Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

CHILD SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN IN 

STATE FOSTER CARE 

OEI-04-91-00980 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

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

amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 

programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This 

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

inspections conducted by three OIG operating components: the Office of Audit Services, the 

Office of Investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections. The OIG also informs 

the Secretary of HHS of program and management problems and recommends courses to 

correct them. 

OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES 

The OIG’S Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by 

conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. 

Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in 

carrying out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 

assessments of HHS programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement and to promote economy and efficiency throughout the Department. 

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 

The OIGS Office of Investigations (01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative


investigations of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of


unjust enrichment by providers. The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions,


administrative sanctions, or civil money penalties. The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud


control units which investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program.


OFFICE OF EVALUATION AND INSPECTIONS 

The OIGS Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and 

program evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, 

the Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection 

reports generate rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability, 

and effectiveness of departmental programs. 

OEI’S Atlanta Regional Office staff prepared this report under the direction of Jesse J. 

Flowers, Regional Inspector General and Christopher Koehler, Deputy Regional Inspector 

General. Principal OEI staff included: 

Atlanta Region Headquartm 

Maureen Wilce, Project Leader David Wright


Ron Kalil, Team Leader W. Mark Krushat


Ruth Reiser


Paula Bowker


For additionalcopies of thii repoq please contact the Atlanta Regi”onalOffice by telephone, at 

(404) 331-4108, or by FM, at (404) 730-2308. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

To determine potential for collecting child support from biological parents of children 

in State foster care programs. 

BACKGROUND 

Foster care agencies are required torefer the biological parents of children infester 

care to child support enforcement agencies, mdjijachild’s care is funded by Title 

IV-E of the Social Security Act. To be eligible for Title IV-E foster care, a child must 

have been removed from a low income family that is eligible for Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children (AFDC). However, more than 260,000 children in foster care 

nationwide are not in the Title IV-E foster care program. These children, “non-IV-E” 

foster care children, have been removed from homes where the family’s income may 

be substantially higher than the AFDC limit. Non-IV-E foster care is funded partially 

through Title IV-B in addition to State monies. We had previously issued a report 

regarding IV-E children. It is the “non-IV-E’ children who are the subject of this 

report. 

METHODOLOGY 

We asked nine States to sample children in non-IV-E foster care and send us basic 

identifying information. We traced this information to State child support 

enforcement agencies to determine the extent of child support collections. We also 

searched Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Earning Reference Files (ERF) to 

calculate the potential for biological parents of non-IV-E foster care children to pay 

child support. 

FINDINGS 

Child Support Was Collected On Behalf Of 9 Percent Of Non-IV-E Foster Care 

Children 

During 1991, Child Support Enforcement agencies collected child support payments 

from parents of 7 percent (42) of the 593 non-IV-E foster care children in our sample. 

This represents 9 percent of non-IV-E foster care children nationally. 

State Emphasis On Collecting Child Support Is Low 

State foster care agency records are inadequate for pursuing child support because 

foster care agency caseworkers do not routinely and systematically collect basic 

information needed for pursuing child support. Only 35 percent of parents are 

referred to child support enforcement agencies for possible collections. Since few 

i 
referrals are made, and information on the parents is often inadequate, child support 

orders are established for only about 12 percent of non-IV-E foster care children. 

StatesHave Potential To Increase Child Support Collections For Non-IV-E Foster 

Care Children 

Many parents of children in non-IV-E foster care have financial resources to pay child 

support on behalf of their child. Since, unlike traditional child support cases, children 

in foster care have two absent parents, States can increase collections by pursuing 

child support from both parents. States also can increase child support collections 

through better management of the child support collection process. Management of 

the process should include collecting information on all parents of children in 

non-IV-E foster care, referring the parents to child support agencies, establishing 

support orders and actually collecting child support payments. If child support 

collections were made on behalf of just half of the children in non-IV-E foster care, 

$193,8 million would have been collected in 1991. Administrative costs of collecting 

child support would reduce the amount of collections available for improving child 

welfare services. However, the administrative costs to child support enforcement 

agencies can be lessened if foster care agencies (1) obtain adequate information on 

parents when a child enters the system, and (2) refer all appropriate cases for services. 

CONCLUSION 

Failure to collect child support on behalf of non-IV-E foster care children decreases 

opportunities to obtain needed resources for providing child welfare services. Since no 

Federal policies mandate that child support services be pursued for children in nonIV-E foster care, many may believe that child support cannot, or should not, be 

pursued on behalf of these children. Because of this, children are being denied 

important services, such as locating absent parents and paternity establishment which 

allows a child to have inheritance and insurance rights. Additionally, biological parents 

may be able to provide medical insurance which covers a child’s medical expenses. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We believe foster care agencies need to review each foster care case to determine if 

pursuing child support collections is in the best interest of a foster care child. Then, 

for those foster care children for whom child support is appropriate, foster care 

agencies should work cooperatively with child support agencies to pursue child support 

as a routine part of the process of building parental responsibility. To this end, we 

have two recommendations. 

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) should encourage States to 

extend child support services to all children in foster care, regardless of the funding 

source for a child’s foster care. They can do this by instructing States to improve data 

gathering and referral systems. ACF can provide States with guidance and plans to 

improve coordination between foster care and child support programs. ACF can also 

ii 
seek legislation to require child support on behalf of &l foster care children, “where 

appropriate.” Such legislation should be the same as that presently in place for 

children in IV-E foster care. 

Other organizations interested in foster care and child support should also encourage 

States to seek child support for non-IV-E foster care children whenever appropriate. 

Such organizations include, but are not limited to, the National Governors Association, 

the National Association of State Budget Officers, the National Conference of State 

Legislatures, the National Council of State Human Services Administrators of the 

American Public Welfare Association (APWA), and the Child Welfare League of 

America (CWLA). 

AGENCY COMMENTS 

We thank ACF, ASPE, CWLA, and the States of Washington and New York through 

the APWA for their comments on our report. They agreed with our findings and 

recommendations, although ACF and ASPE noted that whether or not to pursue child 

support collections should be determined on a case-by-case basis. We made 

appropriate revisions in the report based on their comments. We present the full text 

of comments in appendix D. 

... 

111 
TABLE OF CONTENTS


PAGE 

EXE~ s~y 

.1


INTRODU~ION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

HNDINGS 

Few Child Support Collections&e Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

State Emphasis OnCollectingIs Low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Collections Potentially CanBe Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

..12


CON~USION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. 13 

RECOm~ATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. 14 

AGENm COm~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

APPENDICES 

. .. A-I 

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. B-1 

The Foster Care Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. c-1 

Estimation Of Potential Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . D-1


Agency Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

5 

5 

8 
INTRODUCTION


PURPOSE 

To determine potential for collecting child support from biological parents of children 

in State foster care programs. 

BACKGROUND 

This report describes the potential for collecting child support for foster children who 

are not eligible for the Title IV-E foster care program. Tobe eligible for Title IV-E 

foster care, a child must have been removed from a low income family that is eligible 

for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). While no requirement exists 

to report the number of children in foster care, estimates show that more than 260,000 

foster children nationwide are not in the Title IV-E foster care program. These 

children, “non-IV-E’ foster care children, have been removed from homes where the 

family’s income may be substantially higher than the AFDC limit. 

The Child Support Amendments of 1984 require foster care agencies to refer Title 

IV-E foster children for child support, where appropriate. No such requirement exists 

for foster children who were removed from homes where income may exceed AFDC 

eligibility limits, and who are, therefore, ineligible for the Title IV-E foster care 

program. 

In May of 1992 the Office of Inspector General released a report on Child Support 

Collections for IV-E Foster Care Children (OEI-04-91-00530). That report described 

the extent to which States collect child support on behalf of Title IV-E foster care 

children. 

At the Federal level, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers both foster care and 

child support enforcement programs. Foster Care is operated under the 

Administration for Children, Youth and Families (ACYF). Child support enforcement 

is operated under the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). 

What Is Foster Care 

Foster care is temporary removal of a child to live with someone other than a parent 

or usual caretaker during a time of crisis in a family. 

Each State is responsible for establishing and operating foster care programs under 

provisions of Federal statutes and HHS guidelines. Foster care agencies provide the 

following services. 

1

--

FOSTER CARE SERVICES


� Make Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal of Child From Parents 

� Remove Child from an Unsafe EnvironmentWhen Necessary 

� Place Child in Appropriate Foster Care 

b Plan for Child’s Long Term Welfare 

�	 Where Appropriate, Refer Parent(s) and Child for Child Support 

serviees 

How Is Foster Care Funded 

Foster care is funded through Federal, State and local promams. Federal funding is 

available primarily under two programs Title IV-E and ;itle IV-B of the Social_ 

Security Act. 

Title IV-E funds foster care services for children who would be eligible to receive 

AFDC if they were living in the home of birth parents or specified relatives at the 

time of removal from that home. Such funds are provided to States as an entitlement. 

States match Federal funds for the care of each Title IV-E-eligible child. In FY 1991, 

the Federal share reached $1.8 billion. 

Title IV-B funds a variety of State child welfare programs, including foster care for 

any child, regardless of parent’s income. In FY 1991, the Federal government 

appropriated $274 million under Title IV-B for State child welfare service grants. 

Each State grant is based on the population of children, States often spend Title IV-B 

funds on foster care for children not covered by Title IV-E. However, State and local 

funds are the primary funding mechanisms for foster care for non-IV-E eligible 

children. 

What Is Chili Suppoti 

Child support is a monetary payment made by an absent parent to provide for his or 

her child. An absent parent is one who is not residing in the same home as a child. 

Each State establishes and operates child support programs under provisions of 

Federal statutes and HHS guidelines. Child support enforcement agencies open a 

case on an absent parent when they receive a request, or referral, for services on 

behalf of a child. Once a case is opened a child support agency provides the following 

services. 

2

--

CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

� Locate Parents 

� EstablishPaternity 

� Obtain a Child Support Order 

� Colkxt and Distniute Child Support 

What Are Federal Requirements For I?.muing Child Support 

Title IV-D of the Social Security Act created the child support enforcement program 

in 1975. This legislation authorized child support agencies to obtain support orders 

and collect child support on behalf of all children included in an AFDC grant. The 

program goals are to (1) increase family (parental) responsibility, and (2) reduce costs 

of public assistance for taxpayers, especially AFDC costs. 

The 1984 Child Support Amendments Act required child support for one class of 

foster care children those that meet AFDC eligibility criteria and are, therefore, 

covered under Title IV-E. The 1984 amendments to the Act required foster care 

agencies to refer the biological parents of children in Title IV-E foster care for child 

support “where appropriate.” Any child support that is collected must be distributed 

to appropriate State and Federal foster care agencies to offset costs of foster care. 

The 1984 Amendments also allowed child support services to be extended to anyone 

requesting the services. This theoretically allowed services to be provided to children 

in non-IV-E foster care, provided that someone requests such services. However, the 

1984 amendments do not reauire foster care agencies to refer biological parents of 

non-IV-E foster care children for child support. 

Like Title IV-E foster care children, both parents of non-IV-E foster care children no 

longer have custody of their child. Unlike Title IV-E children, the parents of non-lVE foster care children may have incomes or assets that are sufficiently high so as to 

disqualify them for AFDC. 

METHODOLOGY 

To determine potential for collecting child support for non-IV-E foster care children, 

we randomly selected 10 States with probability proportional to size. Title IV-B 

allocations to States for FY 1991 determined size. Nine States responded to our 

requests for information within our study time frame. We conducted our review 

between March and November 1992. 

3


— 
From each of the nine State foster care agencies, we requested a random sample of 70 

non-IV-E foster care children, as of December 31, 1991. The 9 States furnished the 

names of 630 foster care children. Thirty-seven of the sampled children did not meet 

our criteria, leaving us with a sample size of 593 children. 

Next, we determined if child support was pursued for the sampled children. We used 

a standardized data collection instrument to request names, Social Security numbers 

and dates of birth for sampled foster care children and their biological parents. After 

receiving the information, we contacted each State child support enforcement agency 

to determine if any parents of the children had been referred to a child support 

enforcement agency and the status of any cases that had been referred. If collections 

were made, we requested information on how the money was distributed. 

To determine 1991 earnings by parents of sampled foster care children, we matched 

each parent’s Social Security number, when available, with Social Security 

Administration’s (SSA) Earning Reference Files (ERF). We then calculated the 

amount of funds available to foster care agencies if they pursued child support from 

biological parents. We used a child support formula of 17 percent~ of earnings to 

estimate potential funds available for child support. To estimate potential child 

support collections nationwide, we weighted our sample results to represent non-IV-E 

foster care children nationally. 

Appendix A fully describes our data collection and analysis methods. 

We conducted our review in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections 

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

~Federal guidelines allow States wide latitude in what formula to use in collecting 

child support. As a result, States have selected a wide variety of formulas, and we could 

not find a child support formula that was applicable in all States. Therefore, to estimate 

potential for collecting child support for non-%E foster care children, we chose one of 

the simplest child support formulas - 17percent of earnings, T}zisfo~mula is currently 

being used in Wisconsin. Actual child support collections will vaiy by State depending on 

their respective child support formulas and specific factors of each foster care case. 

4 
FINDINGS


CHILD SUPPORT WAS COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF 9 PERCENT OF 

NON-IV-E FOSTER CARE CHILDREN 

During 1991, Child Support Enforcement agencies collected support payments from 

parents of 7 percent (42) of the 593 non-IV-E foster care children in our sample. This 

represents 9 percent of non-IV-E foster care children nationally.2 About 4 percent 

(52) of the 1186 biological parents of the 593 foster children paid child support. Both 

parents paid child support for only 10 of the 42 children. For the remaining 32 

children, only one of their parents paid support on their behalf. 

Some States were more successful than others in collecting child support from parents 

of non-IV-E foster care children. Two of the nine States in our sample accounted for 

about 71 percent of the child support collected. Three States accounted for 29 

percent and 4 States collected no child support for sampled non-IV-E foster care 

children. 

STATE EMPHASIS ON COLLECTING CHILD SUPPORT IS LOW 

State Foster Care Agency Recor& Are Inadequate For l%rsuing Ckikl Support 

Foster care agency caseworkers do not routinely and systematically collect basic 

information needed for pursuing child support. To illustrate, State foster care 

agencies could provide us with the names of about 70 percent (830) of the 1186 

parents of foster care children in our sample. Likewise, they had dates of birth for 

only 57 percent of the parents and Social Security numbers for only 48 percent of the 

parents. 

Child support enforcement staff often had more information than foster care agency 

staff on parents of foster care children. In some instances, child support enforcement 

agency staff had established a child support case before a child was placed in foster 

care, To illustrate, child support enforcement agencies were able to supply us with 52 

names of parents who were listed as “unknown” by appropriate foster care agencies. 

Further, child support enforcement agencies furnished us with 26 dates of birth that 

appropriate foster care agency staffs could not provide. 

2 In our sample, we did not select the number of cases in each State propotiionate to 

the number of children in non-IV-E foster care. To obtain a more accurate national 

estimate, our data was weighted during analysis to reflect the variance in non-IV-E foster 

care populations. 

5

Such basic information is essential for collecting child support, and for providing other 

services to the families of children in foster care such as counseling and parental 

training. Failure to share such needed information can limit child support that helps 

defray public assistance, and it adversely affects the provision of child support services 

to foster care children. Further, independently collecting the same information results 

in inefficient use of staff time and resources in both foster care and child support 

agencies. 

lldrty-jive Percent of Parents Are Referred To Chiki Support Enforcement Agencies For 

Possible Collections 

Foster care agencies,3 a biological parent, AFDC eligibility offices, or courts referred 

29 percent (349) of the 1186 parents of sampled non-IV-E foster care children for 

child support. This projects to 35 percent of parents nationally. This means that no 

attempt was made to collect child support from 65 percent of the parents of non-IV-E 

foster care children. Without a referral, child support enforcement agencies cannot 

provide services, including establishing paternity, locating parents, and evaluating a 

parent’s potential for contributing to the support of his or her child. 

35 Percent of Parents Are Referred 

To Child Support Agencies 

ferred 35% 

Not Referred 65 

Chikl Support Ordem Are Established For 12 Percent ~Non-IV-E Foster Care Chikiren 

A child support order must be established to collect child support from biological 

parents. Child support agencies had established support orders for 11 percent (67) of 

the 593 non-IV-E foster care children in our sample. This projects to 12 percent of 

3 Records at foster care agencies were inadequate for determining the precise number 

of referrals. In practice, child suppoti agencies often initiate child support services without 

a referral from foster care agencies. 

6 
non-IV-E foster care children nationally. A total of 89 parents were ordered to pay 

support on behalf of sampled children. This represents about 25 percent of the 349 

parents who were referred to child support. Both parents were ordered to pay child 

support on behalf of 22 of the 67 children for which support orders were established. 

i%wrzty-eightPercent Of Ihe Refenvd Foster Care Cases Are Open But Incorrect& 

Classified 

Of the 349 parents referred to child support enforcement agencies, 28 percent of the 

cases were open but not correctly classified. The foster care agency was not named as 

the custodia; of the child, and, therefore, could not be the ulti%at; recipient of 

collections made on a child’s behalf. Some of the 9 States in our sample classified 

zero cases correctly while other States classified as high as 92 percent correctly. 

Thirty percent of the cases were closed and, therefore, inactive. Although we did not 

assess reasons for closure as part of this review, some cases may have been closed 

because pursuing child support was not considered to be in best interests of a child. 

The remaining 42 percent were open and classified as foster care cases. For these 

cases, child support enforcement agencies indicated that services were appropriately 

provided. The chart below summarizes the classification of sampled non-IV-E foster 

care cases referred to child support enforcement agencies. 

Status Of Non-IV-E Foster Care Cases Referred 

To Child Support Agencies 

Cases Open But Incorrectly Classified 28% 

Closed Cases 30% 

Cases Open as Non-IV-E Foster Care Cases &J 

100% 

Correct classification helps ensure that monies collected on behalf of foster care 

children are correctly distributed to the foster care program. Ultimately, incorrect 

classification resulted in child support paid by 17 percent of parents being incorrectly 

distributed. We describe the distribution of child support collections in a companion 

management advisory report titled “Incorrect Distribution Of Child Support Collected 

On Behalf Of Non-IV-E Foster Care Children” (OEI-04-91-00981). 

7

STATESHAVE POTENTIAL TO INCREASE CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS 

FOR NON-IV-E FOSTER CARE CHILDREN 

Many Parents Of Children In Non-IV-E Foster Care Have Financial Resources To Pay 

Chiki Support On Behalf Of Their Chiki 

The children in our sample were not eligible for foster care under Title IV-E. This 

may be because their family income and assets exceeded AFDC eligibility limits. 

The biological parents of about 44 percent (263 of 593) of our sampled non-IV-E 

foster care children reported earning a total of 2.4 million dollars4 in 1991. To 

estimate potential child support we used 17 percent of gross income. Based on 17 

percent of their income, the parents of the 263 children should have paid a total of 

$403,000 per year in child support for their children. However, they actually paid a 

total of $19,521. This represented about 45 percent of the total child support 

collected during 1991 for our sampled children. 

We were unable to determine the extent that parents had income such as disability 

compensation, interest income, or dividend income. However, 55 percent of the total 

child support actually paid for 7 percent (42 of 593) of our sampled children was paid 

by parents who either reported no earnings, or whose records were inadequate to 

determine earnings. Child support from these parents totaled $23,386. 

States Can Increase Collections By Pumuing Child Support From Both Parents 

Most States historically pursued child support from


only one parent, usually the father. Non-IV-E


foster care children potentially have two biological 9


parents who may contribute to their support. Child Foster Care Child


support may be collected from either the biological


mother, the biological father, or, in some situations,


both parents. Nationally, our sample shows that


some States do not consider or pursue child support h+


payments from mothers. However, the States in


our sample that are most effective in collecting child Blologlcal Blologlcal


Father Mother 

support were those that collected from both 

parents. 

4 Because of inadequate records, we could not determine incomes for the parents of 

the remaining 56 percent of our sampled non-W-E foster care children. 

8 
Sates Can Increase Child Support Collections lhrough Better Management of the l+ocess 

Regardless of the type of foster care, the process for collecting child support includes 

four major steps. They are 

o	 collecting basic information on biological parents, such as name and Social 

Security numbers, 

o referring parents of foster care children to child support enforcement agencies, 

o establishing child support orders, and 

o collecting child support. 

Appendix B provides detailed information on the process of placing a child in foster


care and collecting child support.


Failure to carry out any one of the first three steps has a direct relationship to the


amount of child support collected. Despite the ability of many parents to pay child


support, foster care agencies frequently do not (1) collect adequate information for


pursuing child support, or (2) refer foster care cases for child support collection. In


instances where foster care agencies did refer biological parents to child support


agencies for possible collections, child support agencies obtained support orders for


only about 25 percent of the parents. As a result, States collected child support for


only about 9 percent of non-IV-E foster care children.


Two of the nine States in our sample, Washington and North Carolina, showed that


better management of each step in the process does increase overall collection of child


support. For example, each of the 2 State foster care agencies recorded basic


information such as parents name for over 90 percent of the parents as compared to


70 percent for the States overall. They also referred almost 60 percent of the parents


to child support agencies for possible collections as compared to 29 percent overall for


the 9 selected States. As a result, child support agencies in the 2 States collected child


support from over 15 percent of the parents of non-IV-E foster care children.


Overall, the 9 States in our sample collected child support from about 4 percent of the


parents of non-IV-E foster care children.


9

.. ...................

..... ....... .... ....

The following chart illustrates the potential for improvement in each of the four key 

steps for collecting child support on behalf of non-IV-E foster care children. Based on 

our sample, the blackened area shows States’ current performance in each step toward 

collecting child support on behalf of foster care children. The white area shows the 

extent of opportunity to improve performance. 

Opportunity to Improve 

Child Support Collections 

% 

100 

8Q~..4..l ................................

60 

40	 4. . 4

. . 

89% 

93% 

20 

0 Names SSNS


Basic Information Referral Support Collections 

On Parents Orders 

- current I I Potential for 

Performance Improvement 

10

Estirnute ~ Potential Child Supp~ Collections 

our sample of 593 children represented over 260,000 children in non-IV-E foster care 

nationwide. Because our random sample was stratified, each of our sampled children 

represented a different percentage of the universe. To estimate potential child 

support collections, we weighted our sample results to represent non-IV-E foster care 

children nationwide. The following chart shows our sample and weighted results. 

Sampled Weighted 

Results Results 

Number of Children in Non-IV-E Foster Care 593 260,000 

Percent of Children on Whose Behalf Child 

Support Is Collected 7% 9% 

Percent of Children Included in a Support Order 

I 

1170 

I 

12% 

Percent of Parents Referred to Child Support I 29V0 I 35940 

The table on the next page shows possible child support collections nationwide that 

could have been collec~e~ in 1991 if child support wire pursued on behalf of non-IV-E 

foster care children. We assumed all parents of foster care children have incomes and 

ability similar to the parents of the children in our random sample. 

We know, however, that both biological parents of every child in non-IV-E foster care 

will not be identified and located. Further, some parents that are located will be 

unable to pay child support because of inadequate income. Finally, in some situations 

it is not in the best interests of a child to pursue child support collections. For these 

reasons and because the child support collections formula varies by State, we 

conservatively limit our estimate of potential child support collection, as shown in the 

table on the next page. If child support collections were made on behalf of half of the 

children in non-IV-E foster care, $193.8 million would have been collected in 1991. 

Administrative costs of collecting child support would reduce the amount of collections 

available for improving child welfare services. However, the administrative costs to 

child support enforcement agencies can be lessened if foster care agencies (1) obtain 

adequate information on parents when a child enters the system,5 and (2) refer all 

appropriate cases for services. 

s T~te administrative cost of collecting this information would be minimal because 

foster care caseworkers generally obtain information on biological paren~s as part of their 

services to the family. Howeveq the caseworker do not enter this info~mation into a 

system which can be accessed by child support enforcement stajf 

11

ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS 

Percent of Children On 

Whose Behalf Child 

Support Is Collected 50% 4090 30% 20% 15% 10YO 

Possible Collections 

(in millions) $193.8 $154.4 $115.8 $77.2 $57.!? $38.6 

The shaded column shows possible collections if all States achieved the 15 percent 

collection rate for non-IV-E foster care children that 2 States in our sample are 

already achieving. However, we believe an even higher percentage of parents can pay 

child support, and the amount of possible collections would be higher as well. 

Appendix C shows in detail how we calculated estimated child support collections. 

CONCLUSION 

Federal law requires pursuit of child support, where appropriate, from parents of 

children in foster care who are removed from low income families. However, no such 

law exists to require child support from parents with higher incomes. 

Failure to collect child support on behalf of non-IV-E foster care children, where 

appropriate, decreases opportunities to obtain needed resources for providing child 

welfare services. Since no Federal policies mandate that child support services be 

pursued for children in non-IV-E foster care, many may believe that child support 

cannot, or should not, be pursued on behalf of such children. Because of this, children 

are being denied important services, such as paternity establishment which allows a 

child to have inheritance and insurance rights. Additionally, biological parents may be 

able to provide medical insurance which covers a child’s medical expenses. Even in 

situations where child support is pursued, lack of established procedures often results 

in misclassification of cases. 

Foster care agencies should review each foster care case and determine if pursuing 

child support is in the best interest of a foster care child. In instances where it is 

considered appropriate, each case should be referred to child support for collection. 

Child support agencies should work cooperatively with foster care agencies to pursue 

child support, where appropriate, as a routine part of the process of building parental 

responsibility. To do this, States may choose to better manage or change their systems 

so that child support will be pursued on behalf of all children in foster care. 

12

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Recommendation 1: ACF should encourage States to extend child support services to 

all children in foster care, regardless of the funding source. Some options for ACF to 

accomplish this are discussed below. 

Option 1: Extend written instructions to States to include all foster care children 

regardless of the funding source. Such instructions should encourage State 

foster care agencies to record names, dates of birth and Social Security 

numbers for both biological parents of children in foster care, 

foster care agencies to review each foster care case to determine if pursuing 

child support collections is in the best interest of a child, 

foster care agencies to refer all appropriate biological parents of foster care 

children to IV-D child support enforcement agencies for establishing child 

support orders and collecting child support, and 

foster care agencies and child support enforcement agencies to develop a 

Memorandum of Understanding determining appropriate cases for referral, and 

gathering and exchanging data. 

Option 2: Provide specific guidance and plans to States for coordinating foster care


and child support programs, such as including a data exchange link between foster


care and child support enforcement records when developing or modifying automated


systems, and providing child support enforcement agencies with a model system for


classifying and processing child support cases.


Option 3: Seek legislation requiring the pursuit of child support on behalf of


non-IV-E foster care children, “where appropriate,” The legislative requirement


should conform to that presently in place for the children in IV-E foster care.


Recommendation 2: Organizations interested in foster care and child support should


encourage States to seek child support for non-IV-E foster care children whenever


appropriate. Such organizations include, but are not limited to, the National


Governors Association, the National Association of State Budget Officers, the National


Conference of State Legislatures and the National Council of State Human Services


Administrators of the American Public Welfare Association.


13

AGENCY COMMENTS 

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) generally agreed with the focus


of our recommendations. ACF noted however, that our recommendation on child


support services should be qualified to recognize that in some instances it would not


be good practice to collect child support from parents of children in foster care. The


ACF welcomes assistance and participation from national organizations interested in


encouraging States to seek child support on behalf of foster care children whenever


appropriate.


The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) agreed with our


recommendations. The ASPE noted that child support collections should only be


initiated when it would support a foster care agency’s case plan for a foster care child.


We highlighted this objective in our report. Whether to pursue child support


collections or not should be determined on a case-by-case basis by a foster care


agency. The foster care agency should then contact the child support agency to


pursue collections.


The Child Welfare League of America, Inc. (CWLA) noted that our report makes a


case for stronger collaboration between foster care agencies and child support


enforcement agencies. Further, such collaboration will enhance the financial base for


providing services to children in foster care and promote greater parental


responsibility. The CWLA agreed with our recommendations and are willing to work


with the National Governors Association and the American Public Welfare Association


in encouraging States to seek child support for non IV-E eligible children in foster


care.


The American Public Welfare Association (APWA) received comments on our report


from the (1) State of Washington agency that administers the child support program,


and (2) State of New York agency that administers both the foster care and child


support program. The State of Washington is identified in our report as one that has


had success in collecting child support on behalf of foster care children. They


commented that foster care agencies need to work cooperatively with child support


agencies as a routine part of the process of building parental responsibility. They


concurred with our point that improvements in data gathering will ameliorate many of


the information gaps that presently inhibit effective case management. The State of


New York also supports our recommendations. They believe our recommendations


are consistent with current Federal and State government efforts to implement welfare


reform and its emphasis on parental responsibility. New York noted its experience


that child support collections on behalf of State foster care children provide significant


reimbursement to the State for expenses it incurs in providing child welfare services.


14

APPENDIX A


METHODO~GY 

Sample Selection 

Since no accurate count of children in foster care exists, we used a listing of Title IV-B 

appropriations to establish our universe. We selected 10 States with probability 

proportional to the appropriation amounts for Title IV-B as our national sample. One 

State, Massachusetts, chose not to participate. This reduced our sample to the 

following nine States: California, Ohio, Florida, South Carolina, Illinois, Washington, 

North Carolina, Nevada, and Texas. 

We asked foster care officials in each sampled State to select a random sample of 70 

cases from a universe of children who had been in foster care for at least 6 months as 

of December 31, 1991. States were instructed to use the same sampling procedures 

used to sample for reviews conducted by ACF. We requested States not to include 

foster care children funded under Title IV-E in the sample. We verified the 

randomization method used by the States prior to actual sample selection. We 

conducted our review between March and November 1992. 

Information Collection 

Using standardized forms, we requested names, Social Security numbers and dates of 

birth for both the foster care children appearing in our sample, and their biological 

parents. We received information on 630 children; however, we excluded 37 from our 

sample because they had been classified as eligible for Title IV-E financial support. 

State foster care officials provided us with the names, addresses, Social Security 

numbers, and birth dates for each of the remaining 593 sampled children and their 

biological parents. 

We contacted State child support enforcement agencies in each of the 9 States to 

determine which parents of the 593 foster care children had been referred to a IV-D 

child support enforcement agency. We asked child support enforcement agencies for 

detailed information on any established cases. Using standardized forms we asked 

whether a case was currently open, how it was classified, what services had been 

performed in the cases, whether a child support order was established, and whether 

collections were being made. If collections were made, we requested information on 

how the money was distributed. 

Using the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Earning Reference Files (ERF), to 

determine earned income, we calculated potential child support that could be paid by 

biological parents of sampled children. We used a child support formula of 17 percent 

of earnings to estimate potential funds available for child support. 

A-1

APPENDIX B


THE FOSTER CARE PROCESS 

After a child is removed from a home - occasionally by the police or linked child 

protection authorities - the child is placed in some type of emergency care. A removal 

order is signed by a court official and a more permanent place for the child is found. 

Some States and localities also allow parents to voluntarily place their children in 

foster care. 

The preferred placement is usually in the least restrictive and most “homelike” setting 

where a child will be cared for by foster parents. Usually foster parents are certified 

volunteers who take children into their homes. Maintenance payments are for 

expenses directly related to care and lodging for eligible children. An eligibility 

determination is made to determine which funding sources will cover the cost of foster 

care. 

Local foster care agencies work with the former custodial parent(s) - usually the 

biological parent(s) who last had legal custody of a child - to develop a permanency 

plan. The permanency plan is a step-by-step action plan to determine what will 

happen with a child. In accordance with the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare 

Act of 1980, the majority of permanency plans are designed to return a child to the 

former custodial parent(s) as soon as possible. 

Occasionally, a foster care worker (or a parent) will determine that a child can never


return home. This determination is usually reached because problems causing removal


are extreme and insurmountable. For many such cases the permanency plan will be


adoption. For adoption to take place, proper legal proceedings must terminate


parental rights of both parents. This termination can be voluntary or involuntary. If a


parent is absent and his or her whereabouts are unknown, a “diligent search” must be


made to satisfy legal requirements before a child can be eligible for adoption.


A child’s case must be reviewed every six months and the permanency plan updated.


The family’s progress towards improving the home situation is tracked by an assigned


foster care case worker. In cases of voluntary placements, a child must be returned to


the parent(s) upon his/her request, or the agency must seek court-ordered custody.


Coordination between foster care and child support programs begins with a referral


from a foster care agency. The child support enforcement agency attempts to locate


an absent parent(s). An “absent parent” is a biological parent not residing in the


home the child is in. Paternity will be established if necessary. The child support


enforcement agency will go through the court proceedings to establish a support order.


A support order is an order issued by a court requiring an absent parent(s) to provide


child support. The agency will then collect monies from the absent parent(s) and


distniute them in accordance with the court’s ruling and Federal regulations.


B-1 
--

APPENDIX C


ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL CHILD SUPPORT COLJ..JXXIONS 

Recompleted anearnings search on317parents, or26.7percent of the 1186 possible 

parents of children in our sample. The reason for alowpercentageof parents with 

reported earnings is that foster care records lack the basic information on parents, 

such as names and Social Security numbers (SSNS). For example, foster care agencies 

were able to provide us with 836 names of parents and 570 SSNS for 1186 parents in 

our sample. Further, some of the information we did receive was invalid, e.g. the SSN 

did not match the name. 

Data obtained from the Social Security Administration showed the 317 parents earned


$~372,800 during 1991. Because of State variations in formulas used for calculating


child support, we could not find a formula that was applicable to all States.


Therefore, we based our estimate on 17 percent of income a formula used by


Wisconsin. This calculation showed that, theoretically, $403,376 could have been


collected by child support enforcement agencies from 317 biological parents of


sampled children in foster care during 1991.


We chose the 17 percent for several reasons. First, we could not obtain consensus 

among ACF officials on what percentage to use. Several ACF officials referred us to 

Wisconsin which uses 17 percent of income for child support. Second, regardless of 

what percent we used, potential collections would not be precise for each State. 

Actual collections vary by State depending on their individual child support formulas. 

Third, collections vary depending on numerous factors unique to each individual case. 

Therefore, we could not account for all the possible factors affecting collections. 

National projection of possible child support collections 

To estimate how much could be collected nationally, if child support were pursued on 

behalf of children in non-IV-E foster care, we made several assumptions. 

First, we do not have an exact number of children in non-IV-E foster care. Several 

estimates place the total number of children in non-IV-E foster care in 1991 nationally 

to be over 260,000. Assuming this number, each child has 2 parents for a total of 

520,000 parents who could possibly support their child. 

We assumed all biological parents of foster care children have earned incomes similar 

to the 317 parents of children in our random sample. Further, we assumed a child 

support formula used would approximate 17 percent of earned income. 

We know, however, that both parents of every child in non-IV-E foster care will not 

be identified and located. Further, some parents that are located will be unable to 

pay child support because of inadequate income. Finally, in some situations it is not 

c-1 
in the best interests of a child to pursue child support collections. In the Title IV-E 

foster care program, for example, parents are referred to child support enforcement 

agencies for possible collections “where appropriate.” We believe a similar standard 

should be applied for children in non-IV-E foster care. In situations where a child’s 

safety or w~l~-being would be jeopardized, child support should not be pursued. In 

foster care cases where parental rights are to be quickly terminated, pursuing child 

support collections could also be inappropriate. 

The table below shows possible child support collections which could have been 

collected in 1991 if child support were pursued from specific percentages of the 

520,000 parents of non-IV-E foster care children. 

Estimate of Potential Child Support Collections 

For Non-IV-E Foster Care Children in 1991 

Percent of Children 

On Whose Behalf 50% 4070 30% 20% 15% 10% 

Child Support Is 

Collected 

Possible Collections 

(in millions) $193.8 $154.4 $115.8 $77.2 $57.9 $38.6 

The dollar figures shown above are based only on biological parents’ earned income. 

Other income sources, such as disability payments, dividends or investment income can 

also be used to pay child support. In our sample over half (55 percent) of the child 

support actually paid in 1991 came from parents who had no reported earned income. 

Additionally, biological parents may be able to provide medical insurance which covers 

a child’s medical expenses. 

c-2 
APPENDIX D


AGENCY COMMENTS 

ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PLANNIN G AND EVALUATION


CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA INC.


AMERICAN PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION


D-1

� 

*+.4 . 

— 

ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 

Office of the Assistant Secreta~, Suite 600 

370 L’Enfant Promenade, S.W. 

March 29, 1994 Washington, 11.C. 20447 

*$--, ‘ 

# 

*4 .% 

*4 

5 DEPARTMENTOFHEALTH& HUMANSERVICES


:

s
%


15 

me d 

To:	 June Gibbs Brown PDIG 

Inspector General %? 5 

mG4X From: Mary Jo Bane 

Assistant Secretary for ~%~ Ax_J = 

Children and Families \ 

DATE SENT ~ 

Sub] ect:	 Comments on Office of Inspector General Draft Report: 

“Child Support for Children in State Foster Care,” 

OEI-04-91-00980 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on your draft 

report of a study conducted on the potential for collecting child 

support payments from biological parents of children in State 

foster care programs. 

General Comments 

There are several areas in the report regarding the use of title 

IV-B child welfare funds, and title IV-E eligibility requirements 

which should be clarified. 

Title IV-B funds should be expended by the States on child 

welfare senices, not foster care maintenance as could be assumed 

from information in the report. 

States m~ expend a limited amount of title IV-B funds for foster 

care maintenance, however, according to section 423(c) (1) of the 

Social Security Act, there are restrictions which apply when Such 

funds are used-for maintenance. The overall goal of the title 

IV-B child welfare program is to keep families together through 

the provision of social services so that, if possible, children 

will not have to be removed from their homes. 

Regarding title IV-E foster care eligibility, the draft report 

indicates that title IV-E foster care eligibility is based solely 

upon a child’s removal from the home of afi Aid t~ Families with 

Dependent Children (AFDC) family. The AFDC linkage is only one 

of several title IV-E eligibility criteria. 

OIG I?ecoxrunendation 1: 

ACF should encourage States to extend child support services tO 

all children in foster care, regardless of the funding source. 

Some options for ACF to accomplish this are discussed below. 

Option 1: Extend written instructions to Stateg.to include all 

foster care children regardless of:-th~;
 @@.&,is6urce. Such


instructions should encourage State’-

‘ Page 2 - June Gibbs Brown 

foster care agencies to record names, dates of birth, and


Social Security numbers for both biological parents of


children in foster care,


foster care agencies to refer all appropriate biological


parents of foster care children to IV-D child support


enforcement agencies for establishing child support orders


and collecting child support, and


foster care agencies and child support enforcement agencies


to develop a Memorandum of Understanding determining


appropriate cases for referral, and gathering and exchanging


data.


Option 2: Provide specific guidance and plans to States for 

coordinating foster care and child support progr-, such.~s .- including a data exchange link between foster care and child 

support enforcement records when developing or modifying


automated systems, and providing child support enforcement


agencies with a model system for classifying and processing child


support cases.


Option 3: Seek legislation requiring the pursuit of child 

support on behalf of non-IV-E foster care children, “where 

appropriate.“ The legislative requirement should conform to that 

presently in place for the children in IV-E foster care.


ACF Comments 

The ACF does not disagree with the direction of this


recommendation. However, recommendations concerning child


support for children in foster care should be qualified to 

recognize that in some instances it would not be good practice to 

seek (or to seek immediately) to collect support from parent(s)


of children in care. The major goal of the title IV-E foster


care program is the reunification of children with their


families. Premature or ill-timed efforts to collect child


support payments from a parent could jeopardize and complicate


reunification. The pursuit of child support from the ex­


custodial biological parent may be inappropriate if the


conditions are temporary, such as hospitalization or


incarceration of the parent. In too many of these cases, the


absence of child support payments from the non-custodial


biological parent, for any number of reasons, also contributed to


the poor financial conditions of the family.

,, .1 

‘Page 3 - June Gibbs Brown


State foster care agencies are now, and have been since the 

inception of the child support program in 1975, able to apply for 

and receive Ehe full range of non-ZWDC child support senices 

from the State w-l) agency. currently, the foster care a9e~Cy 

makes a referral and pays a very nominal application fe@ (In -Y 

States $1) for IV-D services. This fee need be paid only one 

time by the 131-13 agency, and the application may be for one child 

or several children. 

The ACF’S Automated Svst ems for Child Support Enforcement: A 

Guide for States, revised June 1993, addresses the requirements 

for certification of State child support automated syst-: 

flThe ~ysf-~ must automatically accept and process 

automated referrals from the IV-E agency if the State


IV-E system is automated.


“Alternative: If the Title IV-E agency is not


automated, procedures must be established to ensure


timely transmittal of information from the IV-E


agency.”


The system must record the date the referral is received and must


be able to link two non-custodial parents to a child(ren) in the


custody of the IV-E agency. The system must also accept and


process a number of data elements, such as the IV-E case


identification number, the IV-E case status, the IV-E approval


date, the IV-E payment amount, and many others.


OIG Recommendatf.on 2: 

Organizations interested in foster care and child support should


encourage States to seek child support for non-IV-E foster care


children whenever appropriate.


ACF Comment 

The ACF would welcome the assistance and participation of other


organizations, such as those named in Recommendation No. 2, in


this work.


Technical Comment8 

Appendix C of the report notes that the formulas used for


computing child support obligations vary from State to State.


For a ‘simple way of estimating child support collections


nationwide” the report used 17 percent of income--a formula used


by Wisconsin for one child. This presumes the cases involve only


one child. We recommend that the OIG consider how many children


a “typical” foster care case involves in making their


computations of a theoretical amount of child support available.

--

. --

.=+.’.’’’.:’:’$--’ “““ ~ “, .._ _ ... -.

.:. DMARTMENT oF i-iEALTH& HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary . 

;

%- & 

Washington, D.C. 20201 

FEB i ~ 

TO:	 JuneGibbs Brown 

Inspector General 

FROM:	 Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation 

SUBJECT:	 Draft OIG Report: “Child Support for Children in State Foster Care, ” OEI04-91 -00980--CON’D~ONti CONCURRENCE 

I appreciate youroffice’s inquiry into this subject andIfoundthis draft report,andtheone


whichaccompaniedit, “Incorrect Distribution ofChild Support Collected onBehalf
ofNonIV-EFoster Children,” helpfi.d
 and informative. Both have the potential to make important

contributions tothechild welfare andchild support fields.
 I am in general agreement with 

the recommendations of the draft report which is the subject of this memorandum and I 

concur with it provided the following points are developed more fully. 

First, I believe it is critical for the draft report to highlight that collection of child support 

from parents with children in foster care should only be pursued in instances in which this 

action would support the child welfare agency’s case plan for the child. tie *odd be 

taken to make clear that this determination should be made on a case-by-case basis. It is 

clearly not appropriate for all foster care cases. 

Second, thedraft report should emphasize that ininstances whenthis
h considered


appropnate,t.he child welfare agency, rather thanthechild support agency, should
maket.his


determination andthenincorporate compliance aspart ofthechild’s
 caseplan.Thechild


welfare agency should thencontact the child support agency topursue
collection.


I understand that ourstaff havetalked informally andYouroffice k comfortable ‘making
 these 

modifications tothefinal
 report.

David T. Ellwood 
--

CwuChild Welfare League of America, Inc, 

440 First Street NW Suite 310 Washington, DC 20001-2085 � 202/638-2952. FAX 202/6384004 

PRESIDENT m John F Merchant SAm VICE PREsIDENTS *
 Anne Ouncan Z&s
 Judl!h Sherman


Rulhann S Yamanaka February 3, 1994 * G . .
 ~— ., -n SECRETARY NGMP ,- .-= n 

Mar@7 Cox -’-1 ;? -J’J 

,

.-

,T “’~’ l-n ASSISTANT SECRETARY .4 ,:; ~.i ~ 

Norman W Powell. Jr June Gibbs Brown mm- z “ 1 :.=-lm + ‘.’;~: — TREASURER Inspector General -: :7)< Rochard H Flemmg 

Department of Health and Human Services “.— -:m ASSISTANT TREASURER :> G 

Raymond P Carpemer 330 Independence Avenue, SW F.> 

.. A BOARD 

Carol Armstrong k Charles L. Baker 

JudOh S. BIOCK Dear Ms. Brown, 

Sheryl Br,ssett.Chapman 

Saran Bryanl 

OF DIRECTORS Washington, DC 20201 ‘n -m ... 

Nan Da!e Thank you for forwarding to us the draft inspection report, Child Suppontfor C%ildrenin State Foster Charles A DeGrandOre 

Jeanette Ounckel Cizre. We appreciate your efforts to analyze child support payment activities on behalf of non-IV-E Charles A Haas eligible children in foster care. Your findings clearly make the case for stronger collaboration Ken! !- Henderson


George T Hubbard between foster care agencies and child support agencies to enhance the tlnancial base for providing
 Mao Efell Hurley


Ann O Jordan semices to children in foster care and to promote greater parental responsibility. James M Karet 

Glynn O. Key


Karl G. Kmg With regard to our specific comments, we would like to share the following:
 Suzanne S Megathhn 

Elba Montalvo 

Rob Mosbacher. Jr + Page 2: While Tkle IV-B may serve as a source of federal finding for foster care


Timotny F Moelker


M!chael R Oslrowskl maintenance, the requirements in P.L. 96-272 limit the use of Title IV-B funds for
 Jane K. Patne child day care, foster care maintenance payments and adoption assistance payments
 R)chara G Plufka


Slepname G. Robinson to the 1979 Title IV-B appropriation of $56.6 million. Because of this limitation and


Maolyn R Seymann


P Stanley Shavers states’ needs to finance child welfare services with Th.ie IV-B funds, Th.le IV-B has


S Norman Sherry not been a viable source of funding for foster care maintenance payments. Stateand
 Farth Sm#th


Pamela K. Steele 10CS.I
 funds are the primary funding mechanisms for foster care for non-IV-E eiigible Manna Stenms


Susan S. Step(eton children, a fact that you may wish to emphasize in the description.


George W Swan III 

JOhn G Theban 

Mary Y Tull + Pages 2 and 5: The list of Foster Care Services includes “refer parent(s) and child 

Cheryle Wdls-Malthewa for child support services” as a foster care fimction and lists this function before HONORARY MEMBER 

Mm Ben W +fememan 

planning for the child’s long term welfare. Likewise, the discussion of “State Foster 

Care Agency Records Are Inadequate for Pursuing Child Support” appears to suggest EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Oawd S L$ederman that routine and systematic collection of information for pursuing child support is a 

DEPuTY DIRECTOR primary responsibility of foster care agencies. It should be recognizedthat foster care 

Sh#rley E Marcus agenciesare legally charged with protecting children and ensuring safe and nurturing 

WESTERN OFFICE care for children outside of their parents’ homes when necessary. collecting 762 W Cypress Avenue 

San D!mas. CA 91773 information to pursue child support is, at besb a secondary function. By contrast, 909/599-4565 child support enforcementstaff ~ primarily charged with collecting informationon FAX 909/599. 7281 

Jean McIntosh parents and establishing a child support case. As a consequence, it is hardly OirectOr surprising-and, in fact, would be expected-that child support agencieshave more CWLAICANAQA complete information on this issue than foster care agencies. 180 Argyle Avenue 

SUlfe3 ~z


Ottawa. ON K2P f B 7


6 13/235-4412


FAX 6 13/788-5075


Sandra G. Scarth


O,recror

Guarding Children’s Rights � Serving Children’s Needs 

‘Cwiiiiiiii

February 3, 1994 

Page 2. 

+	 Pages 9-12: We certainly agree that “States Can Increase Child Support Collections 

through Better Management of the Process” but we urge you to recommend that child 

support agencies become actively involved in the process. Placing yet another nonprotection fiuxxion on foster care agencies to collect infonsation and refer parents is 

unrealistic without an active collaboration with the child support agency.Simply


stating
 asyoudo on page 11 that “the administrative cost of collecting the information 

wouid be minimal because foster care caseworkers generally obtain information on 

biological parents., but do not enter this information.. .“ fails to acknowledge (1) tie 

role of foster care and (2) the nature of the relationship between foster care workers 

and the parents with whom they are working. Child support agencies need to give 

priority to developing collaborative relationships and interagency procedures with 

foster care agencies. This emphasis should be included in the last paragraph on page 

U. 

Your recommendations are excellent, particularly Recommendation 1, Option 1 as it recognizx the 

collaboration required between foster care and child support agencies. We also strongly support 

Recommendation 2 and would be happy to work with organizations such as the NGA and APWA in 

encouraging states to seek child support for non-IV-E eligible children in foster care. 

Thank you for your excellent work. Please let us know if we can be of any assistance. 

Sincerely, 

TM8L.L-. 

David S. Liederman 

Executive Director 
---

3F B+:APIVA : 2-28-94 ; 2:14PM ; 2022898555+ 4750487:P 2/ 5 

sIATEC)FWU-llNCiTON 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES .-, =. K) 80%9162 � ~~ WA 98507-9162 Q -n ,, = n 

February 11, 1994 -

—. T7X)

-> :;>7’ m IG -2 ~- ,c+ ~ 

SAIG I -n -. m 

PDIG .2 -b. — 

V)< 

American Public Welfare Association DIG-EI + — ‘n..—u 

810 First Street, NE DIG-CM 

Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20002-4267 S:S= 

Cathleen Tuoker DIGAS /-- ..

-: m

DATE SENT I 

Re: Draft Inspector General Report on Child Support for Children in State Foster Care 

Dear Ms. Tucker: &/-~$Lpf-- @&l@ 

Thank-you for the opportunityto review and amment upon the draft report of the ltispector 

General on child support for children in state fostercare. As our state was one of the nine Sbtes 

sampled for information collection, we were particularly interested in both the findings and 

recommendations set out in the report. We agree that foster care agencies need to work 

cooperativelywithchildsupportagencies to pursuechildsupportaS a routinepart of the process 

of building parental responsibility. 

The specific recommendation tnat tho Administration for Chiidren and Families encourage states 

to extend chiid support services to ali children in foster care, regardless of funding sou~, is a 

concept already endorsed by Washington. We concur that improvements in data gathering and 

referral systems wili ameliorate many of the information gaps that presently inhibiteffective case 

managementBased on an internal review oonducted last year, our own oonciusion was that an increase in the 

communication”and coordination of responsibilities between foster care and child support 

enforcement agencies wouid prMt all sewice recipients and stakeholdere. The major benefits 

anticipated to flow from implementation of these recommendations would be an increase in chiid 

support ooilections, increased paternity establishment and location of absent parents. 

To these ends, the foliowing recommendations were made: 

1,	 Development of anautomated coileotion distribution program to complywith federal 

distribu~on regulations. 

2.	 Proposed development of an electronic foster care case referral process with 

enhanced data provisions. 

3.	 Proposed development of an electronic data exchange system between the chiid 

support agency (IV-D) and the foster care agency (IV-E and State Oniy). 
; 2-28-94 : 2:14P!U; 202289653s+ 47s04i37; # 3[ 3 

4. Proposed on4ine accew to the foster care oaee management data base. 

5.	 Development of coordinated training tracks for child suppoti and kwter oam staff 

which provide an OWWOWof each agency’s reciprocal intmeta and Spf3Cific 

program requirements. 

6,	 Ongoing issuance of appropriatepolioydar&stions and direodves that afticutate 

program requirements and best pracdces. 

7.	 Development of a joint work group, staffed by both child support and foster care 

employees, to develop strategies and solutions for specific issues, to broaden 

interagency communicationon ail levels and to form the nudeue of a Mwok fOr 

mntinuing communication. 

Comments on the Dmft Report 

The stated purpose of the d@ report is “to determine potential for collecting child support from 

biologicalparents of children in State foster care programs.” In examining the question, the repofl . 

began to set out the impediments to effective referral of state funded foster care cases and 

posited a methodology for estimating potential collections. This was a good beginning. Bluntly, 

our concern is that the analysis in the report did not go far enough in identifying impediments to 

refenal, suppottorder establishment and collectionand that the estimate of collection potential 

did not reflect a more realistic assessment of the demographics of the responsible parants. 

Impediments to Effective Case Referral and Child Support Order Estebllahment ati 

Collection 

AS Appendix E in the draft report describes, children entering the foster care environment are not 

always voluntarily placed. Children are sometimes removed from the household under 

circumstances that oan best be described as requiring emergmt intervention. Parents of thw 

children are generally not cooperative, in the sense of voluntarilyprovidinginformationthatwill 

lead to filling in all the blanks on a child support referral. This, in turn, means that referrals tend 

to be incomplete withcmt fault to the foster care agenoy. 

The lack of cooperativenessfurtherextends to the arena of paternityestablishment. For example, 

in an AFDC case, an uncooperative mother may be sanotfoned for not partidpating in the p~e$$ 

of establishingpaternity, No similar remedy exists for an uncooperative mother in the We Only 

foster care case. Adding requirements to Individual Servioe Plans and plaoement orderswhich 

require parentsto participate in paternityestablishmenteffortsis only marginallyeffeotive,in that 

it presumes the parties are truly interestedin family reconciliation. 

Our study also noted a lingering perception among foster care professionals that referral to the 

child supportagency was detrimentaltofamily reconciliationefforts. The additionalfinancialstrain 

imposed by a child support obligation on a family already in crisis is the food point for that 

perception. Overcomingthis impressionis a matter of education and training and of identifying 

solutions which take into consideration the financiai issues reieed. 
;2-28-94:2:1- ; 2fJ2289835S- 47s0487;% 41 5 

Factors Limiting the Coll@ion Potential From Parentaof Children lnStat. Only FoSter 

Care 

The draft report estimates a population of 520,000 parentsfromwhich suppotlWOUlCl be oollected. 

In arriving at this estimate, the number of children (260,000 nationwide) was rnu}tiplied by two. 

Income data, obtained from the Social Security Administration, was then used to oalcuJatea 

potential earnings base, Finally, a child support formula of 17 percent of earned inoome was “ 

used to net out a potential collection figure. 

{t must first be noted that Washington agrees that there remains an untapped collection potential 

from parents in State Only foster care. However, each of the applications in the draft report make . 

significant assumptions or ignore significant faotors which tend to reduce cxdlection potential. 

Neither postulating or creating an account receivable is equivalent to aotually collecting the 

amounts due. Efforts to accurately measure collection potential must both evaluate the amount 

of the receivable and the likelihood of successfully collecting the soheduled obl~gation. A review 

of the magnitude of existing receivables and the rats of cdeotion on IV-E Foster Care, AFDC, 

and Non-Assistan~ oases could provide instructive data. 

Additional factors to consider are: 

1.	 Not every child has two parents from whom supporl maybe collected. Aside from 

issues such as abandonment and the death of a parent, which may lead to foster 

care placement, a child’s parent may simply not be able to be Iooatad. 

2.	 Many placements involve siblings. Either siblings remain in the household from 

which the child in care was removed or the siblings are all removsd from the 

household. Our review of Washington data indioates that this often oocurs. Where 

other siblings are involved, a clifferent (lower) per child support formtila is 

appropriate which consider%the multiple child ecenario, Where other siblings are 

involved, and remain in the household, one or both parent’s earning ability maybe 

dramatically affected. 

3.	 Many placements involve family reconciliation efforts, Counseling, treatment and 

other expenses @ trying to bring the family unit back together are often reasons 

for dramatic reductions in child support awards, h Washington, for example, a 

deviationfrom the scheduledchild support obligation is available for reconciliation 

costs. 

4.	 State law may limit collections of child support in some circumstances. For 

example, child support collections may be limited to the amount of the expenditures 

actually incurred by the state. 

5.	 State law may provide other deviations from scheduled support obligations 

particularly petiinent to children in foster care. These maybe extensive mediod 

bills, specialized care and edudon, or simply the continuing cost of maintaining 

a hou=hold for the child to return to after placement. Parents may also face 

unique transportation costs for children in foster oare. 

These factors should be addressed by the report and the collection potential revised in light of 

the limitations identified. Just as the draft report alludes to dividends and investment income, and 
APIVA ; 2-28-94 ; 2:15PM : 2022896553+ 47S0487:G s{ 5 “SENT‘h:

,1 

thus wealthier parents, the report shouldalso take noteof parenta with developmentalorother 

disabilitieswhich may have promptedthe need for state Intervention. 

All childrendeserve the supportof their parents. This supportcan be tional, financial,or by 

in-kind contribution. Foster care agencies and child supportagenctes must work cooperatively 

to ensure that the supportdesewed for childrenin fostercare is made available In a fashionthat 

best meets the intere$tsof each child. 

Extendingthe benefitsof paternityestablishment,childsupportestablishmentand child support 

mllectbn to the population of non-lV-E foster oars chiidmn is a sound concept. Improvingthe 

communicationand coordinationbetween foster oare agencies and childsupportagena”esis a 

sound recommendation, However, our feeling is that this is only the beginning. 

A unifiedapproachmustbe developedthatteams the effo~ of bothfostercare and childsupport 

staff, Simply increasingthe amount of data collected will no doubt lead to higher child support 

collections,but it will do little to support broader program goals suoh as preservation of the family 

unit and family self sufficiency. We recommendthat the scope of thisreportbe broadenedorthat 

an additional study be commissioned to more fully address the issues we have raised in our 

response. 

Thank-you again for the oppommity to review and comment upon the draft report. 

cc: Jerry Friedman 
: 3-14-94 : 9:46.Ml; 2Q2289653~-

., 

NEW YORK STATE 

‘DEPAR’TMINI OF SOCIALSERVICES E~(JE~D 

40NORTHPEARLSTREET,ALBANY, NEW YORK122434)001 

MICHAEL J. 00tVUNG MAR ? ~ SIJSAN V. D!!MERS 

cbmlnsmlw LkPWY c~ “ one 

ad Gcneai CQWA 

Mmch 2, 1994 

“ Cathleen Tucker, ESq . 

Project Manager


National Council of State Human $emdces Administrators


American Public Welfare Association 

.91o First Street, ~.E., suite Soo 

Washington, D.C. 20002


Child Support for Children is 

State Foster Care Programs .4--’ ‘e: /6 45/” 64;”9/“ @~~~


Dear Ms. Tuc er:
 )’- with the New York State
 The pu~ose of this letter is to provide you


Department of Social Services’ comments on the draft report issued by Che 

Department of Health and Human Semites’ (nD_”) OffiC&o~&-Inspector 

The ~cnezal entitled ‘tChild Support for Children in State Foster Care”. 

draft report recommends that the DHHS Administration for Children and 

Families instruct the states to extend the admimisbration of their Title IVD Child Support Enforcement programs to the collection of support for 

childxen in state-fmded foietex care progrwns. The Department supports the 

recomnendationa stated in the draft repor~ ae they are consistent with the 

federal end state governments’ ourrent efforts to implement wclfaxe re?orm 

and its emphasis on parental responsibility. 

New York Statels Child Support Enforcement Program already pursues. the 

establishment and enforcement ef child support orders on behalf of ahildrefi


in the StaCe’s foster care prcqram. As noted in the draft report, the 

implementation of more effective processes for the transfer of infmmetion 

between a state’s foster care agency and its child support �nforcement 

agency enableei a state to benefit fxom the collection of support for those 

children. It is this Statels experience that such collections provide 

significant levels of reimbursement to tlheState for the expenses it incurs 

in the provision of child welfare services.

; 3-14-94 ; 9:mwl ; 

. -2-

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this draft


report. If you require any additimal information in this regard, please


contact Assist-t Counsel Anne Binseel of my staff at 518-473-1949.


Very tru~y your~, 

SusC~ V. Demers


Deputy Commissioner


and General Counsel


SVD/AJB: ab