationally, the total number of IV-D paternities established in FY 1997
was 814,136 and 848,178 in FY 1998, a 4.2 percent increase. Since all
States did not voluntarily report the number of paternities acknowledged
(in-hospital), the analysis only includes IV-D paternities established
by the IV-D agency. The average number of IV-D paternities established
per FTE, as shown in **Table 11,** was 16 in 1997. The highest number of
IV-D paternities established per FTE was reported for South Carolina
(57). In 1998, the total number of IV-D paternities established per FTE
was 15. Twenty-six States decreased IV-D paternities per FTE between
1997 and 1998. The percent change between the two years was a 2.8
percent decrease.

##### CONCLUSION

Total Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff has continued to grow slowly over
the years. The size of the CSE staff is a contributing factor to the
size caseload the State can manage, how many paternities the State can
establish and how much child support the State can collect.

Eighteen States had an average of 200 or more cases per FTE in FY 1997
and 16 states in FY 1998. The highest number of IV-D paternities that
were established per FTE was 57 by South Carolina in 1997. Again, South
Carolina established more of IV-D paternities per FTE than any other
State in 1998; the number was 60.

South Carolina had the highest collections per FTE for both FY 1997 and
FY 1998 (over \$500,000 in 1997 and over \$600,000 in 1998). Michigan
and Wisconsin followed with over \$400,000 each collected per FTE in
both years.

Whether a State manages its staff requirements with State and local
employees or by cooperative and purchase of service agreements or by any
combination thereof, adequate numbers of well-trained staff is an
important factor in the effective administration of a Child Support
Enforcement program. In addition, other factors that affect the
administration of the CSE program would be State policies, procedures,
processes, degree of automation, management skills, etc.

> ![](media/image1.wmf)