Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
Withholding Child Support  Obligations from 
Departmental Employees 
Janet Rehnquist 
Inspector General 
OCTOBER 2001 
OEI-05-00-00300  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 
amended by Public Law 100-504, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and 
Human Services programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by them.  This 
statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide program of audits, investigations, 
inspections, sanctions, and fraud alerts.  The Inspector General informs the Secretary of program 
and management problems and recommends legislative, regulatory, and operational approaches to 
correct them. 
Office of Evaluation and Inspections 
The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is one of several components of the Office of 
Inspector General.  It conducts short-term management and program evaluations (called 
inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the Congress, and the public.  The 
inspection reports provide findings and recommendations on the efficiency, vulnerability, and 
effectiveness of departmental programs. 
OEI's Chicago Regional Office prepared this report under the direction of William C. Moran, 
Regional Inspector General and Natalie Coen, Deputy Regional Inspector General.  Principal 
OEI staff included: 
REGION  HEADQUARTERS 
Victoria Dougherty, Program Analyst
 Joan Richardson, Program Specialist

Emily Melnick, Program Analyst
 Brian Ritchie, Program Analyst

Kristen Masse, Program Analyst
 Barbara Tedesco, Mathematical Statistician

Ray Balandron, Program Analyst

Elander Phillips, Program Inspections Assistant 

To obtain copies of this report, please call the Chicago Regional Office at 312-353-4124. 
Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address: 
http://www.hhs.gov/oig/oei  E X E C U T I V E   S U M M A R Y  
PURPOSE 
To evaluate the wage withholding of child support from Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) employees. 
BACKGROUND 
On February 27, 1995, the President signed Executive Order 12953, which requires 
Federal agencies to: 
C conduct an annual cross-match of the Federal tax refund offset file with the payroll 
files of Federal agencies to identify Federal employees with child support 
delinquencies, 
C comply with all wage withholding requirements, and 
C act as model employers in facilitating the establishment and enforcement of child 
support orders. 
FINDINGS 
We Found Delinquent Obligors Without Wage Withholding Employed by the 
Department 
The 1995 Executive Order 12953 requires an annual match of the Federal tax refund 
offset file, indicating delinquent obligors, with the payroll files of Federal agencies.  The 
intent of this match is to identify Federal employees with child support delinquencies to 
ensure enforcement of their support obligations.  The Department last conducted an 
annual match in 1996. 
We conducted a match of the Federal tax refund offset file and the Department of Health 
and Human Services payroll file.  This match resulted in a list of 215 delinquent 
employee-obligors, with an average delinquency of $7,295.  As of May 30, 2000, wage 
withholding was in place for 139 and not in place for 76 of these delinquent employee-
obligors. 
The Program Support Center, an operating division of HHS, conducts payroll services for 
the Departments approximately 60,000 employees, including payroll deductions for child 
support payments.  During the course of the inspection, the Office of Child Support 
Enforcement and the Program Support Center agreed to work together to periodically 
i 
Withholding Child Support Obligations from Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  conduct the cross-match to identify departmental employees who are delinquent child 
support obligors. 
In More Than Half the Sampled Cases, States Did Not Know That Delinquent 
Obligors Were Departmental Employees 
State systems typically match obligor information with State employment databases 
containing new hire and quarterly wage information from employers statewide.  The 
National Directory of New Hires is the primary source for learning of Federal employment 
because Federal employees are not included in State employment systems. 
The Office of Child Support Enforcement assumes that States will learn from the National 
Directory of New Hires that an obligor is a Federal employee and act accordingly to 
pursue wage withholding.  However, our examination of the case files for a sample of 45 
of the 76 employee-obligors, without withholding in place, revealed that in approximately 
22 cases the States did not learn that these obligors were departmental employees.  The 
States either did not receive matches or did not determine from the matches that the 
obligor was, in fact, a Federal departmental employee.  Upon learning of the obligors 
employment with the Department through our inspection, most of the States immediately 
issued wage withholding orders to HHS for these cases. 
More than Half of the Individuals Without Wage Withholding Were Indian Health 
Service Employees 
We found that 44 of the 76 delinquent employee-obligors without wage withholding were 
Indian Health Service employees.  In 19 of 45 sampled cases, tribal jurisdiction issues 
contributed to the absence of income withholding.  The Department has the authority to 
withhold wages for all Federal employees for the payment of child support, regardless of 
Native American tribal membership or residency, or employment on a reservation. 
Caseworkers often do not know that Native American obligors are Federal employees or 
that enforcement should be pursued for Indian Health Service cases.  State enforcement 
policies involving Tribal jurisdiction are varied and complex.  Many State caseworkers do 
not pursue these cases. 
The Department Enters All Income Withholding Orders Received; However, Some 
Data Entry Errors Occur 
The Program Support Center process for entering income withholding orders appears to 
be orderly and timely.  Through a review of 51 cases with withholding in place, we found 
that the majority were entered into the system within 10 days of order receipt.  State 
records indicated that income withholding orders were sent to the Department in 8 of the 
45 sampled cases that did not have withholding in place.  However, the Program Support 
Center was not responsible for the lack of withholding in these eight cases.  In four cases, 
ii 
Withholding Child Support Obligations from Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  the States sent wage withholding orders to the wrong HHS office.  The other cases were 
inactive because current support had been paid in full. 
We found data entry errors in the amounts to be withheld and recipient addresses in some 
cases.  In 8 out of 49 cases (16 percent) reviewed with withholding in place, the amounts 
to be withheld on the entry forms differed from the required amounts on the court orders. 
Entry forms with errors were rarely signed by a supervisor. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
While conducting our inspection, OCSE worked closely with us to solve problems 
associated with the 76 departmental employees without wage withholding.  In addition, 
OCSE is an active and cooperative partner with the Department in responding to our 
recommendation to institutionalize a process to ensure Departmental compliance with the 
Executive Order.  Additional steps are also needed, however.  We recommend: 
C The Department designate a senior departmental official the responsibility for 
ensuring compliance with the Executive Order, 
C The Office of Child Support Enforcement help States effectively use the National 
Directory of New Hires, 
C The Office of Child Support Enforcement provide guidance to States on issuing 
withholding orders for Indian Health Service employees, and 
C The Program Support Center increase withholding accuracy. 
AGENCY COMMENTS 
We received comments from the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), the 
Program Support Center (PSC) and the Indian Health Service (IHS).  The OCSE is in 
agreement with our findings and recommendations.  The PSC agrees this is an important 
initiative and provided technical comments and clarification.  The IHS agrees with our 
recommendation pertaining to IHS employees.  Where appropriate, we changed the report 
to reflect their comments.  The full OCSE, PSC and IHS comments are contained in 
Appendix C. 
One matter unresolved at this time is the designation of a senior official to oversee 
Departmental compliance with the Executive Order.  Considerable improvement can be 
made without taking this step, but an overall coordinator could facilitate a more cohesive 
and effective Department-wide response. 
iii 
Withholding Child Support Obligations from Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  T A B L E   O F   C O N T E N T S  
PAGE 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Delinquent Obligors Without Wage Withholding Employed by the Department  . . . . . . . . . .  8

States Did Not Know That Delinquent Obligors Were Departmental Employees  . . . . . . . . .  9

More Than Half Without Wage Withholding Were IHS Employees  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

The Department Enters All Orders Received; Some Data Entry Errors Occur  . . . . . . . . . .  12

RECOMMENDATIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

AGENCY COMMENTS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

APPENDICES

A. Profile of Employee Obligors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

B. Reasons for Non-Withholding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

C. Agency Comments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

iv 
Withholding Child Support Obligations from Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  I N T R O D U C T I O N  
PURPOSE 
To evaluate the wage withholding of child support from Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) employees. 
BACKGROUND 
The Child Support Enforcement program was created in 1975 with the addition of Part D 
to Title IV of the Social Security Act.  State Child Support Enforcement Agencies, also 
known as IV-D agencies, are responsible for administering the program, including locating 
absent parents, establishing paternity, establishing orders for financial and medical support, 
enforcing the orders, and collecting and disbursing the support due.  The Federal Office of 
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) contributes matching funds, sets requirements for 
certain design features, and monitors and evaluates State child support program 
implementation.  The OCSE also provides State child support agencies with technical and 
operational assistance to carry out program functions. 
In fiscal year (FY) 1998, State child support agencies had a total caseload of just over 
19.1 million cases.  Approximately 11.5 million of these cases had child support orders 
established and in effect.  The OCSE does not have data available on the number of 
Federal employees or departmental employees who are child support obligors. 
Executive Order for Federal Agencies to be Model Employers in the Collection of 
Support 
On February 27, 1995, the President signed Executive Order 12953 establishing the 
Federal Government as a model employer in facilitating the establishment and enforcement 
of child support orders.  The Order states that, as the Nations largest single employer, the 
Federal Government should set an example of leadership in the collection of support from 
employees.  The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to cooperate in efforts to 
establish paternity and child support orders, as well as enforce the collection of child and 
medical support. 
The Executive Order requires an annual cross-match of the Federal tax refund offset file 
with the payroll files of Federal agencies to identify Federal employees with child support 
delinquencies.  The criteria for delinquency for the tax refund offset file are as follows: 
the obligor must owe arrears of $150 or more if the custodial parent is on Temporary 
1 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) or $500 or more if the custodial parent is not on 
TANF. 
The records generated from the tax offset-payroll file match are to be sent to the 
appropriate State child support agency to pursue wage withholding or other enforcement 
actions.  In addition, under the Order, the Office of Personnel Management is required to 
annually publish in the Federal Register a list of contacts for each Federal Agency 
designated to receive income withholding orders for employees.  Upon receipt of 
withholding orders, Federal agencies must comply with all wage withholding 
requirements. 
The Office of Child Support Enforcement last conducted a match of Federal payroll data 
with the tax refund offset file in October 1996.  This match identified 225 employees of 
the Department of Health and Human Services as delinquent obligors.  The match of these 
two files, required annually, has not been conducted by OCSE since 1996, due to their 
determination that pro-active matching of the National Directory of New Hires and the 
Federal Case Registry, enacted in 1996, supercedes the required payroll-tax offset file 
match. 
National Directory of New Hires and the Federal Case Registry 
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) 
mandated the creation of the National Directory of New Hires, a national database of 
employment data, herein referred to as the Directory, and the Federal Case Registry, a 
national database of child support case abstracts. 
The National Directory of New Hires contains three types of employment data compiled 
from State Employment Security Agencies and Federal Employers: State employment 
information on all new hires, quarterly wages for all employees and State unemployment 
insurance claim data.  Federal employers, with the exception of certain security agencies, 
are required to submit new hire employment data and quarterly wage data on Federal 
employees to the Directory on a routine basis. 
The PRWORA requires routine matching between the National Directory of New Hires 
and the Federal Case Registry (FCR) to generate information on obligors for locate and 
enforcement purposes.  Since October 1, 1998, matches have been continually run 
between the Directory and the FCR.1  When a match is identified, the employment 
information for the obligor is sent to the State.  Through this system, States should receive 
recent employment information for all obligors employed by the Federal 
1 
Pro-active matching of the NDNH and the expanded Federal Parent Locator Service began in October 1997, prior to full 
implementation of the FCR. 
2 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  government.  It is then the States responsibility to seek wage withholding through the 
Federal employer, if it is not already in place. 
Wage Withholding as Primary Enforcement Tool 
The most widely used and effective child support enforcement tool is wage withholding. 
Nearly 60 percent of all child support is collected through the withholding of wages by 
employers. 
Since the start of the child support program in 1975, State IV-D agencies have been 
authorized by the Federal Government to garnish wages and other payments for 
enforcement of child support obligations.  The child support amendments of 1984 required 
IV-D agencies to include a provision for wage withholding in the establishment of all new 
orders and the modification of existing orders.  States were required to implement wage 
withholding when an arrearage accrued that was equal to the amount of support payable 
for one month.  The Family Support Act of 1988 greatly expanded wage withholding by 
requiring States to begin immediate wage withholding for all new or modified IV-D orders 
as of November 1990, regardless of whether arrears exist.2 
Upon receipt of a child support withholding notice, employers must provide a copy of the 
notice to the employee and begin withholding within 30 days.  Employers are to continue 
withholding the required amount until official notification to stop is received. 
Additionally, the employer is required to notify the child support agency if the employment 
ends or is interrupted.  The Treasury Department sends withheld payments from Federal 
employees to the States or the custodial parent. 
Wage Withholding Within the Department of Health and Human Services 
The Program Support Center (PSC), an operating division of HHS, conducts payroll 
services for all of the Departments approximately 60,000 employees.  As part of its 
payroll operations, the Center oversees the Debt Management and Collection System for 
the Department.  Through this system, all payroll deductions for child support payments 
are processed. 
State child support agencies are required to send all withholding orders to the Office of 
General Counsel for HHS.  The Office then sends the income withholding orders to the 
Special Activities Branch of the Program Support Center for processing.  The Special 
Activities Branch is responsible for processing all mandatory withholding orders.  If 
withholding orders are received by local Department employment sites or personnel 
2 
The law allows for exceptions to immediate wage withholding if good cause not to withhold is determined in court or a 
written agreement is reached between both parties for an alternative arrangement. 
3 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  offices, they are to be forwarded to the Office of General Counsel or the Special Activities 
Branch and processed centrally. 
Child Support Enforcement for Indian Tribes 
State child support agencies are responsible for establishing and enforcing child support 
orders for all IV-D cases opened in the State.  However, the Office of Child Support 
Enforcement recognizes that Tribal sovereignty may prohibit State child support agencies 
from enforcing certain child support orders.  Currently, each State agency determines 
whether to pursue the establishment and enforcement of orders in cases involving Tribal 
jurisdiction. 
Unlike other employers, the Federal Government has the authority to withhold wages for 
all Federal employees for the payment of child support, regardless of Native American 
tribal membership, residency, or employment on a reservation. 
State child support agencies and Tribes can contract for the Tribes to provide child 
support services.  State agencies receive Federal financial participation for these costs, as 
long as the Tribal entity demonstrates that it has an established Tribal court system with 
the authority to establish paternity, establish, modify or enforce support orders or to enter 
support orders in accordance with child support guidelines established or adopted by such 
Tribal entity.3  Currently, 11 Tribes operate child support programs in whole or in part 
under cooperative or contractual agreements with eight State child support enforcement 
agencies.  The Tribes, which operate under such cooperative arrangements with States, 
are not required to adhere to Federal income withholding requirements or to honor income 
withholding orders from State agencies. 
However, the PRWORA authorized direct Federal funding for Tribes operating child 
support enforcement programs.  The PRWORA interim final rule requires Tribes to 
comply with all Federal child support provisions in order to receive direct Federal funding, 
including issuing wage withholding orders to the employers of all obligors.  The interim 
final rule also requires Tribes to recognize child support orders issued by other Tribes, 
Tribal organizations, and States.  Thus, funded Tribes will be required to honor income 
withholding orders issued by State child support enforcement agencies. 
Related Prior Office of Inspector General Work 
In August, 2000, the Inspector General released Child Support Enforcement State 
Disbursement Units: Sharing the Implementation Experiences of Six States, OEI-06-00-
00041.  This study described States' experiences in developing and operating State 
Disbursement Units.  The Inspector General found that State Disbursement Unit 
3
 OCSE Action Transmittal, July 28, 1998 AT-98-21 
4 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  managers cited particular difficulties processing checks issued by Federal agencies. 
According to the managers, Federal checks often contain inadequate or confusing 
information, are sometimes sent to the wrong location, and may be submitted too early to 
allow proper disbursement to custodial families.  The OIG recommended that OCSE 
encourage improved performance by Federal government payers by collaborating with 
States so that States can communicate their problems and potential solutions. 
The Office of Inspector General conducted an inspection on Child Support and the 
Military, OEI-07-90-02250, released in June 1993.  This report found low collections in 
military cases due to challenges child support staff experienced locating absent parents; 
lack of training of child support staff to handle military cases; and inconsistent wage 
withholding requests submitted to Military Finance Centers.  A recommendation to 
establish a standard wage withholding request form was implemented. 
In August 1997, the Inspector General released Grantees and Providers Delinquent In 
Child Support, OEI-07-96-00390, examining Departmental compliance with a September 
1996 executive order requiring Federal agencies to offset Federal payments and deny 
Federal loans to delinquent obligors.  The report examined child support payment 
compliance by a sample of physicians receiving Medicare payments and a sample of 
individuals receiving grants or payments through the National Health Services Corp and 
the National Institutes of Health.  The Inspection found that three out of every 1,000 
providers or grantees in the study universe were in arrears, totaling $21.5 million. 
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 
In this inspection, we examined whether wage withholding was occurring for all 
Department of Health and Human Service employees who are delinquent child support 
obligors.  Where wage withholding was in place, we determined whether the withholding 
was accurate and timely.  Where withholding was not in place, we examined sampled case 
records to determine why it was not in place.  We also analyzed the payment records on 
the sampled cases to determine the amount of support uncollected due to the absence of 
withholding.  In addition, we collected descriptive information on the processes used to 
locate obligors and establish wage withholding. 
To identify the universe of departmental employees who are indicated as delinquent 
obligors on the tax refund offset file, we conducted a match of the Departments payroll 
file with the Federal tax refund offset file.  We matched 61,325 individuals who had been 
employees of the Department of Health and Human Services for at least three months as 
of May 30, 2000, with the 4,501,494 individuals who were obligors in arrears on the 
Federal tax offset file as of July 31, 2000.  This resulted in a list of 239 individuals 
matched by Social Security Number (SSN). 
5 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  We then compared each individuals name on the tax refund offset file with the name on 
the payroll file to verify that these 239 matches were correct.  We found 20 cases in which 
the same SSN had been used to identify 2 different people.  We sent these SSNs to the 
Social Security Administration and requested the correct name for each case.  We found 
that 18 of the SSNs were incorrect on the tax offset file and 2 others were incorrect on the 
payroll file.  All 20 individuals were dropped from our universe.  An additional 4 
individuals were eliminated due to death, resignation or closed cases, resulting in a 
universe of 215 employee-obligors.  Three of the employees had died or resigned prior to 
the date of our payroll file extract.  The child support case of one employee-obligor was 
closed prior to the date of the tax offset file extract. 
We matched the 215 employee-obligors against the payroll offices Debt Management 
Collection System to determine whether wage withholding was in place as of May 30, 
2000.  We found that withholding was not in place for 76 of these 215 employee-obligors. 
To check the accuracy of the payroll offices withholding process, we pulled a random 
sample of 51 of the 139 employee-obligors who had wage withholding in place.  For each 
sampled employee, we compared the court order received to the data entered into the debt 
management system and then to the payroll data transmitted to the Treasury Department. 
Through this comparison, we assessed whether the withheld wages were transmitted in a 
timely manner, to the appropriate party and for the correct amount. 
To determine why withholding was not in place for the other 76 employee-obligors, we 
pulled a stratified-cluster sample of 45 employee-obligors, stratified by State in which the 
order is based. We divided the 27 States containing the cases in our universe into three 
strata, based on the number of employee-obligors in the State.  We selected all five States 
in our first strata, consisting of States with five or more employee-obligors.  We randomly 
selected two of the four States in our second strata, consisting of States with three or four 
employee-obligors.  We randomly selected two of the 18 States in our third strata 
consisting of States with one or two employee-obligors. 
The resulting sample is depicted in the following chart: 
Stratum 1  Stratum 2  Stratum 3 
State  AZ  ND  CA  MD  NM  GA  MT  IA  MO  9 States 
No. of NCPs*  9  8  7  6  5  3  3  2  2  45 NCPs 
*NCPs = Non-custodial parents (employee-obligors) 
The data was not weighted to project our findings.  Rather, our intention was to illustrate 
the scope and nature of the problems associated with the absence of wage withholding. 
6 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  We reviewed the case files for each of the employee-obligors in our sample on-site in the 
State child support offices.4  We analyzed steps used to locate the obligor, attempts to 
establish wage withholding and payments missed in the absence of withholding. 
To obtain information on the processes used by caseworkers to locate obligors and 
establish wage withholding, we interviewed local office caseworkers in two offices in each 
State in our sample.  We also interviewed State policy staff responsible for oversight and 
guidance pertaining to locate and withholding.  In addition, we reviewed copies of the 
income withholding forms and accompanying instructions sent to employers in the 
sampled States. 
We also interviewed staff of the Departments Special Activities Branch who are 
responsible for processing wage withholding orders for departmental employees. 
All data collection occurred between June and November 2000. 
Our review of the withholding process for departmental employees was limited to 
employees who were indicated as delinquent child support obligors on the Federal tax 
refund offset file.  We did not determine the total universe of employees who owe child 
support, because there is no complete data set available to make this determination. 
We also did not review the enforcement of health insurance support from Federal 
employees.  We did not examine compliance with elements of the Executive Order 
pertaining to Federal employer cooperation in locate and the service of legal process. 
Our review was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections 
issued by the Presidents Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 
4 
We did not review cases on-site in Montana. The State IV-D Director informed us that they knew the 3 employee-obligors 
were HHS employees and that support was not in place for them because they were employed on an Indian reservation. The 
State office sent us the other requested data. 
7 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  F I N D I N G S  
N

We Found Delinquent Obligors Without Wage Withholding 
Employed by the Department 
The 1995 Executive Order 12953 requires an annual match of the Federal tax refund 
offset file, indicating delinquent obligors, with the payroll files of Federal agencies. The 
intent of this match is to identify Federal employees with child support delinquencies to 
ensure enforcement of their support obligations.  The Department last conducted an 
annual match in 1996.  With the implementation of the Federal Case Registry and National 
Directory of New Hires in 1996, the Department assumed that this new match would both 
identify all delinquent obligors and trigger the wage withholding process for departmental 
employees. 
We conducted a cross-match and found 215 delinquent departmental employee-
obligors, 139 of whom have income withholding in place and 76 of whom do not 
We conducted a match of the Federal tax refund offset file, indicating delinquent support 
obligors, and the Department of Health and Human Services payroll file.  This match 
resulted in a list of 215 delinquent employee-obligors, with an average delinquency of 
$7,295.  Therefore, although we cannot determine the universe of employee-obligors in 
the Department, we know that there are at least 215 employees delinquent in paying 
support.  A profile of the 215 employee-obligors can be found in Appendix A.  As of May 
30,  2000, wage withholding was in place for 139 (65 percent) of these delinquent 
employee-obligors and not in place for 76 (35 percent). 
We reviewed payments missed in the months in which a sample of 45 of the 76 employee-
obligors without withholding in place were employed by the Department and were 
obligated to pay support between December 1998 and May 2000.  Through this review, 
we determined that if withholding had been in place, $128,893 in additional support would 
have been collected from these 45 employees. 
The Program Support Center has agreed to conduct the cross-match 
As of June 2000, HHS was withholding wages for child support and/or alimony on a 
mandatory basis for 569 employees and on a voluntary basis for 8 employees. The 
Program Support Center (PSC), an operating division of HHS, conducts payroll services 
for all of the Departments approximately 60,000 employees.  As part of its payroll 
operations, the Center oversees the Debt Management and Collection System for 
the Department.  Through this system, all payroll deductions for child support payments 
are processed. 
The Special Activities Branch is responsible for processing all mandatory withholding 
orders.  The Program Support Center agreed that the Special Activities Branch will work 
8 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  with the Office of Child Support Enforcement to periodically conduct a cross-match to 
identify delinquent Department child support obligors. 
In More Than Half the Sampled Cases, States Did Not Know 
That Delinquent Obligors Were Departmental Employees 
State systems typically match obligor information with State employment databases 
containing new hire and quarterly wage information from employers statewide. 
Additionally, the majority of State systems receive matches, indicating employment 
information, from the National Directory of New Hires.  The NDNH is the primary source 
for learning of Federal employment because Federal employees are not included in State 
employment systems. 
The Office of Child Support Enforcement sends matches generated by the Federal Case 
Registry and the National Directory of New Hires directly to the States child support 
enforcement agencies computer systems on a routine basis.  In most of the States we 
visited, States report that the National Directory employer information automatically 
populates the employment information screen of the obligor with a matched SSN.  The 
State system then uses this employer address to issue a wage withholding order to the 
employer. 
The caseworkers we interviewed primarily rely on automated locate searches to find the 
employment of an obligor.  Most of the nine sampled States we visited report that their 
child support systems use this information to automatically generate a withholding order 
to the listed employer.  The Office of Child Support Enforcement, however, only 
recognizes two of our nine sample States as having fully automated wage withholding at 
the time of our study.  According to OCSE, it is possible that NDNH information may 
sometimes be altered by caseworkers or overwritten by in-State locate sources.  The 
OCSE has found that many States have difficulty maintaining the integrity of their master 
employer table. 
States lack of knowledge of departmental employment contributes to the 
absence of wage withholding 
The Office of Child Support Enforcement assumes that States will learn from the NDNH-
matches that an obligor is a Federal employee and act accordingly to pursue wage 
withholding.  However, we found that in many cases, the States either did not receive 
matches or did not determine from the matches that the obligor was, in fact, a Federal 
departmental employee. 
Our examination of the case files for a sample of 45 of the 76 employee-obligors without 
withholding in place revealed that in approximately 22 cases the States did not learn that 
these obligors were departmental employees.  Seventeen of the 22 departmental 
employees were employed by the Indian Health Service. 
9 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  Upon learning of the obligors employment with the Department through our inspection, 
most of the States immediately issued wage withholding orders to HHS for these cases. 
The sampled States quick response demonstrates that the information generated by the 
National Directory of New Hires-Federal Case Registry match may not be used by the 
States to ensure enforcement of departmental employees, as intended in the Executive 
Order.  Had the States been able to ascertain departmental employment more readily, the 
intention of the Executive Order to ensure enforcement of the child support obligations of 
federal employees could have been better fulfilled. 
State systems may not be able to effectively use National Directory of New Hires 
addresses 
State child support staff indicated State system difficulties with the NDNH addresses.  In 
some States, the NDNH matches are read through a centralized employer address 
database to verify address information.  In these cases, if the match lists HHS as the 
employer, while the existing database reference for the matching employer identification 
number is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the system may reject 
the match or register it to an exception report.  The NDNH also does not indicate 
employment status.  One respondent suggested that this creates problems if the obligor is 
only employed intermittently or part-time with the Department, while holding a full-time 
job elsewhere. 
The Office of Child Support Enforcements NDNH Guide for Data Submission requires 
Federal employers to use the address of the entity that employs the individual as the 
employer address in the NDNH.  For departmental employees,  the Program Support 
Center address is hard coded as the primary address.  The Guide also gives employers the 
option of submitting a second address which should be where an employer receives child 
support wage withholding orders. 
During our data collection, we found that the Department was not submitting the second 
optional address for wage withholding.  As a result of our inspection, the Department 
took corrective action to ensure that beginning in January 2001, the Office of the General 
Counsel was hard coded in the optional employer address category.  States access to two 
addresses for departmental employees will help to ensure that departmental employees are 
correctly identified by States and subsequently, that wage withholding orders are sent to 
the Department. 
More Than Half of the Individuals Without Wage Withholding 
Were Indian Health Service Employees 
In some cases, State records indicate the physical employment sites, such as an Indian 
Health Service hospital, rather than the Program Support Center.  This address 
information causes caseworkers to perceive departmental employees as Tribal employees. 
In sampled States, when work sites are located on Indian reservations, income withholding 
orders are usually not pursued.  If departmental employment had been readily 
10 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  apparent, the Tribal jurisdiction issues likely would not have been a barrier to withholding 
in most States.  A more detailed chart, indicating reasons for non-withholding on each 
case, is in Appendix B. 
In 20 of the 45 cases, tribal jurisdiction issues contributed to the absence of income 
withholding.  As is the case for our universe, these obligors are paid Federal wages by the 
Program Support Center.  The Department has the authority to withhold wages for all 
Federal employees for the payment of child support, regardless of Native American tribal 
membership or residency or employment on a reservation.5  Some child support staff are 
not aware of this authority. 
The following chart depicts the impact of Tribal issues on income withholding for IHS 
employees: 
No. of Cases  Tribal Jurisdiction Issues Contributing to Absence of Withholding 
5  Locate not pursued because obligor is Native American 
8  IWO not sent because obligor is Native American 
4  IWO sent to local IHS site and not forwarded to PSC 
3  Tribes responsible for the cases did not issue IWOs 
State enforcement policies involving Tribal jurisdiction are varied and complex. 
Many caseworkers do not pursue these cases. 
State and local staff reported difficulty enforcing child support cases when the obligor is a 
Tribal member, resides or works on a reservation.  In general, child support agencies have 
no authority to enforce State orders on Tribal land.  Factors States consider to determine 
jurisdiction include the residency of the obligor, the location of his or her work-place, 
tribal membership, and the childs tribal membership or residency.  Respondents indicated 
that they rely on an assortment of rules to determine jurisdiction and usually decide on a 
case-by-case basis. 
Caseworkers in our 9 States, with average caseloads of 800, must prioritize their 
workloads.  Several caseworkers indicated that they do not pursue cases involving Native 
Americans because the State is unable to enforce collections from non-Federal Tribal 
employees.  Some States computer systems have codes indicating lack of jurisdiction for 
Tribal reasons, which further discourages caseworkers from pursuing these cases. 
5 
Social Security Act, Title IV, Section 459 [42 U.S.C. 659] (A) 
11 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  Caseworkers often do not know that Native American obligors are Federal 
employees or that enforcement should be pursued for Indian Health Service 
cases 
In several cases, the caseworker appeared to know that the obligor was working at an 
Indian Health Service (IHS) site.  However, the caseworker did not know that the obligor 
was a Federal employee and, therefore, did not pursue income withholding.  In some 
cases, respondents knew Native American obligors were Federal employees, but did not 
pursue enforcement because of the erroneous belief that these cases cannot be enforced. 
In fact, a couple of State policy staff respondents indicated that if the wages are earned on 
a reservation, wage withholding cannot be pursued regardless of the payer source. 
In some cases, income withholding orders were not in place because the Tribe 
responsible for enforcing the cases did not issue withholding orders 
Two of our sampled States, New Mexico and Arizona, contract with the Navajo Nation 
for the Nation to provide Tribal child support enforcement services.  Local Navajo 
caseworkers in New Mexico reported including income withholding orders on all cases 
established administratively.  However, caseworkers report that most cases established in 
Navajo court do not include income withholding provisions.  Modifying an order to 
include income withholding is a multi-step process that can take a long period of time.  In 
three of the cases we reviewed, employment with the Department was known, but an 
income withholding order had not been sent due to Tribal court procedures. 
The Department Enters All Income Withholding Orders 
Received; Some Data Entry Errors Occur 
The payroll offices process for entering income withholding orders appears to 
be orderly and timely 
When the PSC receives an income withholding order, either through the Office of General 
Counsel, or directly from a State child support agency, an accounting technician records 
all of the elements required for the Debt Management Collection System on a one-page 
form.  Upon a supervisors approval, the technician enters the data into the system. 
Through a review of 51 cases with withholding in place, we found that the majority were 
entered into the system within 10 days of the income withholding orders receipt. 
The data in the debt management collection system is transmitted electronically to the 
Treasury Department at the end of each pay period.  The Treasury Department generates 
and distributes paychecks and withheld payments based on this transmission.  Our 
comparison of the data entered into the Debt Management Collection System to a print-
out of the data transmitted to the Treasury verified that the fields in the system are 
correctly transmitted within one day of the end of the pay period. 
12 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  State records indicated that income withholding orders were sent to HHS in 8 of the 45 
sampled cases that did not have withholding in place at the time of data collection.  The 
Program Support Center was not at fault for the lack of withholding for any of these 
cases.  Four of these cases were sent to the wrong HHS address, three were inactive 
because the current support debt had been paid in full, and one was implemented after our 
review period.  A chart depicting the reasons for non-withholding on all cases is included 
in Appendix B. 
We found data entry errors in the amounts to be withheld and recipient addresses 
Although the Payroll Offices process for entering income withholding orders into the debt 
management collection system appears to be orderly, errors occur.  In 8 of 49 cases6 (16 
percent) reviewed, the amounts to be withheld on the entry forms differed from the 
required amounts on the court orders.  In six of the eight cases, the difference was due to 
omission of the arrears or the current support payment.  In the other two cases, 
withholding was more than it should have been based on the court order.  The address to 
which the withheld payments should be sent differed from the addresses on the court 
orders in 6 of the 51 cases (12 percent). 
The absence of supervisor approval appears to be a factor in the cases in which the 
withheld amounts were incorrect.  Seven of the eight entry forms with errors in the 
withheld amounts were not signed by a supervisor.  Overall, entry forms were not signed 
by a supervisor in 46 percent of the reviewed cases.  While the lack of supervisor approval 
appears to be significant in the cases with errors related to the amount withheld, it does 
not appear to be a significant factor in address errors. 
The payroll office has no formal process to ensure local HHS offices forward 
income withholding orders 
Income withholding orders sometimes come to the Program Support Center via local 
Department office sites.  According to the Center, all payroll liaisons in local offices have 
been verbally informed to forward orders to the Program Support Center.  There is no 
written procedure instructing local sites of this requirement, nor any PSC oversight to 
ensure compliance. 
The lack of a formalized forwarding process appears to be a problem in cases in which 
obligors work for the Indian Health Service (IHS).  In 4 of our 45 cases, the State child 
support staff sent income withholding orders to HHS local offices and the orders were not 
forwarded to the Program Support Center.  The IHS was the employer for three of these 
four cases. 
6 
The universe of cases for which the withheld amounts were reviewed was 49 rather than 51 because in 2 of the cases, the 
required withheld amount was greater than 50% of the obligors disposable income. The Federal Consumer Protection Act 
limits garnishment to 50% of disposable earnings for an obligor who supports a second family and 60% to an obligor not 
supporting a second family. 
13 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S  
The Department Should Designate a Senior Departmental 
Official the Responsibility for Ensuring Compliance with the 
Executive Order 
While conducting our inspection, OCSE and PSC worked closely with us to solve 
problems associated with the 76 departmental employees without wage withholding.  In 
addition, they have been active partners with the Department in responding to our 
recommendation to institutionalize a process to ensure that the Department is in 
compliance with the Executive Order. 
We recognize the Office of Child Supports efforts to ensure that Federal agencies submit 
timely and accurate employment information to the National Directory of New Hires and 
that States are able to use this data effectively.  Since PRWORA, OCSE has focused on 
the development of the National Directory of New Hires and the Federal Case Registry, 
which are systems to provide States with much needed employment data.  Continuing to 
ensure these systems function effectively is vital to departmental and State efforts to 
withhold wages for delinquent child support obligors. 
We recommend that the Department now focus on the outcomes of these systems.  In 
particular, to ensure compliance with the Executive Order, the Department must focus on 
State and departmental actions that are necessary to withhold wages for all departmental 
obligors.  During the course of assisting with this inspection, OCSE and PSC agreed to 
work together to periodically conduct the cross-match.  Through this match, the 
Department will determine which departmental employees are delinquent child support 
obligors and do not have withholding in place.  The OCSE and PSC should work together 
to release the employment information to the States responsible for enforcing the 
delinquent employee-obligors wage withholding orders and to ensure implementation of 
orders received.  The OCSE and PSC agreed to do so. 
In addition, the Department must meet the other requirements of the Executive Order, 
which include informing and sensitizing employee obligors about their child support 
obligation and the Departments obligation to withhold wages.  We suggest that the Office 
of Human Resources (OHR) of the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget 
should assume responsibility to meet the Executive Order requirements of routinely 
informing departmental employees about: 
C the Departments obligation to cooperate in efforts to establish paternity and child 
support orders, 
C the Departments obligation to enforce the collection of child and medical support, 
C the Departments obligation to withhold wages for all child support obligors for whom 
a State issues a wage withholding order to the Department, 
14 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  C departmental employees responsibility to be in compliance with their child support 
obligations, and 
C actions departmental employees should take and services that are available to them to 
ensure that their children are provided the support to which they are legally entitled. 
The Department should assign a senior departmental official the responsibility to organize 
and oversee the overall effort to meet the requirements of the Executive Order and report 
progress and compliance to the Secretary on a routine basis. 
The Office of Child Support Enforcement Should Help States 
Effectively Use the National Directory of New Hires 
As our findings demonstrate, State child support staff did not appear to know that many 
sampled employee-obligors were Federal employees.  State child support staffs inability 
to learn of departmental employment from the NDNH for employee-obligors indicates that 
States remain in need of assistance in order to efficiently and effectively use the NDNH to 
issue wage withholding orders for departmental employees. 
Specifically, OCSE should continue to work with States to improve or enhance their 
automated processing of NDNH data and automated wage withholding.  This should 
include encouraging States to establish processes to verify NDNH information, even if 
alternative employer information exists.  In addition, States should be encouraged to 
enhance their automated systems to be able to capture the second wage withholding 
address provided by the Department. 
The Office of Child Support Enforcement Should Provide 
Guidance to States on Issuing Withholding Orders for Indian 
Health Service Employees 
In 19 of the 45 sampled cases, tribal jurisdiction issues contributed to the lack of income 
withholding.  Additionally, 44 of the total 76 delinquent employee-obligors without 
withholding in place are employed by the Indian Health Service (IHS).  As all of the 
obligors are Federal employees, tribal jurisdiction should not have prevented wage 
withholding in any of these cases. 
Of the 139 delinquent employee-obligors with withholding in place, 61 are employed by 
IHS, many on reservations.  Clearly, income withholding orders are regularly implemented 
for IHS employees without legal challenges.  Withholding orders should be in place for all 
delinquent IHS employee-obligors. 
15 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  To ensure withholding for all IHS employee-obligors, OCSE should: 
C Provide guidance to State child support agencies clarifying their authority to enforce 
wage withholding for all Federal employees, regardless of where the wages are earned. 
C Encourage State agencies to examine whether obligors employed by reservation 
medical centers are departmental employees.  States could provide local staff with lists 
of IHS sites to cross-reference with employer addresses on reservations. 
C Instruct States to send all income withholding orders for Indian Health Service 
employees to the OGC, the designated withholding agent for the Department. 
The Program Support Center Should Increase Withholding 
Accuracy By: 
Ensuring review of all withholding entries 
C Review all entry forms carefully, ensuring that all of the data from the court orders has 
been correctly entered and that the form has been signed by a supervisor. 
We found errors in the entry of withholding amounts in the withholding system operated 
by the Program Support Center (PSC).  Entry forms with errors in the withhold amounts 
were rarely signed by a supervisor. 
Expanding entry form 
C Include space for technicians to calculate percentages of disposable income. 
Federal law prohibits employers from withholding more than 50 to 65 percent of an 
obligors disposable income.7  In some cases, therefore, the Program Support Center staff 
need to calculate income percentages to determine allowable withholding amounts.  We 
found calculations were often scribbled on the margins of forms, rendering an accurate 
supervisory review difficult. 
Formalizing the forwarding process of income withholding orders from local 
offices 
C Provide local payroll liaisons with written guidance on the need to forward all income 
withholding orders to the PSC. 
C Require that local liaisons record the date of receipt of all income withholding orders 
and the date forwarded in a log, subject to review. 
C Mandate that forwarding occur within 3 days of income withholding orders receipt. 
7 
The Federal Consumer Protection Act limits garnishment to 50% of disposable earnings for an obligor who supports a second 
family and 60% to an obligor not supporting a second family.  If arrears are more than 12 weeks overdue, the percentage of 
earnings which can be garnished increases to 55% and 65% respectively. 
16 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  In 4 out of 45 sampled cases, States sent withholding orders to local HHS offices.  These 
orders were not forwarded to the Program Support Center.  Child support agencies should 
send income withholding orders directly to the PSC or Office of General Counsel. 
However, when they are sent erroneously to local offices, they should not be neglected. 
Tracking receipt of employee verification letters and income withholding orders 
not acted upon 
C Keep copies of all employer verification letters and income withholding orders 
received. 
In a few cases, States indicated that they sent verification letters to the Program Support 
Center, but the PSC did not have a record of them.  The PSC indicated that they do not 
store verification letters or withholding orders that are not acted upon.  Storage of these 
letters and orders would allow periodic review to ensure appropriate response to all child 
support agency requests. 
17 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  A G E N C Y   C O M M E N T S  
We received comments from the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), the 
Program Support Center (PSC) and the Indian Health Service (IHS).  The OCSE is in 
agreement with our findings and recommendations.  The PSC agrees this is an important 
initiative and provided technical comments and clarification.  The IHS agrees with our 
recommendation pertaining to IHS employees.  Where appropriate, we changed the report 
to reflect their comments.  The full OCSE, PSC and IHS comments are contained in 
Appendix C. 
We would like to thank OCSE for their assistance in conducting this study and for 
providing us with substantive and insightful comments. The OCSE has provided extensive 
guidance and technical assistance to States.  The OCSE will further these efforts with a 
specialized guidance document that will address the issues detailed within this report. 
The OCSE will address the recommendation made directly to them as well as assist the 
Program Support Center in responding to the recommendation pertaining to the PSCs 
role in employee wage withholding.  The OSCEs and PSCs efforts will help to assure 
departmental compliance with Child Support Enforcement requirements and with the 
intent of the Executive Order. 
The Indian Health Service concurs with our recommendation that OCSE provide guidance 
to State Child Support agencies clarifying their authority as to federal employees residing 
and/or working on Indian reservations. 
Finally, we recognize that additional discussions are needed within the Department to 
resolve outstanding substantive and technical matters highlighted in the report.  First, the 
substantive matter concerns the designation of a senior official to oversee Departmental 
compliance with the Executive Order.  Considerable improvement can be made without 
taking this step, but an overall coordinator could facilitate a more cohesive and effective 
Department-wide response.  Second, to resolve the technical issue, OCSE has provided us 
with a separate technical memorandum, addressing issues related to OCSE providing their 
files to other federal Departments in order to test compliance with the intent of the 
Executive Order. 
18 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  APPENDIX A 
A P P E N D I X  A 
Profile of Employee-Obligors 
Totals:

C  215 departmental employees were obligors on the tax offset file as of 5/30/00

C  139 employee-obligors with income withholding in place as of 5/30/00

C  76 employee-obligors without income withholding in place as of 5/30/00

GRADE LEVEL  All Employee- Without  With 
Obligors (215)  Withholding  Withholding 
(76)  (139) 
% that are GS-7 or less  60% (128)  65% (49)  57% (79) 
% that are GS-11 or less  85% (182)  87% (66)  84% (116) 
SALARY  All Employee- Without  With 
Obligors (215)  withholding  withholding 
(76)  (139) 
75% earn less than this  $42,275  $40,114  $43,094 
amount (Quartile 3) 
50% earn less than this  $32,974  $29,361  $33,768 
amount (Median) 
25% earn less than this  $25,459  $24,091  $26,455 
amount (Quartile 1) 
Minimum Salary  $13,870  $13,870  $15,261 
Maximum Salary  $115,811  $98,310  $115,811 
19 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  A P P E N D I X  A 
Profile of Employee-Obligors

AGENCY EMPLOYMENT  All Employee- Without  With 
Obligors (215)  Withholding  Withholding 
(76)  (139) 
IHS  49% (105)  58% (44)  44% (61) 
NIH  17% (37)  4% (3)  24% (34) 
FDA  10% (21)  9% (7)  10% (14) 
CDC  8% (18)  8% (6)  9% (12) 
OS  6% (13)  10% (8)  4% (5) 
HCFA  4% (8)  5% (4)  3% (4) 
PSC  4% (8)  4% (3)  4% (5) 
HRSA  1% (3)  0% (0)  2% (3) 
ACF  1% (2)  1% (1)  1% (1) 
EMPLOYMENT STATUS  All Employee- Without  With 
Obligors (215)  Withholding  Withholding 
(76)  (139) 
Full time  94% (203)  87% (66)  99% (137) 
Part time  1% (2)  1% (1)  <1% (1) 
Zero hours  5% (10)  12% (9)  <1% (1) 
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY  All Employee- Without  With 
Obligors (215)  Withholding  Withholding 
(76)  (139) 
Less than 1 year  19% (41)  30% (23)  13% (18) 
One to 3 years  20% (42)  26% (20)  16% (22) 
More than 3 years  61% (132)  43% (33)  71% (99) 
20 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  A P P E N D I X  B 
Reasons for Non-Withholding

. ace on 5/30/00 IWO Sent to HHS on 4/21/00 and Implemented 6/20/00. 
Pl
n 
HS. Not i WO Sent o Local HHS Site, Not PSC. 
H It
o 
IWO Sent t IWO in Place w/ HHS, But Inactive on 5/30/00 Because Child Support Paid in Full.  X 
* 
er
h
Ot
State Knew NCP Was w/ HHS. No Discernible Reason for No IWO.  X 
S  nt. 
H e
nt to H State Did Not Learn of NCP Employm
e
S
rder Not  IWO Deemed Not Necessary Because NCP Perceived as Not in Arrears.  X 
holding O IWO in Place w/ Other Employer.  X 
h
Wit ble  O. 
ncome  Tribes Responsifor Case Did Not Issue IW X  X  X 
I
IWO Not Sent Due to Tribal Jurisdiction Questions.  X  X  X  X  X 
Locate Not Pursued Due to Tribal Jurisdiction Questions.  X  X  X 
e er 
mplmb 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15 
SaNu
21 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  A P P E N D I X  B 
Reasons for Non-Withholding

. ce on 5/30/00 IWO Sent to HHS on 4/21/00 and Implemented 6/20/00.  X 
a
Pl
HS. Not in  IWO Sent to Local HHS Site, Not PSC.  X  X  X 
H
o 
IWO Sent t IWO in Place w/ HHS, But Inactive on 5/30/00 Because Child Support Paid in Full. 
* 
her X 
Ot
State Knew NCP Was w/ HHS. No Discernible Reason for No IWO.  X  X  X  X 
S  nt. 
H e
nt to H State Did Not Learn of NCP Employm X  X 
e
S
rder Not  IWO Deemed Not Necessary Because NCP Perceived as Not in Arrears.  X 
holding O IWO in Place w/ Other Employer. 
h
Wit ble  O. 
ncome  Tribes Responsifor Case Did Not Issue IW
I
IWO Not Sent Due to Tribal Jurisdiction Questions.  X 
Locate Not Pursued Due to Tribal Jurisdiction Questions.  X 
mple mber  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30 
SaNu
22 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  A P P E N D I X  B 
Reasons for Non-Withholding

. ce on 5/30/00 IWO Sent to HHS on 4/21/00 and Implemented 6/20/00.  1 
a
Pl
HS. Not in  IWO Sent to Local HHS Site, Not PSC.  X  4 
H
o 
IWO Sent t IWO in Place w/ HHS, But Inactive on 5/30/00 Because Child Support Paid in Full.  X  X  3 
* 
her X  3 
Ot
State Knew NCP Was w/ HHS. No Discernible Reason for No IWO.  X  6 
S  nt. 
H e
nt to H State Did Not Learn of NCP Employm X  X  X  5 
e
S
rder Not  IWO Deemed Not Necessary Because NCP Perceived as Not in Arrears.  X  3 
holding O IWO in Place w/ Other Employer.  X  X  X  4 
h
Wit ble  O. 
ncome  Tribes Responsifor Case Did Not Issue IW 3 
I
IWO Not Sent Due to Tribal Jurisdiction Questions.  X  X  8 
Locate Not Pursued Due to Tribal Jurisdiction Questions.  X  5 
Sample Number  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  TOTAL 
*Other reasons for IWOs not sent to HHS are: 1) Case was unenforceable since child is now 27, exceeding the AZ Statute of Limitations; and 2) Employer 
verification with HHS was attempted for two cases. There was no response, and the State did not pursue. 
23 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  A P P E N D I X  C 
Agency Comments

24 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  A P P E N D I X  C 
Agency Comments

Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental  A P P E N D I X  C 
Agency Comments
 A P P E N D I X  C 
Agency Comments

Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental  Agency Comments

28 
Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental Employees  OEI-05-00-00300  A P P E N D I X  C 
Agency Comments

Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental  A P P E N D I X  C 
Agency Comments

Withholding Child Support Obligations From Departmental