Depafiment of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

EXCEPTIONS TO WAGE WITHHOLDING 

FOR CHILD SUPPORT 

MARCH 1994 OEI-07-91-01220 
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. 

This report was prepared in the Kansas City Regional Office under the direction of James 

Wolf, Regional Inspector General. Project staff 

REGION HEADQUARTERS 

Raymond Balandron, Project Leader	 David Wright, Program Specialist 

Barbara Tedesco, Mathematical 

Statistician 

For additional copies of this report, please contact the Kansas City Regional Office at (816) 

426-3697. 
Depafiment of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

I 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

EXCEPTIONS TO WAGE WITHHOLDING 

FOR CHILD SUPPORT 

w A 

MARCH 1994 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

To assess the extent that States are requiring immediate wage withholding by Child 

Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies forabsent parents ordered topay child support. 

BACKGROUND 

The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-378) added sections 

454(2) and 466 to Title IV of the Social Security Act. These sections require all States 

to implement certain mandatory procedures which have proven to noticeably increase 

the effectiveness of State programs, including procedures for wage withholding. 

Section 101 of the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485) amended section 466 of 

the Act, requiring States to enact laws and implement procedures for immediate wage 

withholding in certain cases being enforced by the IV-D agency which administers the 

child support enforcement provisions. Under amended section 466(b)(3), a new 

subparagraph (A) provided, effective November 1, 1990, that immediate withholding is 

required for ~ IV-D cases with new or modified support orders regardless of the 

support payment status. 

This provision, however, allowed exceptions to wage withholding if one parent 

demonstrates, and the court or administrative authority finds good cause not to require 

wage withholding, or if both parents agree in writing to an alternative arrangement. 

Section 466(b)(3)(A) of the Act, as implemented by Federal regulations 45 CFR Part 

303. 100(b)(2) and (b)(3), establishes minimum definitions of “good cause” and “written 

agreement.” 

FINDINGS 

State CSE agencies are essentially comp&ing with the provikion for immediate wage 

withholding in IV-D child support ordem 

Our study found that in most IV-D child support orders, State CSE agencies are 

including and enforcing an immediate wage withholding provision. our analysis of a 

sample of child support cases reviewed identified four groups of cases. These groups 

are: (I) Cases with wages withheld, (II) Cases where an exception to wage withholding 

was granted, (III) Cases where there are no wages to withhold, and (IV) Cases with 

no provision for wage withholding in the order. 

National estimates calculated for the four groups of child support cases substantiated 

that overall there is not a problem with the exclusion of immediate wage withholding 

in IV-D child support orders. We determined that: 

i 
�� State CSE agencies are enforcing immediate wage withholding in 91,8% of 

child support orders. 

.	 State CSE agencies are granting very few exceptions to immediate wage 

withholding in IV-D child support orders. They are granting exceptions in only 

1.370 of child support orders. 

.	 In cases where there is no income to withhold because the absent parent is 

unemployed, self-employed, on assistance, etc., State CSE agencies are 

including a stipulation for wage withholding in 6.3% of child support orders. 

The inclusion of this stipulation authorizes the CSE agencies to enforce wage 

withholding at any future time without further order by the court. 

.	 State CSE agencies do not include an immediate wage withholding provision 

nor explicitly grant an exception in only 0.6?4 of child support orders. 

CONCLUSION


As indicated in the findings, State CSE agencies are essentially complying with section


466(b)(3)(A) of the Act. Because of the significantly high level of compliance in this


area, we are not making any formal recommendation for action by the Administration


for Children and Families (ACF) in our report, It should be noted, however, while


the noncompliance is minimal, the exclusion of the wage withholding provision


requires future modification of the orders before withholding of payments can be


initiated and it prolongs the time the children are deprived of support dollars.


Therefore, ACF may wish to remind States to ensure compliance in each and every


case.


ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS


PAGE


EXECUTIVESUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i


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


FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...5


CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...6


APPENDIX


A. Breakdown of Sampled Child Support Cases Reported by State . . . . . . . A-1

INTRODUCTION


PURPOSE


To assess the extent that States are requiring immediate wage withholding by Child


Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies for absent parents ordered to pay child support.


BACKGROUND


The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-378) added sections


454(2) and 466 to Title IV of the Social Security Act, requiring all States to implement


certain mandatory procedures, including procedures for wage withholding, which have


proven to noticeably increase the effectiveness of State programs. Specifically, section


466 of the Act requires that States have in effect two distinct procedures for carrying


out a wage withholding program.


The first procedure, required under section 466(a)(1) and (b) of the Act, pertains to


cases being enforced through the IV-D agency which administers the child support


enforcement provisions. Under this requirement, States are required to have and use


a procedure under which wage withholding is initiated in all IV-D cases where


payments are in arrears by at least one month. States are also required to implement


wage withholding at any earlier date in accordance with State laws or at the request of


the absent parent.


The second procedure, required under section 466(a)(8)(A) of the Act, provides that


all new or modified orders issued in the State include a provision for wage withholding


when an arrearage occurs, in order to ensure that withholding is available without the


necessity of filing an application for IV-D services.


Section 101 of the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485) amended section 466 of


the Act, to require States to enact laws and implement procedures for immediate


wage withholding in certain cases being enforced by the IV-D agency. Under


amended section 466(b)(3), a new subparagraph (A) provides, effective November 1,


1990, that immediate withholding is required for ~ IV-D cases with new or modified


support orders regardless of the support payment status. This section, however, also


provides that exceptions to wage withholding may be granted if one parent


demonstrates, and the court or administrative authority finds good cause not to require


wage withholding, or if both parents agree in writing to an alternative arrangement.


Section 466(b)(3)(A) of the Act is implemented by Federal regulations 45 CFR Part


303.100 (b)(2) and (b)(3) and establishes minimum definitions of “good cause” and


“written agreement.”


1

.	 Paragraph (b)(2) provides that, at a minimum, “goodcause’’m ustbebasedon 

“(i) a written determination that, and explanation by the court or administrative 

authority of why, implementing immediate wage withholding would not be in 

the best interests of the child; and (ii) proof of timely payment of previously 

ordered support in cases involving the modification of support orders.” 

.	 Paragraph (b)(3) provides that “written agreement” means “a written alternative 

arrangement signed by both the custodial and absent parent and, at State 

option, by the State in IV-D cases in which there is an assignment of support 

rights to the State, and reviewed and entered in the record by the court or 

administrative authority.” 

METHODOLOGY 

We stratified 43 States and the District of Columbia into 4 strata based upon the size 

of their 1990 average annual IV-D caseload. A fifth strata was made up of the 

remaining seven States which had applied for and were granted an exemption to the 

immediate wage withholding provisions. Under State law, these seven States would 

never grant an exception to wage withholding under any circumstances. 

The source of the caseload information is the form OCSE-56 which lists the average 

annual IV-D caseload for the last five fiscal years. The Policy Branch, Office of Child 

Support Enforcement (OCSE), provided us with the seven States which have been 

granted an exemption to the wage withholding provisions. They are Arizona, Hawaii 

Illinois, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. 

From the population of States we selected a stratified random sample of 10. These 

States are shown by strata in the following chart. 

STRATA 1 STRATA 2 STRATA 3 STRATA 4 STRATA 

Michigan* Oregon Oklahoma Nevada Hawaii 

Pennsylvania Washington Kansas South Dakota Arizona 

* Michigan was excluded from the sample of States as it was not able to meet the 

inspection’s data requirements. 

We contacted each sample State and requested two lists of IV-D child support cases 

for the review period February - April, 1993. The first was a list of all IV-D child 

support cases in which a new or modified order was issued. The second list, a subset 

of the first, was a more detailed list that identified the orders which were issued 

without immediate wage withholding and the reasons for excluding the wage 

withholding. 

2


5 
All but one of the sampled States submitted the lists as requested. That State, 

Pennsylvania, submitted a copy of every child support order issued for the review 

period. Of the remaining eight States, the two States in strata five have been granted 

an exemption from the exception to wage withholding provision and included it in 

every child support order issued during the review period. The lists submitted by the 

rest of the States did identi& those cases where there was no wage withholding being 

enforced. However, in many of those cases it was difficult to determine the actual 

reasons for the immediate wage withholding being excluded from the child support 

orders. 

For this reason, we recontacted those six States and requested copies of all the child 

support orders for those cases with no wage withholding being enforced. Upon 

receipt of the requested orders, we conducted a review to determine the reasons for 

nonenforcement of immediate wage withholding. 

As a result of our analysis of all the cases provided by the States, we divided them into 

four groups. The groups are: 

Group I	 Wages Withheld - Cases which have an immediate wage withholding 

provision in the child support order and it is being enforced. 

Group II	 Exceptions Granted - Cases in which an exception was granted for “good 

cause” or an “alternative arrangement.” 

Group III	 No Wages Available - Cases where there were no wages to withhold at 

the time of the order, but the orders stipulated that immediate wage 

withholding could be enforced in the future without further order of the 

court. 

Group IV	 No Provision for Wage Withholding - Cases which did not include any 

provision for immediate wage withholding in the child support orders 

nor explicitly provided for an exception. 

Appendix A indicates the breakdown of child support cases reported by each sample 

State for the review period February 1 through April 30, 1993. 

In our calculation of national estimates for all child support cases, we took into 

account that Michigan was excluded from the original sample of 10 States and its 

effect on the first strata. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the variances of the 

national estimates, Pennsylvania was combined with the two States in the second strata 

(Oregon and Washington). Consequently, the projected totals reported are for the 

population excluding the State of Michigan. 

The estimates were calculated based on our review of all cases within a State with the 

exception of Pennsylvania. Due to the large number of orders (over 24,000) sent to us 

and the way in which they were organized, these child support orders were sampled. 

3

The variance within the State of Pennsylvania was ignored since we believe it to be 

very small when compared to the overall variance of the sample. 

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

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

4

FINDINGS


State CSE agencies are eswntially compljing with the provtion for immediate wage 

withhokiing in IV-D child support ordem 

Our study found that in most IV-D child support orders, State CSE agencies are 

including and enforcing an immediate wage withholding provision. As indicated in the 

following table, national estimates calculated for the four groups of child support cases 

substantiated that overall there is not a problem with the exclusion of immediate wage 

withholding in IV-D child support orders. 

Type of Child Support Order Estimate 95% Confidence Interval 

Group I - Wages Withheld 91.8% 80.1 - 100% 

Group II - Exceptions Granted 1.3% 0.0 - 3.3% I 

Group 111- No Wages Available 6.3% 0.0 - 14.470 I 

Group IV - No Provision for Wage 0.6% 0.32 - 0.88% 

Withholdirw 

The table shows the estimated proportions for each of the four groups and the 95% 

confidence intervals for these estimates. It shows that: 

.	 State CSE agencies are enforcing immediate wage withholding in 91.89’o of 

child support orders. 

�	 State CSE agencies are granting very few exceptions to immediate wage 

withholding in IV-D child support orders. We found that exceptions are being 

granted in only 1.3% of child support orders. 

.	 In cases where there is no income to withhold because the absent parent is 

unemployed, self-employed, on assistance, etc., State CSE agencies are 

including a stipulation for wage withholding in 6.3 YO of child support orders. 

This stipulation authorizes the CSE agencies to enforce wage withholding at 

any future time without further order by the court. 

.	 State CSE agencies do not include an immediate wage withholding provision 

nor explicitly grant an exception in only 0.6!Z0 of child support orders. 

5

CONCLUSION


As indicated in the findings, State CSE agencies are essentially complying with section 

466(b)(3)(A) of the Act. Because of the significantly high level of compliance in this 

area, we are not making any formal recommendation for action by ACF in our report. 

It should be noted, however, while this occurrence is minimal, the exclusion of the 

wage withholding provision requires future modification of the orders before 

withholding of payments can be initiated and it prolongs the time the children are 

deprived of support dollars. Therefore, ACF may wish to remind States to ensure 

compliance in each and every case. 

6

APPENDIX A


Breakdown of Sampled Child Support Cases Reported 

Period of Review February 1- April 30, 1993 

STATE Group I Group II 

Wages Exceptions 

Withheld Granted 

PA* 18,885 1,134 

OR 2,129 11 -o- I -O- II 2,140 

WA 4,927 17 199 I 42 II 5,185 

OK 1,459 -o- 21 11 II 1,472 

KS 1,093 26 31 22 II 1,144 

NV 3,193 52 547 I 288 II 4,080 

SD 936 -o- -o- I 13 II 949 

HI 333 -o- -o- I -0- II 333 

Az 392 -o- 71 -0- L---!E 

TOTAL 33,347 1,240 4.812 514 -

*The figures for Pennsylvania are estimated based upon a sample. 

A-1