Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
State Policies Used to Establish 
Child Support Orders 
For 
Low Income 
Non-custodial Parents 
JUNE GIBBS BROWN 
Inspector General 
JULY 2000 
OEI-05-99-00391  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

Marco Villagrana, Analyst

Madeline Carpinelli, Analyst

James Athos, Intern

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 States use to determine the amount of child support to be paid by 
low-income non-custodial parents. 
BACKGROUND 
The recent decline in welfare receipt elevates the need for increased child support 
collections to help single parents maintain self-sufficiency.  The low-income status of many 
non-custodial parents adds to the challenge of boosting child support collections to meet 
custodial family needs.  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, rates of institutionalization, and 
intermittent employment history.1  These non-custodial parents have come to be known in 
the child support community as dead-broke rather than dead-beat. 
In recent years, the research and policy community has devoted more attention to 
strategies to increase the ability of non-custodial parents to pay child support.  One 
primary area of concern is the order establishment process.  In particular, representatives 
of the child support enforcement community have raised questions regarding the effect of 
income imputation and arrearage policies on the non-custodial parents ability to comply 
with the requirements of their child support order. 
We examined the policies used by States to determine the financial obligations owed by 
non-custodial parents through a close-ended survey of the Directors of each States child 
support enforcement agency.  While this report provides self-reported information on all 
States policies in this area, our companion report, The Establishment of Child Support 
Orders for Low-Income Non-custodial Parents (OEI-05-99-00390), provides a more in-
depth review of the practices used to determine financial obligations in a sample of 10 
States and the payment compliance associated with these practices. 
1 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  OVERVIEW 
Retroactive Support 
Forty-six States charge non-custodial parents for welfare paid prior to the establishment of

the order (welfare debt) or for retroactive support.  Most States also charge 

non-custodial parents for the costs of paternity testing.  Some States charge non-custodial

parents other establishment-related fees, court and attorney fees, case processing fees and

birth-related medical charges.

Routine Fees and Interest 
In addition to the monthly support obligation and front-end arrears, non-custodial parents 
in many States are also obligated to pay other ongoing fees and interest on unpaid 
support. Forty-six States allow employers to charge fees to non-custodial parents for 
income withholding.  In seven of these States, non-custodial parents are also charged 
ongoing case processing fees.  In 34 States, interest charges on unpaid support can add to 
the total charges for which non-custodial parents are responsible. 
Income Imputation 
Most States impute (i.e. attribute) income to the non-custodial parent if the non-custodial 
parent fails to provide relevant income information or if the non-custodial parent is 
unemployed or underemployed.  Most of the States which impute income consider a 
combination of factors to determine the imputed amount. Thirty-five States base imputed 
income on the premise that the non-custodial parent should be able to work a minimum 
wage job for 40 hours/week. 
Minimum Order Policies 
Thirty States specify an income threshold below which orders are established as a 
minimum amount.  Eleven States which do not have an income threshold still have a 
minimum award amount available for use in low-income cases.  The thresholds used to 
define low-income obligors and the minimum order amounts used vary by State. 
2 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  T A B L E   O F   C O N T E N T S  
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

INTRODUCTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

POLICY OVERVIEW

Retroactive Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Routine Fees and Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

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

Minimum Order Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

APPENDICES

A.  Survey Instrument  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23

B.  Related Office of Inspector General Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27

C.  End-Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28

3 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  I N T R O D U C T I O N  
PURPOSE 
To examine the policies States use to determine the amount of child support to be paid by 
low-income non-custodial parents. 
BACKGROUND 
This report examines the policies States use to determine the amount of child support to 
be paid by low-income non-custodial parents.  While this report provides information on 
all States policies in this area, a companion report, The Establishment of Child Support 
Orders for Low-Income Non-custodial Parents  (OEI-05-99-00390), examines these 
policies in more depth in a sample of States and their relationship to payment compliance. 
A follow-up report will examine the degree to which child support orders are aligned with 
the earnings of obligors and the relationship between order alignment and payments. 
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.2 
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.3  The percentage of custodial parents receiving welfare declined 
significantly in the past few years, dropping from 47 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 
1998.4  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 
support.  The percentage of obligors who do not pay support is greatest in the low-income 
tier.5  Some 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 
4 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  do not pay child support, have a limited ability to pay support based on their income 
levels, education levels, institutionalization rates, and intermittent employment history.6 
These non-custodial parents are known as dead-broke rather than dead-beat. 
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.  The Department of Health and Human Services Fatherhood 
Initiative and the proposed Fathers Count Act demonstrate this trend. 
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 establishment of orders 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. 
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 
In this inspection we provide an overview of the policies used by all States to determine 
the amount owed in child support orders.  To gather data on the State policies, we sent a 
close-ended survey to the directors of the child support enforcement agencies in each 
State and the District of Columbia.  Surveys were distributed via facsimile in September 
1999 and survey data was collected between September and December 1999.  Survey 
responses reflect State policy and are not necessarily reflective of local practice.  The 
responses were self-reported by the IV-D Directors or assigned staff and were not probed. 
5 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  O V E R V I E W  
Retroactive Support 
Map I:  States That Charge for Welfare Debt/Retroactive Support 
All but six of the States charge non-custodial parents for welfare paid to the child prior to 
the establishment of the order (welfare debt) or retroactive support for time prior to the 
establishment of the order.  These two categories were combined to reflect all charges for 
prior child support.  Forty-six States hold non-custodial parents responsible for this debt in 
addition to their monthly support obligation. 
Table I:  Period of Time For Which Non-custodial Parents are Subject to Welfare 
Debt/Retroactive Support Charges 
In the 46 States that charge for support prior to order establishment, the point in time 
from which the debt is calculated varies, ranging from the childs date of birth to the date 
of filing for support.  This table gives a State-by-State summary of the time periods for 
which non-custodial parents are held accountable for support prior to order establishment. 
The survey question was not designed to capture different periods of time for which States 
may charge retroactive support in TANF versus non-TANF cases. 
Figure I:  Front End Fees Charged to the Non-custodial Parent At the Time of 
Order Establishment 
In addition to the prospective support order obligation, non-custodial parents are 
potentially responsible for other front end costs at the time of order establishment.  Eight 
States charge non-custodial parents for case processing fees.  Nine States charge for court 
fees and 10 charge for attorneys services.  All States, with the exception of Vermont, 
charge the non-custodial parents for either blood or genetic testing to determine 
fatherhood.  Twenty-five States charge for birth related medical costs.  All of the States, 
except Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina and South Carolina, charge 
non-custodial parents for welfare debt or retroactive support. 
6 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  7 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  Table 1: 	 Period of Time for Which Non-Custodial Parents are Subject to Welfare 
Debt/Retroactive Support Charges 
State  Time Period 
Alabama  From date of paternity establishment, maximum is 2 years prior 
Alaska  From date of service of paternity, maximum is 6 years prior 
Arizona  From date of filing for support 
Arkansas  Do not collect 
California  Up to 3 years prior to date of filing for support 
Colorado  From date of birth of child 
Connecticut  From date of birth of child, maximum is 3 years prior 
Delaware  From date of paternity establishment, maximum is 2 years prior 
D.C.  From date of birth of child 
Florida  Up to 2 years prior to date of filing for support 
Georgia  Do not collect 
Hawaii  Courts discretion 
Idaho  Up to 3 years prior to date of filing for support 
Illinois  Courts discretion 
Indiana  From date of birth of child or date of filing for paternity (courts discretion) 
Iowa  From date of birth of child or up to 3 years prior to filing for support 
Kansas  From when the non-custodial parent knew of the existence of the child 
Kentucky  Courts discretion 
Louisiana  From date of filing for support 
Maine  Up to 6 years prior to date of filing for support 
Maryland  From date of filing for support 
Massachusetts  From date of birth of child 
Michigan  From date of birth of child 
Minnesota  Up to 2 years from date of filing for support 
Mississippi  Courts discretion 
Missouri  Do not collect 
8 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  State  Time Period 
Montana  Do not collect 
Nebraska  From date of birth of child 
Nevada  Up to 4 years prior to date of filing for support 
New Hampshire  From date of filing for support 
New Jersey  From date of filing for support 
New Mexico  From date of birth of child 
New York  From date custodial parent (CP) opened case with the TANF office 
North Carolina  Do not collect 
North Dakota  From date of birth of child or first contact with IV-D Agency 
Ohio  From date of birth of child 
Oklahoma  Up to 60 months prior to the date of filing for support 
Oregon  From date of first contact with IV-D Agency 
Pennsylvania  From date of filing for support 
Rhode Island  Up to 6 years prior to date of paternity establishment 
South Carolina  Do not collect 
South Dakota  From date of birth of child, maximum is 6 years 
Tennessee  From date of paternity establishment 
Texas  From date of birth of child 
Utah  Up to 4 years prior to the date of order establishment 
Vermont  From the date of filing for support with the court 
Virginia  From date of birth of child, limit is to July, 1988 when the guidelines were established 
Washington  From date CP started to receive public assistance or date of filing for support 
West Virginia  From date of birth of child 
Wisconsin  Courts discretion 
Wyoming  From date of paternity establishment 
9 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  10 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  Routine Fees and Interest 
Map II:  States Policies on Routine Fees 
In addition to the support obligation paid by the non-custodial parent, many of the States 
charge, or allow employers to charge ongoing fees.  Forty-seven States allow employers 
to charge non-custodial parents a fee for income withholding.  In addition to employers 
fees, seven of the States charge non-custodial parents for ongoing case processing.  Only 
five of the States do not charge non-custodial parents for either employer or case 
processing fees. 
Map III:  States Policies on Charging Interest on Support Owed 
Thirty-four States charge interest to the non-custodial parents on either debt stemming 
from charges prior to the order establishment, arrears which build up after order 
establishment, or on the total amount of debt and arrears past due.  Eighteen of the States 
do not charge non-custodial parents any interest. 
Map IV:  States with Multiple Policies for Collecting Fees 
Several States charge multiple front end and ongoing fees leading to a larger cumulative 
cost for the non-custodial parent to pay in addition to the monthly support obligation. 
Michigan and Pennsylvania reportedly charge non-custodial parents for case processing 
and attorney fees, paternity testing fees and birth-related medical costs in addition to 
retroactive support.  Seven States charge non-custodial parents interest on the support 
owed in addition to charges for retroactive support and three or more front-end fees. 
New Mexico and Mississippi charge non-custodial parents all of the front end fees listed, 
retroactive support, ongoing case processing fees and interest on unpaid support. 
11 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  12
State Order Establishment Policies                                                                                                                                            OEI-05-99-00391 13
State Order Establishment Policies                                                                                                                                            OEI-05-99-00391  
14
State Order Establishment Policies                                                                                                                                            OEI-05-99-00391 Income Imputation 
Map V: States That Impute Income by Policy 
Only the District of Columbia, Connecticut and Mississippi do not impute (i.e. attribute) 
income by policy.  In 30 States, imputation is practiced if the non-custodial parent fails to 
provide relevant information or is currently unemployed or underemployed.  Five States 
impute income only if the non-custodial parent fails to provide relevant information such as 
pay stubs, income tax returns or financial affidavits.  Thirteen States impute income only if 
the non-custodial parent is unemployed or underemployed. 
Figure II:  Basis of Imputation 
Most of the 48 States that impute income consider a combination of factors in determining 
the amount of income to be imputed to the non-custodial parent.  Thirty-five States base 
imputed awards on the premise that the non-custodial parent should be able to work a 
minimum wage job for 40 hours per week.  Fifteen of the States consider the area wage 
rate and 10 of the States look at the area employment rate to determine imputed income. 
Seventeen States consider the non-custodial parents level of education while 14 account 
for disabilities hindering full employment.  Thirty-five States evaluate the non-custodial 
parents skills and experience and thirty-one base imputation on most recent employment, 
where information is available. 
15 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  16
State Order Establishment Policies                                                                                                                                            OEI-05-99-00391 17 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  Minimum Order Policies 
Map VI: States Policies Toward Low-Income Non-custodial Parents 
If the non-custodial parent is low-income, 30 States specify an income threshold below 
which orders are established differently.  The thresholds used to define low-income 
obligors and the treatment of their orders vary by State.  States with a threshold use a 
minimum award which is either presumptive or mandatory, or leave it to the courts 
discretion to determine the award amount.  Eleven States which do not have a threshold 
defining low-income obligors still have a minimum award amount to apply in cases where 
a non-custodial parent is determined to be low-income. Ten States do not have a threshold 
or a minimum award amount to apply in low-income cases. 
Table II: States Treatment of Low Income Obligors 
States typically set low-income thresholds to be a minimum amount of weekly, monthly or 
annual earnings. Alaska and Maine use the Federal poverty level as their low-income 
threshold.  Minimum order amounts range from $20/month to $168/month, with most 
minimum order States setting minimum awards between $20 and $50/month.  Table II 
displays the income thresholds and minimum order amounts used by States.  Some States 
may have reported a minimum threshold within their guidelines to be a separate threshold 
for low-income obligors while other States with such a guideline threshold might have 
responded that they do not have an income threshold below which a minimum obligation 
is ordered. (See question 4 in Survey in Appendix A). 
18 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  19
State Order Establishment Policies                                                                                                                                            OEI-05-99-00391 Table 2: States Treatment of Low-Income Obligors 
State  Income Threshold  Presumptive  Mandatory  Award is  No 
Amount  Minimum  Minimum  Courts  Minimum 
(converted to months)  Award*  Award**  Discretion  Specified 
Alabama  $550/month  X 
Alaska  Federal poverty level  $50/month 
Arizona  none  X 
Arkansas  none  X 
California  $1000/month net  X 
Colorado  $400/month  $20-50 month 
Connecticut  $723/month  $28/month 
Delaware  none  $106/month 
D.C.  $625/month  $50/month 
Florida  none  X 
Georgia  none  X 
Hawaii  none  $50/month 
Idaho  $800/month  $50/month 
Illinois  none  X 
Indiana  none  X 
Iowa  $500/month  $50/month 
Kansas  none  X 
Kentucky  none  $60-90/month 
Louisiana  $600/month  X 
Maine  Federal poverty level  10% of 
income 
Maryland  $599/month gross  $20-50/month 
Massachusetts  $531/month  $50/month 
Michigan1  none  $21/month 
1 
Michigan statute offers one formula to use for low-income obligors above the Federal poverty level and a formula for those
below it. As part of the mandatory minimum order, a health care add-on of between $3-$11/week is added. 
20 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  State  Income Threshold  Presumptive  Mandatory  Award is  No 
Amount  Minimum  Minimum  Courts  Minimum 
(converted to months)  Award*  Award**  Discretion  Specified 
Minnesota  $550/month  X 
Mississippi  $417/month  X 
Missouri  $824/month  $20-50/month 
Montana2  $893/month  X 
Nebraska  $687/month  $50/month  X 
Nevada  none  X 
New Hampshire  none  $50/month 
New Jersey3  $723 combined/month  $21-179/mo  X 
New Mexico  $800/month  $100/month 
New York4  $687/month  $25-50/month 
North Carolina  $800/month  X 
North Dakota  none  $50/month 
Ohio5  $700/month combined  $50/month 
Oklahoma  none  X 
Oregon  $850/month gross  $50/month 
Pennsylvania  $550/month  $20-50/month 
Rhode Island  $600/month  X 
South Carolina  $600/month  $50/month 
South Dakota  none  X 
Tennessee  none  X 
Texas  none  X 
2 
The minimum award for Montana is a percentage of the non-custodial parents (NCPs) income based on the relationship
. 
between their net income and the States self-support reserve
3 
The State of New Jersey sets awards for low-income situations based on the combined income of both the NCP and CP.
4  . 
The State of New York also has a self support reserve for the NCP set at $11,124 for 1999
5 
The State of Ohio sets awards for low-income situations based on the combined income of both the NCP and CP.
21 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  State  Income Threshold  Presumptive  Mandatory  Award is  No 
Amount  Minimum  Minimum  Courts  Minimum 
(converted to months)  Award*  Award**  Discretion  Specified 
Utah  $649/month  $20/month 
Vermont  none  $85-106/mo 
Virgina  $600/month  $65/month 
Washington  $600/month  $25/month 
West Virgina  none  $50/month 
Wisconsin  none  X 
Wyoming6  $732/month combined  $50/month 
Definitions: 
*  Presumptive Minimum Award: Award amount according to the guidelines (after other guideline 
adjustments have been made). This is the amount of the order unless the court deviates. 
**  Mandatory Minimum Award: Specified minimum award amount from which there can be no downward 
deviation. 
6 
Wyoming statute sets awards for low-income situations based on the combined income of both the NCP and CP.
22 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391 APPENDIX  A 
Survey Instrument

State Child Support Order Establishment Practices Survey 
STATE: _______  SURVEY CONTACT NAME:____________________________________ 
PHONE ___________________________  DATE:__________________ 
Guidelines 
1.	 If your State uses Percentage of Income guidelines in the computation of a support order 
obligation, what are the specific percentages used per number of children? 
___ One child  ___ Two children  ___ Three children 
___ Four children  ___ Five or more children 
Imputation 
2.	 In what instances is imputation used as a means of determining the income of the non-
custodial parent? 
___ NCP fails to provide relevant information

___ NCP is currently unemployed

___ NCP is perceived to be deliberately unemployed or underemployed

___ Never Impute

___ Other (please specify) __________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

3.	 If income is imputed, what standards are used or what factors are considered during the 
imputation process? 
___ 40 hours/week at minimum wage  ___ Educational level

___ Median Income in the State  ___ Physical and mental disabilities

___ Cost of raising a child in the State  ___ Special skills and training

___ Prevailing wage rates in the area  ___ Prior employment experience

___ Availability of employment in the area  ___ Income received during most 

recent employment period 
___ Other (please specify)__________________________________________________ 
23 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  APPENDIX  A 
Survey Instrument

Minimum Orders 
4.	 If the non-custodial parent is found to be low-income, or an imputation process has set 
income at a low level, is there an income threshold below which a minimum obligation 
amount is ordered? 
______ Income threshold amount $___________ 
______ No income threshold amount 
5.	 What is the presumptive or mandatory minimum amount of support ordered for low-
income cases? 
$_______  Amount  Presumptive________  or  Mandatory ________ 
________  No Minimum Amount 
Arrearage Policies/State Debt Policies 
6.	 In addition to the prospective order obligation, are NCPs responsible for any other costs 
at the time of order establishment? 
___ Yes  ___ No 
If yes, what costs are NCPs responsible for?

___ Birth-related medical service costs  ___ Court time fees

___ Case-processing fees  ___ Attorney services

___ Blood tests for paternity establishment  ___ Child support during time prior to order 

establishment 
___ Welfare payments made to custodial parent prior to order establishment 
___ Other (please specify):__________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
24 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  APPENDIX  A 
Survey Instrument

7.	 If NCP is responsible for child support during time prior to order establishment, from what 
point in time is the past obligation calculated? 
___ Birthdate of child for whom support is due

___ Date of paternity establishment

___ Date of first contact with NCP by IV-D system

___ Other (please specify):__________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

8.	  If NCP is responsible for child support during time prior to order establishment, is there a 
limit, whether temporal or monetary, on the amount of the past obligation which may be 
sought? 
___ Yes  ___ No 
If yes, please specify limit: 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
9.	 If NCP is responsible for welfare payments made to custodial parent prior to order 
establishment, is there a limit, whether temporal or monetary, on the amount of past 
obligation which may be sought? 
___ Yes  ___ No 
If yes, please specify 
limit:________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________ 
25 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  APPENDIX  A 
Survey Instrument

10.	 If NCP is responsible for welfare payments made to custodial parent prior to order 
establishment, are there any State policies forgiving the debt owed the State in any cases? 
___ Yes  ___ No 
If yes, please specify 
policy:__________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
11.  Is interest charged to the NCP on any of the following: 
_______ Prior debt (for charges before order establishment)  _______ Interest Rate 
_______ Arrearages which build up after order establishment  _______ Interest Rate 
_______ Total Amount of debt and arrears past due  _______  Interest 
Rate 
Routine Fees 
12.	 Does your State IV-D office charge NCPs for any ongoing case processing fees? 
________ Yes  _______No 
If yes, how much are the NCPs required to pay? $_______________ 
With what frequency are the payments required  _______ 
13.	 In your State, are employers allowed to charge fees to the NCP for income-witholding? 
______Yes  _______No 
If yes, how much are employers allowed to charge? $_______________ 
26 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  APPENDIX  B 
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, 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) 
27 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391  APPENDIX  C 
End-Notes

1.	 Income and Demographic Characteristics of Nonresident Fathers in 1993", Elaine Sorenson and Laura 
Wheaton, the Urban Institute, Forthcoming Report 
2. 	 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. 
3.	 Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1995" Current Population Report, U.S. Census 
Bureau, March 1999. 
4.	 Child Support Enforcement: Effects of Declining Welfare Caseloads are Beginning to Emerge, 
GAO/HEHS-99-105, Draft Version May 17, 1999. 
5.	 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. 
6.  Op. cit.,  Income and Demographic Characteristics of Nonresident Fathers in 1993" 
28 
State Order Establishment Policies  OEI-05-99-00391