### U.S. Department of Health and Human Services {#u.s.-department-of-health-and-human-services .unnumbered}

**Minority Families and Child Support: Data Analysis**

**Table of Contents**

######  {#section .unnumbered}

###### Page Number {#page-number .unnumbered}

**Section One: The Report in Brief 3**

**Section Two: Introduction and Background 12**

**Section Three: General U.S. Findings 18**

A. How Many Custodial Mothers Have a Child Support Order? 18

B. The Mother's Story: Why Doesn't She Have a Child Support Order? 21

C. The Father's Story: Child Support Compliance 28

D. The Agency's Story: Contact with OCSE or Welfare Offices 30

**Section Four: Fragile Families Data** **37**

A. Background Demographics 38

B. Paternity Establishment 40

C. Child Support Orders 42

D. Compliance 43

E. Degree of Compliance 44

F. The Special Role of Cohabitation 44

**Section Five: New York City Social Indicators Survey** **50**

A. Description of the Sample 51

B. Child Support Outcomes 54

C. Race by Immigrant Status 57

**Section Six: Conclusions and Recommendations 63**

Appendix A -- Data Background 67

Appendix B -- Note on the Fragile Families Sample 69

Appendix C -- References 72

Appendix D -- Tables 75

## The Report in Brief {#the-report-in-brief .unnumbered}

#### Section One: The Report in Brief {#section-one-the-report-in-brief .unnumbered}

**Recent Trends**

In the past decade, a strengthened child support enforcement system
closed gaps in minority-nonminority child support outcomes. Notably, the
system's voluntary paternity acknowledgment program significantly
increased the number of paternities established from less than 300,000
in fiscal year 1987 (U.S. House of Representatives 2000) to over 1.5
million by fiscal year 2002 (Miller 2005). In fiscal year 2002, the rate
of paternity establishment for children in the IV-D program stood at 84
percent (OCSE 2003). In this study we note that 85 percent of unmarried,
noncohabiting, urban White fathers had established paternity within 3
years of the birth of their child (see Section Four). For a similar
group of Black fathers, 80 percent had established paternity; 77 percent
of a similarly constituted group of non-White Hispanic fathers had done
so.

Although the proportion of custodial mothers who received child support
remained stable over the past decade, the child support enforcement
system increased the proportion of African-American mothers with legal
agreements from 31 percent in 1990 to 47 percent by 2002. For the first
time in 2002, the percent of Black custodial mothers who had a child
support order outnumbered those that did not.

Similarly, the system increased the percent of less well-off mothers who
received a child support payment once they had a child support order.
Child support payments for all ever-married women who had child support
orders and received full payment increased slightly, while rates for
never-married women increased substantially. Between 1987 and 1997, the
payment rate for never-married women nearly doubled from 10 percent to
18 percent (Miller 2005). In contrast, the payment rate for ever-married
women increased from about 40 percent to 42 percent (Miller 2005).
Similarly, receipt rates increased for welfare recipients from 9 percent
in 1980 to 26 percent in 1996 (Huang, Garfinkel, and Waldfogel 2000).

Despite these gains, child support orders and compliance rates for most
minorities still lag significantly behind Whites. In 1994, the
Black-White gap in child support orders was 23 percentage points
(Section I, this report). That year, 66 percent of custodial White
mothers and 43 percent of custodial Black mothers had orders. By 2002,
that gap narrowed to 18 percentage points (66 percent of White mothers
and 48 percent of Black mothers). On average, after 1994, the difference
between Whites and Hispanics was 27 percentage points, between Whites
and Native-Americans 24 points, and between Whites and Asian Americans,
15 points.

Racial and ethnic groups also differed in their compliance rates,
defined as the rates at which mothers who had a child support order
actually received a payment. In the 1990s, 62 percent of White mothers
who had child support orders received a payment. Over that same period,
45 percent of Black mothers, 51 percent of non-White Hispanic mothers,
48 percent of Native-Americans and 53 percent of Asian American mothers
with child support orders secured a payment.

These disparities in child support outcomes overlap critical differences
in racial and ethnic family formation patterns. Most recently, the
"National Vital Statistics Report" noted that more than a third of
births in 2003 were to unmarried parents (34.6 percent). About
one-quarter (23.5 percent) of non-Hispanic White births were to
unmarried parents. Over two-thirds (68.5 percent) of non-Hispanic Black
births were to unmarried parents. Sixty percent of Native-American
births (61.2 percent) were nonmarital. Fifteen percent (15.1 percent) of
Asian or Pacific-Islander births and 45 percent of Hispanic births were
to unmarried parents.

**National Data**

This study sorts through this complex picture of racial gaps, family
formation differences and child support outcomes in three parts. We
elaborate upon the changing and complex child support participation and
payment patterns among minorities summarized above. In a second part, we
consider the significance of economic and noneconomic factors that
include age of child, parental involvement, and enforcement rules. We
show that most differences between Whites and Blacks and Whites and
Hispanics can be accounted for by urban residence and nonmarital births
in a birth cohort data set. In a third part, we detail differences by
immigrant status. We conclude with a number of policy, research, and
commercial application recommendations.

**[NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PATTERNS BY RACE]{.underline}**

Table A

+----------------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
|                | **Na   |        |        |           |           |
|                | tional |        |        |           |           |
|                | Child  |        |        |           |           |
|                | S      |        |        |           |           |
|                | upport |        |        |           |           |
|                | Ou     |        |        |           |           |
|                | tcomes |        |        |           |           |
|                | for    |        |        |           |           |
|                | Noncus |        |        |           |           |
|                | todial |        |        |           |           |
|                | M      |        |        |           |           |
|                | others |        |        |           |           |
|                | by     |        |        |           |           |
|                | Ra     |        |        |           |           |
|                | ce-Eth |        |        |           |           |
|                | nicity |        |        |           |           |
|                | 1994   |        |        |           |           |
|                | --2002 |        |        |           |           |
|                | from   |        |        |           |           |
|                | the    |        |        |           |           |
|                | C      |        |        |           |           |
|                | urrent |        |        |           |           |
|                | Popu   |        |        |           |           |
|                | lation |        |        |           |           |
|                | Survey |        |        |           |           |
|                | --     |        |        |           |           |
|                | Child  |        |        |           |           |
|                | S      |        |        |           |           |
|                | upport |        |        |           |           |
|                | Supple |        |        |           |           |
|                | ment** |        |        |           |           |
+----------------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
|                | **1994 | **2002 | **     | **Com     | **Degree  |
|                | Order  | Order  | Orders | pliance** | of        |
|                | rate** | rate** | (1994  |           | complia   |
|                |        |        | --2002 | *         | nce**[^2] |
|                |        |        | poole  | *(1994-20 |           |
|                |        |        | d)\*** | 02)**[^1] | **(1      |
|                |        |        |        |           | 994--2002 |
|                |        |        |        |           | pooled)** |
+----------------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| National CPS   | 55%    | 58%    | 56%    | 72%       | 57% of    |
| Sample         |        |        |        |           | amount    |
|                |        |        |        |           | owed      |
+----------------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| White          | 66%    | 66%    | 66%    | 78%       | 62% "     |
+----------------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| African        | 43%    | 47%    | 43%    | 62%       | 44% "     |
| American       |        |        |        |           |           |
+----------------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| Hispanic       | NA     | NA     | 42%    | 70%       | 53% "     |
| (non-White)    |        |        |        |           |           |
+----------------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| Native         | NA     | NA     | 51%    | 67%       | 52% "     |
| American       |        |        |        |           |           |
+----------------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| Asian American | NA     | NA     | 46%    | 68%       | 58% "     |
+----------------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| \* Data pooled |        |        |        |           |           |
| to secure      |        |        |        |           |           |
| adequate       |        |        |        |           |           |
| sample size.   |        |        |        |           |           |
+----------------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+-----------+

**African Americans**

As noted in Table A, the proportion of child support orders for
African-American mothers increased from 43 percent in 1994 to 47 percent
by 2002. In a weighted aggregate sample of African-American mothers for
1994-2002, only 43 percent of mothers had an order. When age, education,
marital status, and number of children were taken into account, Black
noncustodial mothers were half as likely (49 percent) as their White
peers to have secured a legal child support order rather than to have no
order. The majority (62 percent) of African-American mothers who had
orders received some type of payment. Almost a third received full
payments, but most received less than half the monies they were owed.
Between 1994 and 2002, the African-American degree of compliance (the
amount received divided by the amount owed) was 44 percent. These low
payment rates may be due to several factors resulting in orders that
were set too high.

**Hispanics**

Pooled results for Hispanics resemble those of other minorities,
particularly African Americans. From 1994 to 2002, the same proportion
of Hispanic custodial mothers had orders as African-American mothers (42
percent). When age, education, marital status, and number of children
were taken into account, Hispanic custodial mothers were half as likely
(54 percent) as their White peers to have secured a legal child support
order rather than to have no order. The majority (70 percent) of
Hispanic mothers who had orders collected a child support payment and
the average mother who received a payment collected 53 percent of the
amount due her. The largest difference between Whites and Hispanic
Americans is in degree of compliance, or proportion of payment received.
This may be due to several factors discussed in section four of this
report.

**Native Americans**

Native-American custodial mothers resemble other minority mothers in
that 51 percent of them had child support orders for the years 1994 to
2002. When age, education, marital status and number of children were
taken into account, Native-American mothers were 63 percent less likely
than their White peers to have secured a legal child support order
rather than to have no order. Of those with orders, 67 percent collected
a payment. Those who were paid received on average half what they were
owed (52 percent). The major variation between Native Americans and
Whites is lower compliance with the order, which could be due to several
factors including orders that were set too high.

**Reasons Mothers Do Not Have Child Support Orders**

Between 1994 and 2002, of nine reasons mothers could give in the Current
Population Survey for why they had no child support order, three said,
in effect, that having no order was the woman's own choice. Two other
reasons were objective barriers, such as no paternity established or
father could not be located. The remaining reasons were perceived
barriers based on how the mother perceived the father's willingness or
ability to pay or to cooperate.

-   Of the three most frequently given reasons by White mothers, two
    were personal-choice reasons and the third was a perceived barrier.

-   Two of the reasons given most frequently by African-American mothers
    were perceived barriers and the third was a personal choice.

-   Hispanic mothers attributed their lack of an order to an objective
    barrier, a perceived barrier, and a personal choice among their
    three most frequently given replies.

-   Native-American mothers said they had no orders for personal
    choice (2) and perceived barrier (1) reasons among their top three
    responses.

-   Asian American mothers cited two personal-choice reasons and one
    perceived barrier reason among their top three replies.

**Summary**

Two main points from this portrait are: (1) recent improvements in CSE
have led to increases in paternity establishment and award rates and
decreases in disparities; and (2) these efforts are timely because
children from nonmarital births are the fastest growing share of all
children in the United States (currently about one-third).

**Urban Never-Married Data**

The next section determines whether these trends in nonmarital births
and the overlay alluded to above between family formation patterns and
child support enforcement disparities mean that large racial and ethnic
differences in child support enforcement outcomes are largely the result
of differences in family formation patterns. The discussion is based
upon 3-year data from the "Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Survey"
(FFCWS).

**[URBAN NONMARITAL ENFORCEMENT PATTERNS BY RACE]{.underline}**

Table B

+-------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------------+
| **Urban Child     |          |          |          |               |
| Support Outcomes  |          |          |          |               |
| for Low-Income    |          |          |          |               |
| Unwed Custodial   |          |          |          |               |
| Mothers By Race   |          |          |          |               |
| and Ethnicity --  |          |          |          |               |
| Year Three**      |          |          |          |               |
+-------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------------+
|                   | **P      | **       | **Co     | **Degree of   |
|                   | aternity | Orders** | mpliance | compliance**  |
|                   | establi  |          | rate**   |               |
|                   | shment** |          |          |               |
+-------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------------+
| **Whites**        | **85%**  | **44%**  | **75%**  | **54%**       |
+-------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------------+
| **African         | **80%**  | **38%**  | **58%**  | **39%**       |
| Americans**       |          |          |          |               |
+-------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------------+
| Black-White       | --6      | --6      | --18     | --14          |
| difference        | pe       | pe       | pe       | percentage    |
| without controls  | rcentage | rcentage | rcentage | points\*\*    |
|                   | points   | points   | poin     |               |
|                   |          |          | ts\*\*\* |               |
+-------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------------+
| Black-White       | --4      | --6      | --14     | --8           |
| difference with   | pe       | pe       | pe       | percentage    |
| controls          | rcentage | rcentage | rcentage | points        |
|                   | points   | points   | points   |               |
|                   |          |          | \*\*\*   |               |
+-------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------------+
| **Non-White       | **77%**  | **32%**  | **72%**  | **53%**       |
| Hispanics**       |          |          |          |               |
+-------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------------+
| Hispanic-White    | --9      | --12     | --4      | --1           |
| difference        | pe       | pe       | pe       | percentage    |
| without controls  | rcentage | rcentage | rcentage | point         |
|                   | points\* | poin     | points   |               |
|                   |          | ts\*\*\* |          |               |
+-------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------------+
| Hispanic-White    | --3      | --7      | --5      | 0 percentage  |
| difference with   | pe       | pe       | pe       | points        |
| controls          | rcentage | rcentage | rcentage |               |
|                   | points   | points   | points   |               |
+-------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------------+
| Significance      |          |          |          |               |
| tests indicate    |          |          |          |               |
| statistically     |          |          |          |               |
| significant       |          |          |          |               |
| differences       |          |          |          |               |
| between Whites    |          |          |          |               |
| and Hispanics and |          |          |          |               |
| Whites and        |          |          |          |               |
| Blacks.           |          |          |          |               |
|                   |          |          |          |               |
| \* p \< .05; \*\* |          |          |          |               |
| p \< .01; \*\*\*  |          |          |          |               |
| p \< .001         |          |          |          |               |
+-------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------------+

The "Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Survey" is a representative
sample of nonmarital births in large metropolitan areas that includes
large samples of White, African-American, and Latino respondents. It
follows children forward from birth so that researchers can identify the
timing of differences in child support outcomes. It also includes
previously unavailable data on fathers' characteristics that are
especially important for an analysis of compliance outcomes.

**African Americans**

In Table B, the difference in paternity establishment rates between
Blacks (80 percent) and Whites (85 percent) is not statistically
significant. Thirty-eight percent of African-American mothers eligible
for child support had an order \[about the same as the group's results
in the Current Population Survey-Child Support Supplement (CPS-CSS)
sample\]. Because this Fragile Family subsample is restricted to
nonmarital urban parent populations, the White-Black difference is
reduced to 6 percent from the 20 percent difference in the national
sample. This difference is not statistically significant from zero. When
socioeconomic controls were applied, the difference remained at six
percentage points.

Among African-American mothers who had orders, 58 percent received a
payment. The Black-White compliance difference without controls is 18
percentage points. This difference was highly significant, and a full
model applying both socioeconomic and noneconomic controls only reduced
this difference to 14 percentage points -- still a significant
difference. The amount that fathers actually paid was only 39 percent of
the amount due. This is 14 percentage points less than the proportion of
payments White mothers received, a significant difference. The full
model reduced the difference to 8 percentage points, which was no longer
statistically significant.

**Non-White Hispanics**

Within 3 years after urban, non-White, unwed Hispanic fathers have had a
child, 77 percent have established paternity. This is 9 percent below
the comparable rate for urban unwed Whites, and the difference is
significant. When socioeconomic controls are applied, the difference is
reduced to 3 percentage points, a difference that is no longer
significant.

A smaller proportion of urban Hispanic mothers had child support orders
(32 percent) than Hispanic mothers in the national CPS-CSS sample (40
percent). Within the urban sample, the difference in child support
orders between White and Hispanic mothers was reduced to 12 percent from
the 20-percent White-Hispanic difference in the national sample (see
Table A). The 12-percent White-Hispanic difference in the Fragile
Families data is statistically significant. When socioeconomic controls
were applied, the difference fell to 7 percentage points and was no
longer significant. There was little difference among urban Whites and
Hispanics in their compliance rates (4 percentage points), a difference
that was not significant. Similarly, the amount paid by urban Hispanic
fathers paid toward the total amount due (53 percent) was comparable to
the rate that White fathers paid (54 percent).

Nonmarital birth and urban residence were the most often-cited factors
explaining minority-nonminority child support outcomes. Even without
taking other demographic factors into account, at year 3, urban Black
nonresident parents were as likely to have established paternity and
have child support orders as their urban, White nonresident
counterparts. There were no significant differences in payment outcomes
between Hispanic and White mothers who had orders. The significant
differences were in payment outcomes for Black and White urban mothers
who had child support orders. The significant differences for Hispanic
and White urban mothers were for paternity establishment and child
support orders.

These results suggest that racial and ethnic child support disparities
are largely due to racial and ethnic family formation differences.
Black-White differences in compliance rates are the exception to this
pattern and are discussed in the body of this report.

**[THE ROLE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT OFFICES AND OTHER KEY
VARIABLES]{.underline}**

Table C

+--------+------+------+--------+------+-----+---------+----------+
| **     |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| Agency |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| Help   |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| by     |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| Race   |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| and    |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| Eth    |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| nicity |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| 1994-- |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| 2002** |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| (C     |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| SP-CSS |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| P      |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| ooled, |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| as %)  |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
+--------+------+------+--------+------+-----+---------+----------+
|        | Col  | Get  | Get    | Find | Upd | Get     | E        |
|        | lect | l    | TANF   | O    | ate | Legal   | stablish |
|        |      | egal | or     | ther | Amo | Ag      | P        |
|        | CS   | CS   | Me     | Pa   | unt | reement | aternity |
|        | Owed | O    | dicaid | rent |     |         |          |
|        |      | rder |        |      |     |         |          |
+--------+------+------+--------+------+-----+---------+----------+
| White  | 68   | 51   | 34     | 25   | 19  | 17      | 11       |
+--------+------+------+--------+------+-----+---------+----------+
| Afri   | 59   | 63   | 48     | 32   | 15  | 17      | 14       |
| can-Am |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| erican |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
+--------+------+------+--------+------+-----+---------+----------+
| Hi     | 53   | 51   | 51     | 38   | 13  | 15      | 12       |
| spanic |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
+--------+------+------+--------+------+-----+---------+----------+
| Nat    | 55   | 44   | 40     | 34   | 17  | 18      | 10       |
| ive-Am |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
| erican |      |      |        |      |     |         |          |
+--------+------+------+--------+------+-----+---------+----------+
| Asian  | 59   | 46   | 33     | 26   | 13  | 8       | 13       |
+--------+------+------+--------+------+-----+---------+----------+

As shown in Table C, among urban, unwed parents, contact with a child
support enforcement agency was the most significant predictor of having
paternity established or having a child support order. Contact increased
order levels by 20 percentage points. Specifically, mothers who did not
have an order at the 1-year mark and obtained help from a child support
agency at that point were 19 percentage points more likely to have such
an order during the 3-year survey than mothers who did not get help.
Contact with the child support agency was not predictive of receiving
payments from the father once an order was in place.

Despite welfare reform requirements in 1996 that mothers contact child
support agencies for help securing child support orders and payments,
the percent of mothers who contacted OCSE agencies reached a plateau
between 1994 and 1996 and then declined to 33.6 percent by 2002. This
may be due to smaller TANF rolls under welfare reform's impact.

White mothers were most interested in help with compliance issues (68
percent). African-American mothers were interested in securing orders
(63 percent) and compliance issues (59 percent). Hispanic,
Native-American and, Asian parents were most interested in help with
compliance issues (53, 55 and 59 percent).

**The Hispanic Puzzle -- Fragile Families and the New York Social
Indicators Survey**

At recent forums hosted by the Office of Child Support Enforcement
researchers interested in Hispanic child support enforcement outcomes
frequently pointed to data limits in developing a clearer picture of the
group's internal complexities. There is little data distinguishing child
support differences within Hispanic subcommunities (e.g.,
Mexican-American, Puerto-Rican, Cuban, other Latin-American, and other
Caribbean nations of origin). To create an adequate Hispanic population
with CPS CSS data, for example, researchers must pool biannual surveys,
and even then the sample is not large enough for analysis of Hispanic
subcommunities.

To address those concerns in part, we relied upon the New York City
Social Indicators Survey and its comparisons within the Hispanic
community between U.S.-born and foreign-born families (from Puerto Rico,
Dominican Republic, Cuba, etc.) and comparisons within the Black
community between U.S.-born and foreign-born families (from Haiti,
Jamaica, Trinidad, etc). In New York City, foreign-born parents within
each community had better child support outcomes than their U.S.-born
counterparts.

**Recommendations:**

**Policy**

In recent years, the Office of Child Support Enforcement has focused on
special populations such as Native Americans and other minority groups,
especially African-Americans and Hispanics.

Efforts should be made to accelerate establishment of orders for all
minority groups, but note should be taken of the differences among
groups in developing strategies, as follows:

-   Efforts to improve marriage rates for minority couples and establish
    close paternal connections through marriage education and/or access
    and visitation may encourage better compliance over time.

-   All minority groups need assistance to improve income stability of
    fathers as controls for economic factors did make a difference. Such
    programs hold little promise unless they include more intensive,
    better managed, and more effective employment services. Also, given
    the effects of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) on employment
    gains of less-educated women, work supports and incentives targeting
    less-educated men may also be helpful. These could come in the form
    of earnings supplements, conditional on child support compliance,
    and increases in the child support pass-through.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Compliance in terms of percentage of orders paid is especially
    problematic for African-Americans and Hispanics (Native Americans
    were not measured) and may mean that orders are too high for these
    low-wage earners due to imputed income to minimum orders as
    indicated by other studies.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Efforts to maintain in-hospital paternity programs are critical.

-   Child support efforts to set up orders for more of those with
    established paternity are critical.

-   Efforts to increase orders among Hispanic fathers and compliance
    among Black fathers will have to become more nuanced. Reducing
    cultural barriers that may discourage Hispanic (or foreign-born)
    mothers from utilizing child support services may be key to the
    first objective.

**Research**

-   Extend this analysis to the fifth wave of the "Fragile Family
    Survey" and decompose Hispanic outcomes by subcommunities.

-   Update the CPS--CSS results and apply birth cohort simulations that
    replicate the "Fragile Family" study and demonstrate whether Fragile
    Family results can be obtained from a national sample.

-   Use the "Fragile Families" data set to decompose and evaluate
    Hispanic populations by region and subgroup. We recommend a
    follow-up study to take advantage of that "Fragile Families" data
    capacity and resolve these differing outcomes between the "Fragile
    Families" and New York Social Indicators Survey.

## Introduction and Background {#introduction-and-background .unnumbered}

##  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

##   {#section-2 .unnumbered}

## Section Two: Introduction and Background {#section-two-introduction-and-background .unnumbered}

##### Introduction

Currently, almost half (44 percent) the nation's custodial parents are
minorities but minority and nonminority mothers and fathers participate
very differently in the child support enforcement system. Noncustodial
African-American, Hispanic and Native-American men have fewer orders
than their White peers and comply less frequently with the orders they
do have.

These disparities in child support outcomes overlap differences in how
American racial and ethnic groups form families. Currently more than a
third of births are to unmarried parents (34.6 percent). About
one-quarter (23.5 percent) of non-Hispanic White parents had a
nonmarital birth. Over two-thirds (68.5 percent) of non-Hispanic Black
parents did so. Sixty percent of Native-American births (61.2 percent)
were nonmarital. Fifteen percent (15.1 percent) of Asian or
Pacific-Islander births were to unmarried parents, as were 45 percent of
Hispanic births (National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52, No. 10,
December 17, 2003, revised June 2004, Table 17).

In the past, a one-size-fits-all approach to these very different family
formation patterns reinforced or even contributed to child support
enforcement disparities (Legler 2003). Now the Office of Child Support
Enforcement is interested in focusing on minorities in order to address
disparities. OCSE (March 2004) recently launched a Native-American
Initiative; and there are African-American, Hispanic and
Asian-Pacific-Islanders Initiatives in the area of Healthy Marriage.
Annual sessions have been held with practitioners interested in
African-American and Hispanic child support problems.

This study suggests ways in which the agency can augment its outreach to
minorities based on its analysis of three new and updated data sources
on attitudes and behaviors of custodial mothers and noncustodial
fathers. The CPS-CSS is the first of these data sources, which we use to
update current child support enforcement outcome differences among
Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Native Americans and Asians. The "Princeton
University--Columbia University Fragile Families Study" is our second
data source; and we use it to account for differences we found among
Whites, Blacks and Hispanics in the CPS-CSS study. We restrict the
"Fragile Families" data set to unwed, noncohabiting parents who are
eligible for child support and determine that such a sample yields
results that largely account for minority-nonminority child support
differences. The results help policymakers determine which recent
initiatives have worked and where new initiatives may be required. The
"New York City Social Indicators" project is our third data source; we
use it to assess child support outcome differences between native-born
and immigrant Blacks and Hispanics. In a final section, we summarize the
report and present the policy implications of this new research.

##### B. Background Information {#b.-background-information .unnumbered}

In its simplest expression, the successful enforcement of child support
requires only four steps: locate the father (if necessary); establish
paternity (if necessary); establish a legal child support order; and
collect the payment. The child support order legally obliges nonresident
parents to provide financial support/alimony/medical support for their
children or ex-spouse and stipulates the amount of the obligation and
payment period and method.

The last two steps include the following interim stages: (1) the
custodial parent (usually the mother) or State or local OCSE agency can
ask the court or other agency to issue a child support order; and (2)
the process of setting up an order by OCSE involves opening a child
support case, locating the nonresident parent, establishing paternity,
determining a support order and amount and withholding payments from
wages or other combination of enforcement techniques. Without
establishing a legal child support order, the likelihood of collecting
formal child support payment is low.

Notice that at each step, the custodial mother, the child support
enforcement agency, the noncustodial father or some combination of the
three must take critical action to move the process along.

Figure 1[^3]

![](media/image1.wmf){width="4.125in" height="2.138888888888889in"}

**C. Recent Activities -- The Importance of In-Hospital Paternity**

In the last decade, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) has had a significant impact upon
what each of those three actors is now required to do. To reinforce
paternity establishment, for example, PRWORA streamlined the legal
processes for establishment and required States to adopt voluntary and
in-hospital paternity establishment programs. PRWORA also required
States to develop the capacity to monitor all child support payments and
to administer universal withholding (Huang and Pouncy).

Welfare reform and other recent changes in the child enforcement system
mandated substantial new behaviors by custodial mothers and child
support agencies, including a streamlined legal process for paternity
establishment; voluntary, in-hospital paternity establishment programs;
and mandatory genetic testing in contested cases. Welfare reform also
established a National Directory of New Hires that matches State
directories of fathers and facilitates interstate enforcement of child
support obligations. In short, the agency seeks to make child support
payment as mandatory and as automatic as possible (Garfinkel, Meyer, &
McLanahan 1998; Legler 1996). The results that are relevant to a study
of racial disparity have been dramatic. As Figure 1 details, PRWORA more
than doubled the number of paternities established.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.25in" height="3.584722222222222in"}

As can be seen in Figure 2, aggregate changes in the 1990s prompted by
PRWORA and other child support enforcement reforms have had less visible
impact on the percent of eligible mothers who secured child support
orders.[^4] The proportion with an order rose only modestly, from 55
percent in 1994 to 58 percent in 2002 (CPS-CSS). Child support
enforcement reforms are slightly more visible among mothers who did not
have a child support order of any sort. That percentage declined
significantly, from 38 percent in 1994 to 35 percent in 2002.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.0in" height="4.097222222222222in"}

By contrast, the impacts of reforms are greatly visible in the
differential impacts of child support enforcement reforms by race. The
outcomes for White custodial mothers appear flat (Figure 3). The
proportion of White mothers with orders held steady from 66 percent in
1994 to 66 percent in 2002. The percentage of those who had no order
also held steady.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.875in" height="3.625in"}The results for
African-American mothers in the same period have been dramatic (Figure
4). For the first time in the period observed by this study, more
African-American custodial mothers had child support orders (47 percent)
than did not (44 percent). In 1996, 51 percent of African-American
mothers did not have an order. By 2002, that figure had dropped to 44
percent.

![](media/image5.wmf){width="6.35in" height="3.0305555555555554in"}

Accompanying these large changes are persistent continuities.
Disparities have abated but not disappeared (Figure 5). The Black-White
gap in child support orders fell from 20 percent in 1994 to 15 percent
by 2002 and that remaining gap is significant.

## General U.S. Findings {#general-u.s.-findings .unnumbered}

**Section Three: General U.S. Findings**

![](media/image6.wmf){width="5.4in" height="3.6in"}In this analysis of a
pooled CPS-CSS sample for the years 1994 to 2002, we conclude the
following: (1) Even taking into account the economic and demographic
variables available to this data set, significant racial-ethnic
differences in the child support order rate remain. (2) Minority mothers
point to barriers or perceived barriers that prevent them from having a
child support order, and non­minority mothers are more likely to say that
not having a child support order was a personal choice. (3) Except for
Hispanics, significant racial gaps remain in child support compliance if
there is a child support order. And (4) although custodial mothers
varied in how frequently they contacted child support or TANF agencies
over the 1990--2002 period, they reported increased rates of help
establishing paternity and seeking child support orders throughout the
period; as we note elsewhere in this report, such contacts are the most
significant factor in accounts for why mothers have child support
orders.

##### A. How Many Noncustodial Mothers Have a Child Support Order?  {#a.-how-many-noncustodial-mothers-have-a-child-support-order .unnumbered}

In this pooled[^5] sample the majority of custodial mothers (55.1
percent) had child support orders, but there were great racial
differences. Almost 70 percent of White custodial mothers had a child
support order. Half of African-American, Hispanic and Native-American
mothers did not. A majority of Asian American mothers had an order or an
informal agreement**.**

When age, education, marital status, and number of children are taken
into account, the percentage difference between Black and White mothers
is reduced from 26 to 15 points (Figure 7), with Black mothers now half
as likely (Appendix 1) to have a child support order as their White
peers (p\<. 001). The percentage difference between Hispanic and White
mothers is reduced from 26 to 20 points, with Hispanic mothers also half
as likely to have an order (Appendix 1) as their White peers (p\<. 001).
The percentage difference was smallest for Native Americans. After age,
education, marital status and number of children were taken into
account, the percentage difference between Native-American and White
mothers was reduced only from 22 percent to 21 percentage points, with
Native-American mothers almost two-thirds less likely to have an order
than their White peers. After controls were applied, the percentage
difference between Asian American and White mothers fell from 17 to 11
points (p\<. 01).

![](media/image7.wmf){width="6.625in" height="4.207638888888889in"}

Child support outcomes differed by marital status even more greatly than
they did by race. After controls for age, race, education, and number of
children were applied, the difference in child support orders between
never-married and divorced mothers was 24 percentage points (Figure 7a)
(p\< .001). The difference between separated and divorced mothers was 20
percentage points (p\<.001) and that between remarried and divorced
mothers only 6 points (p\< .001).

Education also had significant effects. With age, race, marital status,
and number of children controlled, the percentage difference between
mothers with some but not a complete high school education was 7 points
(p\< .001). The difference between mothers with an education beyond high
school and mothers without a high-school education was 12 percentage
points (p\< .001).

Mothers with more than one child also had greater rates of child support
orders than mothers with only one child. With age, education, race, and
marital status controlled, there was a difference of 11 percentage
points between mothers with two children, and mothers with only one
child. The difference between mothers with more than two children and
mothers with one child was three percentage points (p\< .001).

![](media/image8.wmf){width="6.75in" height="4.207638888888889in"}

In the last decade, a small but growing pool of mothers had an informal
rather than a legal child support agreement. The group increased in size
from 3 percent in 1990 to 5 percent by 2002. When age, marital status,
education and number of children were taken into account,
African-American, non-White Hispanic, and Native-American mothers were
significantly more likely to have an informal order than their White
peers (Figure 8). There was a difference of 2 percentage points between
Black and Hispanic mothers and their White peers (p\< .001 and p\< .01).
There was a 2.5 percentage point difference between Native-American and
White mothers (p\< .05).

![](media/image9.wmf){width="6.097222222222222in"
height="4.180555555555555in"}

The largest differences in the informal pool were differences by marital
status. When age, race, education, and number of children were taken
into account, separated mothers had a 5-point and never-married mothers
had a 4-point higher rate of informal orders than their divorced peers.

**B. The Mother's Story: Why Doesn't She Have a Child Support Order?**

In the simple child support enforcement model we outlined in Section 2B,
the unstated assumption was that mothers, child support agencies, and
fathers cooperated to provide for children's well-being. In reality,
mothers and fathers defect from the process and local agencies may be
inattentive or ineffective. In this section, we hear the mother's side
of the story about why she does not have an order and under what
circumstances she herself defects from the process versus when she
reports that the father and/or the child support agency are responsible
for her not having an order. The current version[^6] of the CPS-CSS
survey lists the nine reasons mothers without orders can choose for
explaining why they have no order:

*Personal Reasons*

\(1\) I did not want legal involvement;

\(2\) I did not want contact with the father;

\(3\) I did not want the father to pay child support

*Barriers*

\(4\) Paternity was not established;

\(5\) Unable to locate father;

*Perceived Barriers*

\(6\) The father cannot afford child support;

\(7\) The father provides what he can;

\(8\) Child with father part of the time

*Indeterminate or Other*

\(9\) Other.

The first three reasons are cases in which the mother states that it is
her own choice not to have an order, either because she wants no
involvement with the system or she wants no contact or no money from the
father. The next two reasons are cases in which the mother faces an
actual barrier (paternity not established or father not found) to
securing an order. Reasons six through eight are cases where the mother
also faces barriers, but the barriers are her perceptions of the
father's capacities or his actions (he spends time with the child). The
final category of "other" is indeterminate.

In 1994, before welfare reform took effect, the most frequently given
reason for not having an order was "father cannot afford child support"
(30.4 percent). After the 1996 reform and its requirement that dependent
mothers secure child support orders, the most frequently cited reason
shifted to "did not want legal involvement" (29.8 percent). Presumably,
mothers who said that the father could not afford child support had
included a disproportionate number of mothers on welfare. In many cases,
after the 1996 welfare reforms, these mothers were required to apply for
an order and secured them. Such a shift would decrease the frequency of
mothers who reported that the father could not afford child support and
increase the proportion of mothers not on welfare who said that they did
not want legal involvement.

When we pooled the entire 1994--2002 sample (Figure 9a), the
personal-choice reason "did not want legal involvement" emerged as the
most frequently cited response (28.4 percent), followed by the
father-based barrier reason "father cannot afford child support" (25.7
percent). The next four most frequently given responses clustered in the
mid-20 percent range and included a barrier reason ("paternity not
established"): a father-based barrier ("father provides what he can");
and two personal-choice reasons ("did not want father to pay" and "did
not want contact"). The least frequently cited reasons were the barrier
"unable to locate father" and the father-based barrier "child with
father part-time."

![](media/image10.wmf){width="6.375in" height="4.166666666666667in"}

When we matched response and the mother's race (Figure 9b), we found the
following:

(1) The top three responses from White mothers included two
    personal-choice reasons and one perceived barrier. They did not want
    legal involvement (30.8 percent); they did not want the father to
    pay (24.8 percent); and they said the father could not afford to pay
    (23.7 percent).

(2) For their three top reasons, Black mothers gave two perceived
    barriers and a personal choice. They said the father could not
    afford to pay (27.8); they did not want legal involvement (27.7
    percent); and the father provided what he could (25.3 percent).

(3) The top reasons given by Hispanic mothers included an actual
    barrier, a perceived barrier and a personal choice. They said
    paternity was not established (26.6 percent); the father could not
    afford to pay (25.9 percent); and they did not want legal
    involvement (24.2 percent).

(4) For Native-American mothers, the most frequently cited reasons
    included two personal-choice reasons and one perceived barrier. They
    said they did not want contact with the father (28.3 percent); the
    father could not afford to pay (24 percent); and they did not want
    legal involvement (23.3 percent).

(5) Asian American mothers gave two personal-choice reasons and one
    perceived barrier. They said they did not want legal involvement
    (38.3 percent); the father could not afford to pay (31.1 percent);
    and they did not want contact with him (23.2 percent).

![](media/image11.wmf){width="6.097222222222222in"
height="4.180555555555555in"}After taking account of age, race, marital
status, education, number of children, the effect of welfare reform, and
residence, we list each reason with the significant factor(s) strongly
associated with it on either positive or negative terms:

(1) "*Did not want legal involvement*." Mothers under 29 years of age
    were significantly more likely to select this reason than mothers
    over 39. Similarly, mothers who had gone to school beyond high
    school were significantly more likely to select it than mothers who
    had not completed high school.

(2) "*Did not want contact with the father*." Young mothers were more
    likely to give this response when compared with mothers over 39.
    Black mothers were significantly less likely to give this answer
    than White mothers, and mothers with more than two children were
    less likely to give it than mothers with only one child.

(3) "*Did not want the father to pay child support.*" Blacks and
    Hispanics were significantly less likely to give this reason than
    White mothers. Mothers with more than two children were less likely
    to give this response than mothers with only one child.

(4) "*The father cannot afford to pay child support*." Urban mothers
    were significantly more likely to say this than suburban mothers.

(5) "*Father provides what he can*." Black, young, separated, rural, and
    better-educated mothers were all more likely to select this as a
    reason than mothers in the omitted categories. Hispanic mothers were
    unlikely to give this reason when compared with White mothers.

(6) "*Paternity not established*." Hispanic, Asian, and never-married
    mothers were more likely to report this reason than White and
    divorced mothers.

(7) "*Unable to locate father*." Young and never-married mothers were
    more likely to select this response than older and divorced mothers.
    Mothers who had an education beyond high school were less likely to
    select this reason than mothers who had not completed high school.

(8) "*Child with father part-time.*" Black, Hispanic, and never-married
    mothers were less likely to select as a reason than White and
    divorced mothers. Mothers with a high-school education or beyond
    were more likely to pick this reason when compared with mothers who
    had not completed high school.

(9) "*Other reasons*." Remarried and mothers with an education beyond
    high school were more likely to select this response than mothers in
    the omitted categories. Black and Hispanic mothers were more
    unlikely to pick this reason than White mothers.

**Grouped Responses**

Mothers without a child support order could list as many reasons as they
liked for why they had no order from the nine-item list. The average
mother gave two reasons (1.6), and this raises the question whether
mothers really do see this list in personal-choice versus barriers
terms. If most mothers chose only personal-choice or only barrier-based
reasons but not both, that would suggest that the categories are
salient. If most mothers randomly mixed personal-choice and
barrier-based reasons, that would suggest they assessed the list on some
other basis.

The grouped response results suggest that most mothers read the list in
ways that differentiate between personal-choice and barrier-based
reasons. Of mothers without orders, 12 percent selected only
personal-choice reasons. About half selected only barrier-based reasons
(we lumped general barriers and father-based barriers together). More
than a third (37 percent) gave both kinds of reasons.[^7]

![](media/image12.wmf){width="6.097222222222222in"
height="4.180555555555555in"}

When age, education, marital status, number of children, the effects of
welfare reform, and location within a metropolitan area were taken into
account (Figure 10), African-American mothers were the only minority
group significantly less likely to select personal-choice reasons rather
than barrier-based reasons when compared with their White peers. When we
compared mothers who only selected personal-choice reasons with mothers
who only selected barrier-based reasons, Black mothers reported
personal-choice reasons less often by 6 percentage points than their
White peers (p \< .001). The only other variables that significantly
differentiated mothers who selected only personal-choice reasons from
mothers who only selected barrier-based ones were age, education and
number of children. Mothers younger than 30 said they had no order for
personal-choice reasons more often by 4 percentage points than mothers
older than 40. Similarly, mothers with a high school education and
mothers with more than a high school education more often cited
personal-choice reasons by six and seven percentage points,
respectively, than mothers who had not completed high school. Finally,
mothers with more than two children cited personal-choice reasons less
frequently by seven percentage points than mothers with only one child.

With the same variables taken into account as those listed above,
minority mothers were significantly more likely to say that they did not
have an order for barrier-based reasons than White mothers (Figure 11).
When we compared mothers with orders with mothers who said barriers
prevented them from having orders, Black mothers reported that they did
not have orders for barrier-based reasons by 14 percentage points more
than their White peers (p\< .001). Hispanic mothers said they did not
have orders for barrier-based reasons by 17 percentage points more than
White mothers. Native-American mothers said they had no orders for
barrier-based reasons by18 percentage points more than their White
peers. Asian mothers gave barrier-based reasons by 8 points more than
White mothers (p \< .05).

When age, race, education, number of children, the effects of welfare
reform, and location within a metropolitan area were taken into account,
barriers were even more salient for mothers who differed from each other
by marital status. Never-married mothers said that barriers prevented
them from having orders by 23 percentage points more than divorced
mothers listing those reasons (p\< .001). Similarly, separated mothers
gave those reasons more than divorced mothers by 17 percentage points
(p\< .001).

![](media/image13.wmf){width="6.097222222222222in"
height="4.180555555555555in"}When age, race, marital status, number of
children, the effects of welfare reform, and location within a
metropolitan area were taken into account, barriers were less salient
for mothers with more education. Mothers with a high school education
and mothers with an education beyond high school were 8.5 and 12.6
percentage points less likely to say that barriers were the reasons they
had no orders than mothers without a high-school education (p \< .001).

Mothers with two children and mothers with more than two children
selected barriers as the reason for no orders less often by 6.8 and 8.3
percentage points, respectively, than mothers with only one child.
Finally, rural mothers selected barriers less often by 4 percentage
points than suburban mothers.

The types of reasons mothers picked varied significantly by racial and
socioeconomic characteristics. African-American mothers were also
unlikely to select personal-choice reasons for why they had no child
support order. Mothers with two children or more were also less likely
to select only personal reasons. Younger and better-educated mothers
were significantly more likely to select only personal-choice reasons.

In addition, African-American and Hispanic mothers say that they want
the father to pay child support, but in the case of African-American
mothers they believe he provides what he can. To the extent that
minority status is also associated with urban location, minority mothers
also say that they do not believe the father can afford to pay child
support. Hispanic mothers do not share the view that the father provides
what he can. They explicitly reject that characterization. Hispanic and
Asian mothers see paternity establishment as a larger problem than other
mothers by race. Generally, minority mothers select barrier reasons for
why they do not have child support orders, in contrast with White
mothers, who are more likely to select personal-choice reasons when
other demographic variables are controlled.

**C. The Father's Story: Child Support Compliance**

Once the mother (or custodial parent) has a child support order, it is
the father's (or noncustodial parent's) responsibility to comply with
the order and pay. Between 1994 and 2002, payment rates on orders
improved from 70 to 75 percent (Figure 12).

![](media/image14.wmf){width="4.875in" height="2.625in"}

Degree of compliance[^8] also rose between 1994 and 2002 from 52 to 60
percent (Figure 12a).[^9]

![](media/image15.wmf){width="6.75in" height="1.9791666666666667in"}In a
later section of this report, we determine whether compliance gaps by
race remain large after socioeconomic and demographic variables are
taken into account. Here, descriptive data (Figures 12b and 12c) simply
demonstrate that without controls, compliance gaps are large by race.
The average amount of child support due was highest for Asian American
mothers (\$5,409) and next highest for White mothers (\$4,693). These
results were followed by amounts due Hispanic (\$4,565), African
American (\$3,320), and Native-American (\$3,658) mothers.

![](media/image16.wmf){width="6.0in" height="3.0in"}In terms of amounts
actually received, Asian American and White mothers secured the most
child support (\$3,205 and \$3,174, respectively), followed by Hispanic
(\$2,529) and Native-American (\$2,159) mothers. African-American
mothers received the least amount of child support compared to other
mothers (\$1,534).

![](media/image17.wmf){width="6.129861111111111in"
height="2.1666666666666665in"}White mothers experienced the highest
compliance rates (0.62), followed by Asian American (0.58), Hispanic
(0.53), Native-American (0.52), and African-American (0.44) mothers.

**Types of Child Support Payment, 1994--2002**

Between 1994 and 2002, the percent of custodial mothers receiving full
child support payments rose 10 percentage points from 35 to 45 percent.
Mothers receiving a partial payment declined by 5 points from 35 to 30
percent. The percent of mothers who received no payment (zero level)
remained steady at 30 percent for 1994 and 1996 before declining 5
points to 25 percent from 1998 to 2002 (Figure 13).

![](media/image18.wmf){width="5.0in" height="2.625in"}

### D. The Agency's Story: Contact with OCSE or Welfare Offices, 1994--2002  {#d.-the-agencys-story-contact-with-ocse-or-welfare-offices-19942002 .unnumbered}

Local child support agencies are most effectively involved in the
enforcement process when custodial parents contact them directly and
seek help or information. Later in this report, we detail data that
suggest that the variable most strongly associated with a mother's
success at securing a child support order is contact with a local child
support enforcement agency. In this section we discuss the paradox that
contact with an OCSE agency was most strongly linked to effective child
support action and was mandated by the 1996 welfare reforms, but between
1996 and 2002 contact activity declined from mid-decade highs. The
proportion of mothers contacting either child support or welfare
agencies on child support enforcement matters declined from 39.6 percent
in 1994 to 33.7 percent by 2002 (see Figure 14). The decline in contacts
after 1996 reflects welfare reform's time limits and reductions in TANF
contacts as the welfare rolls grew smaller.

![](media/image19.wmf){width="6.0in" height="3.5in"}

Welfare reform's effects are also manifest in changes over time in the
types of help mothers requested. The requests shifted from topics about
entering the welfare and child support system to topics about the
aftermath of entering either system. The proportion of mothers who
sought help with TANF or Medicaid declined from 42 percent in 1994 to 32
percent by 2002. Strikingly, the share of mothers seeking help getting a
legal order declined slightly, from 55 percent in 1994 to 53 percent by
2002. The percentage of mothers who sought help in collecting on an
existing order increased from 64 percent in 1994 to 66 percent by 2002.
Proportionally, mothers asking for help with finding the other parent or
updating their child support amount increased from 27 to 28 percent in
the first category and 17 to 20 percent in the second. Mothers
contacting either agency to establish paternity (as encouraged by
welfare reform) rose immediately after welfare reform but declined by
2002.

![](media/image20.wmf){width="6.820138888888889in"
height="3.588888888888889in"}

**Race/Ethnicity**

Between 1994 and 2002, almost half (47 percent) of Native-American
mothers reported contact with either agency, the highest rate among any
racial or ethnic group. Roughly a third of White, African-American, and
Hispanic mothers contacted either agency (37, 39 and 32 percent,
respectively). A quarter of Asian American mothers used agency services
in this period (Figure 16).

White mothers who contacted either agency were most interested in
securing help with a child support payment (68 percent), help getting an
order (51 percent), or help with TANF or Medicaid (Figure 16a). They
were least interested in help finding the other parent (25 percent),
updating a payment amount (19 percent), getting an agreement (17
percent) or establishing paternity (11 percent). African-American
mothers were most interested in help getting an order (62 percent),
collecting a payment (59 percent) or TANF/Medicaid, or finding the other
parent (32 percent). They were least interested in updating an amount,
getting an agreement or establishing paternity. Hispanic custodial
mothers were most interesting in receiving payments (53 percent),
getting an order (51 percent), getting TANF or Medicaid) or finding the
other parent (35 percent). As with other mothers they were least
interested in updating orders or establishing paternity. Native-American
mothers were equally interested in collecting payments or getting an
order (55 percent) and finding the other parent (34 percent). Asian
American mothers were interested in collecting payments (59 percent) and
getting an order (47 percent).

Except for enforcement of child support owed, minority mothers seem to
have a higher or comparable assistance rate to White mothers. It does
not seem that minorities have been disadvantaged with regard to agency
access.

![](media/image21.wmf){width="5.929861111111111in"
height="3.0881944444444445in"}

![](media/image22.wmf){width="6.1402777777777775in"
height="4.207638888888889in"}

**Marital Status**

Divorced and remarried mothers were most interested in help with
collecting child support on an existing order (69 and 73 percent,
respectively). They were next most interested in help with establishing
an order (51 and 48 percent, respectively). Divorced mothers also had
some interest in obtaining help with a TANF or Medicaid problem (35
percent). Never-married mothers were most interested in assistance with
establishing child support (61 percent). They also wanted help
collecting on an existing order (54 percent) or help with a TANF or
Medicaid problem. Among mothers interested in help finding the other
parent, never-married mothers were most likely to report asking for this
kind of help by a slim margin (32 percent versus 28 percent for
separated mothers; 27 percent for remarried mothers and 26 percent for
divorced mothers). Although few mothers sought help establishing
paternity, never-married mothers were twice as interested (19 percent
versus less than 10 percent for other mothers).

![](media/image23.wmf){width="6.225in"
height="4.199305555555555in"}Except in the enforcement and updating of
orders, families where minorities are over-represented (e.g., unwed
couples with children) do not seem to be less well-served by the OCSE
agency. These key differences in establishing orders and locating the
other parent between unwed and divorced parents point to a larger
difference between them. There is no system for securing child support
orders after a nonmarital birth that is analogous to the measures for
securing orders available to divorced or separated parents.

**Summary**

Despite successful efforts by the child support enforcement system to
increase paternity establishment and despite increases in child support
awards to minority mothers, in the 1990--2002 period, minority mothers
were still less likely to have received a child support order than their
nonminority counterparts. African-American and Hispanic mothers were
likely to say that they wanted child support, but African-American
mothers were also likely to say that they did not believe that the
noncustodial father could afford to pay. Hispanic mothers did not
believe that the father provided all he could and were more likely to
note that paternity had not been established. Asian American mothers
were also likely to say that paternity had not been established when
asked why they did not have a child support order. Native-American
mothers were very likely to have contacted a child support or TANF
agency for help in obtaining a child support order, but in the early
1990s, they were also likely to report that they had received no help in
those efforts.

These child support outcome differences point to the larger problem:
that there is not yet an adequate system for establishing orders for
never-married couples that matches the measures in place for
establishing orders for divorced and separated mothers. This causes
either no orders or delayed orders for never-married mothers and
contributes to the enforcement system's problems in locating
noncustodial fathers.

##  {#section-3 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-4 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-5 .unnumbered}

## Fragile Families Data  {#fragile-families-data .unnumbered}

**Section Four: Fragile Families Data**[^10]

In the previous section we asked *who* participated in the child support
enforcement system at any given moment, and we found significant racial
disparities independent of most socioeconomic and relationship status
variables. In this section, we first ask *what* accounts for
minority-nonminority discrepancies, then *how* those disparities evolve.
This is the first study that succeeds in accounting for
minority-nonminority differences in child support outcomes without
resorting to simulations.

![](media/image24.wmf){width="6.159722222222222in"
height="3.977777777777778in"}

The study is based on a cohort of 1,985 mothers who had a nonmarital
birth between April 1998 and August 2000[^11] and did not consistently
live with the father of their child at three interview points of the
national Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study.[^12] The original
sample included 4,900 births (3,700 nonmarital and 1,200 to married
parents). (See the appendix for the variables used and the data
selection method.)

In the third-year sample, 80 percent of fathers had established
paternity. Broken down racially, 85 percent of White fathers, 80 percent
of Blacks and 77 percent of Hispanics had established paternity. The
difference between Blacks and Whites was not significant; the difference
between Hispanics and Whites was statistically significant.

Fewer custodial mothers in this urban sample (37 percent) had child
support orders than mothers in the national sample (57 percent). By
race, the results were: 44 percent of White custodial mothers, 38
percent of Black custodial mothers, and 32 percent of Hispanic custodial
mothers had a child support order. The difference between White and
Black parents was not significant. The difference between Hispanic and
White parents was significant.

Interestingly, the fragile families urban compliance rate (62 percent)
was higher than the national compliance rate (59 percent). By race, 74
percent of White mothers who had an order received a payment, as did 58
percent of Black mothers and 72 percent of Hispanic mothers. The
difference between Whites and Blacks was significant. The White-Hispanic
difference was not significant.

Finally, the degree of compliance among the urban sample (44 percent,
typically) was about the same as for the national sample (45 percent).
The White-Black difference was significant (54 percent for Whites and 39
percent for Blacks). The White-Hispanic difference was not significant
(54 percent for Whites and 53 percent for Hispanics).

Even without taking demographic factors other than race into account, at
year 3, urban Black nonresident parents are as likely to have
established paternity and have child support orders as urban, White
nonresident parents. Among Black and White urban mothers who had child
support orders, there were significant differences in payment outcomes
(for both compliance and degree of compliance). Urban Hispanic
nonresident parents are significantly less likely to have paternity
established and have a child support order than urban White nonresident
parents, but there are no significant differences in payment outcomes
among Hispanic and White mothers who had orders.

**A. Background Demographics**

Within each racial group, less than a fifth of mothers asked for help
from a child support enforcement agency, even though 40 to 50 percent of
mothers in each racial group were involved in the welfare system and
therefore required to cooperate with the child support enforcement
system. There was little significant difference by race in OCSE contact.

![](media/image25.wmf){width="6.75in" height="4.207638888888889in"}

White mothers were significantly more likely to have worked (84 percent)
than Black (65 percent) or Hispanic (64 percent) mothers. Black mothers
(51 percent) were significantly more likely to have received TANF
benefits than White (43 percent) or Hispanic (47 percent) mothers.

Minority mothers were more likely to have had other children with the
father of the focal child (29 and 31 percent for Black and Hispanic
mothers, 17 percent for White mothers).

Minorities were significantly less likely to have been cohabiting at the
time of the focal child's birth. Forty-five percent of White mothers
were living with the child's father when the child was born, as compared
with 27 percent of Black and 36 percent of Hispanic mothers.

Black and Hispanic nonresident fathers had lower levels of education,
with Hispanic fathers being much less likely to have completed high
school than White fathers (34 percent versus 51 percent), and Black and
Hispanic dads were less likely to have had an education beyond high
school. Black and Hispanic fathers were less likely to have been working
at the 3-year interview than White fathers (66 percent and 76 percent,
compared with 84 percent). Surprisingly, from 39 to 45 percent of
fathers had ever been incarcerated with no significant difference by
race. Finally, minority dads were significantly more likely to have had
a child or children with another woman.

![](media/image26.wmf){width="6.75in" height="4.207638888888889in"}

In the discussion below, we restate the raw difference between minority
and White parents, then we examine the change in these differences as
various characteristics are held constant. We add the socioeconomic
characteristics of parents followed by noneconomic characteristics
(including whether the mother received help from a child support
agency). Tests of significance indicate whether the differences between
Blacks and Whites and Hispanics and Whites, remain significant after
economic and/or noneconomic characteristics are taken into account.

**B. Paternity Establishment**

Black and Hispanic fathers are 6 and 9 percentage points, respectively,
less likely than White fathers to have established paternity (Figure
21). The latter difference was significant. After adding the SES
variables, the difference for Hispanic fathers dropped to 3 percentage
points and was no longer significantly different from 0.

Fathers who had more education and did not have multiple partner
fertility and mothers who reported very good health were more likely to
establish paternity. Curiously, both mothers and fathers who reported
having a drug or alcohol problem were more likely to have paternity
established as well. In terms of noneconomic characteristics, parents
who were romantically involved at birth were less likely to have
established paternity than those who were cohabiting, as were mothers
with multiple partner fertility. Mothers who wanted the father's name on
the birth certificate, and those who reported that the father
contributed cash during the pregnancy and visited in the hospital were
more likely to have paternity established for their children.

![](media/image27.wmf){width="6.0in" height="3.975in"}

One of the strongest predictors of paternity establishment was whether
the mother obtained help from a child support enforcement agency.
Mothers who said yes to this question were 12 percentage points more
likely to have paternity established.

**C. Child Support Orders**

![](media/image28.wmf){width="6.820138888888889in"
height="3.2597222222222224in"}![](media/image29.wmf){width="6.375in"
height="4.125in"}percentage points and that difference is not
statistically significant from 0. Adding noneconomic variables to the
model does not change Black-White differences and increases the
Hispanic-White difference to 8 percentage points, and that difference is
also not statistically significant.

As with paternity establishment, the strongest predictor of having an
order was whether the mother received help from the child support
agency. Mothers who did were 19 percentage points more likely to have an
order (Figure 22a). Fathers who have more education and those who have
children with other mothers are more likely to have an order (8
percentage points). Native-born mothers are much more likely to have a
child support order (23 percentage points) than those born outside of
the United States. Mothers who reported at the baseline survey that they
wanted the father involved in raising the child were 15 percentage
points more likely to have an order.

**D. Compliance**

Black fathers were 18 percentage points less likely to comply with their
child support obligation than White fathers, and this difference was
significant (Figure 23). Hispanic fathers were only 4 percentage points
less likely to comply (a difference that was not statistically different
from 0). Black fathers were still significantly less likely to comply
with a child support order after socioeconomic and nonsocioeconomic
variables were added to the model. They were 16 points less likely to
comply when SES variables were added and 14 points less likely when SES
and non-SES variables were added.

![](media/image30.wmf){width="6.159722222222222in"
height="3.729861111111111in"}Employed fathers were 12 percentage points
more likely to comply with a child support order. Fathers who had a
history of incarceration were 12 percentage points less likely to
comply. Fathers with a post-secondary education were 15 percentage
points more likely to comply; and mothers who reported TANF receipt were
less likely to have received a payment if they had an order, indicating
that these mothers are probably associated with fathers who are less
able to pay support. Fathers who had visited the mother in the hospital
were 18 percentage points more likely to comply. Whether the mother
obtained help from the child support agency was not predictive of
receiving payments from the father once an order was in place.

**E. Degree of Compliance**

There is no difference between Hispanic and White fathers on the
proportion of the child support paid (degree of compliance) (Figure 24).
Significantly, Black fathers who pay child support orders pay 14 percent
less on their orders than do White fathers. When socioeconomic variables
are added to the model, the difference between Black and White fathers
is reduced to 9 percent, a difference that is no longer statistically
significant.

![](media/image31.wmf){width="6.790277777777778in"
height="3.857638888888889in"}Fathers who were not working or had a
history of incarceration paid a smaller portion of the ordered amount,
while mothers who were on TANF and were not working received a smaller
portion. Mothers who were born in the United States also received a
smaller proportion of the child support due them, although they were
much more likely to have an order. Fathers who were more supportive of
the mother at birth and those who visited in the hospital paid a larger
proportion of their order.

**F. The Special Role of Cohabitation**

Because our sample mixes parents who never cohabited with parents who
had ever cohabited in the three years after the child's birth, we can
also observe differences in child support outcomes between these groups
(parents who never co-resided and parents who had ever lived together in
the 3-year period under study).

To review briefly, cohabiting couples were the dominant group at
baseline and at the year-one interview (Figure 25). At baseline almost
two-thirds of White couples and more than half the Hispanic sample, but
only a third of Blacks, cohabited.

![](media/image32.wmf){width="6.125in" height="3.4763888888888888in"}On
the assumption that cohabiting couples are not part of the child support
system, at baseline, only a minority of White, a majority of Black, and
almost half the Hispanic mothers were eligible for child support. Thus,
the cohabiting parents who stopped cohabiting and became eligible for
child support by the third-year interview were disproportionately drawn
from the ranks of White and Hispanic parents. Because cohabiting parents
have higher socioeconomic outcomes, parents who previously cohabited and
then entered the child support universe were also likely to be
better-off than parents who never cohabited.

![](media/image33.wmf){width="5.875in" height="2.75in"}Among parents who
had never cohabited by the third-year interview, significantly fewer
Hispanic parents had established paternity. The disparity in paternity
establishment rates for Black and White fathers who never cohabited was
not statistically significant. Almost two-thirds of White parents who
never cohabited had child support orders. This is a striking result in
that only 44 percent of White parents in the total never-resident sample
had a child support order at year 3.

Fifty-eight percent of never-cohabiting parents had made payments on
their child support orders, paying an average of only 40 percent of
their obligation. There are no statistically significant disparities
between minority and White fathers on either compliance measure.

![](media/image34.wmf){width="6.25in" height="4.180555555555555in"}

Among ever-cohabiting parents, almost 90 percent had established
paternity by year 3 with no significant differences by race (94 percent
for White parents, 87 percent for Black parents, and 92 percent for
Hispanic parents). Fewer than 43 percent had child support orders.
Specifically, 44 percent of White ever-cohabiting parents had orders,
with significant differences by race. Two-thirds of fathers who had ever
cohabited made payments on their child support orders, paying an average
of 46 percent of their obligation. There was no statistically
significant disparity between Black and White ever-cohabiting fathers on
both compliance measures.

![](media/image35.wmf){width="7.875in" height="5.020138888888889in"}

In summary, there are some differences between never-cohabiting and
ever-cohabiting parents, but most of them are not significant. There
were significant paternity establishment differences with fewer
never-cohabiting fathers establishing paternity than their
ever-cohabiting peers (71 percent versus 90 percent). A higher percent
(43 percent) of never-cohabiting parents had child support orders than
parents who had ever cohabited (39 percent), but this difference was not
significant. Fathers who had ever cohabited were more likely to comply
with their child support order, if they had one, than never-cohabiting
fathers (66 percent versus 58 percent), but the difference was not
significant. Ever-cohabiting fathers paid an average of 46 percent of
their order, versus 40 percent for never-cohabiting fathers. Again, the
differences were not significant.

![](media/image36.wmf){width="7.4in" height="4.870833333333334in"}

##  {#section-6 .unnumbered}

## New York City Social Indicators Survey  {#new-york-city-social-indicators-survey .unnumbered}

**Section Five: New York City Social Indictors Survey**

The third study is based on a sample of New York City mothers who
reported that their child(ren) had a nonresident father. The sample was
intended to help monitor the implementation and impact of welfare reform
in New York. This first wave, in 1997, of the "New York City Social
Indicators Survey" interviewed 339 mothers from whom a sub­sample of
mothers actually on welfare was drawn. In this report, we use the total
sample, not the welfare subsample, and the child support outcomes in the
larger sample between Whites and minorities are greater (see Figure 34)
than those reported in either the CPS-CSS or the Fragile Families
surveys. Given these wide White-minority gaps, this third study provides
a particularly robust confirmation of results we obtained in earlier
sections of this report. The New York City Social Indicators Survey also
pays a great deal of attention to differences between U.S.-born and
foreign-born Blacks (from Haiti, Jamaica, etc.) and Hispanics (from the
Dominican Republic, Cuba, etc.).[^13] When we observed child support
enforcement differences between U.S.-born and foreign-born mothers in
the Fragile Families data set with demographic and socioeconomic
variables controlled, U.S.-born mothers had significantly better
outcomes for child support orders. In the "New York City Social
Indicators" dataset, foreign-born mothers had superior outcomes in most
cases. In our recommendations section, we suggest follow-up work that
exploits capacities within Fragile Families dataset for analysis of
Hispanic subcommunities.

Of the noneconomic (attitude) variables included in our models, several
seem to predict child support outcomes and could be a focus of
intervention.

-   Mothers who think that financial reasons are important for having an
    order are more likely to have a child support order.

-   Mothers who are aware of the child support enforcement agency also
    are more likely to have an order.

-   In bivariate associations two noneconomic (attitude) variables were
    significantly higher for Hispanics and may be the foci of
    interventions for this group.

-   Hispanics are more likely to say that safety (violence) issues are a
    reason for not having an order.

-   Hispanics are more likely to say that the process of getting a child
    support order is too difficult (this may indicate a language or
    cultural barrier).

**A. Description of the Sample**

The sample was heavily minority with only 17 percent of the mothers
White. A third were nonimmigrant Blacks, which rose to half when Black
immigrants were included. A third were Hispanic, about equally divided
between those of immigrant and nonimmigrant status.

![](media/image37.wmf){width="4.5in"
height="2.8361111111111112in"}**Noneconomic Variables**

The sample was relatively highly educated, and 54 percent had more than
a high-school education. Almost half (45 percent) had never married, and
the mean child age was almost 9. The average mother was 25 years old,
and the average household income was \$24,000.

A third of White fathers, 44 percent of African-American fathers, and
slightly more than a third (37 percent) of Hispanic fathers had other
children with a different mother. Fathers associated with Hispanic
mothers were more likely to not have seen their child in the past year.
Most mothers were aware of the child support enforcement agency, but
White mothers in particular (90 percent) knew of the agency.

![](media/image38.wmf){width="6.0in" height="3.375in"}

![](media/image39.wmf){width="6.0in" height="3.0in"}

![](media/image40.wmf){width="6.0in" height="3.5in"}**Attitudes toward
Child Support**

Although most mothers said it was important to have a child support
order for financial reasons, White and Hispanic mothers gave it more
importance than African-American mothers. Hispanic mothers felt that the
order enhanced father/child contact more than other mothers and Hispanic
mothers were also more likely to feel that getting the order is a
difficult process. They also felt that being concerned about safety was
a good reason not to get the order. African-American and Hispanic
mothers were more likely to feel that whether a father pays informally
is a good reason not to have an order.

![](media/image41.wmf){width="6.0in" height="2.6020833333333333in"}

**B. Child Support Outcomes**

Fifty-five percent of White mothers had orders (a rate that was twice
that of Hispanic mothers). White mothers were also four times more
likely than African-American mothers to have received a formal payment
from the father. Only 18 percent of all mothers received a child support
payment (whether they had an order or not).

-   White mothers are much more likely to have an order than are
    African-American or Hispanic mothers.

-   White mothers are much more likely to have a payment.

-   White mothers receive much more support than African-American or
    Hispanic mothers.

Among the small group of mothers (67 mothers) who had child support
orders, compliance was quite high (about 80 percent) in terms of the
share of mothers who received a payment and for the proportion of the
obligation paid. On the first measure, the difference between White and
African-American mothers (90 percent versus 67 percent) is only
marginally significant at the 10-percent level. There is no significant
difference between the Hispanic and White outcome.

The biggest differences between White and minority families lay in the
proportion of mothers with orders, not in compliance with orders.
Somewhat more surprisingly, African-American mothers have worse child
support outcomes than Hispanic mothers, although Hispanic mothers appear
to be more disadvantaged.

![](media/image42.wmf){width="5.875in"
height="2.566666666666667in"}**Multivariate Analysis for Having an
Order:**

Adding demographics and noneconomic variables does little to reduce the
difference in the likelihood of having an order by race and ethnicity.

-   Blacks are 75 percent, and Hispanics 63 percent, less likely to have
    an order than Whites, controlling for all variables.

-   All differences remain statistically significant.

**Multivariate Analysis for Receiving a Payment:**

-   When demographics and noneconomic variables are added to the model,
    Hispanics are no longer significantly different from Whites in their
    likelihood of receiving a payment.

-   Blacks continue to be about 70 percent less likely than Whites to
    receive a payment when controlling for all variables.

In examining the likelihood that a mother received child support
payments, both the Hispanic and African-American coefficients increased,
indicating that Hispanics are only 57 percent less likely, and
African-American 73 percent less likely, than Whites to have a payment.
More important, the difference between Hispanics and Whites was no
longer statistically significant.

![](media/image43.wmf){width="6.0in" height="4.097222222222222in"}

**Multivariate Analysis for Amount of Payment:**

When demographics and noneconomic variables are added to the model,
Hispanics are no longer significantly different from Whites on the
amount of payment received.

-   When adding noneconomic variables to the model, the difference
    between Blacks and Whites on amount of support received is reduced
    by a quarter.

-   African-Americans continue to receive about \$900 less than Whites,
    even when controlling for all variables.

![](media/image44.wmf){width="6.35in"
height="3.8819444444444446in"}**Noneconomic Variables:**

Mothers who believe that having an order is important for financial
reasons are more than twice as likely to have an order and three times
as likely to receive a formal payment. They receive \$800 more per year
than those who do not believe this.

-   Mothers who are aware of the CSE agency are over twice as likely to
    have an order as those who are not aware.

**C. Race by Immigrant Status**

Although it appears that U.S.-born single mothers in New York City have
better child support outcomes than foreign-born mothers, most
differences within racial groups are not statistically significant. The
difference between native and foreign-born mothers in the likelihood of
having a formal payment is statistically significant, but only at the 10
percent level.

**Multivariate Analysis of Having an Order by Race/Immigrant Status:**

When adding demographic and noneconomic variables to the models,
Hispanic immigrants are no longer significantly different from Whites on
the likelihood of having an order. After socio- and noneconomic
variables are added, Blacks, Black immigrants and Hispanics remain
significantly different in the likelihood of having an order.

![](media/image45.wmf){width="6.0in" height="4.0in"}

**Multivariate Analysis of Receiving a Payment by Race/Immigrant
Status:**

After adding demographic and noneconomic variables, Hispanic natives and
immigrants are no longer significantly different from Whites in the
likelihood of receiving a payment. Black immigrants also are no longer
significantly different from Whites when noneconomic variables are added
to the model.

![](media/image46.wmf){width="6.0in" height="3.875in"}

**Multivariate Analysis of Amount of Payment by Race/Immigrant Status:**

After adding demographic and noneconomic variables, Hispanic immigrants
are no longer significantly different from Whites. After adding
demographic variables, Black immigrants are no longer significantly
different from Whites.

-   When all covariates are added to models, Black natives continue to
    receive \$1,000 less in formal payments than do Whites.

![](media/image47.wmf){width="6.0in" height="4.111111111111111in"}

**Welfare:**

Blacks and Hispanics are twice as likely to have received welfare in the
past year than are Whites. Those on welfare are much less likely to have
an order and to receive a payment and receive much less in payments.

-   However, after adding welfare receipt in past year to models, this
    variable does not affect the difference in child support outcomes
    among Blacks, Whites and Hispanics.

![](media/image48.wmf){width="4.458333333333333in" height="2.75in"}

![](media/image49.wmf){width="4.433333333333334in"
height="4.011111111111111in"}

![](media/image50.wmf){width="4.75in"
height="2.8305555555555557in"}Given larger baseline differences between
White and minority mothers, the study's main results are as follows:
this study confirms the race gaps in child support orders found in the
CPS-CSS and the Hispanic-White gap in the Fragile Families sample.
Unlike results from the Fragile Families study, when economic and
noneconomic variables available in the data set are taken into account,
differences in child support orders between minorities

and nonminorities remain.

The study does confirm the Fragile Families child support compliance
findings. In this sample, economic variables must be introduced to
account for differences in Hispanic-White compliance rates. No control
variables can account for differences in Black-White compliance rates.

The present study confirms findings in both the CPS-CSS and Fragile
Families research that custodial mothers benefit from contact with OCSE
and TANF agencies for child support.

When parents' socioeconomic characteristics were held constant, the
model accounted for differences between Hispanics and Whites in the
proportion of mothers with child support payments. However, differences
between Blacks and Whites on this outcome remained.

The study also confirmed a strong association between a mother's
awareness of the child support agency and her chances of having an
order.

The mother's perception that "getting financial support from the father
is an important reason to have an order" strongly predicts her
likelihood of having both an order and payments.

##  {#section-7 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-8 .unnumbered}

## Conclusions and Recommendations  {#conclusions-and-recommendations .unnumbered}

**Section Six: Conclusions and Recommendations**

We assumed that this array of studies would yield results similar to
those of late 1980s welfare studies summarized by Bane and Ellwood that
pinpointed differences in long-term versus short-term welfare spells and
long-term versus short-term welfare populations. In a cross-sectional
perspective, welfare studies emphasized the presence and attributes of
those who remain on welfare for long periods. In a time-series or
dynamic perspective, welfare studies emphasized the presence and
attributes of welfare short-terms and cyclers (those who move on and off
the rolls frequently). Picking one's perspective (selecting static
versus dynamic views) gave an entirely different impression of welfare
recipients and their attributes, especially race. The static perspective
emphasized mothers who faced many barriers to the job market and were
disproportionately minorities. The dynamic perspective highlighted
mothers who were disproportionately likely to be divorced mothers with
relatively few barriers to employment and not minorities. Bane and
Ellwood then imagined policy reforms that included more robust child
support enforcement, a time-limited welfare system for the short term,
and new policies for the long term.

We assumed that we, too, would see differences in results between our
cross-sectional (CPS-CSS, NYCSIS) and time series birth cohort (Fragile
Families) studies, and we do. The former studies cannot fully account
for racial disparities, whereas the latter study can account for racial
differences in paternity establishment, child support orders and degree
of compliance. The Fragile Families study did account for compliance
differences between Hispanics and Whites, but could not account for
compliance differences between Blacks and Whites.

Most researchers and policymakers have long assumed that the current
child support enforcement system hosts two strikingly different
populations within a single policy framework. This study demonstrates
this dynamic. White and minority parents who live in large cities, who
never married, and are child support eligible behave similarly within
the child support enforcement system. These same parents behave in
strikingly dissimilar ways from their suburban and rural, ever-married
or cohabiting counterparts. The current child support enforcement system
works best for children from ever-married and cohabiting couples and
works least well for children from never-married, noncohabiting couples.

We exploited important differences between the CPS-CSS and Fragile
Families data sets. The FFCWB survey includes information on
never-married parents both before and after they were eligible for the
child support system. The CPS-CSS facilitates comparisons between
ever-married and never-married parents. The results indicate that the
child support process is most responsive to divorced parents and least
responsive to never-married parents. We imagine that this is because the
marital dissolution process usually builds in a formal discussion about
child support. Nonmarital parenting is a process that simultaneously and
informally hosts both family formation and family dissolution
conversations. That creates a chaotic context for child support
enforcement. African-American mothers who did not have child support
orders, for example, were likely to say that they did not have orders
because the father could not afford to pay, that he paid what he could
and they did not want legal involvement. Policies like the Healthy
Marriage Initiative are a useful response to these findings if efforts
to increase marriage rates among never-married parents include child
support education components as well.

Specifically this study determined the following:

[African-Americans]{.underline}

-   The difference in paternity establishment rates between urban,
    never-married, non-cohabiting Blacks (80 percent) and a similar
    group of Whites (85 percent) was not statistically significant.

-   Similarly, the racial difference in child support orders was not
    statistically significant from zero.

-   The Black-White compliance difference was 18 percentage points, and
    that difference remained large and significant with both
    socioeconomic and noneconomic controls.

-   Black-White differences in degree of compliance were not
    statistically significant after controls were introduced.

[Non-White Hispanics]{.underline}

-   The difference in paternity establishment rates between urban
    never-married, non-cohabiting Hispanics (non-White) and Whites was
    not statistically significant after controls were applied.

-   The difference in child support orders between White and Hispanic
    mothers was statistically significant, but after controls were
    applied, the difference was no longer significant.

-   There was little difference among urban Whites and Hispanics in
    their compliance rates, and this difference was not significant.

-   Similarly, the amount urban Hispanic fathers pay toward the amount
    due was comparable to the rate White fathers paid.

**Recommendations:**

[Policy]{.underline}:

OCSE has taken steps to secure orders and improve compliance with
respect to minorities. Further steps should be made to accelerate
establishment of orders for all minority groups, and these include:

-   Efforts to improve marriage rates for never-married parents and
    establish close paternal connections through marriage education
    and/or access and visitation should be taken. These may encourage
    better compliance over time.

-   All minority groups need assistance to improve income stability of
    fathers as controls for economic factors did make a difference. Such
    programs hold little promise unless they include more intensive,
    better managed, and more effective employment services. Also, given
    the effects of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) on employment
    gains of less educated women, work supports and incentives targeting
    less-educated men may also be helpful. These could come in the form
    of earnings supplements, conditional on child support compliance,
    and increases in the child support pass-through.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Compliance in terms of percent of orders paid is especially
    problematic to African Americans and Hispanics (Native Americans
    were not measured) and may mean that orders are too high for these
    low-wage earners due to imputed income to minimum orders as
    indicated by other studies.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Efforts to maintain in-hospital paternity programs are critical.

-   Child support efforts to establish orders for more of those with
    paternity established is critical.

-   Efforts to increase orders among Hispanic fathers and compliance
    among Black fathers will have to become more nuanced. Reducing
    cultural barriers that may discourage Hispanic (or foreign-born)
    mothers from utilizing child support services may be key to the
    first objective.

[Research]{.underline}:

-   Extend this analysis to the fifth wave of the "Fragile Family
    Survey" and decompose Hispanic outcomes by subcommunities.

-   Update the CPS--CSS results and apply birth cohort simulations that
    replicate the Fragile Family study and demonstrate whether Fragile
    Family results can be obtained from a national sample.

-   Resolve differences between the "Fragile Families" and "New York
    Social Indicators Survey" by authorizing a follow-up study to take
    advantage of the Fragile Family data set's capacity to decompose
    Hispanic populations and evaluate them by region and subgroup.

##  {#section-9 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-10 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-11 .unnumbered}

## Appendix A: Data Background {#appendix-a-data-background .unnumbered}

**Appendix A: Data Background**

Each of the three independent studies contained in this report
contributes a unique perspective on race and ethnic differences in child
support outcomes. The first is the CPS-CSS. This study combined five
surveys from 1990 to 2002 for a pooled sample of 19,927 child
support-eligible mothers, e.g., divorced, separated, never-married or
remarried. The second study, based upon the first three years of the
"Fragile Families Child Wellbeing Survey" (FFSCW), is a representative
sample of nonmarital births that identifies children at birth and
follows them forward, so that researchers can identify the timing of
differences in child support outcomes. The third study observes 336
child support--eligible mothers from a larger random-sample 1997 "New
York City Social Indicators Survey" (NYC SIS) designed to study the
impact of welfare reform. It over-sampled low-income mothers and
included a significant immigrant population.

  --------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -------------------
  **Comparative                                             
  Characteristics of                                        
  the Three Samples**                                       

  **Characteristics**   **CPS-CSS**       **FFSCW -- Wave   **NYC SIS**
                                          3**               

  Locale                Representative    Representative    Urban -- New York
                        national sample   urban sample (22  City only
                                          cities)           

  Sample type           Five biannual     Random birth      Random
                        cross-sectional   cohort -          cross-sectional
                        samples (pooled)  interviewed at    sample -- Wave 1
                                          baseline, year    only
                                          one, year three   
                                          and year five     
                                          (not available)   

  Time                  1990--2002        1999--2000,       1997
                                          2000--1, 2002--3, 
                                          2004--5 (not      
                                          available)        

  Sample size           19,927            1,985             336 child
                                                            support--eligible
                                                            mothers

  Marital status        Divorced,         Nonmarital sample Divorced,
                        separated,        only (cohabiting  separated,
                        never-married and versus never      never-married and
                        remarried         co-resident)      remarried
  --------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -------------------

##  {#section-12 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-13 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-14 .unnumbered}

## Appendix B: Note on the Fragile Families Sample  {#appendix-b-note-on-the-fragile-families-sample .unnumbered}

## Appendix B: Note on the Fragile Families Sample {#appendix-b-note-on-the-fragile-families-sample-1 .unnumbered}

The economic variables included: father\'s age, his incarceration
history, his level of education, his multiple-partner fertility
characteristics, his employment and disability status, and whether he
had an alcohol or drug problem that affected employment. Also included
were the mother\'s welfare participation, her employment and health

status, and her nativity.

The noneconomic variables included: three measures of homogamy (whether
parents are

the same minority status and the difference in their education and
ages), parents' relationship status at the time of the birth, how
supportive the father was of the mother before the birth, the number of
years they knew each other before the pregnancy, whether the mother
wanted him involved in raising the child and several measures of father
involvement prior to or at the time of the birth (whether he visited in
the hospital, whether he contributed cash or in-kind during the
pregnancy, and whether he intended to support the child in the future).

We also include whether the mother has other children with the current
father or children with other fathers, whether she had a problem with
drugs or alcohol, the gender of the child, and whether the mother
received help from a child support agency. Although,

mother\'s involvement with drugs or alcohol may be related to her need
for child support, we include it as another measure of the father's
willingness to pay, since in this case, the father cannot be sure that
his payments are being spent on his child.

Finally, we include three aggregate measures of the local economic
climate and legal environment: two city-level indicators (metropolitan
area unemployment rate and a child support effectiveness index) and one
State-level indicator (maximum TANF benefit).

Because this is a study of child support outcomes, we included only
mothers eligible for child support. Specifically, we excluded the 1,200
marital births and restricted the data set to mothers with a nonmarital
birth who were interviewed at all three waves (birth, 1-year and
3-year), and were associated with fathers whose racial/ethnic background
was identified (3,009 mothers). We excluded nonmarital birth mothers who
later married the father of their child (396). We also dropped cases
where the father had died or the mother reported that he has primary
custody of the child (47 cases). Because we focused on fathers with
identified racial and ethnic background, we dropped those who reported
their race as non-Hispanic "other" (47 cases). We excluded mothers who
reported cohabiting with the father of their child at all three survey
waves (476) and included mothers who were not cohabiting at any given
wave, even if they had cohabited at some point. This is because during
the period of nonresidency, they would have been eligible for child
support, and prior research suggests that once a child support order is
in place, amending that order is difficult and not often done,
especially among low-income families (Waller and Plotnick, 2001).
Therefore, it is quite possible that there is a child support order in
place even for couples who are currently cohabiting, if they were not
cohabiting at some prior point.

Of the remaining 2,043 mothers who were eligible for child support, 45
were dropped due to missing data on the covariates. To minimize data
loss, observations were dropped only for those variables that had fewer
than 10 missing cases. For the remainder of the missing cases, dummy
variables were created and included in the regressions. Finally, an
additional 13 cases were dropped that were missing observations on
whether there was a child support order. The final sample size was 1,985
mothers.

##  {#section-15 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-16 .unnumbered}

##  {#section-17 .unnumbered}

## Appendix C: References {#appendix-c-references .unnumbered}

**Appendix C: References**

Beller, A. H., and Graham, J. W. (1993). *Small Change: The Economics of
Child Support*. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Conrad, C. (2005). "A Mixed Record: How the Public Workforce System
Affects Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Labor Market." Washington,
D.C.: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

Edin, K., & Lien, L. (1997). *Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers
Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work*. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Edin, K., Lein, L. & Nelson, T. (1998). Low-Income, Non-Residential
Fathers: Off-Balance in a Competitive Economy. An Initial Analysis
(fatherhood.hhs.gov/ELN/eln98).

Garfinkel, I., Meyer, D., & McLanahan, S. S. (1998). A Brief History of
Child Support Policies in the United States. In Garfinkel, I.,
McLanahan, S. S., Meyer, D., & Seltzer, J. (eds.) *Fathers under Fire:
The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement*. New York: The Russell Sage
Foundation, pp. 14--30.

Greene, A. D., & Moore, K. A. (2000). "Nonresident Father Involvement
and Child Well-Being among Young Children in Families on Welfare."
Co-published simultaneously in *Marriage and Family Review* 29 (2/3):
159--180; and Fatherhood: *Research, Interventions and Policies,* ed. H.
Elizabeth Peters and Randal D. Day, Haworth Press, Inc., pp. 159--180.

Hamer, J. F. (1997). The Fathers of "Fatherless" Black Children.
*Families in Society*, 78 (6): 564--578.

Hamer, J. F. (1998). The Definition of Fatherhood: In the Words of
Never-Married African American Mothers and the Noncustodial Fathers of
Their Children. *Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare*, 25 (2):
81--104.

Legler, P. (1996). The Coming Revolution in Child Support Policy:
Implications of the 1996 Welfare Act. *Family Law Quarterly*, 30 (3):
519--63.

Legler, P. (2003). Low-Income Fathers and Child Support: Starting Off on
the Right Track. Denver: Policy Studies, Inc.

Manning, W. D., and Smock, P. J. (1995). Why Marry? Race and the
Transition to Marriage Among Cohabitors. *Demography* 32 (4): 509--520.

Meyer, D. R., and Cancian, M. (2002). *W--2 Child Support Demonstration
Evaluation Report on Nonexperimental Analyses.* University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty.

Miller, C., Farrell, M., Cancian, M., and Meyer, D. R. (2005). "The
Interaction of Child Support and TANF: Evidence from Samples of Current
and Former Welfare Recipients."

New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. Report to the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.

Miller, C., and Knox, V. (2001). *The Challenge of Helping Low-Income
Fathers Support Their Children*. New York: Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation.

Mincy, R. B., Curtis, M., and Huang, C.-C. (2002). Will the Pendulum
Swing from Responsible Fatherhood to Marriage Leave Some Children
Behind? Paper Presented to American Association of Public Policy
Analysis and Management, November.

Mincy, R. B., and Huang, C.-C. (2002). The M Word: The Rise and Fall of
Interracial Coalitions on Fathers and Welfare Reform, CRC Working Paper
2002--07-FF.

Mincy, R. B., and Pouncy, H. (1997). Paternalism, Child Support
Enforcement, and Fragile Families. In *The New Paternalism: Supervisory
Approaches to Poverty*, ed. L. M. Meade. Washington, D.C: Brookings
Institution Press, pp. 130--160.

Mincy, R. B., and Pouncy, H. (2000). Building Equity within Welfare
Reform for Children in Fragile Families. In *The Crisis of the Young
African American Male in the Inner Cities: A Consultation of The United
States Commission on Civil Rights*. Washington, D.C.: U.S.C.R.
Commission.

Mincy, R. B., and Sorensen, E. (1998). Deadbeats and Turnips in Child
Support Reform. *Journal of Policy Analysis and Management* 17 (1):
44--51.

National Center for Education Statistics. Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study: Birth Cohort (nces.ed.gov/ecls/Birth).

Primus, W., & Daugirdas, K. (2000). *Improving Child Well-Being by
Focusing on Low-Income Noncustodial Parents in Maryland*. Baltimore: The
Abell Foundation.

Rangarajan, A., & Gleason, P. (1998). Young Unwed Fathers of AFDC
Children: Do They Provide Support? *Demography* 35 **(**Vol. 35, No.
2**)**: 175--186.

Sorensen, E. (1997). A National Profile of Nonresident Fathers and Their
Ability to Pay Child Support. *Journal of Marriage and the Family* 59
(4): 785--797.

Sorensen, E., and Oliver, H. (2002). *Policy Reforms Are Needed to
Increase Child Support from Poor Fathers*. Washington, D.C.: Urban
Institute Press.

Turner, M. D., and Sorensen, E. J. (1998). *Factors Influencing
Nonresident Fathers' Child Support Payments*. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.

Urban Institute. National Survey of American Families. In *Assessing the
New Federalism.*

U.S. Census Bureau (2002). Current Population Reports: *Custodial
Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support, 1999.* Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. *National
Longitudinal Surveys*

NLSY97 (www.bls.gov/nls/y97summary).

Waller, M., and Plotnick, R. (2001). Effective Child Support Policy for
Low-Income Families: Evidence from Street Level Research. *Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management* 20 (1): 89--110.

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

**Appendix D: Tables**

**Table 1: Determinants of Types of Child Support Order**

  ------------------------- ---------- ------ -------- ------------ ------ -------- ------------ ------ --------
  ** **                     **Legal /                  **Informal /                 **Informal /        
                            No Order**                 No Order**                   Legal               
                                                                                    Order**             

                            Odds       S.E.   P        Odds         S.E.   P        Odds         S.E.   P

                                                                                                        

  Black                     0.51       0.03   \*\*\*   0.80         0.09            1.58         0.18   \*\*\*

  Hispanic                  0.44       0.03   \*\*\*   0.73         0.11   \*       1.66         0.24   \*\*

  Native American           0.39       0.06   \*\*\*   0.75         0.23            1.93         0.59   \*

  Asian                     0.61       0.10   \*\*     0.98         0.31            1.59         0.51   

  Age \<=29                 1.09       0.07            1.63         0.22   \*\*\*   1.50         0.20   \*\*

  Age \>=30 & \<=39         1.10       0.06            1.20         0.15            1.09         0.14   

  Never-Married             0.34       0.02   \*\*\*   0.95         0.13            2.79         0.37   \*\*\*

  Remarried                 0.75       0.05   \*\*\*   0.53         0.10   \*\*\*   0.71         0.12   \*

  Separated                 0.40       0.03   \*\*\*   1.53         0.20   \*\*     3.78         0.49   \*\*\*

  High School Education     1.38       0.08   \*\*\*   1.16         0.14            0.84         0.10   

  Above High School         1.73       0.10   \*\*\*   1.46         0.18   \*\*     0.84         0.11   
  Education                                                                                             

  2 Kids                    1.66       0.08   \*\*\*   1.65         0.17   \*\*\*   1.00         0.10   

  More than 2 Kids          1.81       0.11   \*\*\*   1.46         0.19   \*\*     0.80         0.10   

  City                      0.85       0.05   \*\*     0.95         0.11            1.12         0.13   

  Rural Area                1.17       0.06   \*\*     0.97         0.11            0.83         0.09   

  Year=1995                 1.04       0.05            1.09         0.12            1.05         0.11   

  Year=1997                 0.94       0.05            1.00         0.11            1.07         0.12   

                                                                                                        

  Log Likelihood            --8658.0                                                                    

                                                                                                        
  ------------------------- ---------- ------ -------- ------------ ------ -------- ------------ ------ --------

Source: 1994--1998 Current Population Survey - Child Support Supplement
(CPS-CSS).

N=11570. \* p \< .05; \*\* p \< .01; \*\*\* p \<.001.

**Table 2: Summary of Estimates for Variables Predicting Types of
Reasons for Not Having a Child Support Order**

+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
|                     | **Per |       | **Both |      | *     |       |
|                     | sonal |       | R      |      | *With |       |
|                     | C     |       | easons |      | Order |       |
|                     | hoice |       | vs.**  |      | vs.** |       |
|                     | vs.** |       |        |      |       |       |
|                     |       |       | **Obj  |      | *     |       |
|                     | *     |       | ective |      | *Obje |       |
|                     | *Obje |       | Constr |      | ctive |       |
|                     | ctive |       | aint** |      | Co    |       |
|                     | Co    |       |        |      | nstra |       |
|                     | nstra |       |        |      | int** |       |
|                     | int** |       |        |      |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
|                     | B     | Odds  | B      | Odds | B     | Odds  |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |        |      |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Black               | -     | 0.63  | --0.14 | 0.87 | -     | 0.47  |
|                     | -0.46 |       |        |      | -0.75 |       |
|                     | \     |       |        |      | \     |       |
|                     | *\*\* |       |        |      | *\*\* |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Hispanic            | -     | 0.77  | --0.20 | 0.81 | -     | 0.41  |
|                     | -0.26 |       | \*     |      | -0.88 |       |
|                     |       |       |        |      | \     |       |
|                     |       |       |        |      | *\*\* |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Native American     | -     | 0.79  | --0.05 | 0.95 | -     | 0.38  |
|                     | -0.24 |       |        |      | -0.96 |       |
|                     |       |       |        |      | \     |       |
|                     |       |       |        |      | *\*\* |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Asian               | 0.12  | 1.13  | 0.14   | 1.16 | -     | 0.66  |
|                     |       |       |        |      | -0.41 |       |
|                     |       |       |        |      | \*    |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Age \<=29           | 0.33  | 1.39  | 0.19   | 1.20 | 0.13  | 1.14  |
|                     | \*    |       | \*     |      |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Age \>=30 & \<=39   | 0.09  | 1.09  | 0.16   | 1.18 | 0.15  | 1.16  |
|                     |       |       | \*     |      | \*    |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Never-Married       | -     | 0.97  | 0.13   | 1.13 | -     | 0.36  |
|                     | -0.03 |       |        |      | -1.03 |       |
|                     |       |       |        |      | \     |       |
|                     |       |       |        |      | *\*\* |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Remarried           | 0.15  | 1.16  | 0.15   | 1.17 | -     | 0.87  |
|                     |       |       |        |      | -0.14 |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Separated           | -     | 0.93  | 0.11   | 1.11 | -     | 0.39  |
|                     | -0.07 |       |        |      | -0.94 |       |
|                     |       |       |        |      | \     |       |
|                     |       |       |        |      | *\*\* |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| High School         | 0.43  | 1.54  | 0.28   | 1.32 | 0.45  | 1.57  |
| Education           | \*\*  |       | \*\*\* |      | \     |       |
|                     |       |       |        |      | *\*\* |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Above High School   | 0.56  | 1.74  | 0.30   | 1.35 | 0.67  | 1.95  |
| Education           | \     |       | \*\*\* |      | \     |       |
|                     | *\*\* |       |        |      | *\*\* |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| 2 Kids              | -     | 0.81  | --0.14 | 0.87 | 0.36  | 1.43  |
|                     | -0.20 |       |        |      | \     |       |
|                     |       |       |        |      | *\*\* |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| More than 2 Kids    | -     | 0.60  | --0.14 | 0.87 | 0.44  | 1.56  |
|                     | -0.51 |       |        |      | \     |       |
|                     | \*\*  |       |        |      | *\*\* |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| City                | -     | 0.92  | 0.12   | 1.13 | -     | 0.88  |
|                     | -0.09 |       |        |      | -0.12 |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Rural Area          | 0.14  | 1.15  | 0.10   | 1.11 | 0.22  | 1.24  |
|                     |       |       |        |      | \*\*  |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Year=1995           | -     | 0.93  | 0.15   | 1.16 | 0.08  | 1.08  |
|                     | -0.07 |       | \*     |      |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Year=1997           | -     | 0.99  | 0.05   | 1.05 | -     | 0.96  |
|                     | -0.01 |       |        |      | -0.05 |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Intercept           | -     | 1.19  | --0.72 | 0.49 | 1.08  | 2.96  |
|                     | -1.68 |       | \*\*\* |      | \     |       |
|                     | \     |       |        |      | *\*\* |       |
|                     | *\*\* |       |        |      |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |        |      |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
| Log Likelihood      | --11  |       |        |      |       |       |
|                     | 477.1 |       |        |      |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |        |      |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+--------+------+-------+-------+

Source: 1994--1998 Current Population Survey - Child Support Supplement
(CPS-CSS).

N=11,570. \* p \< .05; \*\* p \< .01; \*\*\* p \<.001.

**Table 3: Summary of Estimates for Variables Predicting Individual
Reasons for Not Having a Child Support Order**

+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
|              | **Di  |     | **Di  |     | **Di  |    | **Fa |      |
|              | dn\'t |     | dn\'t |     | dn\'t |    | ther |      |
|              | Feel  |     | W     |     | Want  |    | Ca   |      |
|              | N     |     | ant** |     | F     |    | n\'t |      |
|              | eed** |     |       |     | ather |    | Af   |      |
|              |       |     | **Co  |     | To    |    | ford |      |
|              | **    |     | ntact |     | Pay** |    | To   |      |
|              | Legal |     | with  |     |       |    | P    |      |
|              | Inv   |     | Fat   |     |       |    | ay** |      |
|              | olvem |     | her** |     |       |    |      |      |
|              | ent** |     |       |     |       |    |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
|              | B     | S   | B     | S   | B     | S. | B    | S.E. |
|              |       | .E. |       | .E. |       | E. |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
|              |       |     |       |     |       |    |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| Black        | -     | 0   | -     | 0   | -     | 0. | 0.01 | 0.02 |
|              | -0.01 | .02 | -0.08 | .01 | -0.06 | 01 |      |      |
|              |       |     | \     |     | \     |    |      |      |
|              |       |     | *\*\* |     | *\*\* |    |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| Hispanic     | -     | 0   | 0.00  | 0   | -     | 0. | 0.00 | 0.02 |
|              | -0.01 | .02 |       | .02 | -0.06 | 02 |      |      |
|              |       |     |       |     | \*\*  |    |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| Native       | -     | 0   | 0.05  | 0   | -     | 0. | 0.03 | 0.04 |
| American     | -0.04 | .04 |       | .04 | -0.03 | 04 |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| Asian        | 0.03  | 0   | 0.01  | 0   | -     | 0. | 0.01 | 0.05 |
|              |       | .05 |       | .04 | -0.02 | 04 |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| Age \<=29    | 0.06  | 0   | 0.05  | 0   | -     | 0. | --   | 0.02 |
|              | \*\*  | .02 | \*\*  | .02 | -0.01 | 02 | 0.01 |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| Age \>=30 &  | 0.01  | 0   | 0.06  | 0   | 0.03  | 0. | 0.00 | 0.02 |
| \<=39        |       | .02 | \     | .02 |       | 01 |      |      |
|              |       |     | *\*\* |     |       |    |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| N            | 0.01  | 0   | 0.03  | 0   | 0.01  | 0. | --   | 0.02 |
| ever-Married |       | .02 |       | .02 |       | 02 | 0.01 |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| Remarried    | 0.02  | 0   | 0.01  | 0   | 0.03  | 0. | --   | 0.02 |
|              |       | .02 |       | .02 |       | 02 | 0.02 |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| Separated    | 0.03  | 0   | -     | 0   | 0.00  | 0. | 0.01 | 0.02 |
|              |       | .02 | -0.03 | .02 |       | 02 |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| High School  | 0.08  | 0   | 0.02  | 0   | 0.02  | 0. | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| Education    | \     | .02 |       | .02 |       | 02 |      |      |
|              | *\*\* |     |       |     |       |    |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| Above High   | 0.10  | 0   | 0.02  | 0   | 0.02  | 0. | --   | 0.02 |
| School Ed.   | \     | .02 |       | .02 |       | 02 | 0.02 |      |
|              | *\*\* |     |       |     |       |    |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| 2 Kids       | -     | 0   | -     | 0   | -     | 0. | 0.00 | 0.02 |
|              | -0.01 | .02 | -0.04 | .01 | -0.04 | 01 |      |      |
|              |       |     | \*\*  |     | \*\*  |    |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| More than 2  | -     | 0   | -     | 0   | -     | 0. | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| Kids         | -0.03 | .02 | -0.05 | .02 | -0.06 | 02 |      |      |
|              |       |     | \*\*  |     | \*\*  |    |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| City         | 0.00  | 0   | 0.02  | 0   | 0.02  | 0. | 0.04 | 0.02 |
|              |       | .02 |       | .01 |       | 01 | \*   |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| Rural Area   | 0.00  | 0   | 0.01  | 0   | 0.01  | 0. | 0.00 | 0.02 |
|              |       | .02 |       | .01 |       | 01 |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| Year=1996    | 0.01  | 0   | 0.02  | 0   | 0.00  | 0. | --   | 0.02 |
|              |       | .02 |       | .01 |       | 01 | 0.03 |      |
|              |       |     |       |     |       |    | \*   |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| Year=1998    | 0.03  | 0   | -     | 0   | -     | 0. | --   | 0.02 |
|              |       | .02 | -0.01 | .01 | -0.02 | 01 | 0.06 |      |
|              |       |     |       |     |       |    | \*   |      |
|              |       |     |       |     |       |    | \*\* |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
| Constant     | 0.20  | 0   | 0.16  | 0   | 0.21  | 0. | 0.27 | 0.03 |
|              | \     | .03 | \     | .02 | \     | 02 | \*   |      |
|              | *\*\* |     | *\*\* |     | *\*\* |    | \*\* |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+
|              |       |     |       |     |       |    |      |      |
+--------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----+------+------+

Table 3

(Continued)

  --------------- ------------ ------ --------------- ------ ---------- ------ ---------- ------
                  **Father            **Paternity**          **Unable          **Child    
                  Provides**                                 to**              with**     

                  **What He           **Not                  **Locate          **Father   
                  Can**               Established**          Father**          Part       
                                                                               Time**     

                  B            S.E.   B               S.E.   B          S.E.   B          S.E.

                                                                                          

  Black           0.08 \*\*\*  0.02   --0.02          0.01   0.00       0.01   --0.04     0.01
                                                                               \*\*\*     

  Hispanic        --0.06 \*\*  0.02   0.05 \*\*       0.02   0.02       0.02   --0.05     0.01
                                                                               \*\*\*     

  Native American 0.00         0.04   --0.03          0.04   --0.04     0.03   0.01       0.03

  Asian           --0.01       0.04   0.11 \*\*       0.04   0.02       0.04   --0.02     0.03

  Age \<=29       0.04 \*      0.02   0.00            0.02   0.02       0.02   0.00       0.01

  Age \>=30 &     0.01         0.02   0.02            0.01   0.03 \*    0.01   --0.01     0.01
  \<=39                                                                                   

  Never-Married   --0.01       0.02   0.05 \*\*       0.02   0.03 \*    0.02   --0.02 \*  0.01

  Remarried       --0.03       0.02   0.02            0.02   --0.03     0.02   0.01       0.01

  Separated       0.04 \*      0.02   --0.03          0.02   --0.03     0.02   --0.02     0.01

  High School     0.03         0.02   --0.02          0.01   --0.01     0.01   0.03 \*    0.01
  Education                                                                               

  Above High      0.04 \*\*    0.02   --0.08 \*\*\*   0.02   --0.05     0.01   0.04       0.01
  School Ed.                                                 \*\*\*            \*\*\*     

  2 Kids          0.00         0.01   0.00            0.01   0.00       0.01   --0.01     0.01

  More than 2     0.03         0.02   --0.02          0.02   --0.02     0.02   0.01       0.01
  Kids                                                                                    

  City            0.00         0.02   0.02            0.01   0.01       0.01   0.01       0.01

  Rural Area      0.03 \*      0.02   --0.01          0.01   0.00       0.01   0.02 \*    0.01

  Year=1996       0.01         0.01   0.12 \*\*\*     0.01   --0.03 \*  0.01   0.03 \*\*  0.01

  Year=1998       0.00         0.01   0.09 \*\*\*     0.01   --0.05     0.01   0.04       0.01
                                                             \*\*\*            \*\*\*     

  Constant        0.15 \*\*\*  0.02   0.14 \*\*\*     0.02   0.17       0.02   0.07       0.02
                                                             \*\*\*            \*\*\*     

                                                                                           
  --------------- ------------ ------ --------------- ------ ---------- ------ ---------- ------

Source: 1994--98 CPS-CSS. Sample limited to mothers without child
support order.

N=4,738. \* p \< .05; \*\* p \< .01; \*\*\* p \<.001.

[^1]: Percent of noncustodial parents with an order who made any
    payment.

[^2]: The degree of compliance is equal to the amount of child support a
    mother received divided by the amount she was owed. In cases in
    which the father paid more than the amount due for a given year
    largely because he added back payments to his payments in that year,
    the compliance rates were set equal to one. Because these figures
    include 1990 and 1992 data, they are for illustrative purposes only.

[^3]: Please note that the specific large increase for 1998 probably
    reflects changes in data reporting made by the Office of Child
    Support Enforcement that make much of the data reported before that
    year not comparable with data that follows.

[^4]: Changes to the 1994 April CPS supplement do not allow for
    comparisons with CPS data collected before that year (2001 Census
    Bureau Report, Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child
    Support). Those changes include, "refining the screening of
    potential respondents; restructuring the questionnaire to
    accommodate computerizing the survey; revising terminology that
    refers to types of child support agreements or awards; increasing
    the detail in questions about the amount of child support due;
    including overdue child support (back support) in the amount of
    child support due; and adding new questions on pass-through payments
    (child support collected for public assistance recipients by a State
    enforcement office, some of which passes through to recipients)."

[^5]: The CPS-CSS contains child support enforcement data for each
    minority group. With the exception of African-Americans, in any
    given year, the sample size for other minority groups is too small
    for reliable statistical analysis. Accordingly, data is combined or
    pooled from 1994 to 1998 (and for some analyses 1994 to 2002).
    Native Americans have the smallest pooled sample size (100+), a good
    size given their population.

[^6]: Before the 1994 CPS-CSS, the wording of the questions, the number
    of responses a mother could give and her guidelines changed
    significantly from survey to survey.^.^ As Joyce Pitts, Director of
    Planning, Research and Evaluation at OCSE notes in hindsight, these
    revisions make it inadvisable to compare pre-1994 results with
    results after. We agree with this assessment and we suggest a
    re-assessment with 1994-2004 CPS-CSS data.

[^7]: We realize that mothers who gave both kinds of reasons could also
    be selecting reasons that reinforce one another and match our
    assumptions as well. A mother who said that the father could not
    afford to pay child support, who then said that she did not want the
    father to pay, would be giving consistent responses. Similarly, a
    mother who did not want legal involvement but also thought the
    father could not afford to pay would be consistent as well. To keep
    the list simple enough for this multinomial logit exercise, we did
    not include these additional possibilities.

[^8]: All dollar amounts in this report are adjusted to 1997 (constant)
    dollars using the Consumer Price Index.

[^9]: The compliance rate is equal to the amount of child support
    received divided by the amount of child support due. There were 327
    cases in which the father paid more than the amount due for a given
    year largely because he added back payments to his payments in that
    year. For these cases, the compliance rates were set equal to one.

[^10]: As currently edited, figures 16-17 have been discarded and we
    have not re-numbered the remaining figures.

[^11]: The study conducted follow-up interviews at 12 and 36 months. A
    final interview at 60 months old is in the field. The national
    sample is taken from 16 of the 20 U.S. cities and is representative
    of all nonmarital births in the U.S. to parents residing in cities
    with populations over 200,000. The data also represent nonmarital
    births within each of the 20 sample cities (Baseline report
    Princeton).

[^12]: Most researchers hold that under current law, child support
    should not apply to cohabiting parents because the father is living
    with the children and is assumed to be giving support.

[^13]: We grouped Puerto Rican respondents in both U.S.-born and
    foreign-born categories and obtained no significant differences in
    our results. For this final analysis, we grouped Puerto Rican
    subjects as U.S.-born.