Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
The Establishment of 
Child Support Orders for 
Low Income 
Non-custodial Parents 
JUNE GIBBS BROWN 
Inspector General 
JULY 2000 
OEI-05-99-00390  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 Chicago regional office prepared this report under the direction of William Moran, Regional 
Inspector General and Natalie Coen, Deputy Inspector General.  Principal OEI staff included: 
REGION  HEADQUARTERS 
Victoria Dougherty, Project Leader
 Linda Hall, Program Specialist

Ann Maxwell, Analyst
 Joan Richardson, Program Specialist

Marco Villagrana, Analyst

Madeline Carpinelli, Analyst

James Athos, Intern

Robert Gibbons, San Francisco Regional Office

Blaine Collins, Dallas Regional Office

Chaletta Clark, Boston Regional Office

Christi Macrina, New York Regional Office

Erika Q. Lang, Philadelphia Regional Office

To obtain copies of this report, please call the Chicago Regional Office at 312-353-9867. 
Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address: 
http://www.hhs.gov/oig/oei  E X E C U T I V E   S U M M A R Y  
PURPOSE 
To examine the policies and practices used to determine the amount of child support to be 
paid by low-income non-custodial parents and the relationship of these practices to the 
dollars collected on low-income cases. 
OVERVIEW 
This inspection focuses on the relationship between the payment of child support and 
order establishment practices for a subset of the non-custodial parent population   low-
income non-custodial parents.  This subset constitutes about one-third of the total non-
custodial parent population.1  The goal of this inspection is to understand current methods 
of setting support for these non-custodial parents and to determine possible alternative 
methods to improve their payment rates. 
Sources of Non-Payment of Child Support 
The non-custodial parent population can be divided into three income tiers: high, middle, 
and low.  In each of these tiers, there are non-custodial parents who do not pay their child 
support.  The percentage of obligors who do not pay child support is greatest in the low-
income tier.  In this tier, obligors have family income below the poverty threshold for their 
family size or personal income below the poverty threshold for a single individual.2 
Some low-income obligors are delinquent in support payments because they are unwilling 
to pay support.  However, one study estimates that 60 percent of non-custodial parents 
who do not pay child support, have a limited ability to pay support based on their income 
levels, education levels, high rates of institutionalization, and intermittent employment 
history.3  These non-custodial parents have come to be known in the child support 
community as dead-broke rather than dead-beat. 
While the increased use of enforcement mechanisms may positively affect the payment 
compliance of higher income obligors, tools such as asset seizure, passport denial and the 
criminal pursuit of non-support are not likely to generate payments from obligors who do 
not have the income to pay the support they owe, even if they are willing to pay. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
1  Promoting Payment of Child Support 
In order to increase the payment of child support by low-income obligors, representatives 
of the child support community have begun to explore other avenues in addition to 
punitive enforcement.  Congressional support for the proposed Fathers Count Act, the 
Departments Fatherhood Initiative and the IV-D Communitys fatherhood activities 
demonstrate a growing effort to address payment inability in order to increase collections. 
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996 
(PRWORA) presented a package of temporary aid and opportunities to welfare mothers in 
return for the expectation that they would get a job and become self-sufficient.  Child 
support payments are seen as a vital ingredient to this self sufficiency.  In order to increase 
child support payments to former welfare families, the limited earnings capacity of the 
fathers of these families need to be addressed.  Just as welfare mothers are expected to 
improve their personal responsibility in exchange for work opportunities, so should low-
income fathers.  Congress expanded Welfare-to-Work funding with this intention. 
In recognition of the need to increase collections in low-income cases, we examined the 
methods used to determine the financial obligations owed by non-custodial parents and 
their relationship to payment collections in low-income cases.  We conducted our 
inspection through case record reviews of 402 cases, representing 281 non-custodial 
parents, and through in-depth interviews in a 10 State sample. 
This report looks in depth at the practices used to determine financial obligations in 10 
States and the payment compliance associated with these practices.  Our companion 
report, State Policies Used to Establish Child Support Orders for Low-income 
Non-custodial Parents, provides information on all States policies in this area. 
FINDINGS 
Methods Used to Determine Financial Obligations for Low-income Obligors 
Often Yield Poor Results 
States use tools such as retroactive support and income imputation to encourage non-
custodial parents to cooperate with child support and to enforce accountability.  It is 
understandable that States do not want to reward a non-custodial parent for delaying the 
award or for not earning income to pay support.  However, it appears that these incentives 
to cooperate are not effective means of getting non-custodial parents to pay support. 
	 RETROACTIVE SUPPORT:  Most sampled States routinely charge non-
custodial parents for retroactive support.  The longer the period of retroactivity, 
the less likely it is that the parent will pay any support. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
2  When non-custodial parents were not charged any retroactive support, 14 percent 
made no payments during the first 32 months of the child support obligation. 
When non-custodial parents were charged between 1 and 12 months of retroactive 
support, the percent which made no payments rose to 23 percent.  The percentage 
of non-payers rose to 34 percent when the non-custodial parents were charged for 
more than 12 months of retroactive support. 
	 INCOME IMPUTATION: Most sampled States impute income when the non-
custodial parent is unemployed or income is unknown.  Income imputation appears 
ineffective in generating payments. 
Where imputed income was used to calculate the amount of the child support 
obligation owed in cases established in 1996, almost half of the cases generated no 
payments toward the financial obligation over a 32 month period.  In contrast, 
where cases were not based on imputed income, only 11 percent of cases received 
no payments during this time period.  While it is possible that the parents for 
whom income was imputed were potentially less likely to pay anyway, imputing 
income does not appear to be an effective method of getting them to pay. 
	 MINIMUM ORDERS: Six of the sampled States routinely establish minimum 
orders when the non-custodial parent has limited payment ability.  Minimum order 
cases exhibit lower payment compliance than other cases. 
In 36 percent of cases established as a minimum order in 1996, the non-custodial 
parents made no payments in the first 32 months of the order.  In contrast, 20 
percent of cases established as non minimum orders (i.e. all others) received no 
payments over this time.  This non-payment could be a reflection of limited 
earnings and the fact that minimum awards are not based on actual income. 
	 DEBT OWED TO THE STATE: Most sampled States will not reduce debt 
owed to the State by the non-custodial parent except in rare cases.  Median debt 
on 1996 cases is over $3,000. 
Non-custodial parents can accrue an unlimited amount of debt owed to the State 
which remains on their account indefinitely, regardless of whether the debt is due 
to inability to pay or unwillingness to pay.  Seventy-five percent of cases 
established in 1996 owed over $1,231 in child support debt 32 months after the 
financial order was established. 
	 JOB PROGRAMS: Few sampled child support agencies formally link with job 
programs.  Non-custodial parent participation in such programs is minimal. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
3  Despite increasing attention to the limited earnings capacity of low-income non-
custodial parents and increased funding for job services, most sampled States have 
only informal arrangements for referral to existing job services programs.  These 
programs are largely external to the IV-D agencies with little to no participation by 
non-custodial parents. 
CONCLUSION 
As the facts in this report demonstrate, the policies reviewed do not usually generate child 
support payments by low-income non-custodial parents.  Recognition of this fact presents 
opportunities to improve payment levels by modifying State policies that determine the 
amount that low-income absent parents must pay.  Clearly, some systematic 
experimentation is warranted. 
The experiments should emphasize parental responsibility, while improving the ability of 
low-income non-custodial parents to meet their obligations.  This requires a dual approach 
of setting realistic support obligations and providing employment support with work 
requirements.  The goal of these approaches is to get non-custodial parents to take 
financial responsibility for their child, which is to the benefit of all of the parties involved 
 the custodial parent, the State and, ultimately, the child. 
States are in the best position to conduct such experiments.  However, the Office of Child 
Support Enforcement can do much to encourage, facilitate, and evaluate such State 
experimentation.  We offer suggestions for State research and experimentation 
corresponding to the four areas of analysis contained in this report: retroactive support, 
income imputation, debt owed to the States, and job programs.  We present the following 
suggestions to OCSE: 
	 Facilitate and support State experiments to test the payment effects of using 
various periods of retroactivity in determining the amount of support to be paid. 
	 Facilitate and support State experiments to test negotiating the amount of debt 
owed to the State in exchange for improved payment compliance. 
	 Encourage States to decrease the use of income imputation and to test alternative 
means of identifying income for low-income obligors. 
	 Encourage States to formalize ties to local job services programs and to require 
unemployed non-custodial parents to participate in job programs. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
4  AGENCY COMMENTS 
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 
Evaluation (ASPE) provided formal comments to the draft report.  Both offices concurred with 
the reports findings and suggested approaches.  The text of the ACF and ASPE comments can be 
found in Appendix F. 
In addition to existing initiatives, ACF described numerous actions that they will take to 
implement the suggested approaches with regard to retroactive support charges, compromising 
arrears, income imputation, and job programs. 
The ASPE commented that our findings are consistent with, and complementary to, other 
research on this subject.  The ASPE also indicated that our suggested approaches would 
strengthen existing Administration efforts to improve the payment compliance and involvement of 
low-income non-custodial parents. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
5  T A B L E   O F   C O N T E N T S  
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

INTRODUCTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

FINDINGS

Retroactive Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

Income Imputation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

Minimum Orders  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

Debt Owed to States  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

Job Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

CONCLUSION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22

AGENCY COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29

APPENDICES

A. Confidence Intervals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30

B.  Results of Hypothesis Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31

C.  Case Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34

D.  Related Office of Inspector General Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40

E.  Bibliography  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41

F.  Agency Comments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42

G.  End-Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54

Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
6  I N T R O D U C T I O N  
PURPOSE 
To examine the policies and practices used to determine the amount of child support to be 
paid by low-income non-custodial parents and the relationship of these practices to the 
dollars collected on low-income cases. 
BACKGROUND 
This report examines how a sample of 10 States determine the financial obligations owed 
by non-custodial parents and the relationship between these practices and payment 
compliance.  While this report looks in depth at these practices in 10 States, a companion 
report, State Policies Used to Establish Child Support Orders for Low-income 
Non-custodial Parents (OEI-05-99-00391), provides information on all States policies in 
this area.  A follow-up report will examine the degree to which child support orders are 
aligned with the actual earnings of low-income non-custodial parents and the relationship 
between order alignment and payment compliance. 
Low Payment Rates And Custodial Parent Poverty 
Although child support collections have increased significantly in recent years, overall 
rates of collection remain low.  In fiscal year (FY) 1997, of  the $17.6 billion due in 
current support, $8.1 billion, or 46 percent was not collected.4 
Low child support collections leave many single mothers and their children in poverty.  In 
1995, 85 percent of custodial parents were women, 33 percent of whom lived below the 
Federal poverty line.5  The percentage of custodial parents receiving welfare declined 
significantly in the past few years, dropping from 47 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 
1998.6  This decline in welfare receipt elevates the need for increased child support 
collections to help struggling single parents maintain self-sufficiency. The regular receipt 
of child support is often cited as a critical ingredient to welfare reform success. 
The Earnings of Non-Custodial Parents 
The non-custodial parent population can be divided into three income tiers: high, middle, 
and low.  In each of these tiers, there are non-custodial parents who do not pay their child 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
7  support.  The percentage of obligors who do not pay child support is greatest in the low-
income tier.  In this tier, obligors have family income below the poverty threshold for their 
family size or personal income below the poverty threshold for a single individual.7 
Some low-income obligors are delinquent in support payments because they are unwilling 
to pay support. However, it is estimated that 60 percent of non-custodial parents who do 
not pay child support, have a limited ability to pay support based on their income levels, 
employment history, education levels and rates of institutionalization.8  In one study of 
low-income obligors, 60 percent had no high school diploma or GED and 70 percent had 
been arrested.9  These non-custodial parents are known in the child support community as 
dead-broke rather than dead-beat. 
The Office of Inspector General and the Office of Child Support Enforcement have a joint 
enforcement effort targeted at higher income obligors with the most egregious arrears. 
The focus of this highly successful initiative is the criminal pursuit of non-support. While 
the increased use of enforcement mechanisms may positively affect the payment 
compliance of higher income obligors, tools such as asset seizure, passport denial and the 
criminal pursuit of non-support are not likely to generate payments from obligors who do 
not have the income to pay the support they owe. 
Increasing Attention to the Treatment of Low-income Non-custodial Parents 
In recent years, the research and policy community has devoted more attention to the 
treatment of low-income non-custodial parents in the child support system.  Especially in 
the wake of welfare reform, more attention is being devoted to how to improve the family 
maintenance contributions of low-income fathers to parallel the welfare-to-work initiatives 
for low-income mothers.  Three recent developments demonstrate this trend. 
C	 The Department of Health and Human Services has highlighted its Fatherhood 
Initiative as a priority.  The Fatherhood Initiative strives to promote and support 
the involvement of fathers in their childrens lives.  To this end, a portion of 
welfare-to-work funds in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was designated to help 
low-income fathers secure employment, pay child support and increase their 
involvement with their children. The Department has also provided funds for 
services targeting non-custodial parents through the Fatherhood Initiative and 
related OCSE demonstrations.  Most recently, in March 2000, the Department 
announced $15 million in combined federal and private funding for demonstration 
projects serving non-custodial parents who do not have a child support order in 
place and may face obstacles to employment. 
C  Amendments to the welfare-to-work law in the November 1999 Consolidated 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
8  Appropriations Act broadened the eligibility requirements for non-custodial 
parents to participate in the services available through welfare-to-work programs. 
C	 Building upon these efforts to boost the financial and emotional contributions of 
non-custodial parents, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Fathers 
Count Act in November 1999.  This proposed legislation includes grants for 
projects designed to promote successful parenting and encourage payment of child 
support.  The bill is expected to be considered by the U.S. Senate in 2000. 
As researchers and policy-makers develop strategies to increase the cooperation of non-
custodial parents, one primary area of concern is the order establishment process. 
Representatives of the child support enforcement community have raised questions about 
the effect of income imputation and arrearage policies on the non-custodial parents ability 
to comply with the support order obligation. 
The establishment of orders for child support enforcement cases (also known as IV-D 
cases, referring to the related title of the Social Security Act), occurs through either 
judicial or administrative processes.  States are required to establish child support orders 
in accordance with State guidelines, outlining specific descriptive and numeric criteria. 
Any deviation from the presumptive guideline amount must be justified in writing. 
This report and its companions examine how States address the limited incomes of non-
custodial parents in the determination of financial obligations for support and the 
relationship between these practices and payment compliance.  Inability to pay is only one 
of several reasons for non-compliance with child support orders.  Other reasons often 
cited as potential motivators of unwillingness to pay support include custody and visitation 
disputes and State retention of payments made on behalf of families on welfare.  Future 
inspections will examine these other potential barriers to payment compliance. 
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 
In this inspection, we examined State policies used to determine the amount of support 
owed, the implementation of these policies in 10 States and the relationship between these 
policies and payment compliance on a random sample of cases in the 10 States. 
We selected a random sample of cases (and the 10 States associated with them) using a 
two-stage, stratified cluster sample. We stratified the continental United States (excluding 
Alaska) into three strata based on State policy regarding the establishment of minimum 
awards for low-income obligors.  We then divided each State into a number of case 
clusters based on the estimated number of child support cases per State.  From each 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
9  stratum, we randomly selected three or four clusters.  The States containing the randomly 
selected clusters became our sample States, shown below. 
Clusters 
Stratum  Description 
Population  Sample 
Awards in 
1  courts  893 Clusters  3 Clusters in MS, OK, PA 
discretion  in 16 States 
Presumptive  614 Clusters in 
2  3 Clusters in TX, VA, WA 
awards  18 States 
652 Clusters in 
Mandatory 
14 States plus 
3  minimum  4 Clusters in CO, MA, MD, NY 
District of 
awards 
Columbia 
For stratum 3, we randomly selected two replacement clusters because our first selections, 
Michigan and Indiana, declined to participate in the study.  Because of this replacement, 
our statistics are projected to a population that excludes the clusters for Michigan (153 
clusters) and Indiana (35 clusters). 
We reviewed State documents to examine the order establishment policies of the 10 
sample States.  To examine how these policies are implemented by local offices, we 
conducted site visits to two child support enforcement offices in each sampled State - one 
in proximity to the State capital and one within 150 miles distance of the capital.  In each 
office, we interviewed a manager and a staff-person responsible for establishing support 
orders regarding the local practices used to establish orders for low-income non-custodial 
parents. 
We conducted our interviews between September and November 1999.  All descriptions 
of local order establishment policies and practices are current as of this period.  We 
conducted our interviews in Oklahoma just prior to the implementation of new State 
guidelines scheduled to take effect November 1st, 1999.  The descriptions of order 
establishment policies and practices in Oklahoma are current as of October 1999. 
We also conducted case record reviews in each of the 10 States.  From these States we 
obtained data on all child support cases in which (1) the child support order was 
established during 1996, (2) the custodial parent was on Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children (AFDC) or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) at the time the 
order was established, and (3) the case was still open.  We chose cases in which the 
custodial parent was on AFDC or TANF because of the demonstrated correlation between 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
10  custodial family welfare receipt and non-custodial parent low-income status.  One analysis 
of compiled research on the incomes of non-custodial parents, using 1995 dollars, found 
that the mean annual income of fathers of children on welfare was between $10,000 and 
$15,000.  The 1995 poverty level for an individual with one child was  $10,504.10 
We randomly assigned the non-custodial parents for these cases to each States clusters. 
We then randomly selected one cluster per State for our sample.  From these clusters, we 
randomly selected a sample (usually 35 per cluster) of non-custodial parents.  We 
reviewed all child support cases for each non-custodial parent in our sample, including any 
cases the non-custodial parent had open for other children. This resulted in a sample of 
281 non-custodial parents with 402 child support cases, of which 298 cases had been 
established during 1996 in the sampled States.  Data on the methods used to establish 
support orders and the subsequent payments generated is based on the cases established 
during 1996 in the sampled States. 
The payment period we examined on all cases is 32 months as this was the period of time 
for which all cases had the opportunity for payment.  Thirty-two months is the minimum 
amount of time between the last month in which sampled orders were established, 
December 1996, and the last month for which we had access to payment information for 
all cases, August 1999.  Except where specified, the statistics in this report are weighted 
to reflect all levels of clustering and stratification.  All reported correlations are 
statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level or greater. 
Appendix C contains weighted projections from our sampled cases for all of the policies 
examined, with greater detail provided on some of the policies than what is covered in the 
text of the report. 
In this report we examined the interaction between some order establishment practices and 
inability to pay and the relationship of this interaction to low collections.  We did not 
examine unwillingness to pay by the sampled non-custodial parents and its effect on 
collection rates.  We plan to examine some of the factors contributing to unwillingness to 
pay, such as custody and visitation disputes and pass-through policies, in future 
inspections.  We also did not examine all of the policies of the sampled States guidelines in 
detail, concentrating instead on the guideline policies covered in this report. 
Our review was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections 
issued by the Presidents Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
11  F I N D I N G S  
RETROACTIVE SUPPORT:  Most sampled States routinely 
charge non-custodial parents for retroactive support.  The 
longer the period of retroactivity, the less likely it is that the 
parent will pay any support. 
All sampled States have a policy to charge non-custodial parents for retroactive support, 
payable to either the custodial parent or the State depending on welfare status, for the 
time prior to the establishment of the order.  Eight of the 10 States routinely act on this 
policy with the commencement of financial responsibility ranging from the date of birth of 
the child to the date the request for support was filed.  Respondents in Massachusetts and 
Mississippi indicated that it is not standard practice to charge non-custodial parents for 
retroactive support in their States. 
While Colorado and Texas charge the non-custodial parent for support back to the childs 
date of birth regardless of the amount of time passed, Oklahoma limits the allowable 
duration to 60 months.  Virginia charges for retroactive support to the date paternity was 
established.  New York and Washington apply the retroactive charge as of the date the 
TANF case opened or the date of filing for support in non-TANF cases.  Maryland and 
Pennsylvania limit retroactivity to the date of filing for support in all cases. 
Non-custodial parents were charged retroactive support in 58 percent of child support 
cases established in 1996.  In 53 percent of the cases charged, charges were for 12 months 
or less.  In 31 percent, charges were for 13 months to 36 months of retroactive child 
support.  In 16 percent, charges were for more than 36 months of retroactive support. 
There are several reasons States charge retroactive support: 1) as a disincentive to non-
custodial parents to delay the establishment of support; 2) to hold non-custodial parents 
accountable for supporting their children from birth; and 3) to recoup expenses incurred 
by the State or the custodial parent for caring for the child without the other parents help. 
While these are sound reasons for charging retroactive support, our analysis indicates that 
doing so may be counter-productive to getting support payments. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
12  The longer the time for which non-custodial parents are charged retroactive 
support, the less likely they are to make any payment on their child support order 
once established 
A logistic regression shows that

the increase in the length of time

for which parents are charged

retroactive support is

significantly associated with an

increase in the probability that

the case will generate no

payments.  As depicted, when

non-custodial parents were not

charged retroactive support, 

14 percent made no payments

during the first 32 months of the

child support obligation.  When non-custodial parents were charged between 1 and 

12 months of retroactive support, the percent which made no payments rose to 23

percent.  The percentage of non-payers rose to 34 percent when the non-custodial parents

were charged more than 12 months of retroactive support. 

Charges for retroactive support are based on the monthly support obligation and 
are often over $1,000 
In all of the sampled States, retroactive support is calculated by applying the State 
guidelines to the non-custodial parents income to determine the monthly support 
obligation, multiplied by the number of months they are obligated.  Although retroactive 
support is often owed to the State to recover costs for welfare paid to support the child, 
the amount of welfare paid does not determine the amount owed.  The sampled States 
charge the non-custodial parent for the guideline award amount for the period of 
retroactivity, retaining the portion equal to prior welfare payments provided and allocating 
the remainder, if any, to the custodial parent. 
Of cases established in 1996 with retroactive support charges, the median amount of 
retroactive support charged was just under $1,500.  In States that charge for retroactive 
support preceding the date of filing for support, the median amount charged was $1,542, 
with 17 percent of the cases charged over $5,000.  In States which limit retroactivity to 
the date of filing for support, the median amount of retroactive support charged was $383. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
13  Other front-end charges used by our sampled States include court and attorney 
fees and recovery costs for paternity testing and birth-related medical costs 
According to the State policy in all of our sampled States, the non-custodial parent is 
charged for the costs of paternity testing if he does not voluntarily acknowledge paternity 
and is found to be the father.  Respondents in Massachusetts indicated that non-custodial 
parents are rarely ever charged for paternity tests while respondents in the other States 
indicated that non-custodial parents are routinely held accountable for these costs, with 
the exception of minors in Pennsylvania.  The reported costs of paternity tests in the 
sampled States range from $140 to $400. 
Three of the sampled States routinely charge non-custodial parents for service of process, 
court or attorney fees at the point of order establishment.  In Pennsylvania and Colorado, 
the reported fees ranged from $15 to $30.  In Mississippi, the reported fees are $32 if the 
parties stipulate to the proposed order and $117 if the case is heard in court.  In three 
other sampled States, non-custodial parents are sometimes charged attorney fees in non-
TANF cases, however this is not routine. 
While six States have a policy to charge non-custodial parents for birth-related costs, 
respondents in only two States indicated applying these charges in practice.  Respondents 
in one local office in New York and both local offices in Pennsylvania stated that non-
custodial parents are routinely charged for birth-related medical costs paid by the State. 
The charges of birth-related medical expenses were cited by these respondents as running 
between $2,000 and $4,000 on average. 
In 9 percent of child support cases established in 1996, non-custodial parents were 
charged for paternity testing with a median charge of $206.  Court fees were charged in 
14 percent of the cases with a median charge of $243.  Less than 1 percent of non-
custodial parents were charged attorney fees or birth-related medical charges.  Of the 
1996 cases which were charged these and other miscellaneous fees, an average (mean) of 
$257 in fees was added to the initial obligation.  However, of all 1996 cases, only $63 on 
average was added to the cases by other fees.  The bulk of front-end costs is clearly 
constituted by retroactive support charges. 
A greater percentage of the non-custodial parents who were charged front-end costs, 
including retroactive support, did not make any payments towards the monthly support 
obligation after order establishment than non-custodial parents who were not charged 
front-end costs. Twenty-three percent of all cases were not charged any front-end costs. 
Of these cases, 16 percent of the non-custodial parents made no payments towards the 
monthly support obligation during the first 32 months of the order, whereas 26 percent of 
the non-custodial parents charged up-front costs made no payments during this time. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
14  Employer withholding fees and interest charges can add to ongoing financial 
obligations 
All of the sampled States, except New York, allow employers to charge non-custodial 
parents income withholding fees, ranging from $1 to $5 per transaction.  Mississippi 
charges non-custodial parents $5/month payable to the State for income withholding 
processing in addition to the transaction fee charged by the employers. 
In 8 of the 10 States, it is State policy to charge interest on unpaid support.  Four of these 
States routinely charge interest, with rates ranging from 9 to 18 percent annually.  In a 
couple of States, the charges are only levied if the cases meet certain non-payment criteria. 
In Colorado, the county IV-D offices determine whether interest will be charged.  In 
Denver, with a significant share of the Colorado caseload, interest is charged on unpaid 
support at a rate of 12 percent compounded monthly.  However, in non-TANF cases, the 
custodial parent can waive the interest.  In TANF cases, the Denver IV-D office uses 
interest as a negotiation tool to bring non-custodial parents into payment compliance. 
INCOME IMPUTATION:  Most sampled States impute income 
when the non-custodial parent is unemployed or income is 
unknown.  Income imputation appears ineffective in 
generating payments. 
Most of the sampled caseworkers said that they primarily use income documentation 
provided directly by the non-custodial parent, such as wage stubs or tax statements, to 
calculate support due.  If the non-custodial parent fails to appear or provide this 
documentation, most of the caseworkers then search for income information through an 
automated interface with the State labor or tax record systems.  Most of the caseworkers 
indicated that they do not yet obtain income information from the National Directory of 
New Hires.  If income information is obtained through the State labor or tax systems, 
caseworkers typically verify this information with the indicated employer. 
In all sampled States except Mississippi, income is imputed to the non-custodial parent if 
no income information is available through the above means.  Half of the States impute 
income when the non-custodial parent is unemployed.  Most of the States also impute 
income if the parent is deemed to be underemployed.  For example, if a non-custodial 
parent works 35 hours/week at a minimum wage job, minimum wage earnings for the 
additional 5 hours will be imputed to the parent in the support calculations. 
In the nine States that impute income, the most common reasons cited were that the non-
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
15  custodial parent was unemployed or did not provide earnings information.  In 37 percent 
of cases established in 1996 where income was imputed, it was due to unemployment or 
underemployment.  In 46 percent of imputed cases, the non-custodial parent did not 
appear at the conference or court hearing or failed to provide income information.  In their 
absence, orders were set by default using an imputed income. 
Respondents indicated that the primary source of information on which they base 
imputation is the non-custodial parents most recent work history.  When a work history is 
unavailable, several States base earnings capacity on the non-custodial parents skills and 
education.  In the absence of any information, most States base imputed income on 
minimum wage earnings for a 40 hour work week.  In imputed cases established in 1996, 
child support agencies used minimum wage as the basis to impute in 65 percent of cases. 
Imputed cases exhibit lower payment compliance than non-imputed cases 
In all of the States, 33 percent of the

cases established using imputed

income generated no payments.

Based on the information available

in case files, we were only able to

universally determine whether

income was imputed in three States

(CO, MA & TX).  In the other

seven States, files did not contain a

specified means to indicate

imputation.  Therefore, we could

not be sure that cases not indicated

as imputed, were not in fact

imputed.  To compare payments

generated by imputed vs. non-

imputed cases, we limit our analysis

to these three States. 

In the three States, 45 percent of the

financial awards established in 1996

were based on imputed income. 

Forty-four percent of these imputed

cases generated no child support

payments over a 32 month period, commencing with the start of the order.  In contrast,

only 11 percent of non-imputed income cases in these three States generated no payments

during this time.  Despite the limitation of this analysis to three States, this difference is

statistically significant at the 99 percent confidence level.

Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
16  A causal relationship between the use of income imputation and lack of payments can not 
be assumed.  Non-custodial parents who fail to provide information or are unemployed at 
the time of order establishment are potentially less likely to pay support than those who 
appear in court or are employed. However, as demonstrated, imputing income to these 
parents to calculate their support, is not a very effective method of getting them to pay. 
MINIMUM ORDERS:  Six of the sampled States routinely 
establish minimum orders when the non-custodial parent 
has limited payment ability.  Minimum order cases exhibit 
lower payment compliance than other cases. 
According to State policy, eight States establish child support orders using a minimum 
monthly payment amount when the non-custodial parents income is below a specified 
threshold or earnings capacity is limited. The thresholds for low-income obligors in these 
eight States range from $400/month to $686/month. 
In two of these States with a minimum order policy, Colorado and Mississippi, 
respondents indicated that minimum orders are rarely established.  In Mississippi, 
caseworkers rely on court discretion in cases where the earnings capacity of the non-
custodial parent is limited.  In Colorado, respondents indicated that they routinely impute 
income to be minimum wage to calculate the award in lieu of setting a minimum order. 
Respondents in the other two States without a minimum order policy, Oklahoma and 
Texas, indicated that they also routinely impute income to be minimum wage when the 
non-custodial parent is unemployed or income is unknown.  In States imputing income as 
minimum wage, orders reportedly range from $125 to $185 per month for one child, 
depending on the income of the custodial parent.  In the other six States, reported 
presumptive minimum monthly order 
amounts range from $20 to $50 per month. 
Many States establish minimum orders for 
obligors without known income with the 
expectation that all parents, regardless of 
income, should make some financial 
contribution to their child.  Additionally, 
some staff argue that it is important to put a 
financial order in place which can then be 
modified once income is known. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
17  A higher percentage of minimum order cases made no payments towards their 
support obligation than non minimum order cases 
Minimum awards were set for 13 percent of the cases established in 1996 with a median 
charge of $55/month.  In 36 percent of cases established as a minimum order in 1996, the 
non-custodial parents made no payments in the first 32 months of the order.  In contrast, 
20 percent of cases established as non minimum orders (i.e. all others) received no 
payments over this time.  This lack of payment on minimum orders could be a reflection of 
limited earnings capacity and the fact that minimum awards are not based on actual 
income. 
Minimum orders are often used to establish orders for incarcerated non-custodial 
parents 
Most sampled States do not have a uniform policy for setting support orders when the 
non-custodial parent is incarcerated at the time the order is established.  Respondents in 
most of the local offices visited either set a minimum order amount or wait until the non-
custodial parent is released to establish a financial obligation.  In one local office visited in 
Texas and in both local offices in Oklahoma, the non-custodial parent is responsible for 
paying an award based on income imputed as minimum wage for 40 hours/week during 
incarceration.  Offices that wait until the non-custodial parent is released establish 
paternity while the non-custodial parent is incarcerated and then establish the financial 
obligation upon release or at an interval shortly thereafter. 
In all sampled States, respondents indicated that arrears continue to accrue for non-
custodial parents that become incarcerated after the order is established.  The burden is on 
the non-custodial parent to request a modification of the order.  All of the respondents 
indicated that incarcerated non-custodial parents rarely request a modification.  In all but 
one of the local offices visited, accrued debt remains on the non-custodial parents child 
support account after release.  In one county in Pennsylvania, the caseworker interviewed 
indicated that the non-custodial parent could, upon release, petition to have the arrears 
that accrued while incarcerated forgiven. 
DEBT OWED TO STATES:  Most sampled States will not 
reduce debt owed to the State by the absent parent except in 
rare cases.  Median debt on 1996 cases is over $3,000. 
Respondents in every sampled State indicated that debt owed to the State is almost never 
reduced, nor are arrears ever limited after the point of order establishment.  Non-custodial 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
18  parents can accrue an unlimited amount of debt owed to the State which remains on their 
account indefinitely.  Respondents in most States indicated that judges may intervene to 
reduce the debt but this rarely happens.  In Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Texas 
respondents said that the State can and has appealed a judges decision to reduce debt 
owed to the State by a non-custodial parent. 
In Colorado, the county child support office can negotiate the amount of debt owed by the 
non-custodial parent for un-reimbursed public assistance if any other county that is also 
owed un-reimbursed public assistance agrees to the negotiated amount.  In Washington, 
the debt owed to the State by a non-custodial parent may be reduced administratively if 
hardship can be proven.  Examples of hardship include if the non-custodial parent is on 
welfare or if paying the debt would harm other children for whom the non-custodial parent 
is responsible.  However, this debt is not legally eliminated and could be pursued in the 
future in court. 
Respondents in every State, except Texas, indicated that debt owed to the custodial parent 
is forgiven if the custodial parent agrees to waive the arrears owed to her.  In some 
States, the custodial parent must agree to this debt forgiveness in a legal court order. 
States are reluctant to reduce debt because they have expended public resources to 
support the child in the absence of the non-custodial parent fulfilling their responsibility. 
While this is understandable, large debt burdens may deter the non-custodial parent from 
making any support payments, thus resulting in a lower return on the public expenditures. 
The median amount of debt remaining on child support cases established in 1996 after 32 
months of expected payments was $3,278.  The mean amount of debt after 32 months was 
$4,831, with some cases owing over $25,000. Seventy-five percent of cases established in 
1996 owed over $1,231 in child support debt 32 months after the financial order was 
established. 
Most Sampled States will modify the pay-back plan on arrears 
While debt is rarely reduced, all of the States allow modifications to the pay-back plan on 
arrears.  In six States, modifications are made to reduce the rate of repayment when the 
non-custodial parent cannot afford the established rate.  In the other four States, 
modifications usually involve increasing the scheduled amount due, condensing the period 
of time in which the arrears are to be paid. 
In four of the six States that reduce the repayment rate, the rates are linked to the monthly 
support obligation (MSO) at the point of order establishment.  In three of these States 
(NY, VA, & WA), modifications to the rate of repayment are made administratively at a 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
19  later point if the non-custodial parent cannot afford to pay.  In Massachusetts, a change in 
the rate of arrears payments must be court ordered.  Oklahoma and Colorado set 
repayment rates according to State policy to amortize the debt over a fixed time period, 
rather than base the rate on the MSO.  Respondents said that they adjust the rates at the 
time the order is established if the non-custodial parent cannot afford to pay the rate in 
accordance with State policy. 
Modifications to the monthly obligation amount are dependent upon proof of a 
substantial change in circumstances 
All States inform non-custodial parents of their right to request a modification at the time 
the order is established.  Respondents indicated that this is usually communicated verbally 
or in written form at the initial conference with the non-custodial parent. In all States, 
modifications to the monthly support obligation require a change to the formal court order 
and are made only when either the non-custodial parents income has changed by a 
specified amount or the obligation would change by a specified amount.  A report issued 
by the Office of Inspector General in March 1999, Review and Adjustment of Support 
Orders, OEI-05-98-00100, found deficiencies in the methods States were using to notify 
parents of the right to request a review as well as a reluctance in some States to modify 
orders downward. 
JOB PROGRAMS:  Few sampled child support agencies 
formally link with job programs.  Non-custodial parent 
participation in such programs is minimal. 
Despite increasing attention by the research and policy community to the limited earnings 
capacity of low-income non-custodial parents and increased funding for job services, most 
sampled States have only informal arrangements for referral to existing job services 
programs.  These programs are largely external to the IV-D agencies with little to no 
participation by non-custodial parents.  Respondents in virtually all local offices were 
vaguely aware of job service programs.  They often indicated that these programs were 
newly implemented and acknowledged having limited information about them.  Some 
respondents reported referring non-custodial parents to these programs but with little 
information on what the program offers and whether the parent ever followed through. 
Reasons cited for lack of participation included program eligibility requirements, non-
custodial parents not volunteering, and a lack of means to promote participation or to 
follow-up on referrals.  Washington and Maryland have more structured referral processes 
to job services; however, participation is still reported to be minimal. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
20  Greater participation is reported in seek work programs.  Two States, Pennsylvania and 
Massachusetts, have structured IV-D seek work programs through which non-custodial 
parents are required to apply for employment and report back on their progress on a 
weekly or monthly basis.  In some localities the Massachusetts program involves job 
services in addition to seek-work if the non-custodial parent is determined to be in need of 
such services to secure a job. 
Respondents in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania indicated that roughly 10 percent of their 
total non-custodial parent caseload participate in seek work programs.  Participation is 
often mandated in the court order establishing a temporary minimum support obligation. 
The non-custodial parent must actively apply for jobs and report back on the search. 
Upon employment, the order is modified to reflect the non-custodial parents new income. 
If the parent does not obtain a job and is deemed to have not made a good faith effort, he 
may be held in contempt of court. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
21  C O N C L U S I O N  
States use a variety of tools to encourage non-custodial parents to cooperate with the 
child support enforcement system.  Many of these tools are designed to hold non-custodial 
parents liable for child support payments regardless of behaviors which may inhibit order 
establishment or payment of the order.  While these policies may discourage unwillingness 
to pay, if non-custodial parents are unable to pay the support owed, such policies are not 
likely to promote payment compliance. 
As the facts in this report demonstrate, the policies reviewed do not usually generate child 
support payments by low-income non-custodial parents.  Recognition of this fact presents 
opportunities to improve payment levels by modifying State policies that determine the 
amount that low-income absent parents must pay.  Clearly, some systematic 
experimentation is warranted. 
The experiments should emphasize parental responsibility, while improving the ability of 
low-income non-custodial parents to meet their obligations.  This requires a dual approach 
of setting realistic support obligations and providing employment support with work 
requirements.  The goal of these approaches is to get non-custodial parents to take 
financial responsibility for their child, which is to the benefit of all of the parties involved 
 the custodial parent, the State and, ultimately, the child. 
States are in the best position to conduct such experiments.  However, the Office of Child 
Support Enforcement can do much to encourage, facilitate, and evaluate such State 
experimentation.  We offer suggestions for State research and experimentation 
corresponding to the four areas of analysis contained in this report: retroactive support, 
income imputation, debt owed to the States, and job programs.  We present the following 
suggestions to the OCSE to facilitate such experimentation: 
RETROACTIVE SUPPORT: Facilitate and support State experiments to test the 
payment effects of using various periods of retroactivity in determining support 
Our findings demonstrate that the longer period of time for which retroactive support is 
charged, the less likely the parent is to pay support.  States could test and evaluate the 
payment effects of charging retroactive support for various time periods, including 
restricting retroactivity to the time the request for child support was initially filed.  These 
demonstrations would indicate whether shorter periods of retroactivity are more effective 
in generating payments. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
22  Most of the sampled States routinely charge non-custodial parents front-end arrears to 
recoup support for a period of time prior to the establishment of the child support order. 
One reason States may charge retroactive support without limits is the rationale that the 
non-custodial parent should be responsible for the child from the time the child is born. 
Some States may charge retroactive support as an incentive for non-custodial parents to 
cooperate with the IV-D agency as early as possible. 
Although it can be argued that these are justifiable reasons for charging retroactive 
support for longer periods of time, these policies does not appear effective in getting non-
custodial parents to pay. Our findings show that the greater the length of time for which 
non-custodial parents are charged retroactive support, the less likely they are to make any 
payments on their child support order, once established. 
When a low-income non-custodial parent starts off an order nearly $2,000 in arrears, he or 
she may view compliance with the support order as hopeless in the face of what may be an 
insurmountable debt and may avoid contact with the system all together.  Fathers 
interviewed by the Parents Fair Share program often cited overwhelming arrears as an 
obstacle to their payment compliance.11  In non-marital cases, the non-custodial parent 
may not have even known that the child existed during the time of retroactive support. 
When faced with charges for support dating back several years in some cases, the non-
custodial parent is not likely to view the child support system as a fair and reasonable 
system with which they can work.  In effect, cooperation may actually be discouraged. 
The OCSE could fund evaluations in several States to test various periods of retroactivity 
to determine whether non-custodial parents demonstrate a higher rate of payment 
compliance when retroactivity is restricted.  Exceptions should be made in cases where a 
non-custodial parent makes clear efforts to delay the filing for support.  For example, in 
Massachusetts, non-custodial parents are only charged retroactive support in egregious 
cases. State evaluations should also examine the effect of restricting retroactive support on 
non-custodial parent cooperation with the order establishment process. 
DEBT OWED TO STATES:  Facilitate and support State experiments to test 
negotiating the amount of debt owed to the State in exchange for improved 
payment compliance 
Many low-income non-custodial parents face insurmountable arrears. Viewing the system 
as unreasonable and adversarial, many low-income obligors pay nothing rather than 
something.  Debt negotiation as a method of improving payments has recently garnered a 
significant level of attention in the IV-D community.  The OCSE could provide leadership 
in this area by facilitating State experimentation to test the payment effects of debt 
negotiation.  Specifically, OCSE could fund State demonstration programs to test: 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
23  <	 Reducing child support debt owed to the State if the non-custodial parent 
demonstrates a continued effort to pay the monthly obligation and the debt due 
exceeds a defined level of burden relative to the non-custodial parents income. 
<	 Reducing the debt owed to the State in cases where the non-custodial parent has 
reunited with the custodial parent and children and the reunited familys income is 
below a certain threshold. 
The sampled States rarely reduce arrears owed to the State.  Many respondents indicated 
that they are forbidden by law from doing so.  While the Bradley Amendment (42 USC 
Section 666(a)(9)) states that child support orders are not retroactively modifiable, this 
does not preclude State reduction of child support arrears owed to the State.  The Bradley 
Amendment requires States to make arrears a judgement by operation of law.  As stated in 
the OCSEs Policy Information Question (PIQ)-99-03, as a party to a judgement, States 
can agree to compromise or settle the judgement, pursuant to State law.  Accordingly, 
States can accept less than the full payment of arrearages assigned to the State just as they 
can compromise and settle any other judgements in the State. 
In July 1999, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued regulations to allow tax debt 
forgiveness, rather than seizing assets, when a taxpayer can show that their assets are 
needed to pay for medical care or basic living expenses.  The IRS Commissioner stated 
For taxpayers caught in severe hardships, this gives the IRS a new tool to work with 
people and help settle their tax debt.  State public assistance agencies could follow the 
lead of the IRS by reducing the debt owed to the State in cases where the debtor does not 
have the income to pay the total debt to encourage and facilitate routine payments. 
Child support debt, especially in States which charge interest on unpaid support, can often 
amount to a substantial burden relative to the income of low-income non-custodial 
parents. The average amount of child support debt remaining on cases established in 1996 
is nearly $5,000 with 75 percent of cases owing over $1,200. 
The accumulation of such high arrears often triggers penalties such as license revocation 
and criminal pursuit. In some cases, this debt is due to the non-custodial parents failure to 
pay support which the non-custodial parent could have and should have paid.  In other 
cases debt is due to front-end arrears which the non-custodial parent never had the income 
to pay or a decline in the non-custodial parents income once the order was established. 
In any of these circumstances, the high level of debt is likely to result in no payments. 
Low-income non-custodial parents faced with thousands of dollars in debt, often see 
attempts to comply with a support order as futile.  The OCSE could provide research and 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
24  demonstration grants to States to test the effects of intervening in these instances and 
reducing the debt to a feasible level in return for the non-custodial parents continued 
payment compliance on the monthly obligation.  In cases where the non-custodial parent is 
reunited with the custodial parent and children, debt reduction could be tested as a tool to 
help support the newly reunited family to maintain self-sufficiency and remain intact. 
INCOME IMPUTATION: Encourage States to decrease the use of income 
imputation and to test alternative means of identifying income for low-income 
obligors. 
If a non-custodial parent does not respond to a summons to appear at a conference or 
court hearing, fails to submit income information and does not have recent income listed 
on the State tax or employment system, caseworkers tend to base the award on imputed 
income.  The caseworkers interviewed indicated that they are not yet using the New Hires 
Directory to obtain information or are having difficulty using it for low-income cases. 
It is understandable that States do not want to reward non-custodial parents for failing to 
appear or submit information or for failure to work.  An award should be established and 
to establish an award, income must be used.  Child support agency staff are often faced 
with no other choice but to impute income.  However, as the reviewed cases demonstrate, 
imputing income yields poor payment results.  In order to increase payments, States must 
exercise every possible means to base awards on actual, rather than imputed income. 
OCSE could help States to base awards on actual income more often by: 
<	 Impressing upon States the importance of devoting time and resources to obtain 
income information as a priority in the order establishment process; 
<	 Ensuring States are effectively using the information supplied by the National 
Directory of New Hires, implemented in 1997; and 
<	 Funding demonstration projects to test alternative means of identifying income for 
low-income non-custodial parents, many of whom are self-employed, work as day 
laborers, are paid in cash, and change jobs frequently. 
If an award is not initially established in accordance with ability to pay, States should not 
assume that it will be appropriately modified down the road.  Although parents are legally 
allowed to have their order reviewed at least once every three years, many non-custodial 
parents may not know of this right or may not have the means to exercise it. 
A report issued by the Office of Inspector General in March 1999, Review and 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
25  Adjustment of Support Orders, OEI-05-98-00100, found deficiencies in State notification 
policies and different treatment for downward modifications, with several States requiring 
non-custodial parents to pursue such modifications on their own.  The recommendations 
of that report, encouraging greater use of review and adjustments, would help to ensure 
that orders are more in line with ability to pay over time. Just as orders should be aligned 
with ability to pay at the point of order establishment, they should remain aligned over 
time in order to encourage payment compliance. 
JOB PROGRAMS:  Encourage States to formalize links with job services 
programs and to require unemployed non-custodial parents to participate in 
these programs 
The OCSE could encourage States to take advantage of existing programs to increase the 
earnings capacity and payment abilities of low-income non-custodial parents.  Specifically 
States could formalize referral relationships with outside agencies, court order 
unemployed non-custodial parent participation in these programs, and institute structured 
follow-up procedures. 
<	 IV-D agencies could establish linkages with programs offering both seek work and 
job training approaches, in order to refer non-custodial parents to the appropriate 
track depending upon their level of job readiness. 
<	 Unemployed, able-bodied non-custodial parents could be required in their court 
order to participate in job services or seek work or face contempt of court. 
<	 Financial obligations should be established based on the income level attained 
following program participation, rather than based on imputed income, in order to 
improve the potential for support collections.  Award amounts should be aligned 
with any income earned through program participation or set as a minimum 
amount until a final award can be determined upon employment. 
<	 To facilitate IV-D efforts to require such participation, OCSE could recommend a 
change to related language in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) to expand State authority to require non-
custodial parent participation in work activities.  The PRWORA gives States 
authority to require any unemployed person owing past due support to participate 
in work activities.  The OCSE could recommend this be amended to provide States 
the authority to also require any unemployed person at the point of order 
establishment to participate in work activities. 
<  In addition to urging States to move ahead in this area independently,  OCSE 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
26  could recommend that any proposed fatherhood legislation include funding for 
projects which model this approach.  Projects could test the effects of ordering 
non-custodial parent participation in seek work or job services and delaying the 
establishment of the final financial obligation until actual income can be used. 
<	 To enhance child support agency efforts to formally link with job programs, OCSE 
could propose that any fatherhood legislation require grant applicants to 
coordinate with IV-D agencies.  Applicants could be required to delineate each 
agencys responsibility in the referral arrangement, linkages between order 
establishment and service participation, and responsibility for follow-up efforts. 
State IV-D agencies should not provide the job services directly.  Rather, they should take 
advantage of existing programs which are federally funded to serve the non-custodial 
parent population. Under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, welfare-to-work funds are 
available for States to provide employment and training services to low-income non-
custodial parents of children receiving TANF.  In September 1999, the Department of 
Labor awarded 64 welfare-to-work grants totaling $222 million, for projects targeting 
specific categories of recipients including non-custodial parents. The Department of 
Health and Human Services has also provided funds for services targeting non-custodial 
parents through the Fatherhood Initiative and related OCSE demonstrations.  Most 
recently, in March 2000, the Department announced $15 million for demonstration 
projects serving non-custodial parents who do not have child support orders in place. 
Despite the multiple sources of funds available, our findings reveal that services for low-
income non-custodial parents are greatly underutilized. In most sampled States, referral 
relationships with local job service programs appeared to be very informal, devoid of any 
linkages between the establishment of an order and service participation, and lacking 
follow-up on referrals that are made.  Few non-custodial parents volunteer for such 
services and most sampled States do not mandate participation. 
One reason cited by respondents for lack of participation was restrictions on program 
eligibility.  The November 1999 Consolidated Appropriations Act included amendments to 
the welfare-to-work law to broaden the eligibility requirements for non-custodial parent 
participation in job services.  Hence, restrictions should no longer be a barrier. 
Enforcement mechanisms alone have not appeared effective in improving child support 
payments from low-income non-custodial parents.  For many of these parents it is not a 
matter of unwillingness to pay but inability to pay.  In the wake of welfare reform, it is 
critical that greater efforts are made to boost the payment of support owed to low-income 
families.  Just as low-income custodial parents are expected to go to work and contribute 
to the financial well-being of their family in return for limited transitional assistance, 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
27  low-income non-custodial parents should be held to the same expectation.  If they do not 
have the income to pay support, they should be allowed the opportunity to earn the 
income and then be expected to pay support. 
Requiring unemployed non-custodial parents to participate in job services at the time of 
order establishment can have the added benefit of uncovering unreported employment. 
Findings from the Parents Fair Share Demonstration revealed that part of the increase in 
child support payments produced by the projects extra outreach services was due to 
parents informing the child support agency of previously unreported employment.12 
Our analysis demonstrates that imputing income and setting minimum awards are not 
effective methods of achieving payment compliance when a non-custodial parent is 
unemployed.  Requiring unemployed non-custodial parents to engage in structured job 
services programs and then basing the child support order on actual income promises 
greater payment compliance.  This combination of opportunities and enforcement can be 
seen as the parallel to the personal responsibility contract expected of custodial mothers. 
In accordance with the Fatherhood Initiatives goals of promoting responsible fatherhood 
and family self-sufficiency, we encourage the OCSE to facilitate State efforts to take this 
next step in the evolution of the child support enforcement program. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
28  A G E N C Y   C O M M E N T S  
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 
Evaluation (ASPE) provided formal comments to the draft report.  Both offices concurred with 
the reports findings and suggested approaches.  The text of the ACF and ASPE comments can be 
found in Appendix F. 
In addition to existing initiatives, ACF described numerous actions that they will take to 
implement the suggested approaches with regard to retroactive support charges, compromising 
arrears, income imputation, and job programs. 
The ACF offered one technical comment on the report.  In reference to our discussion of 
caseworkers use of the NDNH, the ACF asked us to clarify that the study was conducted using 
sample cases established during 1996 which was prior to the implementation of the National 
Directory of New Hires (NDNH).  Although the case data was collected on cases established in 
1996, the process data collected through case worker interviews reflect local practices as of the 
time of data collection, September through November 1999.  This distinction is explained in the 
Scope and Methodology section of the report.  Therefore, the discussion of the lack of use of 
NDNH data by sampled caseworkers is relatively current. 
The ASPE commented that our findings are consistent with, and complementary to, other 
research on this subject.  The ASPE also indicated that our suggested approaches would 
strengthen existing Administration efforts to improve the payment compliance and involvement of 
low-income non-custodial parents. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
29  APPENDIX A 
Confidence Intervals for Selected Statistics

The following table shows the point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals for selected 
statistics, in the order that they appear in the report.  These calculations account for all levels of 
clustering and stratification as described in the methodology. 
Point  95 Percent 
Statistic 
Estimate  Confidence Interval 
For cases that were established during 1996, average (mean) 
$1,852  $508 - $3,195 
additional costs beyond the basic child support order 
Of cases that were established during 1996, percent with 
57.9%  27.2% - 88.5% 
retroactive support charges 
For cases that were established during 1996, average (mean) 
$1,788  $473 - $3,104 
retroactive support charges 
For cases that were established during 1996, average (mean) 
$63  $13 - $114 
additional costs other than retroactive support charges 
Of monthly-payment cases that were established during 1996, 
12.8%  2.6% - 23.0% 
percent that were established using a minimum award 
For monthly-payment cases that were established during 1996, 
$4,831  $3,099 - $6,564 
average (mean) debt remaining after 32 months 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
30  APPENDIX B 
Results of Hypothesis Testing

The following tables show the percent of cases in which the non-custodial parent did not make any 
payments during the first 32 months, broken out by category.  We used t-tests to evaluate the 
confidence level that the difference between the categories was statistically significant.  In the last 
table, we used logistic regression with one independent variable. 
FRONT-END COSTS 
Percent of cases with zero 
Category  payments during the first 
32 months 
Cases with front-end costs  25.7 percent 
1996 monthly-payment cases 
Cases without front-end costs  15.7 percent 
Value of t  1.86 
Confidence level  93 percent 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
31  INCOME IMPUTATION

Percent of cases with zero 
Category  payments during the first 
32 months 
1996 monthly-payment  Cases with imputed income  44.1 percent 
cases in States where 
imputation data were  Cases without imputed 
10.9 percent 
available for all cases1  income 
Value of t  16.56 
Confidence level  99 percent 
MINIMUM  ORDERS 

Percent of cases with zero 
payments during the first 
Category  32 months 
Cases established as minimum 
36.2 percent 
orders 
1996 monthly-payment cases 
Cases established as 
20.1 percent 
non-minimum orders 
Value of t  1.95 
Confidence level  94 percent 
1  Imputation data were available for all cases in three States: Colorado, Massachusetts, and Texas. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
32  For the following table, we used logistic regression with one independent variable.  The 
independent variable was the number of months charged for retroactive support, and the dependent 
variable was whether the non-custodial parent made any payments during the first 32 months. 
RETROACTIVE SUPPORT 
Degrees of freedom  1 
Wald F  17.93 
Confidence level  99 percent 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
33  APPENDIX C 
Case Data

Descriptive Information on Sampled Cases  Number 
Non-Custodial parents (NCPs) for whom child support cases were reviewed  281 
Reviewed child support cases established in 1996 in the sampled States  298 
Reviewed child support cases established in 1996 in sampled States with a non- 293 
zero monthly support obligation 
Reviewed cases including secondary cases for the sampled NCPs  402 
Sampled NCPs with more than 1 child support case  74 
Weighted Statistics Based on The Sampled Cases 
Except where specified, the following statistics are weighted projections from our sample, taking 
into account all levels of clustering and stratification. 
Initial Orders with Monthly Support Order (MSO) >0 Established in 1996 
Percent of 1996 cases that required monthly payments (MSO>0):  98.1% 
Sample minimum and maximum orders  $22 to $853 
Mean order amount  $179 
Quartiles:  25%  $98 
50% (median)  $145 
75%  $222 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
34  Arrears Due after 32 Months of Financial Obligations Established in 1996 
Percent of 1996 cases with arrears >0  92.4% 
Sample minimum and maximum arrears  $1 to $57,838 
Mean arrears amount (of cases charged arrears)  $5,230 
Quartiles:  25%  $1,426 
50% (median)  $3,591 
75%  $6,791 
Income Used in Calculation of the Order 
Of 1996 monthly-payment cases, sample (un-weighted), percent of cases for 
which the income used to calculate the order was in the file and was greater  57.7% 
than zero 
Sample minimum and maximum annual income used  $310 to $37,440 
Mean annual income used  $11,088 
Quartiles:  25%  $7,759 
50% (median)  $9,869 
75%  $14,501 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
35  Front-end Arrears Charged on 1996 Cases 
Retroactive Support 
Percent of 1996 cases charged retroactive support  57.9% 
Sample minimum and maximum retroactive support amounts  $47 to $36,942 
Mean retroactive support amount (of cases charged retroactive support)  $3,091 
Quartiles:  25%  $641 
50% (median)  $1,480 
75%  $3,205 
Mean Duration of time (months) Non-custodial parents were charged  22.8 
retroactive support 
Quartiles:  25%  4.4 
50% (median)  10.8 
75%  26.2 
Court Fees 
Percent of 1996 cases charged court fees  13.5% 
Sample minimum and maximum arrears  $5 to $349 
Mean court fees amount (of cases charged court fees)  $205 
Quartiles:  25%  $101 
50% (median)  $243 
75%  $275 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
36
 Birth Fees2 
Percent of 1996 cases charged birth fees  <1% 
Sample minimum and maximum birth fees  $124 to $2,293 
Mean birth fees amount  $532 
Paternity Fees 
Percent of 1996 cases charged paternity fees  9.0% 
Sample minimum and maximum paternity fees  $142 to $408 
Mean paternity fees amount  $231 
Quartiles:  25%  $188 
50% (median)  $206 
75%  $252 
Case Processing Fees3 
Percent of 1996 cases charged case processing fees  3.4% 
Sample minimum and maximum case processing fees  $10 to $66 
Mean case processing fees amount  $19 
1996 Cases Based on Imputed Income 
Percent of cases established in 1996 based on imputed Income4  45.5% 
Mean amount of income imputed (all States)  $9,789 
Median amount of income imputed (all States)  $8,600 
2 
Only 4 cases were charged birth fees. 
3 
Only 11 cases were charged case processing fees. 
4	
We were only able to gather complete data on imputation in CO, MA, and TX, although we were 
able to gather some imputation data in other sampled States. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
37  Reasons for Income Imputation (All States) 
NCP did not appear at the case conference or court hearing  31.5% 
NCP unemployed  27.2% 
No information was available on NCP income  14.5% 
NCP underemployed/perceived to be deliberately unemployed  10.0% 
False information provided  1.5% 
Factors on Which Imputation was Based (All States) 
Minimum wage  65.2% 
Court discretion  23.4% 
Income received in most recent employment period  12.1% 
Work history  11.8% 
Education level  10.8% 
Skills  4.5% 
Disability of NCP  2.0% 
1996 Cases Established as a Minimum Award 
Percent of 1996 cases established as a minimum award  12.8% 
Mean minimum award  $74 
Median minimum award  $55 
Modifications to Cases Established in 1996 
Percent of 1996 monthly-payment cases which had at least one modification to  13.3% 
the monthly support obligation (MSO) 
Percent of 1996 monthly-payment cases in which the MSO was modified to zero  6.3% 
Percent of 1996 monthly-payment cases in which the MSO was modified  3.3% 
downward (excluding modifications to zero) 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
38  Percent of NCP by Age Category
56 %
11 %
9 %
24 %
Age <= 20 Age 21-30
Age 31-40 Age > 40
Percent of Cases in Each NCP Age Category with No Payments Made In First 32
Months of Support Order
Age 20 Years or Under 16.9%
Age 21 to 30 Years 22.0%
Age 31 to 40 Years 18.6%
Age 40 Years and Over 27.7%
Percent of NCPs Located in Urban5 and Rural Areas and Payment Compliance
Zip County
Urban Rural Urban Rural
NCP Location  77.8% 22.2% 79.2% 20.8%
Cases with No Payments6 24.6% 8.7% 22.4% 16.6%
5 For these statistics, we defined urban zip codes and urban counties to be zip codes
and counties with more than 50 percent urban population based on 1990 census data.
6 Differences in payment compliance between urban and rural locations were statistically
significant. 
 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents                                                                                                                                          OEI-05-99-00390
39 APPENDIX D 
Related Office of Inspector General Reports

Paternity Establishment: Notification of  Rights And Responsibilities For Voluntary 
Paternity Acknowledgment  (OEI-06-98-00051) 
Paternity Establishment: Use of Alternative Sites for Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgment 
(OEI-06-98-00052) 
Paternity Establishment: State Use of  Genetic Testing (OEI-06-98-00054) 
Paternity Establishment: The Role of Vital Records Agencies (OEI-06-98-00055) 
Paternity Establishment: Payment to Vital Records (OEI-06-98-00056) 
Review and Adjustment of Support Orders (OEI-05-98-00100) 
Review and Adjustment of Support Orders, Experience in Ten States (OEI-05-98-00102) 
Unpaid Child Support and Income Tax  Deductions (OEI-05-95-00070) 
Grantees and Providers Delinquent in Child Support (OEI-07-95-00390) 
Review and Adjustment of IV-D Child Support Orders (OEI-07-92-00990) 
Follow-Up on AFDC Absent Parents  (OEI-05-89-01270; 8/91) 
Child Support Enforcement Collection for Non-AFDC Clients  (OAI-05-88-00340; 7/89) 
Child Support Enforcement Collections on AFDC Cases: An Overview (OAI-05-86-00097) 
Child Support Enforcement Collections on AFDC Cases: Non-Pursuit  (OAI-05-87-00033) 
Child Support Enforcement Collections on AFDC Cases: Arrearages  (OAI-05-87-00034) 
Child Support Enforcement Collections on AFDC Cases: Modification of Court Orders 
(OAI-05-87-00035) 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
40  APPENDIX E 
Bibliography 
1.  Low-Income Noncustodial Fathers: Who are They and What are States Doing to Assist Them in Their Efforts to Pay 
Child Support, Elaine Sorenson, The Urban Institute, January, 1997. 
2.	 Broke But Not Deadbeat, Reconnecting Low-Income Fathers and Children, Dana Reichert, the National Conference 
of State Legislatures, July 1999 
3.	 Income and Demographic Characteristics of Nonresident Fathers in 1993", Elaine Sorenson and Laura Wheaton, the 
Urban Institute, Forthcoming Report . 
4.	 22nd Annual Report to Congress, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, FY 1997. 
5.	 Building Opportunities, Enforcing Obligations: Implementation and Interim Impacts of Parents Fair Share. 
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. NY, NY, 1998. 
6.  Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1995" Current Population Report, U.S. Census Bureau, March 1999. 
7.	 Child Support Enforcement: Effects of Declining Welfare Caseloads are Beginning to Emerge, GAO/HEHS-99-105, 
Draft Version May 17, 1999. 
8.	 Fathers Fair Share, A Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation Study, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 
1999. 
9.	 Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement, Edited by Irv Garfinkel, Sara Mclanahan, Daniel R. 
Meyer, and Judith A. Selzer, Russel Sage Foundation, New York, 1998. 
10.	 Setting Support When the Noncustodial Parent is Low Income, Policy Memorandum by Paula Roberts, Center for 
Law and Social Policy, February 8th, 1999. 
11.	 Obligating Dads: Helping Low-Income Noncustodial Fathers do More for their Children, Elaine Sorenson, The Urban 
Institute, 1999. 
12.	 Low-Income, Non-Residential Fathers: Off-Balance in a Competitive Economy, Kathryn Edin, Laura Lein, and 
Timothy Nelson, Draft, September 1998. 
13.	 The Review and Adjustment of Support Orders, OEI-05-98-00100, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, March 1999. 
14.	 Child Support Guidelines: Interpretation and Analysis, Laura Morgan, Aspen Law & Business, Aspen Publishers, Inc. 
New York, New York, 1999. 
15.	 Low-Income Fathers and Child Support Orders, Daniel Meyer, Marcia Cancian, & Marygold S. Melli, Institute for 
Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin -Madison, June 1997. 
16.	 Are there Really Deadbeat Dads? The Relationship between Ability to Pay, Enforcement, and Compliance in 
Nonmarital Child Support Cases., Judi Barfeld and Daniel Meyer, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of 
Wisconsin -Madison, March 1993. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
41  APPENDIX F 
Agency Comments 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
42
 APPENDIX F 
Agency Comments 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
43
 APPENDIX F 
Agency Comments 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
44
 APPENDIX F 
Agency Comments 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
45
 APPENDIX F 
Agency Comments 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
46
 APPENDIX F 
Agency Comments 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
47
 APPENDIX F 
Agency Comments 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
48
 APPENDIX F 
Agency Comments 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
49
 APPENDIX F 
Agency Comments 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
50
 APPENDIX F 
Agency Comments 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
51
 APPENDIX F 
Agency Comments 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
52
 APPENDIX F 
Agency Comments 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
53
 APPENDIX G 
End-Notes

1.	 Low-Income Noncustodial Fathers: Who are They and What are States Doing to Assist Them in Their 
Efforts to Pay Child Support, Elaine Sorenson, The Urban Institute, January, 1997. And Broke But Not 
Deadbeat, Reconnecting Low-Income Fathers and Children, Dana Reichert, the National Conference of 
State Legislatures, July 1999 
2.	 Income and Demographic Characteristics of Nonresident Fathers in 1993", Elaine Sorenson and Laura 
Wheaton, the Urban Institute, Forthcoming Report . 
3.  Ibid. 
4. 	 22nd Annual Report to Congress, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and 
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FY 1997. 
5.	 Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1995" Current Population Report, U.S. Census 
Bureau, March 1999. 
6.	 Child Support Enforcement: Effects of Declining Welfare Caseloads are Beginning to Emerge, 
GAO/HEHS-99-105, Draft Version May 17, 1999. 
7.  Op. cit., Income and Demographic Characteristics of Nonresident Fathers in 1993". 
8.  Ibid. 
9.  Op. cit., Broke But Not Deadbeat, Reconnecting Low-Income Fathers and Children. 
10.	 Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement, Edited by Irv Garfinkel, Sara 
Mclanahan, Daniel R. Meyer, and Judith A. Selzer, Russel Sage Foundation, New York, 1998. 
11.	 Fathers Fair Share, A Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation Study, Russell Sage Foundation, 
New York, 1999. 
12.	 Building Opportunities, Enforcing Obligations: Implementation and Interim Impacts of Parents Fair 
Share. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. NY, NY, 1998. 
Low-Income Non-Custodial Parents  OEI-05-99-00390 
54