Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JANET REHNQUIST 

Inspector General 

OCTOBER 2001 

OEI-05-01-00220 

DISTRIBUTING COLLECTED CHILD 

SUPPORT TO FAMILIES EXITING TANF 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 

amended by Public Law 100-504, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and 

Human Services programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by them. This 

statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide program of audits, investigations, 

inspections, sanctions, and fraud alerts. The Inspector General informs the Secretary of program 

and management problems and recommends legislative, regulatory, and operational approaches to 

correct them. 

Office of Evaluation and Inspections 

The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is one of several components of the Office of 

Inspector General. It conducts short-term management and program evaluations (called 

inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the Congress, and the public. The 

inspection reports provide findings and recommendations on the efficiency, vulnerability, and 

effectiveness of departmental programs. 

OEI's Chicago Regional office prepared this report under the direction of William C. Moran, 

Regional Inspector General and Natalie Coen, Deputy Regional Inspector General. Principal OEI 

staff included: 

REGION HEADQUARTERS 

Emily Melnick, Team Leader Joan Richardson, Program Specialist

Kristen Masse, Program Analyst

Jordan Heinz, Intern

Margo Rodriguez, Program Inspections Assistant 

To obtain copies of this report, please call the Chicago Regional Office at (312) 353-4124. 

Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address: 

http://www.hhs.gov/oig/oei 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

To evaluate the process State Child Support Enforcement agencies use to transfer child 

support to families leaving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. 

BACKGROUND 

When families apply for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Federal law 

requires the families to assign their right to child support payments to the State and 

cooperate with child support enforcement efforts. By law, the “assignment” of child 

support to the State is supposed to end upon a family’s exit from TANF. The State 

Disbursement Unit must send support collections to the family within two business days of 

receipt in the month following TANF exit.1 

Families may be most vulnerable during the months before and immediately following the 

end of their receipt of TANF assistance. Payment of child support at this juncture is likely 

to have a great impact on the success of the transition from TANF to self-sufficiency. 

We collected data through in-depth site visits in five States and a survey of 51 State 

TANF and Child Support Enforcement agencies. 

FINDINGS 

States Pay Less in TANF Cash Assistance Than They Collect in Child Support for 

Some Current TANF Families 

In the five case-study States, 47 current TANF recipients experienced at least one month 

when their TANF cash assistance amount was less than the amount of child support paid 

by the non-custodial parent. Only in one case-study State were these families eligible to 

receive the difference between their TANF grant and the collected child support. 

None of the case-study States have automated systems designed to automatically close 

TANF cases when collected child support exceeds the TANF grant, nor do they distribute 

this excess support to current TANF families. Without such State systems in place to 

automatically close these cases, TANF recipients receive less money and accrue 

unnecessary months on their TANF life-time clocks. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF i OEI-05-01-00220 
After TANF Exit, Eight Percent of Custodial Parents in Our Case-Study States 

Experienced Child Support Payment Delays, and Three Percent Were Underpaid 

In each of the five States we chose for our case-studies, we conducted case file reviews to 

determine whether child support payments were correctly distributed to families after 

TANF exit. Payment delays and underpayments ranged from 2 of 30 cases (7 percent) in 

one State to 8 of 27 cases (30 percent) in another State. 

Eleven States Report They Were Not Always Able to Accurately Transfer Child 

Support. Problems May Increase When Caseworkers Must Intervene. 

Nationally, eleven States report difficulties accurately transferring child support to families 

leaving TANF. These impediments include problems with automated interfaces, incorrect 

client addresses and caseworker intervention in the transfer process. 

Twenty-eight of the 51 States surveyed report problems with their automated interfaces. 

Interface problems, including incompatible design of State TANF and Child Support 

Enforcement agencies’ automated systems and timing of information exchanges, may 

cause child support payment delays and underpayments after TANF exit. 

Reliance on child support caseworkers to transfer collected payments, as opposed to an 

automated process, is plausibly associated with increased payment error rates. 

Child Support Enforcement Agencies Have No Systematic Oversight of the 

Transfer Process in Most Case-Study States 

According to State child support staff in all five case-study States, these States have no 

policy requiring systematic review of TANF leavers’ child support distribution. Under 

federally-mandated State self-assessments, State CSE agencies are not required to 

specifically sample cases where TANF case status changed. Furthermore, State selfassessments are not designed to catch inaccurate child support distribution when a client 

leaves TANF cash assistance. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Office of Child Support Enforcement and the Office of Family Assistance should 

ensure that State child support and TANF systems effectively share information about 

their joint caseload and accurately and efficiently disburse payments to TANF leavers. We 

believe comprehensive automated systems are the best way to achieve desired outcomes. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF ii OEI-05-01-00220 
We recommend that the Office of Child Support Enforcement and the Office of Family 

Assistance provide technical assistance to the State Child support and TANF agencies to: 

C Improve automated system interfaces’ capacity to accurately and efficiently 

share caseload information and automatically redistribute collected child 

support, 

C Ensure timely disbursement of collected support by emphasizing custodial 

parent address verification in the TANF discontinuation notice and the 

Child Support Enforcement continuing services notice, 

C Implement policies and procedures for handling excess child support, and 

C Improve accountability through a State self-assessment process that 

addresses the outcome of collections and distributions for TANF leavers. 

AGENCY COMMENTS 

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) reviewed this report and agreed with 

most of our findings and recommendations. Where appropriate, we changed the report to 

reflect their comments. The full ACF comments are contained in the Appendix. 

The ACF agreed with our recommendation that OCSE and OFA should work together to 

provide additional assistance to improve State agencies’ automated interfaces’ capacity, as 

well as help States implement policies and procedures for handling excess support. In 

addition, the ACF agreed that some of the findings and recommendations from this report 

could be included among the topics considered for Special Improvement Project grants in 

the future. 

The ACF questioned why the waiting period of two months for automatic TANF closure 

was specified in our recommendation. While cases could be closed on a monthly basis, we 

believe that a two month time period is a better indicator that consistent child support 

payments will be made to the custodial parent. 

The ACF disagreed with our recommendation that the State self-assessment process 

should address the outcome of collection and distribution for TANF leavers. However, 

there is no other required mechanism that measures whether States are accurately 

distributing child support payments on a timely basis. The ACF also disagreed that all 

TANF leavers’ cases reviewed by States should be subject to a higher compliance rate for 

accurate disbursement of collections than the current 75 percent requirement. We believe 

that a 75 percent compliance rate is not a high enough standard of success for States to 

gauge their accuracy in distributing child support to all families, not just families leaving 

TANF. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF iii OEI-05-01-00220 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

FINDINGS ................................................................ 7

States Pay Less in TANF Than They Collect in Child Support for Some Families. ........ 7

Custodial Parents Experience Delays and Underpayments .......................... 9

Eleven States Report Transfer Difficulties ..................................... 10

CSEs Have No Systematic Oversight of Transfer in Most Case-Study States ........... 12

RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 16

AGENCY COMMENTS .................................................... 20

APPENDIX

A. Agency Comments .................................................... 22

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF iv OEI-05-01-00220 
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

To evaluate the process State Child Support Enforcement agencies use to transfer child 

support to families leaving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. 

BACKGROUND 

The Child Support Enforcement program was created in 1975 with the addition of Part D 

to Title IV of the Social Security Act. State Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies 

are responsible for administering the program, including locating absent parents, 

establishing and enforcing orders, and collecting and disbursing the support due. The 

Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) contributes matching funds, sets 

requirements for certain design features, and monitors and evaluates State child support 

program implementation. The OCSE also provides State CSE agencies with technical and 

operational assistance to carry out program functions. 

In fiscal year (FY) 1999, State child support agencies had a total caseload of almost 16.4 

million cases. The national CSE caseload was comprised of 3.6 million current TANF or 

Foster Care recipients, 6.8 million former TANF or Foster Care recipients, and 6 million 

families who never received TANF or Foster Care assistance. Approximately 9.9 million 

of all cases had child support orders established. Just over 6.1 million cases had 

collections, and over $15.8 billion in child support payments were collected. 

Approximately 24 percent of current and 40 percent of former TANF or Foster Care 

recipients had collections. 

Transfer of Child Support Payments 

When families apply for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Federal law requires the 

families to assign their rights to child support payments to the State and cooperate with 

child support enforcement efforts. According to a departmental report to Congress, one 

in four families leaving TANF have child support collected on their behalf while they are 

on TANF. By law, the “assignment” of child support to the State must end upon a 

family’s exit from TANF. 

When a family no longer receives TANF cash assistance, the TANF agency is required to 

notify the Child Support Enforcement agency of the change in status so that the CSE 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 1 OEI-05-01-00220 
agency can change payment distribution. The CSE agency is required to notify the family 

that child support services will continue and describe the State’s distribution policies. In 

the month following TANF exit, the State Disbursement Unit (SDU) must send support 

collections to the family within two business days of the initial date of receipt by the 

State.2 

According to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 

(PRWORA), States must annually assess the performance of their Child Support 

Enforcement program and report their findings and progress to the Secretary. To meet 

the requirements for State self-assessment, States must choose a sampling methodology 

that provides a picture of performance over a 12-month period. Federal regulations 

dictate that the States' self-assessments include review of their State Disbursement Units' 

success in distributing collected child support within two business days. A State must 

disburse collected payments within two business days of receipt for 75 percent of the cases 

reviewed. 

Families Leaving TANF 

A substantial number of families have been exiting TANF in recent years due to welfare 

reform and other factors. The number of TANF recipients declined by 50 percent from 

January 1997 to June 2000. The PRWORA requires that States limit the time most 

families can receive cash assistance under the TANF program to 60 months. States have 

the option of allowing for a shorter time period, and some have adopted time limits as 

short as 24 months. In addition to the time limits, families leave the TANF rolls because 

of earned income, sanctions and voluntary withdrawal. 

The TANF agencies have structured processes for determining when a TANF cash 

assistance case is considered closed. Typically, TANF caseworkers enter a case closure 

reason into their automated system which automatically sends the TANF recipient a notice 

of the proposed action. A TANF recipient has 10 days to respond to the case closure 

notice before the automated system closes the case. In most States, TANF case closure is 

timed to occur immediately before the next TANF grant is due to be distributed. 

Enhanced Need for Child Support 

The timely receipt of child support payments upon exit from TANF is critical to custodial 

families’ self-sufficiency in the first few months after TANF exit. Families may be most 

vulnerable during the period immediately following the end of their receipt of TANF 

assistance. The family may be adjusting to new arrangements, including changes in work, 

housing, daycare and transportation. Payment of child support at this juncture is likely to 

have a great impact on the success of the transition from TANF to self-sufficiency. 

Receipt of child support payments and the timely transfer of these payments 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 2 OEI-05-01-00220 
from the State to the family plays an important role in ensuring that families do not return 

to the TANF rolls. 

After a custodial parent’s earnings, child support is the most important income source for 

poor, single female-headed families receiving child support. For these families, the child 

support amounts to an average of 26 percent of the family’s budget, or $2,000 per year.3 

When families headed by single mothers get at least some child support during the year, 

their poverty rate drops significantly, from 33 percent to 22 percent.4 According to one 

study, women who did not receive child support had a 31 percent chance of returning to 

welfare after 6 months off the rolls, while those who did receive monthly support had only 

a 9 percent chance of returning to the welfare rolls.5 In addition, child support is 

complimentary to work in that it helps increase single mothers’ labor force participation by 

stabilizing and supplementing low-wage earnings. 

Child Support Distribution for Current TANF Recipients: Disregards/Passthroughs, Excess Collected Child Support and Zero TANF Grants 

Current Temporary Assistance to Needy Families recipients may receive some or all of the 

child support collected on their behalf. While PRWORA ended the requirement that 

States “pass through” or “disregard” up to $50 of collected child support to families 

receiving cash assistance, twenty-three States still pass through a portion of collected child 

support to TANF recipients. That is, in these States, up to $50 of child support is 

provided to the TANF recipients without counting the money as income against 

continuing TANF eligibility and benefits. Additionally, Federal waivers have been granted 

to some States to expand their disregard allocation. Wisconsin, for instance, provides the 

full amount of child support collected for most TANF recipients without impacting their 

TANF benefits or continuing eligibility. 

TANF recipients are also entitled to receive the amount of child support collected up to 

the obligated amount that exceeds the TANF grant when there are no unreimbursed 

arrears on their TANF account. States may also pass through excess child support to 

TANF recipients even if there are unreimbursed arrears. In these States, a TANF recipient 

may receive a portion of the collected child support that exceeds their TANF grant, up to 

the obligated amount of child support. This scenario happens most frequently in States 

that award lower than average grant amounts or when a TANF recipient is in “zero-grant 

status.” In some States, a client may be considered an active TANF cash assistance 

recipient, but receive a zero cash grant for one or more months. This usually occurs when 

the client receives a full TANF sanction or when his or her earned income reaches a level 

that bars further cash assistance without immediately ending eligibility. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 3 OEI-05-01-00220 
Related Prior Office of Inspector General Work 

In a March 2000 Office of Inspector General (OIG) report entitled, “Client Cooperation 

with Child Support Enforcement,” OEI-O6-98-00042, child support and TANF agency 

staff indicated problems contacting one another to discuss cases. Although many local 

offices have access to automated interfaces between the two agencies, there are often 

problems with the interfaces such as system prohibitions on accessing certain necessary 

fields. The report indicated that staff of both child support and TANF agencies expressed 

frustration in trying to reach one another to discuss cases. Staff complained of 

unanswered telephones and unreturned calls from workers and managers of both agencies. 

In August 2000, the Inspector General released “Child Support Enforcement State 

Disbursement Units: State Implementation Progress,” OEI-06-00-00040. This study 

described States' experiences in developing and operating State Disbursement Units 

(SDUs). As of April 2000, 38 States and territories had SDUs that process payments for 

the Federally required caseload. Forty-nine States had or were planning to have 

automated telephone response systems to access such information as the last payment 

received on a case. Finally, 35 States track the percent of payments disbursed within 2 

business days of receipt, and 11 States reported that meeting this requirement was a 

continuing problem. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

This report examines the processes used by State Child Support Enforcement and TANF 

agencies to transfer current child support payments to custodial parents upon exit from 

TANF. We also examined the processes States use to distribute child support to current 

TANF recipients. All data collection occurred between February and April 2001. 

We focused our case file review on the transfer of support in paying cases. We did not 

examine TANF and CSE agencies’ enforcement efforts to collect support for families in 

non-paying cases. 

We collected data through the following four mechanisms: 

1. Case file review of 145 TANF leavers with consistent child support collections, 

2. Phone interviews with 26 of these TANF leavers, 

3. On-site interviews with administrative and casework staff from five State TANF 

and CSE agencies, and 

4. Fax survey of 51 State TANF and CSE agencies. 

We made onsite visits to five States — California, Colorado, Louisiana, Massachusetts 

and Washington — to conduct case file reviews and staff interviews. We selected our 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 4 OEI-05-01-00220 
five case-study States based on TANF and child support caseloads and larger than average 

percent decline in their TANF population. In addition, we selected these States based on 

whether their TANF and/or CSE systems were State or county administered, as well as 

their geographic location. 

Case-file Reviews 

To evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of States’ processes to disburse collected child 

support within the required 2 day time frame, we selected a sample of cases in Colorado, 

Louisiana, Massachusetts and Washington based on the following criteria: 

C The custodial parent’s TANF case closed in June 2000 and stayed closed in 

July, August and September.6 

C Child support payments were collected on the custodial parent’s behalf 

every month between January and June 2000. 

Based on these criteria, we randomly selected 30 cases to review in each State, with the 

exception of California. 

In California, which has county-administered child support and TANF systems, we chose 

to limit our evaluation to two counties. In each county, we reviewed 15 cases. In one 

county, staff were unable to provide us with the universe of all cases meeting our selection 

criteria from which to choose a random sample. The sample in this county, therefore, was 

not selected through the same methods and is not included in any weighted data presented. 

The total number of cases reviewed was 145. (Five cases were eliminated prior to our 

analysis because they did not meet the above-mentioned criteria.) 

For each sampled case, we examined the child support amount ordered, collected and 

distributed between January and December 2000. Through this review, we assessed 

whether the payments were distributed to the appropriate party in a timely manner and for 

the correct amount. Specifically, we determined the extent to which child support 

payments were disbursed to TANF leavers within the 2 day requirement. Two types of 

transfer errors can occur: 1) cases in which the first payment after exit is delayed; and, 2) 

cases in which the family never receives one or more payments owed to them after TANF 

exit, which are heretofore referred to as “underpayments.” We calculated the amount 

owed to these parents, as well as the amount of time they waited to receive their first full 

payments. 

In addition, we examined the payments made to custodial parents prior to June 2000, 

while they were TANF recipients. In all five case-study States, we determined whether 

custodial parents received TANF grants that were lower than the amount of obligated 

child support collected and examined the systems in place to distribute this “excess” 

collected support. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 5 OEI-05-01-00220 
We reviewed the case files in our sample on-site in both the State CSE and TANF offices 

on their respective automated case file systems. 

We stratified the sample by State within our universe defined as the four case-study States 

mentioned above and one California county. We weighted the sample in accordance with 

the sample design. Six hundred and nineteen cases in the four States and one county met 

our evaluation criteria. 

Recipient Interviews 

In order to learn first hand about custodial parents’ experiences receiving child support 

after leaving TANF, we interviewed by phone 26 families randomly-selected from our case 

file sample. We interviewed five from each of four case-study States and six randomlyselected recipients (three in each county) from California. 

Case-study Interviews 

To obtain information on the process used by the TANF and CSE agencies to distribute 

support in these cases, we interviewed State TANF and Child Support Enforcement policy 

staff responsible for oversight and guidance pertaining to this issue, as well as one TANF 

and one CSE caseworker in each of two local offices in each case-study State. In 

California and Colorado, which both have county-run child support systems, we also 

interviewed county-level CSE and TANF administrative and policy staff. In addition, we 

reviewed copies of relevant State and county policy guidance, education materials and 

TANF discontinuance and CSE continuation of services notices. 

We examined States’ automated processes for sharing information between the TANF and 

CSE agencies. We examined coordination between State agencies regarding the transfer 

of client information. We examined State policies regarding the education of this 

population. 

Fifty-one State Survey 

We also conducted a 51-State survey (including Washington D.C.) of State Child Support 

Enforcement and TANF agencies. The intent of the survey was to determine State 

processes for ensuring timely disbursement of child support payments to TANF leavers. 

In particular, we gathered information regarding automated systems, case management, 

client education and inter-agency collaboration. We received 94 out of 102 (92 percent) 

surveys — 45 from State CSE agencies and 49 from TANF agencies. 

Our review was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections 

issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 6 OEI-05-01-00220 
FINDINGS 

States Pay Less in TANF Cash Assistance Than They Collect 

in Child Support for Some Current TANF Families 

All of the case-study States’ automated child support systems respond to the TANF 

agencies’ automated submission of case status changes. In such systems, only when case 

status changes in the TANF agency system is the CSE agency notified to redistibute 

collected support from the State to the custodial parent. If the TANF agency does not 

alert the CSE of TANF case closure, child support payments will continue to be 

distributed to the State. 

In some cases, however, TANF recipients have zero TANF grants due to working their 

way off TANF assistance and collecting earned income, or sanctions for non-compliance 

with a State TANF requirement. Other recipients may receive a TANF grant that is lower 

than the amount of collected obligated child support. Without State systems in place to 

either temporarily or permanently close a TANF case to distribute collected child support 

that exceeds the TANF cash grant, TANF recipients may accrue unnecessary months on 

their TANF lifetime clocks. Some of these families will lose the opportunity to receive a 

greater amount of assistance through their child support than through their TANF cash 

assistance. In effect, TANF recipients who are working their way off TANF may be 

worse off because they are neither receiving TANF cash assistance nor collected child 

support. 

Additionally, TANF recipients are entitled to all collected child support payments up to 

the obligation amount that exceeds their TANF grant when there are no unreimbursed 

TANF arrears (URA) on their accounts.7 While most TANF recipients have URA, States 

must have processes in place to accurately distribute payments to recipients who do not. 

In the case-study States, 12 of 145 TANF recipients had zero TANF grants for one or 

more months preceding TANF exit due to either earned income or a sanction. Both the 

TANF and CSE agencies considered these cases to be active TANF recipients, and the 

families did not receive child support collected on their behalf. Thirty-five TANF 

recipients had one or more months when their TANF grants were more than zero, but less 

than the amount of collected obligated child support. 

Automated systems in the case-study States are not designed to distribute excess collected 

child support, and States need to implement manual procedures for accurately handling 

these situations. Three case-study States have policies and procedures to close TANF 

cases when support exceeds the TANF grant, while two case-study States have no process 

to ensure that excess support will be distributed to clients. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 7 OEI-05-01-00220 
Three case-study States and one county rely on caseworkers to close TANF 

cases when support exceeds the TANF grant 

Three case-study States and one county have policies to handle the closure of TANF cases 

when collected child support exceeds a family’s TANF grant. These States and county 

depend on TANF caseworkers to manually close TANF cases when excess support has 

been received for a specified amount of time. These systems do not require caseworkers 

to consider the amount of URA that exist on a recipient’s account before closing the case. 

These States have no specific review processes in place to certify that case closures are 

accurately occurring in this situation. 

In one case-study State, excess support is distributed to current TANF recipients on a 

monthly basis, regardless of unreimbursed arrears, and caseworkers are instructed to close 

these TANF cases when excess support has been collected for two consecutive months. 

Another State has procedures to close a case after excess support is collected for one 

month. The third State and the county require support to be collected for 2 months before 

a case may be closed. This process, however, results in a 3 month period of time during 

which a recipient could have avoided accruing time toward the lifetime TANF limit and/or 

could have received a greater amount of money through child support. 

In one case-study State and one county, there are no processes to ensure excess 

support is distributed 

One case-study State and one county do not have procedures in place to ensure that 

excess collected child support will be distributed to TANF recipients. One case-study 

State TANF agency considers regularly collected child support exceeding a recipient’s 

cash grant to be income, and reports that TANF caseworkers should close cash assistance 

in these situation. However, TANF staff in one of the county offices in this State reported 

that TANF caseworkers were not regularly reviewing collected child support. Further, 

county CSE administrative and caseworker staff report that the automated interface is not 

designed to alert TANF caseworkers of child support collections. These respondents also 

believed that TANF recipients were not entitled to excess support unless they did not have 

URA. In cases without URA, one CSE caseworker reported that excess support is held 

until TANF exit. In this county, 5 of the 14 case files reviewed (36 percent) had excess 

support, four of which occurred due to zero TANF grants.8 

In the other case-study State without a process regarding excess collected support, 

confusion among State policy staff regarding clients’ entitlement to excess support may 

account for the lack of a process to ensure accurate distribution. In this State, the TANF 

agency believes that the TANF case is automatically considered closed when there is a 

zero grant, while the CSE agency believes the case is open. In practice, if a TANF 

recipient has a zero grant, the CSE caseworker receives an “error message” and must call 

the TANF agency to follow up before the CSE system changes the TANF case status. 

Ultimately, State staff report that they rely on clients to request case closure when 

collected child support exceeds the TANF grant. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 8 OEI-05-01-00220 
After TANF Exit, Eight Percent of Custodial Parents in our 

Case-Study States Experienced Delays and Three Percent 

Were Underpaid 

In each of the five case-study States, we conducted case file reviews to determine whether 

child support payments are correctly distributed to families after TANF exit. According to 

Federal law, States have two business days after receipt of a payment to disburse the full 

amount of collected support to the custodial parent.9 

Eleven percent of custodial parents in the case-study States experienced delays and 

underpayments. Payment delays and underpayments ranged from 2 of 30 cases (7 

percent) in one State to 8 of 27 cases (30 percent) in another State. In 7 percent of the 

cases in our case-study States, the first payment after TANF exit was delayed for an 

average of 11 days. In an additional 3 percent of the cases, the first payment was never 

correctly distributed. These recipients waited an average of 23 days to receive any 

payment, and the States owe them an average of $84.80. In one county, 2 of the 14 (14 

percent) sampled custodial parents never received any child support payments after 

leaving TANF, and they are still owed an average of $499.50. 

Child Support Payment Errors After TANF Exit 

State Universe Total 

Cases 

Reviewed 

Total Cases 

with Delays or 

Underpayments 

Percent Cases 

with Delays or 

Underpayments 

State 1- county 1 n/a 14 4 28.57% 

State 1- county 2 45 14 4 28.57% 

State 2 49 27 8 29.63% 

State 3 66 30 3 10.00% 

State 4 87 30 3 10.00% 

State 5 367 30 2 6.67% 

UNWEIGHTED 

TOTALS: 

614 145 24 16.55% 

WEIGHTE D 

TOTAL: 

10.94% 

(+/- 5%)10 

OIG Collected Data 

NOTE: In assessing the number of payment errors in each State, we determined the date of the first 

child support payment received by the State from the non-custodial parent after the custodial 

parent had exited TANF. We counted cases in which this payment was disbursed after the 2 

day requirement or had never been correctly distributed to the custodial parent. To determine 

the number of days delayed, we examined each case in which the first payment after exit was 

sent to the custodial parent three or more business days after it was received by the State. We 

did not, however, subtract non-business days from the number of days delayed after the first 3 

days. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 9 OEI-05-01-00220 
Nationally, Eleven States Report Difficulties Transferring 

Child Support. Problems May Increase When Caseworkers 

Must Intervene. 

Eleven of the 51 States surveyed (22 percent) cite difficulties accurately transferring child 

support payments to families who have left Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. 

Complications include problems with automated interfaces, incorrect client addresses, 

clients cycling on and off TANF, and caseworker intervention in the transfer process. 

Most States Rely on Automated Interfaces to Transfer Child Support 

States use electronic interfaces to exchange case information between the State TANF and 

CSE agencies’ automated systems. Most States rely on automated information exchanges 

to distribute child support. Nationally, 73 percent of States’ systems interface on a nightly 

basis. Three of the five case-study States have automated systems that interface 

overnight, while one State’s interface occurs every 2 days and another occurs weekly. 

In four out of five case-study States, TANF case closures are electronically transmitted to 

the CSE automated system, which automatically changes recipients’ TANF status and 

redistributes subsequent child support payments to the custodial parent. In one case-study 

State, while the systems exchange information on a nightly basis, child support caseworker 

intervention is required to change a recipient’s TANF status on the CSE automated 

system. 

Over One-Half of States Report Problems With Their Automated Interfaces 

Twenty-eight of the 51 States surveyed (55 percent) report problems with their automated 

interfaces. Flaws in a State’s automated interface may lead to distribution errors. States’ 

problems included incompatibility between TANF and CSE automated systems, repeated 

system redesigns and frequency of automated information exchange. In one case-study 

State and one county, according to policy staff, design problems may contribute to 

incorrect distribution of child support. For instance, one county caseworker explained 

that the CSE system can only capture last names from the TANF interface. Consequently, 

when a child changes custody between individuals with the same last name, CSE continues 

to send support to the original custodial parent, rather than redistributing it to the 

currently-entitled recipient. 

In addition, State CSE automated systems typically track each family member in a case, 

while TANF agencies track cases by custodial parent. In some States, the CSE agency 

must be notified about a specific household member, in order to properly distribute child 

support. For example, in one case-study State with a “Family Cap” policy, children born 

to a current TANF recipient are not entitled to TANF, but are entitled to collected child 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 10 OEI-05-01-00220 
support. The TANF caseworkers in this State report concern that distribution errors 

occur due to automated system glitches. 

The frequency of the automated information exchange may impact accurate payment 

disbursement. In one case-study State, the semi-monthly payment of TANF grants and 

weekly automated exchange of case closures between the State TANF and CSE agencies 

may create delays and cause incorrect disbursement of child support payments. In 

response, the State has developed an automated monthly reconciliation process between 

the State TANF and CSE automated systems. However, State TANF staff are concerned 

that clients still may have to wait up to one month before receiving a post-TANF child 

support payment. Three of the 30 cases reviewed (10 percent) in this State exhibited 

payment errors. Two of these custodial parents waited more than 3 months to receive 

their first payments and are still owed $315 and $420 respectively. 

Incorrect client addresses and cycling on and off TANF may cause payment 

problems 

Nationally, only three States (six percent) require child support caseworkers to update 

clients’ addresses at TANF exit. However, CSE agency respondents from an additional 

four States are concerned that recipient addresses are not updated adequately and view 

incorrect addresses as a large contributor to payment delays. One respondent believes 

that, “Not having current address information for the former TANF recipient is our 

[State’s] biggest challenge.” Thirty-nine State TANF agencies disburse cash assistance via 

Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT), while most State CSE agencies disburse child support 

payments through paper checks. In a State with EBT, TANF recipients may have less 

incentive to regularly update their addresses than they would in a State that sends paper 

checks. In one case-study State that provides TANF grants via EBT and child support 

via paper checks, five of the eight cases with payment problems (63 percent) were caused 

by incorrect client addresses. 

In three States, respondents believe that recipients cycling on and off TANF may cause 

incorrect distribution of child support payments. In one State, TANF cases may be closed 

on any day of the month, and CSE policy staff report that their automated systems are 

unable to manage recipients’ frequent case openings and closings. Most other States 

report that their automated systems can respond accurately to frequent client status 

changes. 

Reliance on Child Support caseworkers to transfer collected payments is 

plausibly associated with increased payment error rates 

Nationally, five States, including one case-study State, require CSE caseworker 

intervention to redistribute collected child support payments from the State to custodial 

parents after TANF exit. Three of these States reported difficulty redistributing support 

to families who have exited TANF. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 11 OEI-05-01-00220 
The case-study State with the highest percentage of delays and underpayments requires 

caseworker intervention to redistribute payments after TANF exit. In this State, the 

TANF agency transmits a file of all monthly case closures to the CSE agency on the last 

day of each month. This process triggers a list of clients to be sent to the appropriate CSE 

caseworkers on the first of each month. 

Caseworkers in this State must change the status of the clients who have left TANF by the 

third of the month in order to ensure that collected child support payments are accurately 

distributed. On the fourth of the month, the State CSE automated system generates an 

“exception report,” a list of cases for which TANF case status differs on the CSE and 

TANF automated systems. Collected support for these cases is put on hold until the 

TANF case status is reconciled. 

According to the staff in one local office in this State, in February 2001, there were 161 

cases with conflicting TANF status on their exception report, which indicates that 

caseworkers had not changed the status quickly enough to ensure accurate payment 

distribution. For the cases reviewed, we found that CSE caseworkers wait an average of 

six days after receiving notification to change clients’ TANF status.11 In this State, 

payments collected in the first few days of the month, which are supposed to be 

distributed to the TANF leaver, are likely to be delayed.12 

Child Support Enforcement Agencies Have No Systematic 

Oversight of the Transfer Process in Most Case-Study States 

According to the PRWORA, each State must assess annually the performance of its child 

support enforcement programs and report their findings to the Secretary. “...[T]he 

Federal government’s audit responsibilities now focus primarily on results and fiscal 

accountability while States are to focus on the responsibilities for child support service 

delivery in accordance with Federal mandates.” The OCSE will assist the States by 

providing “comments, recommendations for additional or alternative corrective action, and 

any technical assistance that a State may need.”13 

Under the final rule on State self-assessment, States must review whether their State 

Disbursement Units disburse collected child support within two business days. 

Specifically, States need only review the last payment made on each sampled case. 

Because distribution of support is not required to be examined over time, changes in 

distribution due to TANF case closure may not be captured. One case-study State auditor 

explained that, formerly, his State’s review process covered the last eight payments 

collected for each sampled case, which might catch distribution errors caused by changing 

TANF case status. Currently, with the implementation of State self-assessment 

procedures, the State is only required to review the disbursement of one payment. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 12 OEI-05-01-00220 
According to State child support policy staff in all five case-study States, there is 

no policy requiring systematic review of TANF leavers’ child support distribution 

State CSE agencies are not required to specifically sample cases where TANF case status 

has changed. State self-assessments are not designed to catch inaccurate child support 

distribution when a client leaves TANF cash assistance. If a case is closed on the TANF 

automated system, and the CSE automated system does not capture this change, child 

support will continue to be distributed to the State. Thus, if selected for self-assessment, 

child support for these cases will appear to have been accurately distributed. 

Case-study States report that they rely on their internal fiscal audit processes and required 

self-assessment to ensure accurate collection and distribution. There are no explicit 

requirements, however, that self-assessments specifically cover collection and distribution 

for TANF leavers. Additionally, CSE State policy staff in the five case-study States report 

that child support caseworkers are not required to routinely review TANF leavers’ 

accounts for this purpose. 

Caseworkers’ account reviews in case-study States may not be sufficient 

Two case-study States have developed processes for caseworker review of TANF leavers’ 

accounts. In one State, reviews occur at local office discretion, while the other State’s 

process only requires review of cases for which TANF case status differs on the CSE and 

TANF automated systems. Neither of these approaches ensures systematic oversight of 

all TANF leavers’ cases, and there is no State-level oversight to ensure the local reviews 

take place. 

In one of these case-study States, at the beginning of every month, the CSE automated 

system produces a list of the previous month’s TANF cash assistance leavers, which is 

distributed to local office administrators. Use of the lists to verify TANF exit occurs at 

the discretion of these administrators. The two local offices visited in this State have 

designed a review process to ensure that the automated system correctly changes the 

TANF case status and that child support payments are accurately distributed. In both 

offices, administrators deliver the lists to caseworkers, who must verify that the TANF 

case status is correct on the CSE automated system, as well as ensure that payments have 

been correctly distributed. However, local office staff do not verify that caseworkers 

complete these reviews. 

The automated system in the other case-study State requires child support caseworker 

intervention to change a TANF leaver’s status to ensure that collected support is 

accurately distributed. Because caseworkers may not make these changes in a timely 

manner, the State runs a monthly “exception report,” which catches cases with conflicting 

TANF case status on the CSE and TANF automated systems. Lists of these cases are sent 

to local CSE offices, where both administrative staff and caseworkers review them to 

make case status changes and distribution corrections if necessary. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 13 OEI-05-01-00220 
This review process will not catch distribution errors that occur for reasons other than 

differing case status on the automated systems. In addition, neither the local office 

administrators, nor the State ensures that caseworkers conduct this verification. In 

addition, there is no policy that dictates how quickly caseworkers must make the 

necessary system changes. Consequently, custodial parents may wait weeks before 

receiving collected support payments. 

Most case-study States rely on custodial parents to alert caseworkers of 

distribution errors 

In four of the five case-study States, CSE caseworkers and policy staff report that families 

are responsible for ensuring they receive the correct amount of child support. In two 

case-study States, policy staff reported having a “customer-driven” account review 

process. Four case-study States review TANF leavers’ accounts only at parent request. 

Families may have difficulty fulfilling the responsibility of monitoring their accounts. State 

CSE agencies are required to provide TANF families with a monthly account report 

indicating support collection and distribution on their accounts. States may receive a 

waiver to provide this information on a quarterly basis or through an automated toll free 

number. In some case-study States, some parents reported difficulty understanding the 

monthly accounting forms. One parent reported difficulty understanding the accounting 

report forms because the collection and distribution payments codes were unclear, while a 

few other parents expressed confusion that may be related to their non-custodial obligor 

owing support to more than one custodial parent. 

In two case-study States, TANF caseworkers routinely call the CSE agency on behalf of 

their clients who have problems accessing information through the automated phone 

system. Client complaints about the CSE automated phone systems reported by State 

staff and families that we interviewed include frequent busy signals and complicated 

directions. 

Client complaints by type of problem are not collected by State child support agencies. In 

all case-study States, staff from both TANF and CSE agencies report that errors with child 

support distribution occur. However, States are unable to systematically report error 

frequency or if they were alerted to such problems from clients. In case-study States, 

CSE caseworkers handle between 240 to 980 cases and work cases on an as-needed basis. 

So, rather than call a specific CSE caseworker, recipients with problems or questions are 

directed to call a general number to report problems. Both CSE caseworkers and call 

center staff are required to enter casenotes into a client’s file when handling a parent’s call 

on behalf of his or her case. We found evidence in only two of 145 cases reviewed with a 

distribution or disbursement error that a parent had called to request assistance reconciling 

their case. 

Recent TANF leavers may also contact the TANF agency with child support complaints. 

Typically, TANF recipients are assigned a TANF caseworker with whom they have onDistributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 14 OEI-05-01-00220 
going contact. In contrast, once a child support case has been established and enforced, 

most clients have limited contact with the CSE agency. However, TANF agencies do not 

require their staff to record casenotes for closed cases and are also not able to report 

complaint type or frequency. Further, some TANF caseworkers report that they are not 

aware of the details regarding child support distribution policies and do not provide 

information about child support to their clients. The TANF caseworkers in three casestudy States typically refer clients with child support related question to the CSE agency. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 15 OEI-05-01-00220 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

The TANF caseloads have been rapidly decreasing in the last few years. In the next year, 

additional TANF recipients in all States will leave welfare as they reach their 5 year lifetime limit. Recent TANF leavers face many challenges making a successful transition from 

welfare to self-sufficiency. Child support is an important income source for these lowincome families. State child support agencies’ timely, accurate distribution of collected 

child support payments to recent TANF leavers plays a critical role in helping these 

families maintain self-sufficiency. 

The Office of Child Support Enforcement and the Office Of 

Family Assistance Should Work Together to Provide 

Technical Assistance to the States to Improve State CSE and 

TANF Agencies’ Automated System Interfaces’ Capacity to: 

Share caseload information accurately, including: 

C TANF case status,

C TANF grant amount, and 

C child support obligation and collected payment amount.

States rely on electronic information exchanges between their TANF and CSE agencies’

automated systems to accurately distribute collected child support. We found problems in

the transfer of child support to TANF leavers and current TANF recipients in eleven

percent of reviewed cases. Nationally, nearly one-third of States report problems with

their automated interfaces. State automated systems do not always accurately share the

information listed above, which likely causes payments to be missed, delayed or

incorrectly distributed. 

Share caseload information efficiently by ensuring that: 

C State TANF and CSE automated systems interface on a nightly basis. 

States must disburse collected child support within two business days. Not all systems 

automatically share case information nightly, which likely caused collected child support 

payment delays in reviewed cases. 

Automatically redistribute collected child support 

C TANF case closures should automatically trigger redistribution of collected child 

support from the State to TANF leavers without CSE caseworker intervention. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 16 OEI-05-01-00220 
We found that caseworker intervention in the transfer process may contribute to 

inaccurate payment distribution. Nationally, three of the five States that require 

caseworker intervention to redistribute child support payments report difficulty 

transferring support to families leaving TANF. The case-study State with the highest 

number of transfer errors also requires manual intervention. 

In Order to Ensure Timely Disbursement of Collected 

Support, the Office of Family Assistance and the Office of 

Child Support Enforcement Should Encourage States to 

Emphasize Address Verification and Child Support 

Distribution Requirements In: 

1. The TANF Discontinuation Notice, 

2. The Child Support Continuing Services Notice, and 

3. Monthly/Quarterly Collection and Distribution Notices. 

Specifically, these notices to families leaving TANF cash assistance should include: 

C an address verification form to be returned by the TANF leaver to the State CSE 

within 10 days of receipt, 

C language emphasizing the importance of the State requirement to maintain a 

current address, and 

C notice that when collections are made, child support checks will be mailed within 2 

days to the recipient’s home. 

Through our case file review and interviews, we found that the lack of a current address 

impacts State CSE agencies’ ability to disburse collected support within the 2 day 

requirement. While families are required to provide address changes to both the TANF 

and CSE agencies, most TANF agencies provide benefits through Electronic Benefits 

Transfer. As such, neither caseworkers, nor parents may currently focus on keeping 

addresses current, and families may not be regularly providing updated addresses to either 

the TANF or CSE agency. As families leave TANF, State CSE agencies must ensure that 

they have recipients’ updated addresses so that payments via U.S. mail are sent correctly. 

States are required to send families TANF discontinuation and child support continuing 

services letters at TANF exit. Written notices, unlike checks, can be forwarded to new 

mailing addresses and can serve as needed reminders to recent TANF leavers regarding 

their right to collected support and their responsibility to notify the CSE agency of new 

addresses in order to ensure timely collected payment receipt. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 17 OEI-05-01-00220 
The Office of Family Assistance and the Office of Child 

Support Enforcement Should Provide Technical Assistance 

to the State TANF and CSE Agencies to Implement Policies 

and Procedures for Handling Excess Support 

TANF agencies and CSE agencies should be encouraged to redesign their 

automated systems to: 

C flag zero grant cases; 

C accurately distribute collected child support that exceeds the TANF grant without 

TANF or CSE caseworker intervention; 

C automatically close TANF cases when excess support is collected for two 

consecutive months; and 

C retroactively reduce a recipient’s accrued months on TANF by one month for 

every month in which excess support is collected. 

The TANF recipients are entitled to all collected child support payments that exceed their 

TANF grant, up to the obligation amount, when there are no unreimbursed TANF arrears. 

TANF recipients with collected support that equals or exceeds their TANF grants, 

regardless of URA, accrue unnecessary months against their TANF lifetime limit when 

they could be receiving a greater amount of assistance through child support. 

The TANF recipients may receive small TANF grants or zero grants as their earnings 

increase. The absence of policies to close cases or retroactively credit TANF recipients’ 

time clocks actually may be a deterrent to work or to cooperation with child support 

enforcement efforts. States should reward, not penalize, TANF recipients who are 

working their way off TANF. 

In lieu of system redesign and/or while States are in the redesign process, TANF recipients 

should be informed that support in excess of their TANF grant has been collected and that 

they should contact their TANF caseworker to discuss possible case closure. 

To Improve Accountability and Program Effectiveness, the 

State Child Support Self-Assessment Processes Should 

Address the Outcome of Collection and Distribution for 

TANF leavers 

For all cases sampled for review as part of the self-assessment process, State 

CSE agencies should ensure that CSE automated systems are accurately 

identifying closed TANF cases by: 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 18 OEI-05-01-00220 
C Verifying that TANF case status is identical in both the CSE and TANF automated 

systems. 

This practice will identify system discrepancies between State TANF and CSE automated 

systems and enable States, if applicable, to retroactively issue payments to custodial 

parents who did not receive their collected payments after TANF exit. 

C Purposively sampling cases of TANF leavers. 

Current audit procedures in the States are not designed to catch errors in child support 

distribution to families who have recently left TANF. Distribution problems may arise 

when the TANF case closure notification process breaks down between the States’ TANF 

and CSE agencies. State CSE agencies may incorrectly distribute collected support to the 

State, and not the TANF leaver, either because they have not been properly notified of the 

case status change by the TANF agency, or because they have not accurately processed 

this information. In order to ensure accurate case status, purposive samples of TANF 

leavers must be drawn by the CSE agency from the TANF agency’s case status records. 

Finally, all TANF leavers’ cases reviewed by States under the self-assessment 

provision should be subject to a higher compliance rate than the current 75 

percent requirement for accurate disbursement of collections. 

Current Federal regulation requiring a 75 percent rate for correct disbursement of child 

support collections is not sufficient for families exiting TANF. In order to reduce 

recidivism and help these vulnerable families remain off the TANF rolls and become selfsufficient, States must meet a higher level of compliance. The vast majority of these 

families should receive collected support within the two-day Federal requirement. 

States Should Consider the Use of Special Improvement 

Projects Grants to: 

1. Facilitate Automated System Improvements, and 

2. Enhance Consumer Education Initiatives. 

The Office of Child Support Enforcement annually invites States to submit competitive 

grant applications for special improvement projects which further the national child 

support goals and advance the provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work 

Opportunity Reconciliation Act. States could access resources through these grants to 

make the needed changes outlined above. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 19 OEI-05-01-00220 
AGENCY COMMENTS 

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) reviewed this report and agreed with 

most of our findings and recommendations. Where appropriate, we changed the report to 

reflect their comments. The full ACF comments are contained in the Appendix. 

The ACF agreed with our recommendation that OCSE and OFA should work together to 

provide additional assistance to improve State agencies’ automated interfaces’ capacity. 

In addition, the ACF agreed that some of the findings and recommendations from this 

report could be included among the topics considered for Special Improvement Project 

grants in the future. 

The ACF agreed with the OIG’s recommendation that OFA and OCSE should provide 

technical assistance to State TANF agencies to implement policies and procedures for 

handling excess support. Further, ACF indicated that both OFA and OCSE should jointly 

engage in providing such assistance. We have made changes in our report to reflect the 

importance of joint agency efforts. The ACF expressed concern that State TANF systems 

would have to undergo significant changes in order to implement this recommendation. 

We maintain that TANF agencies should be encouraged to redesign their automated 

systems to ensure that excess support is managed appropriately. 

The ACF questioned why the waiting period of two months for automatic TANF closure 

was specified in our recommendation. While cases could be closed on a monthly basis, we 

believe that a two month time period is a better indicator that consistent child support 

payments will be made to the custodial parent. On the other hand, to wait a period of 

three months for closure unnecessarily depletes a recipient’s lifetime TANF benefit. 

Language incorporated in a draft version of this report did not mean to infer that excess 

child support should not be accurately distributed from the time of receipt. 

The ACF disagreed with our recommendation that the State self-assessment process 

should address the outcome of collection and distribution for TANF leavers. However, 

there is no other required mechanism that measures whether States are accurately 

distributing child support payments on a timely basis. Therefore, we believe that 

regulations should be changed to require that States use the self-assessment as a 

monitoring tool. Because TANF leavers are a small percentage of all cases, this 

monitoring should address the collection and distribution for TANF leavers through a 

purposive sample. 

The ACF also disagreed that all TANF leavers’ cases reviewed by States should be subject 

to a higher compliance rate for accurate disbursement of collections than the current 75 

percent requirement. We believe that a 75 percent compliance rate is not a high enough 

standard of success for States to gauge their accuracy in distributing child support to all 

families, not just families leaving TANF. To us it seems unacceptable that 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 20 OEI-05-01-00220 
States are able to inaccurately retain collected child support payments for 25 percent of 

families, yet still be considered compliant with Federal regulations. That would be 

comparable to saying that a business payroll process would be deemed successful even if 

25 percent of its employees were not paid on time. 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 21 OEI-05-01-00220 
APPENDIX 

Agency Comments 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 22 OEI-05-01-00220 
APPENDIX 

Agency Comments 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 23 OEI-05-01-00220 
APPENDIX 

Agency Comments 

P

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 24 OEI-05-01-00220 
PENDIX A 

Agency Comments 

APPENDIX 

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 25 OEI-05-01-00220 
END NOTES 

1. 45CFR302(b)(ii)

2. 45CFR302.32(2)(ii)

3. “Child Support Offers Some Protection Against Poverty,” Elaine Sorenson & Chava Zibman, Urban

Institute, March, 2000.

4. “What if All of the Money Came Home”, Vicki Turetsky, CLASP, March, 2000.

5. Olivia Golden’s testimony before the Subcommittee on Human Resources, May, 2000.

6. One State provided us with a universe of cases that closed in May 2000.

7. Some States choose to distribute excess support even when URA exists for a recipient. 

8. We did not record the amount of unreimbursed arrears on these accounts.

9. Child support collected up to the obligated amount must be distributed to the client.

10. The confidence interval was computed at the 90 percent level.

11. In one case, a client cycled on and off of TANF. The Child Support caseworker changed the status to

non-TANF in May and never changed it back to TANF. This case was dropped from this calculation, so

the average is based on 26 cases.

12. This statement takes into consideration that some payments received by the State in the beginning of a

month are collected from non-custodial parents the previous month and should be credited to the State.

13. 45 CFR Part 308

Distributing Child Support to Families Exiting TANF 26 OEI-05-01-00220