The Story Behind the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Office of Child Support Enforcement http:/ /wwww.act-hhs.gov/programs /cse

SERVICE
wo Sy,
S ‘ty

orang

The Story Behind the Numbers
December 8, 2006

gor MthtDy

s



The Story Behind the Number

The Impact of Nonmarital Birth Data on the Child Support
Enforcement Program’s Performance

This “Story Behind the Numbers” focuses on
differences between nonmarital birth data submitted
by the States to the Federal Office of Child Support
Enforcement (OCSE) on the OCSE 157 Report.
Also highlighted are nonmarital birth data published
by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)
and the relationship of NCHS published data to the
statewide paternity establishment percentage and
IV-D program performance.

Background Information

The Child Support Performance Incentive Act of
1998 (CSPIA) re-emphasized the importance of
establishing paternity for children born out of
wedlock by authorizing the payment of incentives
to State IV-D programs based on their paternity
establishment performance. IV-D programs are
permitted to choose one of two alternative
measures: IV-D Paternity Establishment Percentage
(PEP) or statewide PEP.

The IV-D PEP examines the total number of
children in the IV-D caseload born out of wedlock
with paternity established or acknowledged
compared to the total number of children in the
IV-D caseload who were born out of wedlock. The
statewide PEP defines its numerator and
denominator as follows:

+ Numerator — the total number of minor children
born out of wedlock for whom paternity has been
established or acknowledged during the fiscal
year (FY);

+ Denominator — the total number of children born
out of wedlock during the preceding fiscal year.

The United States Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) administers this State
IV-D performance incentive program through
OCSE. IV-D programs submit their performance
data annually on the OCSE 157 Report within thirty
days of the end of a Federal Fiscal Year. IV-D
programs may submit a revised OCSE 157 Report
no later than three months after the end of the
Federal Fiscal Year. In addition to incentives
offered for IV-D performance, States are assessed

penalties for not making progress toward and
maintaining certain PEP targets.

Differences Between OCSE and NCHS
Counts of Nonmarital Births

State vital statistics agencies provide nonmarital
birth data to both State child support agencies that
report statewide PEP and NCHS. In turn, State
child support agencies use the information to
complete their OCSE 157 Reports. Although both
start from the same data source (i.e., the State vital
statistics agency), there are differences between
these two counts of nonmarital births. Three issues
in particular appear to be responsible for almost all
of the differences:

* Counting births by State of occurrence vs. State
of mother’s residence. In reporting their
statewide PEP denominators, IV-D programs
count all nonmarital births occurring within their
jurisdictions, regardless of the State of mother’s
residence; that is, births are counted in the
jurisdiction where the baby was born. However,
NCHS has typically published nonmarital births
categorized by State of mother’s residence, that
is, in the State where the mother lives. This
means that if a mother was a resident of Iowa and
gave birth to a nonmarital child in a hospital
across the State line in neighboring Nebraska,
NCHS would report that nonmarital birth for
Iowa, but the Nebraska IV-D agency would report
the nonmarital birth on its OCSE 157 Report.
Differences in reporting period. IV-D programs’
OCSE 157 Reports generally reflect data for the
Federal Fiscal Year, although some States report
by State fiscal year or calendar year. NCHS
publishes data for the calendar year.

A shorter time to report data after the close of a
reporting period tends to lead to more unreported
data. IV-D programs must report the most recent
fiscal year’s nonmarital birth data within thirty
days of the end of the Federal Fiscal Year.
However, since the fiscal year crosses two
calendar years, the State vital statistics agencies
will not have received all of the nonmarital birth
records before the deadline to submit the OCSE

.

.


The Story Behind the Numbers

157 Report. By comparison, State vital statistics
agencies have up to six months after the end of a
calendar year to report nonmarital births to
NCHS.!

In FFY2003, 27 States used the statewide PEP. The
first three columns of data in Table 1 (see page 3)
show the differences between the number of
nonmarital births reported by OCSE (Federal Fiscal
Year 2003) and NCHS (Calendar Year 2003)
among States using the statewide PEP. The
percentage differences range from a low of 0.72%
in Texas to a high of 43.90% in the District of
Columbia. (NOTE: the District of Columbia
difference is largely an anomaly because the major
birthing centers for the tri-state region are in the
District.)

After retabulating the raw data reported to NCHS to
be consistent with the data definitions IV-D
programs used for reporting data to OCSE, most of
the differences were virtually eliminated, as shown
by the data in the fourth, fifth, and sixth columns of
Table 1. OCSE attempted to contact States where
large differences remained after retabulating the
NCHS data. In most cases, States attributed the
remaining differences to acceptable practices, as
described in the right-hand column of Table 1.

Relationship of Nonmarital Birth Data to
IV-D Program Establishment Performance
State child support enforcement agencies may find
that the NCHS reports of nonmarital births may
provide useful information to forecast caseloads,
plan future staffing configurations, improve
paternity acknowledgment programs, and direct
paternity establishment operations. For example,
the percent of nonmarital births to residents appears
to be a better predictor of future IV-D applicants in
a State than the percent of nonmarital births
occurring in the State, since custodial mothers, not
their children, are the ones who apply for IV-D
services. This factor also would influence a IV-D
program’s IV-D PEP. A State IV-D program might
want to compare its own program trends with those
reflected in the NCHS data to make sure it is
prepared for changes in service demand and related
program performance.

Nonmarital Births in Bordering States

In reviewing the NCHS data files, it appears that
IV-D agencies could use data from vital statistics to
identify neighboring States where residents are
regularly using birthing facilities. States that find
that a large number of their residents give birth
across State lines would be well served to closely
coordinate their paternity acknowledgment and
establishment activities with the birthing States.
Both States would benefit from coordinated
programs to promote in-hospital paternity
establishment and from access to each other’s birth
records. This information would be valuable for
States regardless of whether they use the statewide
or IV-D PEP. A good example of information
sharing is the reciprocal agreement between
Washington and Oregon. Either of them can file
acknowledgment forms and paternity actions in the
other State’s vital statistics office without charging
fees when a child is born in the other State.

Conclusion

Successful reconciliation of vital statistics birth data
reported to OCSE and NCHS indicates that there is
no misreporting of data to either agency.
Differences between the IV-D-reported and NCHS-
reported nonmarital birth counts generally result
from: (a) differences in tabulation procedures
reflecting the State of the mother’s residence or
where the birth occurred; (b) differences in the
reporting periods reflecting calendar and fiscal
years; and (c) varying timelines for reporting and
adjusting data to account for corrected and updated
counts. Although different from the data reported
to OCSE for measuring performance, the published
NCHS data can help States plan for the impacts of
birthing trends on the IV-D program’s performance
levels and workload.

Endnotes

' The OCSE 157 Report requires that States report the
nonmarital births for the fiscal year just ending and the
nonmarital births reported on the previous year’s OCSE
157 Report for the prior fiscal year. NCHS reports and
data would be available to verify the latter but not the
former.


2.21%

Da
3,402

Alaska 3,410 3,487 EFY03
California 174,823 181,364 3.61% | 174,702 | 0.07% cyo2
Colorado 16,109 18,519 13.01% | 18,677 | 13.75% FFY03
District of
Columbia 5,877 4,084 43.90% 5,957 1.34% FFY03
Florida 82,876 84,762 2.23% 83,311 0.52% FFY03
Georgia 51,074 51,854 1.50% $1,633 1.08% FFY03
Hawaii 6,060 6,058 0.03% 6,069 0.15% FFY03
Illinois 61,772 64,439 414% 62,721 1.51% FFY03
ital Statistics agency
processed birth records
for reporting period after
the calculation date for
lowa 11,093 11,395 2.65% 11,547 3.93% FFY03 [Line 8.
Kansas 12,188 12,475 2.30% 12,309 0.98% CcY02
Maryland 24,095 26,084 7.63% 24,121 0.11% FFY03
Massachusetts | 21,973 22,263 1.30% 21,847 0.58% SFYO3
Michigan 44,255 45,386 2.49% 44,009 0.56% cyo2
Missouri 27,041 27,426 1.40% 27,406 1.33% FFY03
Nebraska 7,290 7,687 5.16% 7,291 0.01% SFY03
ital Statistics agency
processed birth records
for reporting period after
he calculation date for
New Jersey 30,118 34,313 12.23% | 33,811 10.92% FFY03 [Line 8.
New York 89,776 92,597 3.05% 92,409 2.85% FFY03
Ohio 51,623 $4,130 4.63% $3,227 3.01% FFY03
INCHS includes
Inonmarital birth data
irom the Chickasaw
Nation; OCSE data
Oklahoma 15,291 18,915 19.16% | 18,049 | 15.28% CY02__|does not include them.
ital Statistics agency
processed birth records
for reporting period after,
he calculation date for
Oregon 13,971 14,586 4.22% 14,585 4.21% FFY03 [Line 8.
Pennsylvania 47,768 49,547 3.59% 48,903 2.32% FFY03
Tennessee 29,129 29,367 0.81% 29,127 0.01% cyo2
Texas 130,419 129,484 0.72% | 127,540 | 2.26% FFY03
Utah. 8,653 8,590 0.73% 8,812 1.80% FFY03
Virginia 30,445 30,816 1.20% 30,445 0.00% FFY02
West Virginia 7,476 7,235 3.33% 7,482 0.08% FFY03
Wyoming 1,876 2,186 14.18% 2,047 8.35% FFY03

* Adjusted to match the method IV-D agencies use to count nonmarital births on the OCSE 157 report.