Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
Client Cooperation With 
Child Support Enforcement 
The Role of Public Assistance Agencies 
JUNE GIBBS BROWN 
Inspector General 
MARCH 2000 
OEI-06-98-00042  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, 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 Region VI prepared this report under the direction of Chester B. Slaughter, Regional 
Inspector General and Judith V. Tyler, Deputy Regional Inspector General. 
Principal OEI staff included: 
DALLAS  HEADQUARTERS 
Blaine Collins
 Alan Levine, Program Specialist 
Ruth Ann Dorrill
 Joan Richardson, Program Specialist 
Marnette Robertson
 Linda Hall 
Clark Thomas, Ph.D.

Nancy Watts

Lisa White

FIELD OFFICES 
Lucille Cop 
Vincent Greiber 
Ianna Kachoris 
Thomas Purvis 
Graham Rawsthorn 
To obtain copies of this report, please call the Dallas Regional Office at 214-767-3310. 
Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address: 
http://www.dhhs.gov/progorg/oei  E X E C U T I V E  S U M M A R Y  
PURPOSE 
To describe the role of public assistance agencies and interagency collaboration in gaining 
cooperation with child support enforcement from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
(TANF) clients. 
BACKGROUND 
Federal law requires TANF clients to cooperate with State child support enforcement by 
providing information about noncustodial parents and appearing for appointments as needed. 
Public assistance agencies are often responsible for informing clients of these requirements, 
eliciting information from clients about noncustodial parents, and transferring this information to 
the child support agency.  If notified by the State child support agency that a client is not 
cooperating, the public assistance agency must reduce the familys cash assistance by at least 25 
percent and, at State discretion, may deny the family all cash assistance.  Additionally, States may 
choose to have their public assistance agency administer good cause and other exceptions that 
may exempt clients from cooperating.  This report examines the role of public assistance agencies 
and interagency collaboration in gaining TANF client cooperation with child support enforcement 
in six focus States which we chose in order to examine a variety of implementation strategies and 
experiences regarding client cooperation.  We surveyed staff and reviewed documents from 99 
local child support and 103 local public assistance offices, and interviewed approximately 180 
local office managers and caseworkers. 
FINDINGS 
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES 
Public Assistance Staff Typically Interview New Applicants and Clients to Gather 
Basic Information about Noncustodial Parents 
Public assistance staff spend limited interview time gathering information about noncustodial 
parents, with two-thirds of public assistance staff reporting spending 15 minutes or less on this 
portion of TANF client interviews.  Clients are asked to provide basic information such as an 
absent parents date of birth, current address, current employer, and Social Security number. 
Most Local Public Assistance Offices Quickly Transfer Information to Child 
Support Agencies, Yet Many Child Support Staff Are Concerned About the 
Accuracy and Completeness of Information 
While child support agencies generally rate the timeliness of electronic information transfer from 
public assistance offices as good, some complain they do not receive, or do not have access to, all 
i  the useful information collected by public assistance staff.  Public assistance staff often gather 
enough critical information, such as the noncustodial parents Social Security number, for child 
support to pursue enforcement.  However, many child support respondents rate the usefulness, 
accuracy, and completeness of information gathered by public assistance as only fair or poor. 
Penalties for Noncooperation in Focus States Vary, But Many Child Support 
Respondents Are Concerned That  Penalties are Not Properly Imposed 
In focus States, penalties for noncooperation range from the Federally-mandated 25 percent 
reduction in the familys cash grant to elimination of all cash assistance.  All public assistance 
respondents report notifying TANF clients about the nature and timing of impending penalties, as 
well as their right to appeal an adverse action.  Additionally, some local public assistance offices 
attempt to reconcile with clients, and gain cooperation prior to imposing penalties.  Many child 
support respondents believe public assistance staff do not always follow through on imposing 
penalties on noncooperative TANF clients. 
AGENCY COLLABORATION 
While Most Public Assistance and Child Support Staff Rate Their Relationship as 
Effective, Many Raise Concerns About Close Collaboration 
Most child support and public assistance staff believe their interagency relationship is effective, 
yet many perceive that their overall agency goals are not aligned.  Staff generally characterize the 
public assistance agency as a service agency, whereas most view child support enforcement as an 
arm of law enforcement.  Some believe these cultural differences make collaboration more 
difficult, while others see them as an advantage for gaining client cooperation. 
Communication Between Child Support and Public Assistance Workers is Limited 
and Sometimes Problematic, Especially Telephone Contact 
Staff report little communication between workers of each agency and significant problems in 
reaching their counterpart by telephone.  Workers suggest that these communication barriers 
complicate casework and potentially hinder client cooperation. 
Staff in Both Agencies Receive Training About Gaining TANF Client Cooperation, 
But Most Training is Conducted Separately 
Most public assistance and child support respondents report formally training workers about State 
cooperation requirements and collecting noncustodial parent information from clients.  Cross-
training, however, is limited, with only one-third or less of all training involving representatives 
from the other agency.  Respondents involved in cross-training believe it improves staff 
understanding of the needs of the other agency. 
ii  Some Local Offices Use Co-location or Out-stationing of Child Support Staff in 
Public Assistance Offices to Improve Agency Collaboration 
A number of local office respondents report having child support and public assistance offices at 
the same site (co-location).  Others describe having child support staff work at public assistance 
offices either full time or on a scheduled basis (out-stationing).  Many credit these strategies with 
improving communication between agencies. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Successful operation of the child support enforcement program requires effective, cooperative 
action by both the Office of Child Support Enforcement and the Office of Family Assistance. 
Therefore, we recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and 
Families (ACF) encourage States to complete the following. 
Focus Public Assistance Information Gathering on Specific Facts about 
Noncustodial Parents That Are Most Useful for Enforcement 
Explore Ways to Enhance Public Assistance Staff Access to Information 
Verification Tools, Potentially Easing the Information Collection Process 
Continue to Improve Systems Which Allow the Exchange of Information Between 
Public Assistance and Child Support Enforcement Agencies 
Work with Local Public Assistance Offices to Insure That Penalties for 
Noncooperation with Child Support Are Properly Imposed 
Strengthen Interaction, Cross-Training, and Communication Between Their Public 
Assistance and Child Support Enforcement Agencies 
COMPANION REPORTS 
This is one of four OIG reports on how States gain TANF client cooperation with child 
support enforcement.  One companion report, Client Cooperation with Child Support 
Enforcement: Policies and Practices (OEI-06-98-00040), provides an overview of 
cooperation polices and how they are implemented by States.  Another report, Client 
Cooperation with Child Support Enforcement: Challenges and Strategies to Improvement 
(OEI-06-98-00041), examines why some clients do not cooperate and how States  attempt 
to gain their cooperation. The remaining report, Client Cooperation with Child Support 
Enforcement: Use of Good Cause Exceptions (OEI-06-98-00043), describes how clients 
may be exempted from cooperation requirements under certain circumstances, especially 
when enforcement may put the child at risk of violence. 
iii  T A B L E  O F  C O N T E N T S  
PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  i

INTRODUCTION  1

FINDINGS

Agency Responsibilities

Information Collection  4

Transfer of Information  5

Imposing Penalties for Noncooperation  7

Interagency Collaboration  9

RECOMMENDATIONS  13

ENDNOTES  15
 I N T R O D U C T I O N  
PURPOSE 
To describe the role of public assistance agencies and interagency collaboration in gaining 
cooperation with child support enforcement from Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families (TANF) clients. 
BACKGROUND 
Federal law has long required public assistance clients to cooperate with State child 
support enforcement authorities in establishing and enforcing child support and medical 
support orders, and in establishing paternity.  As part of a broad effort to reform the 
nations welfare system, Congress made significant changes to Federal policy regarding 
client child support cooperation requirements in the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Act of 1996.  Currently, unless exempted from cooperation requirements 
through a good cause or other exception,1 TANF clients must name and provide 
information about the noncustodial parent of their children, and otherwise cooperate as 
determined by the State.2  Formerly, State public assistance agencies determined whether 
clients were cooperating with their States child support agency; however, welfare reform 
made State child support agencies responsible for determining if TANF clients are 
cooperating in good faith and notifying the public assistance agency of each clients 
cooperation status.  Before welfare reform, State public assistance agencies solely 
determined how to deal with clients who failed to cooperate.  Now, if the child support 
agency determines a client has not cooperated, the TANF agency is required to reduce the 
familys cash assistance by at least 25 percent and, at State discretion, may deny the family 
all cash assistance.  If a State public assistance agency does not enforce the penalties 
requested by the child support agency, Federal law allows for the State to be penalized up 
to 5 percent of their TANF funds.3  All these changes were made in an attempt to improve 
client cooperation with child support enforcement.  While families who receive Medicaid 
coverage, food stamps, or foster care services are also required to cooperate with child 
support enforcement efforts, this report focuses on cooperation issues involving clients of 
the TANF program.4 
State public assistance agencies play a major role in gaining TANF client cooperation, a 
critical first step of child support enforcement.  Public assistance staff are often responsible 
for explaining State cooperation requirements to clients, gathering initial information 
about noncustodial parents, transferring this information to the child support agency, and 
imposing penalties on clients deemed noncooperative by the child support agency.  Child 
support staff often use the information gathered by public assistance staff to locate a 
noncustodial parent or putative father, establish paternity, create a child support order, 
and/or enforce a prior obligation.  Welfare reform increased the importance of 
collaboration between child support enforcement and public assistance agencies.  With a 
1
 greater focus on moving families toward work and self-sufficiency, child support is seen as 
a potential source of income for many needy families.  Therefore, public assistance agency 
support of child support enforcement efforts has become more important than in the past. 
This report describes the role of public assistance agencies in gaining TANF client 
cooperation with child support enforcement and examines interagency collaboration in six 
States.  We also identify potential barriers to effective interaction and offer 
recommendations where appropriate. 
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 
We used several sources of information to examine TANF client cooperation with child 
support enforcement.  The primary source of information comes from self-administered 
written surveys which we mailed to local child support and public assistance offices. 
Managers and administrators from 99 local child support offices and 103 public assistance 
offices in six focus States - California, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, Texas and Virginia -
returned these mail surveys regarding cooperation policies, practices, and improvement 
strategies.  The quantitative data (percentage of responses) presented in this report come 
from responses to the questions in these surveys.  We also gathered and reviewed agency 
documents from these same local offices, including client cooperation policy statements, 
standardized forms, examples of correspondence with clients and other agencies, outreach 
materials, and other related documents. 
We also made site visits to a subset of local offices, visiting offices in one or two cities and 
their surrounding areas in each of the six focus States.  During these visits, we conducted 
interviews with approximately 180 local public assistance and child support managers and 
caseworkers.  At almost all offices, we interviewed one or more managers, then separately 
interviewed two or more caseworkers.  Resource constraints prevented us from directly 
interviewing clients.  Finally, we conducted telephone interviews of administrators from 
each States child support enforcement and public assistance agency to confirm 
information regarding State policies. 
We purposively selected the six focus States to include a variety of implementation 
strategies and experiences regarding client cooperation.  To achieve this variety, we 
considered many criteria including type of penalties for noncooperation, number of good 
cause claims, number of good cause exceptions granted, outstanding program 
characteristics (innovations, privatization, etc.), status as State-administered or county-
administered, and geographic region.  We also purposively selected local child support and 
public assistance offices within these States to provide a mix of urban, suburban, mid-size, 
and rural locations.  The selection of focus States does not purport to be representative of 
the nation, nor do local offices represent all offices within individual focus States.  The 
selections do, however, allow for examination of client cooperation processes under 
conditions found throughout the country. 
This report relies on the perceptions of local office survey respondents and interviewees. 
These respondents provided detailed information about how cooperation policies are 
2
 implemented, as well as the effect of cooperation requirements on office operations, staff, 
and clients.  We did not attempt to independently verify the information provided by staff. 
However, the information included in the report does relate the experience of front line 
staff who deliver services to clients on a daily basis, and who demonstrate considerable 
concern for the effectiveness of their programs. 
This study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections issued 
by the Presidents Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 
COMPANION REPORTS 
This is one of four OIG reports on how States gain TANF client cooperation with child 
support enforcement.  One companion report, Client Cooperation with Child Support 
Enforcement: Policies and Practices (OEI-06-98-00040), provides an overview of 
cooperation polices and how they are implemented by States.  Another report, Client 
Cooperation with Child Support Enforcement: Challenges and Strategies to Improvement 
(OEI-06-98-00041), examines why some clients do not cooperate and how States attempt 
to gain their cooperation. The remaining report, Client Cooperation with Child Support 
Enforcement: Use of Good Cause Exceptions (OEI-06-98-00043), describes how clients 
may be exempted from cooperation requirements under certain circumstances, especially 
when enforcement may put the child at risk of violence. 
3
 F I N D I N G S  
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES 
In addition to explaining the requirements and benefits of cooperating with child support 
enforcement, public assistance agencies have four specific responsibilities that affect 
TANF client cooperation:  collecting information about noncustodial parents from 
applicants and clients; transferring information to the child support agency; imposing 
penalties when the child support agency determines a client is not cooperating; and, at 
State discretion, administering good cause and other exceptions that may exempt clients 
from cooperating with child support enforcement. This section examines the first three of 
these responsibilities, while good cause exceptions are discussed in a companion report.5 
INFORMATION COLLECTION 
Typically, the first opportunity TANF clients have to cooperate with child support 
enforcement occurs when they apply for assistance.  During application interviews, clients 
are asked to provide information about noncustodial parents or putative fathers.  This 
interview is usually conducted by public assistance staff, although child support staff may 
be out-stationed or co-located in some local public assistance offices and conduct the child 
support portion of the interview.6  No matter who conducts this portion of the application 
interview, the information is generally entered into some form of automated system and 
transferred to the child support agency. 
Public Assistance Staff Spend Limited Interview Time Gathering Noncustodial 
Parent Information, Often Focusing on Basic Information Only 
For public assistance staff conducting new application or re-determination interviews, 
gathering information about noncustodial parents is a small part of a typically lengthy 
process.  Sixty percent of public assistance respondents estimate that initial client 
interviews with caseworkers last over half an hour, and another 30 percent indicate these 
interviews are between one and two hours in length.  During this time, staff must 
determine deprivation, complete numerous documents, and explain program rules for cash 
assistance and, sometimes, medical coverage and food stamps.  Caseworkers explain that 
with all of these demands and limited staff time, the child support portion of the interview 
becomes just one of a series of tasks which they necessarily move through as rapidly as 
possible. 
About two-thirds of public assistance staff report the child support portion of TANF client 
interviews lasts 15 minutes or less.  In addition to gathering information during this time, 
interviewers must also explain State cooperation requirements, policies regarding claiming 
good cause or other exceptions, and policies requiring that clients assign to the State any 
child support paid by the noncustodial parent.  Clients are typically asked to sign a form 
indicating that they understand all of these policies, agree to cooperate with child support 
4
 enforcement, and do not wish to claim an exception.  The result of all of these demands is 
that public assistance staff report spending very little time on actually gathering 
information needed for child support enforcement. 
The noncustodial parent portion of the interview often involves obtaining very basic 
answers to specific questions appearing on a printed form or a computer screen and then 
moving to the next topic.  Typically, clients are asked to provide information such as a 
noncustodial parents date of birth, Social Security number, current address, and current 
employer.  Staff report there is often little time to ask probing questions beyond the 
minimum required to fill in the intake form and workers often feel pressure to move on to 
the next interview.  As one worker explained, We would sometimes like to be able to 
spend more time talking about the absent parent and getting better information, but you 
just have to clear the screen and move on sometimes.  Theres not time for a lot of finesse 
in getting more information. 
TRANSFER OF INFORMATION 
Public assistance staff we surveyed report their offices transfer case information to local 
child support offices by several means.  Ninety-six percent say they provide access to 
electronic databases and 9 percent say they use electronic mail to send information. 
Additionally, 74 percent send paper forms and records.  Most child support workers (91 
percent) agree that they have electronic access to the data collected and maintained by the 
public assistance agency. 
Although Timeliness of Transferring Basic Information to the Child Support 
Agency is Rated as Good, Limited Access to Complete Data Hinders Information 
Sharing 
Seventy percent of child support respondents rate the timeliness of information transfer as 
good or excellent, with the remaining 30 percent ranking timeliness as only fair or poor. 
Many administrators and staff in both agencies attribute this mostly positive rating to 
technology that allows immediate electronic transfer of case information, daily electronic 
batch transfers, or weekly or monthly data tape matches between agencies. 
However, while many offices receive and transfer information in electronic form, some 
workers suggest that electronic systems, as they currently exist, pose a challenge to 
making the most useful information collected by public assistance staff available to child 
support staff.  Apparently, public assistance workers enter potentially useful information 
into database fields that child support staff are not allowed to access in some systems. 
Additionally, few State or local computer systems allow workers from one agency to 
search for data within the others files.  As a result, a child support worker might be able 
to see a portion of a clients public assistance interview that contains answers to questions 
directly associated with child support, but be unable to access additional information that 
might be useful in locating an absent parent, or in establishing or enforcing a child support 
order.  Many child support staff report they could be more efficient with greater access to 
public assistance databases.  As one child support worker argues, If we could get on-line 
5
 with the full database, we wouldnt have to get all this again from the mom.  They have 
the information, we just cant get to it in their system.  Id like to read their comments. 
We are dealing with people and we would like to have a sense of who we are dealing with 
... and what their circumstances are. 
Virtually all local and State administrators report ongoing efforts to improve electronic 
interface capabilities between agencies, and many are excited about the potential benefits. 
One child support administrator, whose office is piloting a system intended to directly link 
public assistance and child support data says, The system handles a tremendous amount 
of information .... Whatever [public assistance] puts into their system, it will carry over 
into our system. [With this] one-step interview, the error rate is lower and lag [time 
between] when you enter information and when it is available for other users is greatly 
reduced.  We are very excited. 
Information Gathered by Public Assistance Staff is Often Sufficient for Child 
Support Enforcement 
Public assistance staff often gather enough information from TANF clients for child 
support workers to pursue paternity establishment, create a child support order, or enforce 
support.  One public assistance worker describes the information some clients provide, 
Some cooperate a ton.  They want the benefits for their children.  Also, they understand 
that the child needs support.  They give Social Security number and workplace.  When 
critical information, especially a Social Security number or place of current employment, is 
provided to public assistance workers, child support staff indicate they may never need to 
see a client to collect additional information.  A child support worker explains, We find 
that typically we do not have to have an interview.  Public assistance may collect enough 
information about the absent parent and get all the necessary forms signed, so that we do 
not need to see the client. 
However, Many Child Support Staff Rate the Overall Usefulness, Accuracy and 
Completeness of Information Collected by Public Assistance as Only Fair or Poor 
Although the information public assistance staff collect is often sufficient to pursue 
support, it does not always contain everything that child support workers would like to 
have to create and enforce a support order.  While child support staff usually use the 
information provided from public assistance interviews, some report they often must spend 
considerable time checking for accuracy and acquiring additional information through 
follow-up interviews with the client, or from databases and other investigation. Forty-five 
percent of child support respondents rate the usefulness of information they receive as 
good and eight percent report the information they receive is excellent, but the remaining 
47 percent of child support respondents rate the usefulness of information as only fair or 
poor.  Additionally, 70 percent of child support respondents rate the accuracy and 
completeness of this information as only fair or poor. 
Staff identify several potential explanations for why the information child support offices 
receive from the public assistance agency may be less than optimal for their purposes. 
6
 First, as noted above, public assistance staff may not be able to devote enough interview 
time to gather all the information clients have about noncustodial parents.  Second, 
because public assistance staff typically do not use noncustodial parent information for 
their own purposes, they may not understand which information is most useful to child 
support workers.  As a child support caseworker explains, I dont believe [public 
assistance] workers fully understand our child support [needs] and so cannot obtain the 
kind of noncustodial information we require.  Third, public assistance staff may have 
little incentive to be concerned about gathering complete and accurate information.  We 
found that few local public assistance administrators consider the child support interview 
as a performance indicator for front line workers.  As one child support administrator 
expresses, There are no requirements or incentives for public assistance staff to provide 
child support with information.  There is no monitoring.  The result of this lack of 
incentive is that some public assistance workers may feel it is not their job to obtain 
information about noncustodial parents and may bypass questions on their automated 
intake forms.  As one public assistance worker explains, A lot of times workers are just 
going into those fields that you have to clear and putting unknown and that just clears 
the field ... and they go on.  Fourth, many public assistance offices in focus States do not 
have access to electronic tools, such as State motor vehicle or employment databases, to 
immediately verify the information that clients provide.  On the other hand, child support 
staff typically do have access to these tools and believe that clients are more likely to 
provide accurate information when they understand that workers can immediately verify 
what they are told.  Finally, in a companion report, we detail that some TANF clients have 
personal and financial disincentives to providing complete and accurate information about 
noncustodial parents, or to otherwise cooperating with child support enforcement.7 
IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR NONCOOPERATION 
Public Assistance Agencies Are Responsible for Imposing Penalties on TANF 
Clients for Noncooperation and Must Notify Clients of Impending Adverse 
Actions and Their Right to Appeal 
Procedurally, when child support staff determine that a TANF client is not cooperating, 
the caseworker notifies the public assistance agency by mail, telephone, FAX, e-mail, or 
by placing a code in the electronic case file of a shared database.  It is then the 
responsibility of the local public assistance office to impose the appropriate penalties. 
Penalties for noncooperation in focus States range from the Federally-mandated 25 
percent reduction in the familys cash assistance to a full-family sanction, often resulting in 
closure of the TANF case.  Respondents from every local public assistance office we 
surveyed report that they notify clients by mail, phone, or in person regarding what 
penalties will be imposed, when they will take effect, and the clients right to appeal the 
adverse action.  This notice often serves as the clients last opportunity to avoid penalties 
for noncooperation. 
One State has formalized this notification process such that public assistance staff schedule 
a noncooperative client for a reconciliation meeting.  During this meeting, the 
7
 client is informed of the impending penalties and asked to explain why they failed to 
cooperate originally.  If public assistance staff determine that the client had a valid reason 
for missing a meeting or otherwise failing to cooperate, the client is asked to indicate they 
will cooperate in the future by signing a reconciliation agreement.  Clients must then 
appear for a re-scheduled activity or provide requested information to avoid penalties. 
While the reconciliation meeting effectively insures that clients have ample opportunity to 
avoid penalties, some child support staff criticize the process as redundant, because clients 
must agree to cooperate with child support when they initially apply for benefits.8 
The Majority of Child Support Workers Believe Public Assistance Staff Do Not 
Adequately Enforce Penalties on Noncooperative TANF Clients 
While child support workers must determine whether TANF clients are cooperating, only 
the public assistance agency may impose penalties on clients.  Staff from the two agencies 
disagree regarding how strictly and swiftly penalties are imposed on clients.  Sixty-three 
percent of child support respondents identify the lack of enforcement of penalties as a 
barrier to clients providing complete and accurate information about noncustodial parents. 
In contrast, only 10 percent of public assistance respondents identify this as a barrier. 
Child support respondents often express doubt that penalties are being imposed.  Two 
child support workers describe their experience, [Public assistance] won't sanction 
them.  Very, very rarely do we get that done.  We just notify them through the computer 
system, then I don't know what happens. And, We are having a problem with [public 
assistance] not sanctioning someone, where we had recommended it.  We think it is 
because the social workers are overloaded, that it takes them too long to implement the 
sanction.  When that happens, it leaves us impotent for a while. 
Some child support workers express frustration that the public assistance agency takes 
weeks or months to impose penalties, thereby delaying enforcement efforts.  As stated by 
a child support caseworker, [Public assistance] sanctions don't work because they have 
100 days to appeal and the bite just isn't immediate enough.  There is then little initiative 
to cooperate.  One State has an automatic appeal of a noncooperation determination in 
which TANF clients who attend a reconciliation meeting with their public assistance 
caseworker, and agree to cooperate in the future, can avoid being penalized.  In another 
State, prior to imposing penalties, public assistance caseworkers are required to reassess 
all TANF clients who are designated as noncooperative to determine whether they meet 
qualifications for good cause exceptions through which they may be exempted from 
cooperating.  While these procedures provide safeguards against inappropriately 
penalizing clients, they also serve to delay penalties, possibly making clients doubt that 
penalties will ever be imposed.  A caseworker explains, Sometimes, a year will go by, 
and a sanction we have recommended has not been imposed, so there is no incentive for 
that client to change their behavior.  They learn they can blow us off and nothing 
happens, and word of mouth gets this knowledge to others. 
Within focus States, local public assistance offices appear to develop individual norms 
regarding how quickly they impose penalties for noncooperation with child support 
enforcement.  For example, we frequently heard that staff in urban offices may act 
8
 differently than those in rural communities.  As one child support worker notes, We code 
them as noncooperative and then [public assistance] calls them or sanctions them. 
Smaller counties seem to sanction right away. The larger ones tend to call. Then they 
notify us that they need another appointment. Larger counties sanction more slowly. They 
are giving them an extra chance. 
INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION 
While Most Public Assistance and Child Support Staff Rate Their Relationship as 
Effective, Many Raise Concerns About Close Collaboration 
Eighty-four percent of child support and 72 percent of public assistance respondents rate 
their relationship with their counterpart as effective or very effective.  Some staff report 
they are making efforts to work together across agencies to solve common problems and 
reach common goals.  These efforts range from formal liaison officers responsible for 
initiating contact between agency offices to less formal managers meetings or occasional 
staff gatherings.  Workers in several offices where some effort at staff or management 
interaction is underway report that, while misunderstanding or mis-communication 
between offices does occur, their overall relationship, and therefore the quality of work, is 
improving.  As one child support administrator relates, We are now working closely 
together on several projects.  Our goals are becoming more common and closely 
related.  Similarly, a public assistance administrator says, We are working together to 
achieve a positive goal.  We now hold regular meetings together.  There is good 
communication between agencies.  Everyone is trying to be a part of getting clients off 
TANF and into the workforce. 
Despite these generally positive perceptions of interagency relationships, several 
respondents from each agency express frustration or concern about working with their 
counterparts.  Staff from both agencies claim the other agency does not understand their 
agencys work.  Child support staff, for example, point out that front line public assistance 
workers have many different responsibilities, of which child support is only one, and 
question the ability of public assistance staff to make gathering noncustodial parent 
information a priority. 
Even with welfare reform increasing the importance of child support enforcement for 
many TANF clients, staff still perceive the mission of each agency quite differently.  While 
staff of both agencies mostly view public assistance as a service agency designed to assist 
clients to gain employment and attain independence, they mostly see the child support 
agency as a law enforcement agency concerned primarily with collections.  As one public 
assistance administrator expresses, Our mission is basically a kind of helping, giving 
sort of mission.  I think child supports is ... basically a police kind of vision ....  We are 
counselors, social workers.  We help people with their lives, their situations ... but child 
support is totally different.  This perception of different missions appears particularly 
prominent among staff in States where the child support agency is part of the State judicial 
9
 system and not as common where both agencies are housed within the States social 
service department. 
Others respondents suggest that the difference in cultures offers an advantage to having 
public assistance workers collect child support information.  A child support worker 
explains, The clients tend to trust the welfare staff more than they trust us.  They are 
giving them money, [clients believe] we are giving them a hassle.  So, somebody with that 
trust can ask questions about the father.  They are with them physically and are in a 
much better place to get information about the case.  By the time we get the case, they 
have been through the system and dont want to have anything to do with another 
government agency. 
Communication Between Child Support Workers and Public Assistance Workers 
is Limited and Sometimes Problematic, Especially Telephone Contact 
While many offices of both agencies transfer specific case information electronically or 
through paper forms, less formal discussion among workers does not appear to occur 
often.  Many public assistance workers express difficulty in contacting child support 
workers about a clients case once the initial application process is complete.  Child 
support workers also note problems with reaching public assistance workers to obtain 
additional information or to provide information about a clients cooperation status. 
Many of these communication problems are technical or logistical, such as poor telephone 
access.  Staff complain of unanswered telephones and unreturned calls from workers and 
managers of both agencies.  In some cases, caseworkers are assigned to answer phones 
and direct calls at the same time they are expected to conduct client interviews.  In other 
cases, workers suggest that telephone lines are always busy with client inquiries and that 
they are not furnished with private or unpublished numbers through which they could 
reach their counterparts. 
Staff report that clients may suffer because of the inability of caseworkers to communicate 
in a timely manner.  For example, TANF clients who have received noncooperation 
notices often return to their local public assistance office to resolve the situation.  If they 
are able to explain a valid reason for a missed appointment or provide additional 
information, they may avoid being penalized for noncooperation.  Delays in 
communication between agencies can make this more difficult.  As one public assistance 
worker explains, [Child support workers] are not easy to get [on the phone.]  When 
[clients] get sanctioned, we cant give out the back phone number so that clients can 
comply by setting appointments or giving information over the phone.  It is hard to get 
through.  Phones are always busy.  Its brutal to try to call [child support workers.] 
Staff in Both Agencies Receive Training About Gaining TANF Client Cooperation, 
But Most Training is Conducted Separately 
Seventy-five percent of public assistance respondents report their workers receive formal 
training about collecting information from clients for child support enforcement.  Most of 
10
 these respondents, 61 percent, indicate training involves only administrators, while the 
remainder report that all staff receive training.  Likewise, 85 percent of child support 
respondents report that their staff receive training on client cooperation requirements.  In 
those offices where training does take place, it is most often conducted internally by the 
respondents own agency.  Seventy-nine percent of public assistance and 80 percent of 
child support respondents report that an administrator or staff member of their own 
agency usually provides training. 
In an effort to improve understanding about each others objectives, cross-training does 
take place in some offices.  Almost a third (32 percent) of public assistance respondents 
and 22 percent of child support respondents report that a representative of the other 
agency participates as a provider of at least a portion of their training.  Also, 24 percent of 
public assistance respondents report that child support workers attend training with them, 
while 23 percent of child support respondents include public assistance workers in their 
training. 
Administrators and workers report that cross-training helps both agencies achieve their 
goals.  For example, a child support administrator relates,  At community meetings I 
discovered that when I explained child support responsibilities, many public assistance 
staff members did not know the importance of coding.  They did not realize how 
important it was for interface with child support.  In their training, there is not much talk 
about child support except that any client that has children, excepting good cause, must 
cooperate with child support.  Just a few of the offices represented at this community 
meeting were aware of that.  I have been advocating for nine years for interagency 
training. 
Public assistance staff report benefits with receiving training from the child support 
agency.  As one worker describes, They were here in the office a couple weeks ago. 
They covered paternity issues like how to complete the form on absent parent 
information.  They want us to provide as much information as we can so the client doesn't 
have to repeat it at a child support interview.  Other respondents report that training 
about child support information requirements has helped them understand why certain 
information is important and how much child support workers depend upon complete and 
accurate information from the custodial parent.  Child support workers also say that cross-
training has helped them better understand the demands and problems public assistance 
workers face in handling their caseloads. 
Staff Report Co-location and Out-stationing of Child Support Staff Can Promote 
Improved Interagency Communication 
A number of respondents report having child support and public assistance offices in the 
same place, commonly called co-location.  Other respondents report that child support 
staff work at their public assistance offices either full-time or on a scheduled basis, often 
called out-stationing.  Many credit these arrangements with improving communication 
between agencies.  One public assistance administrator reports, The co-location of staff 
helps build the relationship between offices.  It helps clients and staff from both agencies 
11
 communicate more effectively and builds understanding between the agencies.  A public 
assistance worker says, The co-located person makes a lot of difference to 
communication.  It is really easier than it was before to get information you need. 
Another public assistance worker emphasizes the benefit of having a child support worker 
located in their office, We often have to ask workers specific questions on cases we are 
working. [Having the child support] worker in this office has been very nice, and very 
helpful to us.  When I have a question, she is great. 
Child support staff also see value in co-location, as one respondent explains, When 
clients are here, they can also see me. Having a child support worker here is a one-stop 
shopping kind of thing.  They can get information on a case.  I also maintain a close 
relationship with the benefit workers here.  It is a quicker access to the information we 
need.  I can just knock on a door, without telephone calls or a paper trail.  It helps the 
coordination of the two agencies in many ways and makes things a lot simpler for 
communication. 
12
 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S  
Successful operation of the child support enforcement program requires effective, 
cooperative action by both the Office of Child Support Enforcement and the Office of 
Family Assistance.  Therefore, we recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the 
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) encourage States to: 
Focus Public Assistance Information Gathering on Specific Facts About 
Noncustodial Parents That Are Most Useful for Enforcement 
When public assistance staff obtain critical information about noncustodial parents, such as 
Social Security number and current employer, child support enforcement is often 
accelerated.  Although child support staff may find additional information, such as address 
or schools attended, useful in locating absent parents, public assistance staff may be less 
successful in obtaining the most critical information when they are asked to collect more 
than is realistic.  ACF should encourage States to clarify and prioritize the child support 
information they most want from these necessarily brief public assistance interviews and to 
provide staff guidance on how best to elicit priority information. 
Explore Ways to Enhance Public Assistance Staff Access to Information 
Verification Tools, Potentially Easing the Information Collection Process 
Staff of both agencies report that access to information verification tools, such as drivers 
license and State employment databases, enhances their ability to obtain complete and 
accurate information from clients.  While most child support workers appear to use such 
tools, many public assistance workers lack access, yet could benefit from it.  The ability to 
quickly verify information provided by clients could make information collection easier 
and the use of limited interview time more efficient. 
Continue to Improve Systems Which Allow the Exchange of Information Between 
Public Assistance and Child Support Enforcement Agencies 
Child support staff often rely on information about noncustodial parents which clients 
provide during interviews with public assistance workers.  Expanding child support access 
to client information, while insuring client confidentiality, can allow child support workers 
to begin locate and enforcement efforts earlier.  ACF should encourage States to utilize 
strategies which enhance the exchange and use of information among agencies. 
Work with Local Public Assistance Offices to Insure That Penalties for 
Noncooperation with Child Support Are Properly Imposed 
Staff report that most TANF clients who are penalized for noncooperation with child 
support enforcement eventually cooperate.  However, when threatened penalties are 
delayed or never imposed, clients may begin to believe that cooperation is unimportant 
13
 and that noncooperation has no negative consequences.  ACF should encourage States to 
insure that public assistance agencies properly impose penalties on noncooperative TANF 
clients consistently and timely, while protecting due process safeguards. 
Strengthen Interaction, Cross-Training, and Communication Between Their Public 
Assistance and Child Support Enforcement Agencies 
Interagency meetings, cross-training and regular communication at the management and 
staff level can help identify barriers to collaboration, develop joint objectives among child 
support and public assistance agencies,  provide staff with opportunities to develop 
contacts for information exchange or help with particular clients.  ACF should encourage 
State agencies to engage in more interaction at all levels, and provide the means, such as 
dedicated telephone lines, by which staff can routinely communicate with their 
counterparts. 
ACF did not provide comments in response to our draft report and recommendations. 
14
 E N D N O T E S  
1.	 See our companion report, Client Cooperation With Child Support Enforcement: Use of 
Good Cause Exceptions, OEI-06-98-00043, 2000. 
2.  Social Security Act, Title IV, Part A., Sec. 408 (2). 
3.  Social Security Act, Title IV, Part A., Sec. 409 (5). 
4.	 For information regarding gaining client cooperation with child support enforcement from 
individuals receiving Medicaid, but not TANF, see our report, Client Cooperation with 
Child Support Enforcement:  Medicaid-Only Clients, OEI-06-98-00045, 2000. 
5.  Ibid, OEI 06-98-00043, 2000. 
6.	 For more information on interviews conducted by child support staff, see our companion 
report, Client Cooperation With Child Support Enforcement: Policies and Practices, OEI 
06-98-00040, 2000. 
7.	 See our companion report, Client Cooperation With Child Support Enforcement: 
Challenges and Strategies to Improvement, OEI 06-98-00041, 2000. 
8.  Ibid, OEI 06-98-00041, 2000. 
15