Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JUNE GIBBS BROWN 

Inspector General 

JULY 2000 

OEI-05-99-00391 

State Policies Used to Establish 

Child Support Orders 

For 

Low Income 

Non-custodial Parents 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

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

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

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

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

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

legislative, regulatory, and operational approaches to correct them. 

Office of Evaluation and Inspections 

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

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

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

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

effectiveness of departmental programs. 

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

Inspector General and Natalie Coen, Deputy Inspector General. Principal OEI staff included: 

REGION HEADQUARTERS 

Victoria Dougherty, Project Leader Linda Hall, Program Specialist

Ann Maxwell, Analyst

Marco Villagrana, Analyst

Madeline Carpinelli, Analyst

James Athos, Intern

To obtain copies of this report, please call the Chicago Regional Office at 312-353-9867. 

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

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

PURPOSE 

To examine the policies States use to determine the amount of child support to be paid by 

low-income non-custodial parents. 

BACKGROUND 

The recent decline in welfare receipt elevates the need for increased child support 

collections to help single parents maintain self-sufficiency. The low-income status of many 

non-custodial parents adds to the challenge of boosting child support collections to meet 

custodial family needs. Some low-income obligors are delinquent in support payments 

because they are unwilling to pay support. However, one study estimates that 60 percent 

of non-custodial parents who do not pay child support, have a limited ability to pay 

support based on their income levels, education levels, rates of institutionalization, and 

intermittent employment history.1 These non-custodial parents have come to be known in 

the child support community as “dead-broke” rather than “dead-beat”. 

In recent years, the research and policy community has devoted more attention to 

strategies to increase the ability of non-custodial parents to pay child support. One 

primary area of concern is the order establishment process. In particular, representatives 

of the child support enforcement community have raised questions regarding the effect of 

income imputation and arrearage policies on the non-custodial parent’s ability to comply 

with the requirements of their child support order. 

We examined the policies used by States to determine the financial obligations owed by 

non-custodial parents through a close-ended survey of the Directors of each State’s child 

support enforcement agency. While this report provides self-reported information on all 

States’ policies in this area, our companion report, The Establishment of Child Support 

Orders for Low-Income Non-custodial Parents (OEI-05-99-00390), provides a more indepth review of the practices used to determine financial obligations in a sample of 10 

States and the payment compliance associated with these practices. 

State Order Establishment Policies 1 OEI-05-99-00391 
OVERVIEW 

Retroactive Support 

Forty-six States charge non-custodial parents for welfare paid prior to the establishment of

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

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

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

birth-related medical charges.

Routine Fees and Interest 

In addition to the monthly support obligation and front-end arrears, non-custodial parents 

in many States are also obligated to pay other ongoing fees and interest on unpaid 

support. Forty-six States allow employers to charge fees to non-custodial parents for 

income withholding. In seven of these States, non-custodial parents are also charged 

ongoing case processing fees. In 34 States, interest charges on unpaid support can add to 

the total charges for which non-custodial parents are responsible. 

Income Imputation 

Most States impute (i.e. attribute) income to the non-custodial parent if the non-custodial 

parent fails to provide relevant income information or if the non-custodial parent is 

unemployed or underemployed. Most of the States which impute income consider a 

combination of factors to determine the imputed amount. Thirty-five States base imputed 

income on the premise that the non-custodial parent should be able to work a minimum 

wage job for 40 hours/week. 

Minimum Order Policies 

Thirty States specify an income threshold below which orders are established as a 

minimum amount. Eleven States which do not have an income threshold still have a 

minimum award amount available for use in low-income cases. The thresholds used to 

define low-income obligors and the minimum order amounts used vary by State. 

State Order Establishment Policies 2 OEI-05-99-00391 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................... 1

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

POLICY OVERVIEW

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

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

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

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

APPENDICES

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

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

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

State Order Establishment Policies 3 OEI-05-99-00391 
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

To examine the policies States use to determine the amount of child support to be paid by 

low-income non-custodial parents. 

BACKGROUND 

This report examines the policies States use to determine the amount of child support to 

be paid by low-income non-custodial parents. While this report provides information on 

all States’ policies in this area, a companion report, The Establishment of Child Support 

Orders for Low-Income Non-custodial Parents (OEI-05-99-00390), examines these 

policies in more depth in a sample of States and their relationship to payment compliance. 

A follow-up report will examine the degree to which child support orders are aligned with 

the earnings of obligors and the relationship between order alignment and payments. 

Low Payment Rates and Custodial Parent Poverty 

Although child support collections have increased significantly in recent years, overall 

rates of collection remain low. In fiscal year (FY) 1997, of the $17.6 billion due in 

current support, $8.1 billion, or 46 percent was not collected.2 

Low child support collections leave many single mothers and their children in poverty. In 

1995, 85 percent of custodial parents were women, 33 percent of whom lived below the 

Federal poverty line.3 The percentage of custodial parents receiving welfare declined 

significantly in the past few years, dropping from 47 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 

1998.4 This decline in welfare receipt elevates the need for increased child support 

collections to help struggling single parents maintain self-sufficiency. The regular receipt 

of child support is often cited as a critical ingredient to welfare reform success. 

The Earnings of Non-Custodial Parents 

The non-custodial parent population can be divided into three income tiers: high, middle, 

and low. In each of these tiers, there are non-custodial parents who do not pay their child 

support. The percentage of obligors who do not pay support is greatest in the low-income 

tier.5 Some obligors are delinquent in support payments because they are unwilling to pay 

support. However, one study estimates that 60 percent of non-custodial parents who 

State Order Establishment Policies 4 OEI-05-99-00391 
do not pay child support, have a limited ability to pay support based on their income 

levels, education levels, institutionalization rates, and intermittent employment history.6 

These non-custodial parents are known as “dead-broke” rather than “dead-beat”. 

Increasing Attention to the Treatment of Low-income Non-custodial Parents 

In recent years, the research and policy community has devoted more attention to the 

treatment of low-income non-custodial parents in the child support system. Especially in 

the wake of welfare reform, more attention is being devoted to how to improve the family 

maintenance contributions of low-income fathers to parallel the welfare-to-work initiatives 

for low-income mothers. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Fatherhood 

Initiative and the proposed Fathers Count Act demonstrate this trend. 

As researchers and policy-makers develop strategies to increase the cooperation of noncustodial parents, one primary area of concern is the order establishment process. 

Representatives of the child support enforcement community have raised questions about 

the effect of income imputation and arrearage policies on the non-custodial parent’s ability 

to comply with the support order obligation. 

The establishment of orders for child support enforcement cases (also known as IV-D 

cases, referring to the related title of the Social Security Act), occurs through either 

judicial or administrative processes. States are required to establish child support orders 

in accordance with State guidelines, outlining specific descriptive and numeric criteria. 

Any deviation from the presumptive guideline amount must be justified in writing. 

This report and its companions examine how States address the limited incomes of noncustodial parents in the establishment of orders and the relationship between these 

practices and payment compliance. Inability to pay is only one of several reasons for noncompliance with child support orders. Other reasons often cited as potential motivators of 

unwillingness to pay support include custody and visitation disputes and State retention of 

payments made on behalf of families on welfare. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

In this inspection we provide an overview of the policies used by all States to determine 

the amount owed in child support orders. To gather data on the State policies, we sent a 

close-ended survey to the directors of the child support enforcement agencies in each 

State and the District of Columbia. Surveys were distributed via facsimile in September 

1999 and survey data was collected between September and December 1999. Survey 

responses reflect State policy and are not necessarily reflective of local practice. The 

responses were self-reported by the IV-D Directors or assigned staff and were not probed. 

State Order Establishment Policies 5 OEI-05-99-00391 
OVERVIEW 

Retroactive Support 

Map I: States That Charge for Welfare Debt/Retroactive Support 

All but six of the States charge non-custodial parents for welfare paid to the child prior to 

the establishment of the order (welfare debt) or retroactive support for time prior to the 

establishment of the order. These two categories were combined to reflect all charges for 

prior child support. Forty-six States hold non-custodial parents responsible for this debt in 

addition to their monthly support obligation. 

Table I: Period of Time For Which Non-custodial Parents are Subject to Welfare 

Debt/Retroactive Support Charges 

In the 46 States that charge for support prior to order establishment, the point in time 

from which the debt is calculated varies, ranging from the child’s date of birth to the date 

of filing for support. This table gives a State-by-State summary of the time periods for 

which non-custodial parents are held accountable for support prior to order establishment. 

The survey question was not designed to capture different periods of time for which States 

may charge retroactive support in TANF versus non-TANF cases. 

Figure I: Front End Fees Charged to the Non-custodial Parent At the Time of 

Order Establishment 

In addition to the prospective support order obligation, non-custodial parents are 

potentially responsible for other front end costs at the time of order establishment. Eight 

States charge non-custodial parents for case processing fees. Nine States charge for court 

fees and 10 charge for attorneys’ services. All States, with the exception of Vermont, 

charge the non-custodial parents for either blood or genetic testing to determine 

fatherhood. Twenty-five States charge for birth related medical costs. All of the States, 

except Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina and South Carolina, charge 

non-custodial parents for welfare debt or retroactive support. 

State Order Establishment Policies 6 OEI-05-99-00391 
State Order Establishment Policies 7 OEI-05-99-00391 
Table 1: Period of Time for Which Non-Custodial Parents are Subject to Welfare 

Debt/Retroactive Support Charges 

State Time Period 

Alabama From date of paternity establishment, maximum is 2 years prior 

Alaska From date of service of paternity, maximum is 6 years prior 

Arizona From date of filing for support 

Arkansas Do not collect 

California Up to 3 years prior to date of filing for support 

Colorado From date of birth of child 

Connecticut From date of birth of child, maximum is 3 years prior 

Delaware From date of paternity establishment, maximum is 2 years prior 

D.C. From date of birth of child 

Florida Up to 2 years prior to date of filing for support 

Georgia Do not collect 

Hawaii Court’s discretion 

Idaho Up to 3 years prior to date of filing for support 

Illinois Court’s discretion 

Indiana From date of birth of child or date of filing for paternity (court’s discretion) 

Iowa From date of birth of child or up to 3 years prior to filing for support 

Kansas From when the non-custodial parent knew of the existence of the child 

Kentucky Court’s discretion 

Louisiana From date of filing for support 

Maine Up to 6 years prior to date of filing for support 

Maryland From date of filing for support 

Massachusetts From date of birth of child 

Michigan From date of birth of child 

Minnesota Up to 2 years from date of filing for support 

Mississippi Court’s discretion 

Missouri Do not collect 

State Order Establishment Policies 8 OEI-05-99-00391 
State Time Period 

Montana Do not collect 

Nebraska From date of birth of child 

Nevada Up to 4 years prior to date of filing for support 

New Hampshire From date of filing for support 

New Jersey From date of filing for support 

New Mexico From date of birth of child 

New York From date custodial parent (CP) opened case with the TANF office 

North Carolina Do not collect 

North Dakota From date of birth of child or first contact with IV-D Agency 

Ohio From date of birth of child 

Oklahoma Up to 60 months prior to the date of filing for support 

Oregon From date of first contact with IV-D Agency 

Pennsylvania From date of filing for support 

Rhode Island Up to 6 years prior to date of paternity establishment 

South Carolina Do not collect 

South Dakota From date of birth of child, maximum is 6 years 

Tennessee From date of paternity establishment 

Texas From date of birth of child 

Utah Up to 4 years prior to the date of order establishment 

Vermont From the date of filing for support with the court 

Virginia From date of birth of child, limit is to July, 1988 when the guidelines were established 

Washington From date CP started to receive public assistance or date of filing for support 

West Virginia From date of birth of child 

Wisconsin Court’s discretion 

Wyoming From date of paternity establishment 

State Order Establishment Policies 9 OEI-05-99-00391 
State Order Establishment Policies 10 OEI-05-99-00391 
Routine Fees and Interest 

Map II: States’ Policies on Routine Fees 

In addition to the support obligation paid by the non-custodial parent, many of the States 

charge, or allow employers to charge ongoing fees. Forty-seven States allow employers 

to charge non-custodial parents a fee for income withholding. In addition to employers’ 

fees, seven of the States charge non-custodial parents for ongoing case processing. Only 

five of the States do not charge non-custodial parents for either employer or case 

processing fees. 

Map III: States’ Policies on Charging Interest on Support Owed 

Thirty-four States charge interest to the non-custodial parents on either debt stemming 

from charges prior to the order establishment, arrears which build up after order 

establishment, or on the total amount of debt and arrears past due. Eighteen of the States 

do not charge non-custodial parents any interest. 

Map IV: States with Multiple Policies for Collecting Fees 

Several States charge multiple front end and ongoing fees leading to a larger cumulative 

cost for the non-custodial parent to pay in addition to the monthly support obligation. 

Michigan and Pennsylvania reportedly charge non-custodial parents for case processing 

and attorney fees, paternity testing fees and birth-related medical costs in addition to 

retroactive support. Seven States charge non-custodial parents interest on the support 

owed in addition to charges for retroactive support and three or more front-end fees. 

New Mexico and Mississippi charge non-custodial parents all of the front end fees listed, 

retroactive support, ongoing case processing fees and interest on unpaid support. 

State Order Establishment Policies 11 OEI-05-99-00391 
State Order Establishment Policies 12 OEI-05-99-00391
State Order Establishment Policies 13 OEI-05-99-00391
State Order Establishment Policies 14 OEI-05-99-00391
Income Imputation 

Map V: States That Impute Income by Policy 

Only the District of Columbia, Connecticut and Mississippi do not impute (i.e. attribute) 

income by policy. In 30 States, imputation is practiced if the non-custodial parent fails to 

provide relevant information or is currently unemployed or underemployed. Five States 

impute income only if the non-custodial parent fails to provide relevant information such as 

pay stubs, income tax returns or financial affidavits. Thirteen States impute income only if 

the non-custodial parent is unemployed or underemployed. 

Figure II: Basis of Imputation 

Most of the 48 States that impute income consider a combination of factors in determining 

the amount of income to be imputed to the non-custodial parent. Thirty-five States base 

imputed awards on the premise that the non-custodial parent should be able to work a 

minimum wage job for 40 hours per week. Fifteen of the States consider the area wage 

rate and 10 of the States look at the area employment rate to determine imputed income. 

Seventeen States consider the non-custodial parent’s level of education while 14 account 

for disabilities hindering full employment. Thirty-five States evaluate the non-custodial 

parent’s skills and experience and thirty-one base imputation on most recent employment, 

where information is available. 

State Order Establishment Policies 15 OEI-05-99-00391 
State Order Establishment Policies 16 OEI-05-99-00391
State Order Establishment Policies 17 OEI-05-99-00391 
Minimum Order Policies 

Map VI: States’ Policies Toward Low-Income Non-custodial Parents 

If the non-custodial parent is low-income, 30 States specify an income threshold below 

which orders are established differently. The thresholds used to define low-income 

obligors and the treatment of their orders vary by State. States with a threshold use a 

minimum award which is either presumptive or mandatory, or leave it to the court’s 

discretion to determine the award amount. Eleven States which do not have a threshold 

defining low-income obligors still have a minimum award amount to apply in cases where 

a non-custodial parent is determined to be low-income. Ten States do not have a threshold 

or a minimum award amount to apply in low-income cases. 

Table II: States’ Treatment of Low Income Obligors 

States typically set low-income thresholds to be a minimum amount of weekly, monthly or 

annual earnings. Alaska and Maine use the Federal poverty level as their low-income 

threshold. Minimum order amounts range from $20/month to $168/month, with most 

minimum order States setting minimum awards between $20 and $50/month. Table II 

displays the income thresholds and minimum order amounts used by States. Some States 

may have reported a minimum threshold within their guidelines to be a separate threshold 

for low-income obligors while other States with such a guideline threshold might have 

responded that they do not have an income threshold below which a minimum obligation 

is ordered. (See question 4 in Survey in Appendix A). 

State Order Establishment Policies 18 OEI-05-99-00391 
State Order Establishment Policies 19 OEI-05-99-00391
Table 2: States’ Treatment of Low-Income Obligors 

State Income Threshold 

Amount 

(converted to months) 

Presumptive 

Minimum 

Award* 

Mandatory 

Minimum 

Award** 

Award is 

Court’s 

Discretion 

No 

Minimum 

Specified 

Alabama $550/month X 

Alaska Federal poverty level $50/month 

Arizona none X 

Arkansas none X 

California $1000/month net X 

Colorado $400/month $20-50 month 

Connecticut $723/month $28/month 

Delaware none $106/month 

D.C. $625/month $50/month 

Florida none X 

Georgia none X 

Hawaii none $50/month 

Idaho $800/month $50/month 

Illinois none X 

Indiana none X 

Iowa $500/month $50/month 

Kansas none X 

Kentucky none $60-90/month 

Louisiana $600/month X 

Maine Federal poverty level 10% of 

income 

Maryland $599/month gross $20-50/month 

Massachusetts $531/month $50/month 

Michigan1 none $21/month 

1 Michigan statute offers one formula to use for low-income obligors above the Federal poverty level and a formula for those

below it. As part of the mandatory minimum order, a health care add-on of between $3-$11/week is added. 

State Order Establishment Policies 20 OEI-05-99-00391 
State Income Threshold 

Amount 

(converted to months) 

Presumptive 

Minimum 

Award* 

Mandatory 

Minimum 

Award** 

Award is 

Court’s 

Discretion 

No 

Minimum 

Specified 

Minnesota $550/month X 

Mississippi $417/month X 

Missouri $824/month $20-50/month 

Montana2 $893/month X 

Nebraska $687/month $50/month X 

Nevada none X 

New Hampshire none $50/month 

New Jersey3 $723 combined/month $21-179/mo X 

New Mexico $800/month $100/month 

New York4 $687/month $25-50/month 

North Carolina $800/month X 

North Dakota none $50/month 

Ohio5 $700/month combined $50/month 

Oklahoma none X 

Oregon $850/month gross $50/month 

Pennsylvania $550/month $20-50/month 

Rhode Island $600/month X 

South Carolina $600/month $50/month 

South Dakota none X 

Tennessee none X 

Texas none X 

2 The minimum award for Montana is a percentage of the non-custodial parent’s (NCP’s) income based on the relationship

between their net income and the State’s self-support reserve. 

3 The State of New Jersey sets awards for low-income situations based on the combined income of both the NCP and CP.

4 The State of New York also has a self support reserve for the NCP set at $11,124 for 1999. 

5 The State of Ohio sets awards for low-income situations based on the combined income of both the NCP and CP.

State Order Establishment Policies 21 OEI-05-99-00391 
State Income Threshold 

Amount 

(converted to months) 

Presumptive 

Minimum 

Award* 

Mandatory 

Minimum 

Award** 

Award is 

Court’s 

Discretion 

No 

Minimum 

Specified 

Utah $649/month $20/month 

Vermont none $85-106/mo 

Virgina $600/month $65/month 

Washington $600/month $25/month 

West Virgina none $50/month 

Wisconsin none X 

Wyoming6 $732/month combined $50/month 

Definitions: 

* Presumptive Minimum Award: Award amount according to the guidelines (after other guideline 

adjustments have been made). This is the amount of the order unless the court deviates. 

** Mandatory Minimum Award: Specified minimum award amount from which there can be no downward 

deviation. 

6 Wyoming statute sets awards for low-income situations based on the combined income of both the NCP and CP.

State Order Establishment Policies 22 OEI-05-99-00391
APPENDIX A 

Survey Instrument

State Child Support Order Establishment Practices Survey 

STATE: _______ SURVEY CONTACT NAME:____________________________________ 

PHONE ___________________________ DATE:__________________ 

Guidelines 

1. If your State uses Percentage of Income guidelines in the computation of a support order 

obligation, what are the specific percentages used per number of children? 

___ One child ___ Two children ___ Three children 

___ Four children ___ Five or more children 

Imputation 

2. In what instances is imputation used as a means of determining the income of the noncustodial parent? 

___ NCP fails to provide relevant information

___ NCP is currently unemployed

___ NCP is perceived to be deliberately unemployed or underemployed

___ Never Impute

___ Other (please specify) __________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

3. If income is imputed, what standards are used or what factors are considered during the 

imputation process? 

___ 40 hours/week at minimum wage ___ Educational level

___ Median Income in the State ___ Physical and mental disabilities

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

___ Prevailing wage rates in the area ___ Prior employment experience

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

recent employment period 

___ Other (please specify)__________________________________________________ 

State Order Establishment Policies 23 OEI-05-99-00391 
APPENDIX A 

Survey Instrument

Minimum Orders 

4. If the non-custodial parent is found to be low-income, or an imputation process has set 

income at a low level, is there an income threshold below which a minimum obligation 

amount is ordered? 

______ Income threshold amount $___________ 

______ No income threshold amount 

5. What is the presumptive or mandatory minimum amount of support ordered for lowincome cases? 

$_______ Amount Presumptive________ or Mandatory ________ 

________ No Minimum Amount 

Arrearage Policies/State Debt Policies 

6. In addition to the prospective order obligation, are NCPs responsible for any other costs 

at the time of order establishment? 

___ Yes ___ No 

If yes, what costs are NCPs responsible for?

___ Birth-related medical service costs ___ Court time fees

___ Case-processing fees ___ Attorney services

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

establishment 

___ Welfare payments made to custodial parent prior to order establishment 

___ Other (please specify):__________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

State Order Establishment Policies 24 OEI-05-99-00391 
APPENDIX A 

Survey Instrument

7. If NCP is responsible for child support during time prior to order establishment, from what 

point in time is the past obligation calculated? 

___ Birthdate of child for whom support is due

___ Date of paternity establishment

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

___ Other (please specify):__________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

8. If NCP is responsible for child support during time prior to order establishment, is there a 

limit, whether temporal or monetary, on the amount of the past obligation which may be 

sought? 

___ Yes ___ No 

If yes, please specify limit: 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

9. If NCP is responsible for welfare payments made to custodial parent prior to order 

establishment, is there a limit, whether temporal or monetary, on the amount of past 

obligation which may be sought? 

___ Yes ___ No 

If yes, please specify 

limit:________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________ 

State Order Establishment Policies 25 OEI-05-99-00391 
APPENDIX A 

Survey Instrument

10. If NCP is responsible for welfare payments made to custodial parent prior to order 

establishment, are there any State policies forgiving the debt owed the State in any cases? 

___ Yes ___ No 

If yes, please specify 

policy:__________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

11. Is interest charged to the NCP on any of the following: 

_______ Prior debt (for charges before order establishment) _______ Interest Rate 

_______ Arrearages which build up after order establishment _______ Interest Rate 

_______ Total Amount of debt and arrears past due _______ Interest 

Rate 

Routine Fees 

12. Does your State IV-D office charge NCPs for any ongoing case processing fees? 

________ Yes _______No 

If yes, how much are the NCPs required to pay? $_______________ 

With what frequency are the payments required _______ 

13. In your State, are employers allowed to charge fees to the NCP for income-witholding? 

______Yes _______No 

If yes, how much are employers allowed to charge? $_______________ 

State Order Establishment Policies 26 OEI-05-99-00391 
APPENDIX B 

Related Office of Inspector General Reports

Paternity Establishment: Notification of Rights And Responsibilities For Voluntary 

Paternity Acknowledgment (OEI-06-98-00051) 

Paternity Establishment: Use of Alternative Sites for Voluntary Paternity 

Acknowledgment (OEI-06-98-00052) 

Paternity Establishment: State Use of Genetic Testing (OEI-06-98-00054) 

Paternity Establishment: The Role of Vital Records Agencies (OEI-06-98-00055) 

Paternity Establishment: Payment to Vital Records (OEI-06-98-00056) 

Review and Adjustment of Support Orders (OEI-05-98-00100) 

Review and Adjustment of Support Orders, Experience in Ten States (OEI-05-98-00102) 

Unpaid Child Support and Income Tax Deductions (OEI-05-95-00070) 

Grantees and Providers Delinquent in Child Support (OEI-07-95-00390) 

Review and Adjustment of IV-D Child Support Orders (OEI-07-92-00990) 

Follow-Up on AFDC Absent Parents (OEI-05-89-01270; 8/91) 

Child Support Enforcement Collection for Non-AFDC Clients (OAI-05-88-00340; 7/89) 

Child Support Enforcement Collections, AFDC Cases: An Overview (OAI-05-86-00097) 

Child Support Enforcement Collections on AFDC Cases: Non-Pursuit 

(OAI-05-87-00033) 

Child Support Enforcement Collections on AFDC Cases: Arrearages (OAI-05-87-00034) 

Child Support Enforcement Collections on AFDC Cases: Modification of Court Orders 

(OAI-05-87-00035) 

State Order Establishment Policies 27 OEI-05-99-00391 
APPENDIX C 

End-Notes

1. “Income and Demographic Characteristics of Nonresident Fathers in 1993", Elaine Sorenson and Laura 

Wheaton, the Urban Institute, Forthcoming Report 

2. 22nd Annual Report to Congress, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and 

Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FY 1997. 

3. “Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1995" Current Population Report, U.S. Census 

Bureau, March 1999. 

4. “Child Support Enforcement: Effects of Declining Welfare Caseloads are Beginning to Emerge”, 

GAO/HEHS-99-105, Draft Version May 17, 1999. 

5. “Low-Income Noncustodial Fathers: Who are They and What are States Doing to Assist Them in Their 

Efforts to Pay Child Support”, Elaine Sorenson, The Urban Institute, January, 1997. 

6. Op. cit., “Income and Demographic Characteristics of Nonresident Fathers in 1993" 

State Order Establishment Policies 28 OEI-05-99-00391