Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
CLIENT COOPERATION WITH 
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 
Challenges and Strategies to Improvement 
JUNE GIBBS BROWN 
Inspector General 
MARCH 2000 
OEI-06-98-00041  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 challenges States face in gaining cooperation with child support enforcement from 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) clients and strategies States use to improve 
cooperation. 
BACKGROUND 
Federal law requires TANF recipients to cooperate with State child support enforcement agencies 
in establishing paternity and in creating and enforcing child support and medical support orders. 
Child support staff use the information provided by clients to locate a noncustodial parent or 
putative father, establish paternity, create a child support order, and/or enforce a prior obligation. 
These tasks are easier to accomplish when clients cooperate.  While most TANF clients do 
cooperate, some may face barriers or disincentives to cooperating.  State child support and public 
assistance agencies attempt to overcome these challenges through client education and procedural 
improvements, and by imposing penalties on clients who do not cooperate.  This report describes 
challenges to improving TANF client cooperation with child support enforcement identified by 
child support and public assistance staff in six focus States which we chose in order to examine a 
variety of implementation experiences regarding client cooperation.  It also examines strategies 
these States employ to improve cooperation when clients are reluctant, or fail to cooperate.  We 
gathered survey information and reviewed documents from 99 local child support and 103 local 
public assistance offices, and interviewed approximately 180 managers and caseworkers. 
FINDINGS 
Some TANF Clients Face Barriers That Prevent Them from Providing Sufficient 
Information, or Otherwise Cooperating, and Some May Also Have Disincentives to 
Cooperating 
The majority of TANF recipients and applicants appear to cooperate with child support 
enforcement.  However, lack of knowledge about noncustodial parents, lack of understanding of 
cooperation requirements, and limited interview time may hinder some clients from providing 
information about noncustodial parents.  Other logistical barriers, such as lack of transportation, 
may hinder clients as they attempt to meet with child support staff.  Many respondents report that 
TANF clients may also have strong personal and financial incentives not to cooperate with child 
support enforcement. 
i  State Agencies Employ A Variety of Strategies for Surmounting Challenges to 
Client Cooperation, Focusing on Improving Services and Imposing Penalties 
Local offices encourage cooperation by enhancing staff interview skills to improve clients 
understanding of the benefits of child support and to elicit more complete and accurate 
information about noncustodial parents.  Staff also encourage cooperation by educating clients 
about the potential benefits of paternity establishment and pursuing child support.  Some offices 
ease cooperation by completing multiple tasks during appointments at child support offices and by 
assisting clients in gathering information about noncustodial parents.  Staff in other offices avoid 
no-shows by reducing the need for clients to make separate appointments at the child support 
enforcement office. 
When Encouragement Fails, States May Threaten or Actually Impose Penalties to 
Motivate TANF Clients to Cooperate With Child Support Enforcement 
Many respondents believe the threat of penalties influences TANF clients to cooperate, while a 
few believe threats exert only a limited influence on clients.  Nearly all public assistance 
respondents report most TANF clients who are penalized eventually cooperate, regardless of the 
type of penalty imposed. 
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. 
Reassess Policies Requiring Redundant Client Visits to Child Support Offices 
When Sufficient Information About Noncustodial Parents Has Already Been 
Gathered 
Evaluate Current Policies That May Create Disincentives for Client Cooperation 
Train Front Line Staff in Skills Designed to Encourage Client Cooperation 
Use Innovative Strategies to Make it Easier for TANF Clients to Cooperate With 
Child Support Enforcement 
Evaluate the Advantages and Disadvantages of Delaying Cash Assistance Until 
Child Support Staff Determine an Applicant Has Initially Cooperated 
ii  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: The Role of Public Assistance Agencies 
(OEI-06-98-00042),  discusses  responsibilities  of  public  assistance  agencies  and 
collaboration between agencies.  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

Challenges to Client Cooperation  4

Strategies to Improve Client Cooperation  7

Imposing Penalties for Noncooperation  13

RECOMMENDATIONS  16

ENDNOTES  18
 I N T R O D U C T I O N  
PURPOSE 
To describe challenges States face in gaining cooperation with child support enforcement 
from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) clients and strategies States use 
to improve cooperation. 
BACKGROUND 
Federal law has long required public assistance clients to cooperate with State child 
support enforcement authorities in establishing paternity and creating and enforcing child 
support and medical support orders.  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 
Client cooperation is a critical first step of child support enforcement.  States require 
TANF clients to provide information about noncustodial parents or putative fathers, keep 
various appointments, and submit to genetic testing.  Child support staff use the 
information provided by clients to locate a noncustodial parent or putative father, establish 
paternity, create a child support order, and/or enforce a prior obligation.  When clients 
cooperate, these tasks are easier to accomplish.  Clients, however, may face barriers or 
disincentives which keep them from cooperating.  State child support and public assistance 
agencies may attempt to overcome these challenges through various strategies, including 
client education, procedural improvements, and by imposing penalties on clients who do 
not cooperate.  This report describes challenges to TANF client cooperation with child 
1
 support enforcement as identified by child support and public assistance staff in six focus 
States.  It also examines strategies these States employ to gain the cooperation of clients 
who are reluctant, or fail to cooperate. 
METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE 
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 
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 
2
 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: The Role of Public Assistance Agencies 
(OEI-06-98-00042),  discusses  responsibilities  of  public  assistance  agencies  and 
collaboration between agencies.  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  
Child support staff in focus States report that most TANF clients provide enough useful 
information to pursue child support.5  Furthermore, staff of both agencies believe it is 
fairly easy for clients to meet their States cooperation requirements.6  However, our 
research also indicates that clients may face barriers that prevent them from providing 
sufficient information, or otherwise cooperating, and that they may also have incentives 
not to cooperate.  To address these challenges, child support and public assistance 
agencies attempt to surmount barriers and encourage cooperation by improving 
procedures and by educating clients regarding the benefits of paternity establishment and 
child support, as well as the consequences of noncooperation.  When encouragement fails, 
States impose penalties, which appear to motivate many TANF clients to cooperate. 
CHALLENGES TO CLIENT COOPERATION 
Barriers, Such as Lack of Knowledge, May Hinder TANF Clients from 
Providing Information about Noncustodial Parents 
As shown in Table 1, child support and public assistance staff in focus States agree some 
clients cannot provide information about noncustodial parents because they lack the 
knowledge.  Clients may either know little about a noncustodial parent or be unsure of the 
identity of the father of a child.  Staff report that lack of knowledge is more frequent in 
cases with older children, because clients may not have seen or heard from the 
noncustodial parent in years.  When mothers are unsure who the father of a child is, 
genetic testing can typically identify the father if the mother provides enough information 
to allow him to be tested.7 
Table 1: Barriers to Provision of Complete, Accurate Information about Noncustodial Parents 
Barrier  Child Support  Public Assistance 
Respondents  Respondents 
Client knows little about noncustodial parent  78 % (76 offices)  82 % (84 offices) 
Client does not know the identity of the father  68 % (66)  64 % (65) 
Client does not understand requirements  35 % (34)  23 % (23) 
Paperwork too difficult  18 % (17)  14 % (14) 
Too little time with caseworker to build trust  13 % (13)  45 % (46) 
Lack of staff training  11 % (11)  14 % (14) 
Interview too brief to gather information  11 % (11)  24 % (24) 
4
 Even when clients have useful information, they may fail to provide it completely and 
accurately because they do not understand they are required to, and because they find the 
paperwork too difficult.  Also, client interviews are often brief, and staff may not be 
adequately trained to encourage clients to provide maximum information.  Almost half of 
public assistance offices (45 percent) report that TANF client interviews are too short to 
allow caseworkers the chance to gain client confidence, yet few child support offices (13 
percent) see this as a barrier.  Local public assistance staff explain that gaining client 
confidence is critical to their agencys long-term goals of helping clients find employment 
and achieve independence, as well as short-term objectives such as gathering information 
about noncustodial parents.  They complain, however, that seeking personal information 
involving a clients relationship with a noncustodial parent, particularly during initial 
interviews, often strains their efforts to gain the clients confidence. 
Some TANF Clients May Routinely Be Required to Meet With Child Support Staff 
in Addition to Their Public Assistance Interview, Posing Logistical Barriers for 
Clients, Such as Lack of Transportation and Inconvenient Appointment Times 
The child support agency in one focus State requires that all newly approved TANF 
recipients attend personal interviews with child support staff.  Some local child support 
staff in other States also report routinely requiring interviews with all TANF clients. 
Workers suggest problems with this practice of mandatory interviews.  They complain that 
many of these interviews never need to occur, often because clients have provided 
sufficient information during their interview with public assistance staff.  When scheduled 
unnecessarily, these interviews tend to frustrate both the client and worker, and may make 
the client less likely to appear for appointments in the future.  Therefore, staff report the 
no-show rate for these interviews is very high, often because the client knows they have 
already provided all available information.  Overall, 53 percent of local child support 
respondents report most or all public assistance clients personally interview with a child 
support worker at some time during the enforcement process, 21 percent report about half 
of clients have such an interview, and 26 percent report fewer than half of TANF clients 
interview with child support staff. 
Some clients have difficulty keeping appointments with child support and public assistance 
staff for logistical reasons.  Transportation to agency offices is often a problem for clients 
with limited resources, especially in some rural areas where single offices service multiple 
counties.  One worker in a rural office describes, The clients who live farther out don't 
have transportation.  It's up to 40 or 50 miles.  A very legitimate problem.  Staff in 
several offices report that public transportation, even bus lines, are not available as a 
practical means of traveling to their offices. 
The scheduling of appointments may also present problems.  Public assistance workers 
report that clients complain of receiving notices from child support offices for 
appointments scheduled during regular business hours when the client works.  Staff add 
that clients say it is often impossible to get through to child support staff on the telephone 
5
 to reschedule, and few offices are open after-hours to accommodate employed clients who 
cannot take time off work.  Some clients also suggest to staff that they have to arrange 
child care during these scheduled appointments, but all the offices we visited seemed to 
expect children to regularly accompany adults.  Several child support offices we visited 
had play areas, toys, and books available for children while their parents met with staff. 
Many Agency Staff Report That Some TANF Clients Have Strong Personal 
Incentives Not to Cooperate with Child Support Enforcement 
As shown in Table 2, staff believe that many clients avoid cooperating with child support 
simply because they do not want the noncustodial parent to be involved with their 
children.  Staff explain that perhaps a client has developed a relationship with another 
person, and believes that child support enforcement may strain that relationship.  One 
worker describes the length to which some clients will go to keep noncustodial parents out 
of their lives,  I had a lady name three wrong guys.  She knew that they were not the 
father.  She did cooperate, by giving names, but not the right one.  She wasn't gaming 
the system.  She didn't want it to be him.  She named men that she might like to be the 
father first.  We explained how genetic testing works, but she still tried. 
Table 2: Staff Perception of Reasons for TANF Client Noncooperation 
Child Support  Public Assistance 
Reason  Respondents  Respondents 
Client does not want noncustodial parent in childs life  95 % (92 offices)  91 % (93 offices) 
Client wants to protect noncustodial parent from obligation  94 % (91)  92 % (94) 
Client fears loss of informal support  88 % (85)  88 % (90) 
Client does not want to establish paternity  67 % (65)  37 % (38) 
Client sees no benefit to cooperation  64 % (62)  39 % (40) 
Client fears violence from noncustodial parent  63 % (61)  73 % (74) 
Staff also explain that some mothers fear if paternity is established the father may seek 
custody of the child or try to change visitation arrangements, especially if he is paying 
child support.  Clients may fear the noncustodial parent becoming involved in the childs 
life if the noncustodial parent is a substance abuser, is involved in criminal activity, or 
imprisoned.  Some clients fear violence from the noncustodial parent, either directed at the 
child or themselves.  In a companion report, we note that, while TANF clients may be 
exempted from cooperation requirements for good cause based on fear of physical harm 
from noncustodial parents, local offices in our focus States report granting very few good 
cause exceptions.8 
6
 Many Agency Staff Report That Some TANF Clients Have Strong Financial 
Incentives Not to Cooperate with Child Support Enforcement 
Staff explain that many noncustodial parents provide informal financial support to their 
children, or in-kind support such as child care services, and may spend at least some time 
living in the clients home or visiting their children.  If noncustodial parents are required to 
pay child support through the formal system, the family may actually be worse off because 
the noncustodial parent may cease informal or in-kind support.  Additionally, clients know 
that many States will retain most or all formal child support as reimbursement for public 
assistance, rather than allowing the support to go to the family.  Federal law allows States 
to pass-through to the family a portion or all child support collected, and disregard this 
amount when calculating the size of cash assistance grants.  At least two States currently 
use this flexibility to forward all child support collections to public assistance families, yet 
most States pass-through only 50 - 100 dollars of monthly child support collections or 
have eliminated all pass-through provisions.  All six focus States we studied pass-through 
and disregard 50 dollars of any current child support collected.  Staff believe that, for 
clients who receive even modest informal support from noncustodial parents, meager pass-
through provisions provide strong financial disincentives to cooperate.  Clients may also 
have little confidence that States will collect support, especially from low-income or 
unemployed noncustodial parents.  Even if no child support is collected, as staff report is 
often the case, the noncustodial parent may withhold informal or in-kind support if the 
client cooperates with authorities. 
One caseworker describes what we heard repeatedly, I think the reason [TANF clients] 
don't want to cooperate is that those who do cooperate see no benefits coming from the 
[child support] office.  It doesn't matter to the parent if [CSE] collects or not.  The client 
will not get any money or support.  [They] may be living with him, or getting support on 
the side.  They don't want to cooperate, because it will only hurt their family.  They don't 
want to have the State collect their children's support, because it will hurt their children. 
They will go from getting support to not getting support.  There is a $50 disregard, but 
that is a cut for someone who's been getting any real support, and not enough to matter 
to the rest.  Plus, only about 10 percent of my clients have any support being collected -
maybe less. [There is] no incentive. 
STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE CLIENT COOPERATION 
To surmount barriers and reduce disincentives to client cooperation, States employ 
various strategies, including improving staff skills to gain better cooperation, educating 
clients on the benefits of cooperation, improving procedures to ease cooperation, and 
imposing penalties to deter noncooperation. 
7
 Local Offices Encourage Cooperation by Enhancing Staff Interview Skills for 
Eliciting More Complete and Accurate Information and Improving Client 
Understanding of Benefits of Cooperating 
Respondents from both agencies report making significant efforts to improve the 
interviewing skills of front line workers.  Staff explain they have two basic goals to 
accomplish during interviews:  to establish a positive relationship with clients; and to 
obtain as much information about noncustodial parents as possible.  Workers report that 
interviewers can have a big impact on client attitude, a critical element in gaining 
cooperation.  Staff appear to attempt to strike a balance in communicating with clients, 
encouraging strict compliance while remaining pleasant and respectful.  Two workers 
explain how they handle interviews, The manner in which the parents are treated will 
often affect the amount of cooperation.  The interviewer should be professional, 
courteous and firm with the client.  And, We try to make clients feel comfortable.  We 
try to relate to them one-to-one.  We try to make them feel empowered and a part of the 
system and explain to them why we have to do this.  Sometimes they are scared or angry. 
Sometimes we have to insist, but most of the time we can take a friendly approach. 
After establishing a positive relationship, interviewers turn their attention to the 
information provided by clients.  Staff report that most TANF clients provide all they 
know, yet some apparently withhold information or give false information.  Again, staff 
describe their efforts, [You have to] hone your interviewing skills to elicit information. 
If she has a new pregnancy or baby, act interested.  Say in a friendly way, Were you 
living with the babys father?  How long were you dating?  Did you tell him you 
were pregnant?  This will encourage her to confide in you.  Gently tell the reasons for 
establishing paternity and obtaining support for their child.  To improve the quality of 
information, child support workers attempt to immediately verify information through 
various data sources such as State department of motor vehicle or employment databases. 
Access to these tools helps staff quickly identify false or outdated information and ask 
follow-up questions to uncover additional details. 
Local Staff Encourage Cooperation by Educating TANF Clients about 
Cooperation Requirements and the Potential Benefits of Pursuing Child Support 
Local child support and public assistance staff in focus States agree that educating clients 
regarding cooperation requirements, and on the benefits of cooperating, is one of the most 
effective ways they have to improve client cooperation with child support enforcement. 
Caseworkers are likely to address cooperation requirements during individual interviews, 
but report that clients may not always fully understand what is expected.9  Staff also report 
this lack of understanding can create a barrier to client cooperation (Table 1). 
Caseworkers discuss the benefits of cooperating either in person during these same 
interviews, or in group orientation sessions.  These group sessions are likely to be offered 
several times a month, as needed, and may include information on paternity establishment 
and support collections. 
8
 Staff report spending significant time explaining the long-term benefits of child support 
enforcement and discussing other reasons why TANF clients should cooperate. 
Caseworkers often describe child support as a possible source of income the client can 
access after their time-limited cash assistance runs out, or as a supplement to income from 
employment.  When clients suggest the noncustodial parent is unemployed or has few 
resources to pursue, staff explain that those circumstances are likely to change as the 
noncustodial parent ages.  Workers also explain that it is the responsibility of the 
noncustodial parent to support the children and that it is unfair for the client to shoulder 
this burden alone.  If the noncustodial parent has children in another household, 
caseworkers emphasize that those other children may be getting support to the detriment 
of the clients child.  If workers suspect the noncustodial parent is actually providing 
informal support to the family, staff often react as one worker describes, A lot of times 
the guy might be giving them money instead of paying child support, but I try to inform 
them that if they don't go through the courts, then that guy can disappear anytime, and 
without an order we can't do anything to help her.  Finally, in cases in which paternity 
has not been established, staff remind clients that children have the right to know their 
father, to have a relationship with him, to have access to medical history information, and 
to be a possible beneficiary of Social Security or other benefits. 
Local Staff Encourage Cooperation by Reducing the Need for TANF Clients to 
Make Separate Appointments at the Child Support Enforcement Office 
Failure to keep appointments is the most frequent reason clients are considered 
noncooperative with child support enforcement cooperation requirements in many offices. 
Child support workers describe the severity of this problem, No-shows at child support 
are the typical reason for noncooperation with child support.  And, We average only a 
30 percent rate of appearance for first interviews.  To combat this problem, many 
offices avoid ever having clients come to the child support office.  Offices use five 
strategies to accomplish this:  relying on information gathered by public assistance staff; 
co-locating or out-stationing child support staff at public assistance offices; mailing 
documents to clients for completion and return; conducting telephone interviews; and 
conducting video conference interviews. 
Information From Public Assistance Interviews 
During typical application and re-determination interviews, public assistance caseworkers 
ask TANF clients to provide information about noncustodial parents.  While child support 
workers are concerned about the completeness and accuracy of this information, it may 
still be sufficient for child support enforcement.  Information can be sufficient especially 
when critical facts are obtained, such as the noncustodial parents Social Security number, 
drivers license number, current address, or current employer.  Some child support offices 
report they rely heavily on noncustodial parent information collected by public assistance 
workers, while others report that this information is merely a starting point for casework.10 
9
 Information From Co-located Child Support Staff 
All six focus States use co-location or out-stationing of child support staff in at least some 
local public assistance offices.  In one focus State, child support and public assistance 
workers are employees of the same agency and are co-located in every county of the 
State.  In other focus States, child support workers are assigned to work at public 
assistance offices on regular or periodic schedules.  Areas with larger caseloads tend to 
have full-time, out-stationed workers, while rural areas tend to send child support workers 
to public assistance offices less frequently.  One worker describes, Once a month I visit 
each one of my four counties to talk to the people that for whatever reason cannot 
provide the information by mail or phone.  So I go to one county this week, another one 
next week, etc.  I schedule clients so I can handle them all in one day. 
Information Requested by Mail 
Some local child support offices mail clients various documents in advance of, or in lieu 
of, personal interviews at agency offices.  One office we visited primarily uses the mail to 
facilitate interaction with clients.  Staff from this office report they often only need to 
personally interview about 5 percent of clients.  As a caseworker describes, They don't 
come here very much.  We send out the [questionnaire] and they complete it and send it 
back.  Then we often make phone contact to fill in the incomplete information.  The 
[questionnaire] is long and tedious.  It also asks very personal questions and some 
people feel uncomfortable putting some of that on paper. 
Table 3 lists the items child support offices most frequently mail to TANF clients.  In 
addition to allowing some clients to avoid coming to the child support office, staff report 
that clients who receive program information and checklists in advance are better prepared 
to cooperate if they eventually have a personal interview because they know what will be 
expected of them. 
Table 3:  Items Which Child Support Offices Mail to TANF Clients 
Item  Percent of Respondents* 
Questionnaire about Noncustodial Parents  60 % (52 offices) 
Checklist of Noncustodial Parents Information Needed  60 % (52) 
Information about the Consequences of Failure to Cooperate  56 % (49) 
Information about Cooperation Requirements  46 % (40) 
Child Support Application  34 % (30) 
Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgment Form  21 % (18) 
* Percent of child support respondents who report mailing documents to TANF clients from among the 87 
offices that report mailing any documents to clients. 
10
 As mentioned above, staff report one serious concern regarding mailing documents to 
clients for completion and return.  Clients often have difficulty accurately completing 
detailed documents and may be reluctant to write down confidential information.  As 
explained by one worker, Our biggest problem or our biggest barrier is getting a form 
completed.  Its a confidential information gathering letter that our attorneys have grown 
terribly attached to.  They will not proceed without that form completed, signed and 
dated, with no discrepancies in it.  If we cannot accomplish that by mail, then we have to 
sit down and have a staff member take [the client] through it. 
Information from Telephone Interviews 
Many local child support offices interview clients by telephone, whether as the primary 
information collection method or as follow-up to previous contact.  One State has a policy 
which requires child support workers to be available in person or by telephone to 
interview all new applicants for public assistance.  Staff report that telephone interviews 
speed the enforcement process because it may be faster to contact parents by telephone 
than to arrange and wait for an in-person appointment. 
While telephone interviewing can be an effective information gathering tool, staff report 
the method has three significant weaknesses.  First, some clients do not have telephone 
service or may be difficult to reach by phone.  Second, it may be difficult for some clients 
to reach caseworkers when returning calls due to inadequate agency phone systems.  Staff 
report callers to child support offices may experience frequent busy signals and long waits 
on hold.  Finally, caseworkers explain they like to see the clients face during interviews to 
help establish good rapport and to get signals about when to ask additional questions on 
particular topics.  Telephone interviewing obviously deprives caseworkers of these visual 
tools.  To address one of these weaknesses, staff in several child support offices describe 
efforts to improve their procedures for handling phone calls, and customer service 
generally,  We have a public service staff in our call center who pull up records to 
obtain the status of cases.  We were one of the first counties to get this capability, but 
many other counties are beginning this practice.  Phone calls were inundating staff, and 
they were not able to get work done.  The operators are highly trained, and can answer 
most questions over the phone, almost like case managers.  They can make referrals, and 
know local resources.  The support officers will take the most complex calls, but usually 
the phone staff handle things. 
Information from Video Conference Interviews 
One of the 24 local child support offices we visited is utilizing video conference 
technology to facilitate client interviews with child support workers.  This office has 
clients spread over twelve mostly rural counties, each of which has a local public 
assistance office.  Through video conferencing, clients who are already at the public 
assistance office for application or re-determination interviews may speak directly with 
child support workers seeking information about noncustodial parents.  Although the 
11
 technology had only been used for two months at the time of our visit, staff report 
favorable first impressions and a few significant benefits.  First, clients were spared from a 
trip to the child support office.  Second, child support staff felt they obtained better 
information than they might have on the telephone.  Caseworkers attribute these better 
results to clients feeling more comfortable because they can see the interviewer and 
because the clients public assistance worker, with whom many clients develop a close 
relationship, is also present for the video conference call.  Additionally, interviewers can 
see clients, making it easier to pick up body language and other signals and ask more 
pointed and timely follow-up questions. 
Local Staff Encourage Cooperation by Completing Multiple Tasks During 
Appointments at Child Support Offices and Assisting TANF Clients in Gathering 
Information about Noncustodial Parents 
When clients do attend appointments at local child support offices, staff attempt to 
accomplish as much as possible, depending on the needs of the case.  In addition to 
eliciting information about noncustodial parents, many offices also help clients voluntarily 
acknowledge paternity and may arrange for meetings between parents.  For example, 
some local child support offices hold special paternity or support days in which staff 
meet with clients and putative fathers or noncustodial parents to seek agreement on terms 
for child support.  Additionally, many local offices are equipped to collect genetic samples 
from clients, children, and putative fathers.  Staff suggest that collecting genetic samples 
from clients who already have appointments at child support offices eases cooperation, 
because it avoids requiring clients to make a second trip to submit samples. 
One of Our Studys Focus States Encourages Cooperation by Delaying TANF 
Benefits Until Child Support Staff Deems an Applicant Cooperative 
Federal welfare reform legislation places the responsibility for determining whether a 
TANF client is cooperating with the child support enforcement agency.  In many local 
areas of most focus States, child support staff do not have an opportunity to make this 
determination until after a new client is already receiving benefits, because the case is not 
referred to the child support agency until after the applicant is approved for assistance.  In 
one focus State, however, individuals may not proceed with their application for cash 
assistance until they interview with child support staff and are determined to have initially 
cooperated.  In this State, child support and public assistance workers are employees of 
the same agency and are co-located in every county of the State.  TANF applicants who 
provide information about noncustodial parents and agree to cooperate in the future are 
given a certificate of cooperation to present to public assistance staff to demonstrate their 
cooperation with child support enforcement.  One benefit of this pre-approval process is 
that child support staff may obtain and verify information sooner, and immediately begin 
working the case.  Child support workers indicate that at the time of application clients 
often have the best information they will ever have about noncustodial parents. 
12
 Additionally, some workers suggest they have more leverage to gain cooperation when 
clients are still in need of benefits, than when clients are already receiving cash assistance. 
One worker notes, At the initial interview, they are wanting help so they are more likely 
to give information. At that time, [cooperating is] just one more thing and they wouldn't 
think about it. 
However, some child support staff argue that if pre-approval cooperation determinations 
require child support staff to interview all TANF applicants, this will unnecessarily waste 
staff time because some applicants will be denied assistance, and may never enter the child 
support caseload.  They argue that the agency receives little gain from any time child 
support staff spend interviewing applicants who are subsequently denied benefits. 
Additionally, they argue that since public assistance workers do gain sufficient information 
in some cases, the best policy is to require an interview with child support workers only 
after an applicant is approved for benefits, and then only if additional information is 
required to pursue support.  On the other hand, proponents of pre-approval by child 
support staff argue that if an applicant needs child support services, an initial child support 
interview is a proper agency function, regardless of whether the family is eventually 
approved for TANF. 
IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR NONCOOPERATION 
In lieu of, or in addition to, the strategies discussed above, States also encourage 
cooperation by penalizing TANF clients who fail to cooperate.  Cash penalties for 
noncooperation with child support enforcement in our six focus States range from the 
Federally-mandated 25 percent reduction in the familys cash assistance, to a full-family 
penalty which eliminates all cash assistance to the family of a TANF client who fails to 
cooperate.11  Staff indicate that the ultimate effectiveness of penalties as a strategy to 
improve cooperation appears to rely upon three factors:  whether clients believe that 
penalties will be imposed; whether penalties are actually imposed; and the size of penalties 
relative to the total public assistance a client receives. 
Many Agency Staff Believe the Threat of Penalties Influences TANF Clients to 
Cooperate, While a Few Believe Threats Exert Only a Limited Influence 
As shown in Table 4, 54 percent of public assistance and 42 percent of child support staff 
feel that the threat of penalties for noncooperation strongly influences TANF clients to 
cooperate with child support enforcement.  Only 9 percent of public assistance and 21 
percent of child support respondents believe the threat of penalties has weak or no 
influence on client cooperation.  These perceptions are consistent with the evidence that 
most TANF clients and applicants cooperate as required, without having penalties actually 
imposed. 
13
 Table 4: Staff Perception of How Threat of Penalties Influences TANF Client Cooperation 
Child Support  Public Assistance 
Level of Influence  Respondents  Respondents 
Very Strong Influence  15 %  (15 offices)  17 %  (17 offices) 
Strong Influence  27 %  (27)  37 %  (38) 
Moderate Influence  37 %  (37)  37 %  (37) 
Weak Influence  19 %  (19)  9 %  (9) 
No Influence  2 %  (2)  0 %  (0) 
Our research suggests two possible explanations for why the threat of penalties may have 
limited influence on some clients.  First, it appears possible that the threat of penalties has 
less influence on TANF clients who receive lower benefits than those receiving higher 
benefits.  Eighty percent of the 30 respondents expressing a belief that the threat of 
penalties has only weak or no influence on client cooperation work at local offices in the 
three focus States having the lowest cash benefit levels.  Second, respondents suggest that 
some clients doubt that threatened penalties will actually be imposed and, therefore, may 
not respond to threats. 
Nearly all Public Assistance Staff Report Most TANF Clients Who Are Penalized 
Eventually Cooperate, Regardless of the Type of Penalty 
As shown in Table 5, 90 percent of local public assistance offices report that TANF clients 
who have been penalized for noncooperation with child support enforcement eventually 
cooperate most of the time or frequently.  The remaining 10 percent of respondents report 
that clients only sometimes or rarely cooperate after being penalized.  As one worker 
states, They will usually have excuses for missed appointments.  Once they are actually 
sanctioned, cooperation follows. 
We examined local office responses regarding whether penalized clients eventually 
cooperate by State characteristics, to examine if stiffer (full-family) penalties are seen as 
having greater influence on clients than lesser (partial) penalties.  Our small, purposive 
sample did not yield data to definitively determine which type of penalties have the most 
impact on clients.  Nevertheless, we can offer several observations based on staff 
responses. 
First, staff of both agencies report that TANF clients are most likely to act in response to 
the first cash penalty, whether that involves a full or partial reduction in benefits.  Staff 
suggest that States which impose stiffer penalties after some period of time are unlikely to 
influence clients to cooperate much beyond the effect of the initial penalty.  One worker 
explains, It depends on the client.  We only hear from a percentage of the women we 
sanction.  The others are not going to cooperate with us no matter what.  They will take 
14
 the grant money as long as possible, and not get assistance once we cut them off. 
Closing the case does not do the trick.  She will cooperate when we first reduce the check, 
or else she is not going to cooperate at all. 
Table 5: Local Public Assistance Staff Perceptions of Client Cooperation After Being Penalized 
States  Frequency of TANF Client Cooperation 
by type of penalties 
and cash benefits levels  Most of the Time  Sometimes 
or Frequently  or Rarely 
All Focus States  90 % (87 offices)  10 %  (10 offices) 
States with Immediate 
Full-family Penalties  85 % (29)  15 %  (5) 
States with Initial 
Partial Penalties  92 % (58)  8 %  (5) 
States with High Benefits  97 % (35)  3 %  (1) 
States with Low Benefits  76 % (13)  24 %  (4) 
Second, as shown in Table 5, a higher percentage of respondents from focus States which 
initially impose only partial cash penalties (92 percent) report that most TANF clients 
eventually cooperate, compared to respondents from focus States with full-family 
penalties (85 percent).  Surprisingly, based on public assistance staff responses, partial 
penalties appear to have at least as much influence on client cooperation as full-family 
penalties. 
Third, among focus States which initially impose partial penalties, staff from States with 
relatively high cash benefits perceive penalties as having greater influence (97 percent) 
than do staff from low cash benefits States (76 percent).  One apparent explanation is that 
TANF clients in States with low cash benefits tend to receive higher food stamp benefits, 
and therefore, may not miss the small cash reduction caused by a partial penalty. 
Finally, staff suggest that access to public assistance other than cash benefits may affect 
how much influence penalties have on client cooperation.  One worker explains, Some 
clients have their needs removed and just go on with TANF at a lower benefit.  All we can 
do is cut $75 - $80 off their grant.  They still get their housing, their WIC, their 
Medicaid, and food stamps.  So the sanction is not effective to get them to cooperate. 
15
 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: 
Reassess Policies Requiring Redundant Client Visits to Child Support Offices 
When Sufficient Information about Noncustodial Parents Has Already Been 
Gathered 
Most States we studied attempt to avoid having TANF clients visit child support offices 
unless absolutely necessary.  However, one of our focus States computer system 
automatically schedules all new TANF clients for appointments at their local child support 
office.  State policies which require all clients to appear at child support offices, even 
when the client has previously provided sufficient information for child support 
enforcement, are counterproductive because they frustrate both staff and clients, and may 
delay enforcement.  As ACF and States work to improve the quality of information 
gathered during initial interviews at public assistance offices, they should discourage 
policies which require redundant efforts. 
Evaluate Policies That May Create Disincentives for Client Cooperation 
Staff suggest that cooperation with child support enforcement may actually make some 
TANF families worse off financially because noncustodial parents may stop providing 
informal or in-kind support to clients who provide information to the State.  Additionally, 
many clients appear to have little faith that collections will occur, and know that many 
States retain most or all child support collected on behalf of families receiving TANF cash 
assistance.  Considering that welfare reform empowered States with broad flexibility to 
implement policies to assist needy families, ACF should encourage States to evaluate 
whether their current pass-through policies and treatment of in-kind support are counter-
productive to long-term goals of helping clients attain independence and self-sufficiency. 
Train Front Line Staff in Skills Designed to Encourage Client Cooperation 
Some TANF clients do not fully understand cooperation requirements or the benefits of 
cooperating with paternity establishment efforts and child support enforcement.  Staff 
suggest that educating clients improves their cooperation.  ACF should assist State 
agencies in providing local office staff training needed to insure they educate clients on 
what is required and how they might benefit. 
16
 Use Innovative Strategies to Make it Easier for TANF Clients to Cooperate With 
Child Support Enforcement 
Some States have changed their procedures to make it easier for clients to cooperate.  For 
instance, some areas avoid having clients come to local child support offices through 
methods such as mailing requests for information to clients, video conferencing, and out-
stationing child support staff at public assistance offices.  When appointments at child 
support offices do occur, local offices may attempt to complete multiple tasks, including 
signing voluntary paternity acknowledgment forms and collecting genetic testing samples. 
ACF should encourage appropriate State use of these and other strategies for enhancing 
client cooperation. 
Evaluate the Advantages and Disadvantages of Delaying Cash Assistance Until 
Child Support Staff Determine an Applicant Has Initially Cooperated 
While States must require client cooperation with child support enforcement as a criterion 
for participation in the TANF program, one focus State will not approve new applicants 
for benefits until the child support agency certifies that the client has at least initially 
cooperated.  Staff suggest that such a policy improves client cooperation because 
individuals are often more willing and able to provide useful information about 
noncustodial parents at the early stages of the application process.  ACF should encourage 
States to evaluate whether adoption of such a policy could improve cooperation in States 
that do not currently require such pre-approval determinations by child support staff.  Of 
course, States should continue to assure that emergency assistance is readily available for 
applicants in dire need. 
ACF did not provide comments in response to our draft report and recommendations. 
17
 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.	 Fifty-five percent of child support offices report that custodial parents provide enough 
information about noncustodial parents to successfully pursue child support enforcement 
often or very often.  Another 35 percent report that clients provide this level of 
information about half the time, and only 10 percent indicate clients do so less than half 
the time. 
6.	 Eighty-nine percent of child support and 90 percent of public assistance respondents 
report that it is at least somewhat easy for clients to meet cooperation requirements. 
About three-quarters of these respondents from each agency said cooperating was easy or 
very easy for clients. 
7. 	 See our report, Paternity Establishment: States Use of Genetic Testing, OEI 06-98-00054, 
September, 1999. 
8.  Ibid., OEI 06-98-00043, 2000. 
9.	 For further information regarding client understanding of cooperation requirements, see 
our companion report, Client Cooperation With Child Support Enforcement: Policies and 
Practices, OEI 06-98-00040, 2000. 
10.	 See our companion reports, ibid, OEI 06-98-00040, and Client Cooperation With Child 
Support Enforcement: The Role of Public Assistance Agencies, OEI 06-98-00042, 2000. 
11.  Ibid., OEI 06-98-00040, 2000. 
18