Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JUNE GIBBS BROWN 

Inspector General 

MARCH 2000 

OEI-06-98-00042 

Client Cooperation With 

Child Support Enforcement 

The Role of Public Assistance Agencies 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

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

protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services programs as well as the 

health and welfare of beneficiaries served by them. This statutory mission is carried out through a 

nationwide program of audits, investigations, inspections, sanctions, and fraud alerts. The 

Inspector General informs the Secretary of program and management problems and recommends 

legislative, regulatory, and operational approaches to correct them. 

Office of Evaluation and Inspections 

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

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

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

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

effectiveness of departmental programs. 

OEI's Region VI prepared this report under the direction of Chester B. Slaughter, Regional 

Inspector General and Judith V. Tyler, Deputy Regional Inspector General. 

Principal OEI staff included: 

DALLAS 

Blaine Collins

Ruth Ann Dorrill

Marnette Robertson

Clark Thomas, Ph.D.

Nancy Watts

Lisa White

FIELD OFFICES 

Lucille Cop 

Vincent Greiber 

Ianna Kachoris 

Thomas Purvis 

Graham Rawsthorn 

HEADQUARTERS 

Alan Levine, Program Specialist 

Joan Richardson, Program Specialist 

Linda Hall 

To obtain copies of this report, please call the Dallas Regional Office at 214-767-3310. 

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

http://www.dhhs.gov/progorg/oei 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

To describe the role of public assistance agencies and interagency collaboration in gaining 

cooperation with child support enforcement from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF) clients. 

BACKGROUND 

Federal law requires TANF clients to cooperate with State child support enforcement by 

providing information about noncustodial parents and appearing for appointments as needed. 

Public assistance agencies are often responsible for informing clients of these requirements, 

eliciting information from clients about noncustodial parents, and transferring this information to 

the child support agency. If notified by the State child support agency that a client is not 

cooperating, the public assistance agency must reduce the family’s cash assistance by at least 25 

percent and, at State discretion, may deny the family all cash assistance. Additionally, States may 

choose to have their public assistance agency administer “good cause” and other exceptions that 

may exempt clients from cooperating. This report examines the role of public assistance agencies 

and interagency collaboration in gaining TANF client cooperation with child support enforcement 

in six focus States which we chose in order to examine a variety of implementation strategies and 

experiences regarding client cooperation. We surveyed staff and reviewed documents from 99 

local child support and 103 local public assistance offices, and interviewed approximately 180 

local office managers and caseworkers. 

FINDINGS 

AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES 

Public Assistance Staff Typically Interview New Applicants and Clients to Gather 

Basic Information about Noncustodial Parents 

Public assistance staff spend limited interview time gathering information about noncustodial 

parents, with two-thirds of public assistance staff reporting spending 15 minutes or less on this 

portion of TANF client interviews. Clients are asked to provide basic information such as an 

absent parent’s date of birth, current address, current employer, and Social Security number. 

Most Local Public Assistance Offices Quickly Transfer Information to Child 

Support Agencies, Yet Many Child Support Staff Are Concerned About the 

Accuracy and Completeness of Information 

While child support agencies generally rate the timeliness of electronic information transfer from 

public assistance offices as good, some complain they do not receive, or do not have access to, all 

i 
the useful information collected by public assistance staff. Public assistance staff often gather 

enough critical information, such as the noncustodial parent’s Social Security number, for child 

support to pursue enforcement. However, many child support respondents rate the usefulness, 

accuracy, and completeness of information gathered by public assistance as only fair or poor. 

Penalties for Noncooperation in Focus States Vary, But Many Child Support 

Respondents Are Concerned That Penalties are Not Properly Imposed 

In focus States, penalties for noncooperation range from the Federally-mandated 25 percent 

reduction in the family’s cash grant to elimination of all cash assistance. All public assistance 

respondents report notifying TANF clients about the nature and timing of impending penalties, as 

well as their right to appeal an adverse action. Additionally, some local public assistance offices 

attempt to reconcile with clients, and gain cooperation prior to imposing penalties. Many child 

support respondents believe public assistance staff do not always follow through on imposing 

penalties on noncooperative TANF clients. 

AGENCY COLLABORATION 

While Most Public Assistance and Child Support Staff Rate Their Relationship as 

Effective, Many Raise Concerns About Close Collaboration 

Most child support and public assistance staff believe their interagency relationship is effective, 

yet many perceive that their overall agency goals are not aligned. Staff generally characterize the 

public assistance agency as a service agency, whereas most view child support enforcement as an 

arm of law enforcement. Some believe these cultural differences make collaboration more 

difficult, while others see them as an advantage for gaining client cooperation. 

Communication Between Child Support and Public Assistance Workers is Limited 

and Sometimes Problematic, Especially Telephone Contact 

Staff report little communication between workers of each agency and significant problems in 

reaching their counterpart by telephone. Workers suggest that these communication barriers 

complicate casework and potentially hinder client cooperation. 

Staff in Both Agencies Receive Training About Gaining TANF Client Cooperation, 

But Most Training is Conducted Separately 

Most public assistance and child support respondents report formally training workers about State 

cooperation requirements and collecting noncustodial parent information from clients. Crosstraining, however, is limited, with only one-third or less of all training involving representatives 

from the other agency. Respondents involved in cross-training believe it improves staff 

understanding of the needs of the other agency. 

ii 
Some Local Offices Use Co-location or Out-stationing of Child Support Staff in 

Public Assistance Offices to Improve Agency Collaboration 

A number of local office respondents report having child support and public assistance offices at 

the same site (co-location). Others describe having child support staff work at public assistance 

offices either full time or on a scheduled basis (out-stationing). Many credit these strategies with 

improving communication between agencies. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Successful operation of the child support enforcement program requires effective, cooperative 

action by both the Office of Child Support Enforcement and the Office of Family Assistance. 

Therefore, we recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and 

Families (ACF) encourage States to complete the following. 

Focus Public Assistance Information Gathering on Specific Facts about 

Noncustodial Parents That Are Most Useful for Enforcement 

Explore Ways to Enhance Public Assistance Staff Access to Information 

Verification Tools, Potentially Easing the Information Collection Process 

Continue to Improve Systems Which Allow the Exchange of Information Between 

Public Assistance and Child Support Enforcement Agencies 

Work with Local Public Assistance Offices to Insure That Penalties for 

Noncooperation with Child Support Are Properly Imposed 

Strengthen Interaction, Cross-Training, and Communication Between Their Public 

Assistance and Child Support Enforcement Agencies 

COMPANION REPORTS 

This is one of four OIG reports on how States gain TANF client cooperation with child 

support enforcement. One companion report, Client Cooperation with Child Support 

Enforcement: Policies and Practices (OEI-06-98-00040), provides an overview of 

cooperation polices and how they are implemented by States. Another report, Client 

Cooperation with Child Support Enforcement: Challenges and Strategies to Improvement 

(OEI-06-98-00041), examines why some clients do not cooperate and how States attempt 

to gain their cooperation. The remaining report, Client Cooperation with Child Support 

Enforcement: Use of Good Cause Exceptions (OEI-06-98-00043), describes how clients 

may be exempted from cooperation requirements under certain circumstances, especially 

when enforcement may put the child at risk of violence. 

iii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

INTRODUCTION 1

FINDINGS

Agency Responsibilities

Information Collection 4

Transfer of Information 5

Imposing Penalties for Noncooperation 7

Interagency Collaboration 9

RECOMMENDATIONS 13

ENDNOTES 15
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

To describe the role of public assistance agencies and interagency collaboration in gaining 

cooperation with child support enforcement from Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) clients. 

BACKGROUND 

Federal law has long required public assistance clients to cooperate with State child 

support enforcement authorities in establishing and enforcing child support and medical 

support orders, and in establishing paternity. As part of a broad effort to reform the 

nation’s welfare system, Congress made significant changes to Federal policy regarding 

client child support cooperation requirements in the Personal Responsibility and Work 

Opportunity Act of 1996. Currently, unless exempted from cooperation requirements 

through a good cause or other exception,1 TANF clients must name and provide 

information about the noncustodial parent of their children, and otherwise cooperate as 

determined by the State.2 Formerly, State public assistance agencies determined whether 

clients were cooperating with their State’s child support agency; however, welfare reform 

made State child support agencies responsible for determining if TANF clients are 

cooperating in “good faith” and notifying the public assistance agency of each client’s 

cooperation status. Before welfare reform, State public assistance agencies solely 

determined how to deal with clients who failed to cooperate. Now, if the child support 

agency determines a client has not cooperated, the TANF agency is required to reduce the 

family’s cash assistance by at least 25 percent and, at State discretion, may deny the family 

all cash assistance. If a State public assistance agency does not enforce the penalties 

requested by the child support agency, Federal law allows for the State to be penalized up 

to 5 percent of their TANF funds.3 All these changes were made in an attempt to improve 

client cooperation with child support enforcement. While families who receive Medicaid 

coverage, food stamps, or foster care services are also required to cooperate with child 

support enforcement efforts, this report focuses on cooperation issues involving clients of 

the TANF program.4 

State public assistance agencies play a major role in gaining TANF client cooperation, a 

critical first step of child support enforcement. Public assistance staff are often responsible 

for explaining State cooperation requirements to clients, gathering initial information 

about noncustodial parents, transferring this information to the child support agency, and 

imposing penalties on clients deemed noncooperative by the child support agency. Child 

support staff often use the information gathered by public assistance staff to locate a 

noncustodial parent or putative father, establish paternity, create a child support order, 

and/or enforce a prior obligation. Welfare reform increased the importance of 

collaboration between child support enforcement and public assistance agencies. With a 

1
greater focus on moving families toward work and self-sufficiency, child support is seen as 

a potential source of income for many needy families. Therefore, public assistance agency 

support of child support enforcement efforts has become more important than in the past. 

This report describes the role of public assistance agencies in gaining TANF client 

cooperation with child support enforcement and examines interagency collaboration in six 

States. We also identify potential barriers to effective interaction and offer 

recommendations where appropriate. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

We used several sources of information to examine TANF client cooperation with child 

support enforcement. The primary source of information comes from self-administered 

written surveys which we mailed to local child support and public assistance offices. 

Managers and administrators from 99 local child support offices and 103 public assistance 

offices in six focus States - California, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, Texas and Virginia -

returned these mail surveys regarding cooperation policies, practices, and improvement 

strategies. The quantitative data (percentage of responses) presented in this report come 

from responses to the questions in these surveys. We also gathered and reviewed agency 

documents from these same local offices, including client cooperation policy statements, 

standardized forms, examples of correspondence with clients and other agencies, outreach 

materials, and other related documents. 

We also made site visits to a subset of local offices, visiting offices in one or two cities and 

their surrounding areas in each of the six focus States. During these visits, we conducted 

interviews with approximately 180 local public assistance and child support managers and 

caseworkers. At almost all offices, we interviewed one or more managers, then separately 

interviewed two or more caseworkers. Resource constraints prevented us from directly 

interviewing clients. Finally, we conducted telephone interviews of administrators from 

each State’s child support enforcement and public assistance agency to confirm 

information regarding State policies. 

We purposively selected the six focus States to include a variety of implementation 

strategies and experiences regarding client cooperation. To achieve this variety, we 

considered many criteria including type of penalties for noncooperation, number of good 

cause claims, number of good cause exceptions granted, outstanding program 

characteristics (innovations, privatization, etc.), status as State-administered or countyadministered, and geographic region. We also purposively selected local child support and 

public assistance offices within these States to provide a mix of urban, suburban, mid-size, 

and rural locations. The selection of focus States does not purport to be representative of 

the nation, nor do local offices represent all offices within individual focus States. The 

selections do, however, allow for examination of client cooperation processes under 

conditions found throughout the country. 

This report relies on the perceptions of local office survey respondents and interviewees. 

These respondents provided detailed information about how cooperation policies are 

2
implemented, as well as the effect of cooperation requirements on office operations, staff, 

and clients. We did not attempt to independently verify the information provided by staff. 

However, the information included in the report does relate the experience of front line 

staff who deliver services to clients on a daily basis, and who demonstrate considerable 

concern for the effectiveness of their programs. 

This study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections issued 

by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

COMPANION REPORTS 

This is one of four OIG reports on how States gain TANF client cooperation with child 

support enforcement. One companion report, Client Cooperation with Child Support 

Enforcement: Policies and Practices (OEI-06-98-00040), provides an overview of 

cooperation polices and how they are implemented by States. Another report, Client 

Cooperation with Child Support Enforcement: Challenges and Strategies to Improvement 

(OEI-06-98-00041), examines why some clients do not cooperate and how States attempt 

to gain their cooperation. The remaining report, Client Cooperation with Child Support 

Enforcement: Use of Good Cause Exceptions (OEI-06-98-00043), describes how clients 

may be exempted from cooperation requirements under certain circumstances, especially 

when enforcement may put the child at risk of violence. 

3
FINDINGS 

AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES 

In addition to explaining the requirements and benefits of cooperating with child support 

enforcement, public assistance agencies have four specific responsibilities that affect 

TANF client cooperation: collecting information about noncustodial parents from 

applicants and clients; transferring information to the child support agency; imposing 

penalties when the child support agency determines a client is not cooperating; and, at 

State discretion, administering good cause and other exceptions that may exempt clients 

from cooperating with child support enforcement. This section examines the first three of 

these responsibilities, while good cause exceptions are discussed in a companion report.5 

INFORMATION COLLECTION 

Typically, the first opportunity TANF clients have to cooperate with child support 

enforcement occurs when they apply for assistance. During application interviews, clients 

are asked to provide information about noncustodial parents or putative fathers. This 

interview is usually conducted by public assistance staff, although child support staff may 

be out-stationed or co-located in some local public assistance offices and conduct the child 

support portion of the interview.6 No matter who conducts this portion of the application 

interview, the information is generally entered into some form of automated system and 

transferred to the child support agency. 

Public Assistance Staff Spend Limited Interview Time Gathering Noncustodial 

Parent Information, Often Focusing on Basic Information Only 

For public assistance staff conducting new application or re-determination interviews, 

gathering information about noncustodial parents is a small part of a typically lengthy 

process. Sixty percent of public assistance respondents estimate that initial client 

interviews with caseworkers last over half an hour, and another 30 percent indicate these 

interviews are between one and two hours in length. During this time, staff must 

determine deprivation, complete numerous documents, and explain program rules for cash 

assistance and, sometimes, medical coverage and food stamps. Caseworkers explain that 

with all of these demands and limited staff time, the child support portion of the interview 

becomes just one of a series of tasks which they necessarily move through as rapidly as 

possible. 

About two-thirds of public assistance staff report the child support portion of TANF client 

interviews lasts 15 minutes or less. In addition to gathering information during this time, 

interviewers must also explain State cooperation requirements, policies regarding claiming 

good cause or other exceptions, and policies requiring that clients assign to the State any 

child support paid by the noncustodial parent. Clients are typically asked to sign a form 

indicating that they understand all of these policies, agree to cooperate with child support 

4
enforcement, and do not wish to claim an exception. The result of all of these demands is 

that public assistance staff report spending very little time on actually gathering 

information needed for child support enforcement. 

The noncustodial parent portion of the interview often involves obtaining very basic 

answers to specific questions appearing on a printed form or a computer screen and then 

moving to the next topic. Typically, clients are asked to provide information such as a 

noncustodial parent’s date of birth, Social Security number, current address, and current 

employer. Staff report there is often little time to ask probing questions beyond the 

minimum required to fill in the intake form and workers often feel pressure to move on to 

the next interview. As one worker explained, “We would sometimes like to be able to 

spend more time talking about the absent parent and getting better information, but you 

just have to clear the screen and move on sometimes. There’s not time for a lot of finesse 

in getting more information.” 

TRANSFER OF INFORMATION 

Public assistance staff we surveyed report their offices transfer case information to local 

child support offices by several means. Ninety-six percent say they provide access to 

electronic databases and 9 percent say they use electronic mail to send information. 

Additionally, 74 percent send paper forms and records. Most child support workers (91 

percent) agree that they have electronic access to the data collected and maintained by the 

public assistance agency. 

Although Timeliness of Transferring Basic Information to the Child Support 

Agency is Rated as Good, Limited Access to Complete Data Hinders Information 

Sharing 

Seventy percent of child support respondents rate the timeliness of information transfer as 

good or excellent, with the remaining 30 percent ranking timeliness as only fair or poor. 

Many administrators and staff in both agencies attribute this mostly positive rating to 

technology that allows immediate electronic transfer of case information, daily electronic 

batch transfers, or weekly or monthly data tape matches between agencies. 

However, while many offices receive and transfer information in electronic form, some 

workers suggest that electronic systems, as they currently exist, pose a challenge to 

making the most useful information collected by public assistance staff available to child 

support staff. Apparently, public assistance workers enter potentially useful information 

into database fields that child support staff are not allowed to access in some systems. 

Additionally, few State or local computer systems allow workers from one agency to 

search for data within the other’s files. As a result, a child support worker might be able 

to see a portion of a client’s public assistance interview that contains answers to questions 

directly associated with child support, but be unable to access additional information that 

might be useful in locating an absent parent, or in establishing or enforcing a child support 

order. Many child support staff report they could be more efficient with greater access to 

public assistance databases. As one child support worker argues, “If we could get on-line 

5
with the full database, we wouldn’t have to get all this again from the mom. They have 

the information, we just can’t get to it in their system. I’d like to read their comments. 

We are dealing with people and we would like to have a sense of who we are dealing with 

... and what their circumstances are.” 

Virtually all local and State administrators report ongoing efforts to improve electronic 

interface capabilities between agencies, and many are excited about the potential benefits. 

One child support administrator, whose office is piloting a system intended to directly link 

public assistance and child support data says, “The system handles a tremendous amount 

of information .... Whatever [public assistance] puts into their system, it will carry over 

into our system. [With this] one-step interview, the error rate is lower and lag [time 

between] when you enter information and when it is available for other users is greatly 

reduced. We are very excited.” 

Information Gathered by Public Assistance Staff is Often Sufficient for Child 

Support Enforcement 

Public assistance staff often gather enough information from TANF clients for child 

support workers to pursue paternity establishment, create a child support order, or enforce 

support. One public assistance worker describes the information some clients provide, 

“Some cooperate a ton. They want the benefits for their children. Also, they understand 

that the child needs support. They give Social Security number and workplace.” When 

critical information, especially a Social Security number or place of current employment, is 

provided to public assistance workers, child support staff indicate they may never need to 

see a client to collect additional information. A child support worker explains, “We find 

that typically we do not have to have an interview. Public assistance may collect enough 

information about the absent parent and get all the necessary forms signed, so that we do 

not need to see the client.” 

However, Many Child Support Staff Rate the Overall Usefulness, Accuracy and 

Completeness of Information Collected by Public Assistance as Only Fair or Poor 

Although the information public assistance staff collect is often sufficient to pursue 

support, it does not always contain everything that child support workers would like to 

have to create and enforce a support order. While child support staff usually use the 

information provided from public assistance interviews, some report they often must spend 

considerable time checking for accuracy and acquiring additional information through 

follow-up interviews with the client, or from databases and other investigation. Forty-five 

percent of child support respondents rate the usefulness of information they receive as 

good and eight percent report the information they receive is excellent, but the remaining 

47 percent of child support respondents rate the usefulness of information as only fair or 

poor. Additionally, 70 percent of child support respondents rate the accuracy and 

completeness of this information as only fair or poor. 

Staff identify several potential explanations for why the information child support offices 

receive from the public assistance agency may be less than optimal for their purposes. 

6
First, as noted above, public assistance staff may not be able to devote enough interview 

time to gather all the information clients have about noncustodial parents. Second, 

because public assistance staff typically do not use noncustodial parent information for 

their own purposes, they may not understand which information is most useful to child 

support workers. As a child support caseworker explains, “I don’t believe [public 

assistance] workers fully understand our child support [needs] and so cannot obtain the 

kind of noncustodial information we require.” Third, public assistance staff may have 

little incentive to be concerned about gathering complete and accurate information. We 

found that few local public assistance administrators consider the child support interview 

as a “performance indicator” for front line workers. As one child support administrator 

expresses, “There are no requirements or incentives for public assistance staff to provide 

child support with information. There is no monitoring.” The result of this lack of 

incentive is that some public assistance workers may feel it is not their job to obtain 

information about noncustodial parents and may bypass questions on their automated 

intake forms. As one public assistance worker explains, “A lot of times workers are just 

going into those fields that you have to clear and putting ‘unknown’ and that just clears 

the field ... and they go on.” Fourth, many public assistance offices in focus States do not 

have access to electronic tools, such as State motor vehicle or employment databases, to 

immediately verify the information that clients provide. On the other hand, child support 

staff typically do have access to these tools and believe that clients are more likely to 

provide accurate information when they understand that workers can immediately verify 

what they are told. Finally, in a companion report, we detail that some TANF clients have 

personal and financial disincentives to providing complete and accurate information about 

noncustodial parents, or to otherwise cooperating with child support enforcement.7 

IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR NONCOOPERATION 

Public Assistance Agencies Are Responsible for Imposing Penalties on TANF 

Clients for Noncooperation and Must Notify Clients of Impending Adverse 

Actions and Their Right to Appeal 

Procedurally, when child support staff determine that a TANF client is not cooperating, 

the caseworker notifies the public assistance agency by mail, telephone, FAX, e-mail, or 

by placing a code in the electronic case file of a shared database. It is then the 

responsibility of the local public assistance office to impose the appropriate penalties. 

Penalties for noncooperation in focus States range from the Federally-mandated 25 

percent reduction in the family’s cash assistance to a full-family sanction, often resulting in 

closure of the TANF case. Respondents from every local public assistance office we 

surveyed report that they notify clients by mail, phone, or in person regarding what 

penalties will be imposed, when they will take effect, and the client’s right to appeal the 

adverse action. This notice often serves as the client’s last opportunity to avoid penalties 

for noncooperation. 

One State has formalized this notification process such that public assistance staff schedule 

a noncooperative client for a “reconciliation meeting.” During this meeting, the 

7
client is informed of the impending penalties and asked to explain why they failed to 

cooperate originally. If public assistance staff determine that the client had a valid reason 

for missing a meeting or otherwise failing to cooperate, the client is asked to indicate they 

will cooperate in the future by signing a “reconciliation agreement”. Clients must then 

appear for a re-scheduled activity or provide requested information to avoid penalties. 

While the reconciliation meeting effectively insures that clients have ample opportunity to 

avoid penalties, some child support staff criticize the process as redundant, because clients 

must agree to cooperate with child support when they initially apply for benefits.8 

The Majority of Child Support Workers Believe Public Assistance Staff Do Not 

Adequately Enforce Penalties on Noncooperative TANF Clients 

While child support workers must determine whether TANF clients are cooperating, only 

the public assistance agency may impose penalties on clients. Staff from the two agencies 

disagree regarding how strictly and swiftly penalties are imposed on clients. Sixty-three 

percent of child support respondents identify the lack of enforcement of penalties as a 

barrier to clients providing complete and accurate information about noncustodial parents. 

In contrast, only 10 percent of public assistance respondents identify this as a barrier. 

Child support respondents often express doubt that penalties are being imposed. Two 

child support workers describe their experience, “[Public assistance] won't sanction 

them. Very, very rarely do we get that done. We just notify them through the computer 

system, then I don't know what happens.” And, “We are having a problem with [public 

assistance] not sanctioning someone, where we had recommended it. We think it is 

because the social workers are overloaded, that it takes them too long to implement the 

sanction. When that happens, it leaves us impotent for a while.” 

Some child support workers express frustration that the public assistance agency takes 

weeks or months to impose penalties, thereby delaying enforcement efforts. As stated by 

a child support caseworker, “[Public assistance] sanctions don't work because they have 

100 days to appeal and the bite just isn't immediate enough. There is then little initiative 

to cooperate.” One State has an automatic appeal of a noncooperation determination in 

which TANF clients who attend a ‘reconciliation’ meeting with their public assistance 

caseworker, and agree to cooperate in the future, can avoid being penalized. In another 

State, prior to imposing penalties, public assistance caseworkers are required to reassess 

all TANF clients who are designated as noncooperative to determine whether they meet 

qualifications for good cause exceptions through which they may be exempted from 

cooperating. While these procedures provide safeguards against inappropriately 

penalizing clients, they also serve to delay penalties, possibly making clients doubt that 

penalties will ever be imposed. A caseworker explains, “Sometimes, a year will go by, 

and a sanction we have recommended has not been imposed, so there is no incentive for 

that client to change their behavior. They learn they can “blow us off” and nothing 

happens, and word of mouth gets this knowledge to others.” 

Within focus States, local public assistance offices appear to develop individual norms 

regarding how quickly they impose penalties for noncooperation with child support 

enforcement. For example, we frequently heard that staff in urban offices may act 

8
differently than those in rural communities. As one child support worker notes, “We code 

them as noncooperative and then [public assistance] calls them or sanctions them. 

Smaller counties seem to sanction right away. The larger ones tend to call. Then they 

notify us that they need another appointment. Larger counties sanction more slowly. They 

are giving them an extra chance.” 

INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION 

While Most Public Assistance and Child Support Staff Rate Their Relationship as 

Effective, Many Raise Concerns About Close Collaboration 

Eighty-four percent of child support and 72 percent of public assistance respondents rate 

their relationship with their counterpart as effective or very effective. Some staff report 

they are making efforts to work together across agencies to solve common problems and 

reach common goals. These efforts range from formal liaison officers responsible for 

initiating contact between agency offices to less formal managers’ meetings or occasional 

staff gatherings. Workers in several offices where some effort at staff or management 

interaction is underway report that, while misunderstanding or mis-communication 

between offices does occur, their overall relationship, and therefore the quality of work, is 

improving. As one child support administrator relates, “We are now working closely 

together on several projects. Our goals are becoming more common and closely 

related.” Similarly, a public assistance administrator says, “We are working together to 

achieve a positive goal. We now hold regular meetings together. There is good 

communication between agencies. Everyone is trying to be a part of getting clients off 

TANF and into the workforce.” 

Despite these generally positive perceptions of interagency relationships, several 

respondents from each agency express frustration or concern about working with their 

counterparts. Staff from both agencies claim the other agency does not understand their 

agency’s work. Child support staff, for example, point out that front line public assistance 

workers have many different responsibilities, of which child support is only one, and 

question the ability of public assistance staff to make gathering noncustodial parent 

information a priority. 

Even with welfare reform increasing the importance of child support enforcement for 

many TANF clients, staff still perceive the mission of each agency quite differently. While 

staff of both agencies mostly view public assistance as a service agency designed to assist 

clients to gain employment and attain independence, they mostly see the child support 

agency as a law enforcement agency concerned primarily with collections. As one public 

assistance administrator expresses, “Our mission is basically a kind of helping, giving 

sort of mission. I think child support’s is ... basically a police kind of vision .... We are 

counselors, social workers. We help people with their lives, their situations ... but child 

support is totally different.” This perception of different missions appears particularly 

prominent among staff in States where the child support agency is part of the State judicial 

9
system and not as common where both agencies are housed within the State’s social 

service department. 

Others respondents suggest that the difference in cultures offers an advantage to having 

public assistance workers collect child support information. A child support worker 

explains, “The clients tend to trust the welfare staff more than they trust us. They are 

giving them money, [clients believe] we are giving them a hassle. So, somebody with that 

trust can ask questions about the father. They are with them physically and are in a 

much better place to get information about the case. By the time we get the case, they 

have been through the system and don’t want to have anything to do with another 

government agency.” 

Communication Between Child Support Workers and Public Assistance Workers 

is Limited and Sometimes Problematic, Especially Telephone Contact 

While many offices of both agencies transfer specific case information electronically or 

through paper forms, less formal discussion among workers does not appear to occur 

often. Many public assistance workers express difficulty in contacting child support 

workers about a client’s case once the initial application process is complete. Child 

support workers also note problems with reaching public assistance workers to obtain 

additional information or to provide information about a client’s cooperation status. 

Many of these communication problems are technical or logistical, such as poor telephone 

access. Staff complain of unanswered telephones and unreturned calls from workers and 

managers of both agencies. In some cases, caseworkers are assigned to answer phones 

and direct calls at the same time they are expected to conduct client interviews. In other 

cases, workers suggest that telephone lines are always busy with client inquiries and that 

they are not furnished with private or unpublished numbers through which they could 

reach their counterparts. 

Staff report that clients may suffer because of the inability of caseworkers to communicate 

in a timely manner. For example, TANF clients who have received noncooperation 

notices often return to their local public assistance office to resolve the situation. If they 

are able to explain a valid reason for a missed appointment or provide additional 

information, they may avoid being penalized for noncooperation. Delays in 

communication between agencies can make this more difficult. As one public assistance 

worker explains, “[Child support workers] are not easy to get [on the phone.] When 

[clients] get sanctioned, we can’t give out the back phone number so that clients can 

comply by setting appointments or giving information over the phone. It is hard to get 

through. Phones are always busy. Its brutal to try to call [child support workers.]” 

Staff in Both Agencies Receive Training About Gaining TANF Client Cooperation, 

But Most Training is Conducted Separately 

Seventy-five percent of public assistance respondents report their workers receive formal 

training about collecting information from clients for child support enforcement. Most of 

10
these respondents, 61 percent, indicate training involves only administrators, while the 

remainder report that all staff receive training. Likewise, 85 percent of child support 

respondents report that their staff receive training on client cooperation requirements. In 

those offices where training does take place, it is most often conducted internally by the 

respondents’ own agency. Seventy-nine percent of public assistance and 80 percent of 

child support respondents report that an administrator or staff member of their own 

agency usually provides training. 

In an effort to improve understanding about each other’s objectives, cross-training does 

take place in some offices. Almost a third (32 percent) of public assistance respondents 

and 22 percent of child support respondents report that a representative of the other 

agency participates as a provider of at least a portion of their training. Also, 24 percent of 

public assistance respondents report that child support workers attend training with them, 

while 23 percent of child support respondents include public assistance workers in their 

training. 

Administrators and workers report that cross-training helps both agencies achieve their 

goals. For example, a child support administrator relates, “At community meetings I 

discovered that when I explained child support responsibilities, many public assistance 

staff members did not know the importance of coding. They did not realize how 

important it was for interface with child support. In their training, there is not much talk 

about child support except that any client that has children, excepting good cause, must 

cooperate with child support. Just a few of the offices represented at this community 

meeting were aware of that. I have been advocating for nine years for interagency 

training.” 

Public assistance staff report benefits with receiving training from the child support 

agency. As one worker describes, “They were here in the office a couple weeks ago. 

They covered paternity issues like how to complete the form on absent parent 

information. They want us to provide as much information as we can so the client doesn't 

have to repeat it at a child support interview.” Other respondents report that training 

about child support information requirements has helped them understand why certain 

information is important and how much child support workers depend upon complete and 

accurate information from the custodial parent. Child support workers also say that crosstraining has helped them better understand the demands and problems public assistance 

workers face in handling their caseloads. 

Staff Report Co-location and Out-stationing of Child Support Staff Can Promote 

Improved Interagency Communication 

A number of respondents report having child support and public assistance offices in the 

same place, commonly called co-location. Other respondents report that child support 

staff work at their public assistance offices either full-time or on a scheduled basis, often 

called out-stationing. Many credit these arrangements with improving communication 

between agencies. One public assistance administrator reports, “The co-location of staff 

helps build the relationship between offices. It helps clients and staff from both agencies 

11
communicate more effectively and builds understanding between the agencies.” A public 

assistance worker says, “The co-located person makes a lot of difference to 

communication. It is really easier than it was before to get information you need.” 

Another public assistance worker emphasizes the benefit of having a child support worker 

located in their office, “We often have to ask workers specific questions on cases we are 

working. [Having the child support] worker in this office has been very nice, and very 

helpful to us. When I have a question, she is great.” 

Child support staff also see value in co-location, as one respondent explains, “When 

clients are here, they can also see me. Having a child support worker here is a “one-stop 

shopping” kind of thing. They can get information on a case. I also maintain a close 

relationship with the benefit workers here. It is a quicker access to the information we 

need. I can just knock on a door, without telephone calls or a paper trail. It helps the 

coordination of the two agencies in many ways and makes things a lot simpler for 

communication.” 

12
RECOMMENDATIONS 

Successful operation of the child support enforcement program requires effective, 

cooperative action by both the Office of Child Support Enforcement and the Office of 

Family Assistance. Therefore, we recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) encourage States to: 

Focus Public Assistance Information Gathering on Specific Facts About 

Noncustodial Parents That Are Most Useful for Enforcement 

When public assistance staff obtain critical information about noncustodial parents, such as 

Social Security number and current employer, child support enforcement is often 

accelerated. Although child support staff may find additional information, such as address 

or schools attended, useful in locating absent parents, public assistance staff may be less 

successful in obtaining the most critical information when they are asked to collect more 

than is realistic. ACF should encourage States to clarify and prioritize the child support 

information they most want from these necessarily brief public assistance interviews and to 

provide staff guidance on how best to elicit priority information. 

Explore Ways to Enhance Public Assistance Staff Access to Information 

Verification Tools, Potentially Easing the Information Collection Process 

Staff of both agencies report that access to information verification tools, such as driver’s 

license and State employment databases, enhances their ability to obtain complete and 

accurate information from clients. While most child support workers appear to use such 

tools, many public assistance workers lack access, yet could benefit from it. The ability to 

quickly verify information provided by clients could make information collection easier 

and the use of limited interview time more efficient. 

Continue to Improve Systems Which Allow the Exchange of Information Between 

Public Assistance and Child Support Enforcement Agencies 

Child support staff often rely on information about noncustodial parents which clients 

provide during interviews with public assistance workers. Expanding child support access 

to client information, while insuring client confidentiality, can allow child support workers 

to begin locate and enforcement efforts earlier. ACF should encourage States to utilize 

strategies which enhance the exchange and use of information among agencies. 

Work with Local Public Assistance Offices to Insure That Penalties for 

Noncooperation with Child Support Are Properly Imposed 

Staff report that most TANF clients who are penalized for noncooperation with child 

support enforcement eventually cooperate. However, when threatened penalties are 

delayed or never imposed, clients may begin to believe that cooperation is unimportant 

13
and that noncooperation has no negative consequences. ACF should encourage States to 

insure that public assistance agencies properly impose penalties on noncooperative TANF 

clients consistently and timely, while protecting due process safeguards. 

Strengthen Interaction, Cross-Training, and Communication Between Their Public 

Assistance and Child Support Enforcement Agencies 

Interagency meetings, cross-training and regular communication at the management and 

staff level can help identify barriers to collaboration, develop joint objectives among child 

support and public assistance agencies, provide staff with opportunities to develop 

contacts for information exchange or help with particular clients. ACF should encourage 

State agencies to engage in more interaction at all levels, and provide the means, such as 

dedicated telephone lines, by which staff can routinely communicate with their 

counterparts. 

ACF did not provide comments in response to our draft report and recommendations. 

14
ENDNOTES 

1. See our companion report, Client Cooperation With Child Support Enforcement: Use of 

Good Cause Exceptions, OEI-06-98-00043, 2000. 

2. Social Security Act, Title IV, Part A., Sec. 408 (2). 

3. Social Security Act, Title IV, Part A., Sec. 409 (5). 

4. For information regarding gaining client cooperation with child support enforcement from 

individuals receiving Medicaid, but not TANF, see our report, Client Cooperation with 

Child Support Enforcement: Medicaid-Only Clients, OEI-06-98-00045, 2000. 

5. Ibid, OEI 06-98-00043, 2000. 

6. For more information on interviews conducted by child support staff, see our companion 

report, Client Cooperation With Child Support Enforcement: Policies and Practices, OEI 

06-98-00040, 2000. 

7. See our companion report, Client Cooperation With Child Support Enforcement: 

Challenges and Strategies to Improvement, OEI 06-98-00041, 2000. 

8. Ibid, OEI 06-98-00041, 2000. 

15