(463)

SECTION 8. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

PROGRAM

CONTENTS

Background

Overview

Demographic Trends

Program Trends

The Federal Role

The State Role

The Child Support Enforcement Process

Locating Absent Parents

Establishing Paternity

Establishing Orders

Reviewing and Modifying Orders

Promoting Medical Support

Collecting Child Support

Interstate Enforcement

Private Collection Activities

State Collection and Disbursement of Support Payments

Bankruptcy and Child Support Enforcement

Automated Systems

Audits and Financial Penalties

Assignment and Distribution of Child Support Collections

Distribution of Payments While the Family Receives Public Assistance

Distribution of Payments After the Family Leaves Public

Assistance

Funding of State Programs

How Effective is Child Support Enforcement?

Impact on Taxpayers

Impact on Poverty

Impact on National Child Support Payments

Legislative History

Statistical Tables

References

BACKGROUND

OVERVIEW

In 1950, when only a small minority of children were in femaleheaded families, the Federal Government took its first steps into

the child support arena. Congress amended the Aid to Families

with Dependent Children (AFDC) law by requiring State welfare

agencies to notify law enforcement officials when benefits were

being furnished to a child who had been abandoned by one of her

464

parents. Presumably, local officials would then undertake to locate

nonresident parents and make them pay child support. From 1950

to 1975, the Federal Government confined its child support efforts

to these welfare children. With this exception, most Americans

thought that child support establishment and collection was a domestic relations issue that should be dealt with at the State level

by the courts.

By the early 1970s, however, Congress recognized that the composition of the AFDC caseload had changed drastically. In earlier

years the majority of children needed financial assistance because

their fathers had died; by the 1970s, the majority needed aid because their parents were separated, divorced, or never married.

The Child Support Enforcement and Paternity Establishment Program (CSE), enacted in 1975, was a response by Congress to reduce

public expenditures on welfare by obtaining support from noncustodial parents on an ongoing basis, to help non-AFDC families get

support so they could stay off public assistance, and to establish

paternity for children born outside marriage so child support could

be obtained for them.

The 1975 legislation (Public Law 93–647) added a new part D to

title IV of the Social Security Act. This statute, as amended, authorizes Federal matching funds to be used for enforcing support

obligations by locating nonresident parents, establishing paternity,

establishing child support awards, and collecting child support payments. Since 1981, child support agencies have also been permitted

to collect spousal support on behalf of custodial parents, and in

1984 they were required to petition for medical support as part of

most child support orders.

Basic responsibility for administering the program is left to

States, but the Federal Government plays a major role in: dictating

the major design features of State programs; funding, monitoring

and evaluating State programs; providing technical assistance; and

giving assistance to States in locating absent parents and obtaining

support payments. The program requires the provision of child support enforcement services for both welfare and nonwelfare families

and requires States to publicize frequently, through public service

announcements, the availability of child support enforcement services, together with information about the application fee and a telephone number or address to obtain additional information. Local

family and domestic courts and administrative agencies handle the

actual establishment and enforcement of child support obligations

according to Federal, State, and local laws.

The child support program generally does not provide services

aimed at other issues between parents, such as property settlement, custody, and access to children. These issues are handled by

local courts with the help of private attorneys.

Any parent who needs help in locating an absent parent, establishing paternity, establishing a support obligation, or enforcing a

support obligation may apply for services. Parents receiving benefits (or who formerly received benefits) under the successor program to AFDC (TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families),

the federally assisted foster care program, or the Medicaid Program, automatically receive services. Services are free to such recipients, but others are charged up to $25 for services. In the nonVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00464 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.008 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
465

welfare program, States also can charge fees on a sliding scale, pay

the fee out of State funds, or recover the fees from the noncustodial

parent.

In 1996, Public Law 104–193, the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, abolished AFDC and

related programs and replaced them with a block grant program of

TANF. Under the new law, each State must operate a CSE Program meeting Federal requirements in order to be eligible for

TANF funds. In addition to abolishing AFDC, Public Law 104–193

made about 50 changes to the CSE Program, many of them major.

These changes include requiring States to increase the percentage

of fathers identified, establishing an integrated, automated network linking all States to information about the location and assets

of parents, requiring States to implement more enforcement techniques, and revising the rules governing the distribution of past

due (arrearage) child support payments to former recipients of public assistance.

DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

The need for an effective child support program is clearly supported by a brief review of the demographic trends of the American

family. By 1998, there were an estimated 11.9 million single-parent

families with children under age 18; about 9.8 million (82 percent)

maintained by the mother and roughly 2.1 million maintained by

the father. It appears that the rate of growth in the number of single parents has stabilized (Office of Child Support, 1995a, p. 5).

The average annual percent increase in the number of one-parent

families was 2.3 percent from 1990 to 1998 and 4.1 percent from

1980 to 1990 as compared with 8.2 percent from 1970 to 1980. In

1998, one-parent families comprised nearly 32 percent of all families. The corresponding share of single-parent families in 1970 was

13 percent. In 1998, about 40 percent of the mothers had never

been married, 34 percent were divorced, 21 percent were separated

from their spouse, and about 4 percent were widowed (U.S. Census

Bureau, 1998, p. 36).

Of equal concern, dynamic estimates indicate that at least half

of all children born in the United States during the late 1970s and

early 1980s will live with a single parent before reaching adulthood. For black children, the projection is about 80 percent

(Bumpass, 1984). Currently, about 29 percent of the 68 million children under age 18 living in the United States reside in a oneparent family. Although the number of families with a mother who

has divorced has tripled since 1970, the number with a mother who

has never married has increased fifteenfold from 248,000 to

3,831,000. In these latter cases, paternity must be determined before the other parent has a legal obligation to financially support

the child. The 3.8 million families maintained by a never-married

mother in 1998 represent a major concern because only about onethird of the children in these families have had their paternity established; for the other two-thirds, a child support obligation cannot be established until a paternity determination is made.

Poverty is endemic among mother-headed families. In 1998, 38.7

percent of the 8.9 million families maintained solely by a mother

with children under 18 had incomes below the poverty threshold

466

(U.S. Census Bureau, 1998, p.17). A little more than 16 percent of

these families were poor despite the fact that the mother worked

year round, full time. Today, an unprecedented number of children

live in single-parent homes, nearly 40 percent are poor, and many

lack adequate or any support from the nonresident parent.

PROGRAM TRENDS

In response to these demographic trends, the Federal-State child

support program grew rapidly. By 1998, about half of all child support eligible families were actually receiving government funded

child support services. Most of the information in this chapter applies to the families receiving these government services.

Table 8–1 summarizes trends for the child support program since

1978. In 1998, almost $3.6 billion was spent by State child support

programs to collect $14.3 billion in child support. The combined

Federal-State program had 55,300 employees. A sum of $4 was collected for every dollar of administrative expense, up by 38 percent

from the low point of only $2.89 in 1982. In addition, in 1998 nearly 6.6 million absent parents were located; 848,000 paternities were

established; over 1.1 million support orders were established; 3.5

million cases had collections; 356,000 families were removed from

TANF because of child support collections (not shown in table 8–

1, fiscal year 1997 data); and 16.1 percent of TANF payments were

recovered as a result of child support enforcement.

These program trends demonstrate that more and more positive

child support outcomes are achieved by the Federal-State program.

But whether these trends indicate program success is a complex

matter that will be discussed in more detail below. We turn now

to a detailed explanation of the Federal-State program and both its

achievements and problems.

THE FEDERAL ROLE

The Federal statute requires the national child support program

to be administered by a separate organizational unit under the control of a person designated by and reporting directly to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS). Presently, this office is known as the Federal Office of

Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). The Family Support Act of

1988 required the appointment of an Assistant Secretary for Family Support within DHHS to administer a number of programs, including the Child Support Enforcement Program. Currently, this

position is entitled the Assistant Secretary for the Administration

for Children and Families.

A primary responsibility of the Assistant Secretary is to establish

standards for State programs for locating absent parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining child support and support for the

spouse (or former spouse) with whom the child is living. In addition

to this broad statutory mandate, the Assistant Secretary is required to establish minimum organizational and staffing requirements for State child support agencies, and to review and approve

State plans.

TABLE 8–1.—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM STATISTICS, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1978–98

[Numbers in thousands, dollars in millions]

Measure 1978 1982 1986 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

Total child support collections ........................... $1,047 $1,770 $3,246 $4,605 $6,010 $6,886 $7,965 $8,907 $9,850 $10,827 $12,019 $13,363 

In 1996 dollars 1 ........................................ 2,555 2,885 4,609 6,125 7,272 7,919 8,921 9,620 10,441 11,152 12,019 13,363 

Total TANF collections 2 ...................................... 472 786 1,225 1,486 1,750 1,984 2,259 2,416 2,550 2,689 2,855 2,842 

Federal ....................................................... 311 311 369 449 533 626 738 777 762 821 888 1,046 State .......................................................... 148 354 424 525 620 700 787 847 891 939 1,013 1,158 

Total non-TANF collections ................................. 575 984 2,019 3,119 4,260 4,902 5,705 6,491 7,300 8,138 9,164 10,521 Total administrative expenditures ...................... 312 612 941 1,171 1,606 1,804 1,995 2,241 2,556 3,012 3,049 3,427 

Federal ....................................................... 236 459 633 804 1,061 1,212 1,343 1,517 1,741 2,095 2,040 2,327 State .......................................................... 76 153 308 366 545 593 652 724 816 917 1,015 1,100 

Federal incentive payments to States and localities ............................................................ 54 107 158 222 264 278 299 339 407 400 409 409 Average number of TANF cases in which a collection was made ........................................... 458 597 582 621 701 755 836 879 926 976 940 865 Average number of non-TANF cases in which a

collection was made ...................................... 249 448 786 1,083 1,363 1,555 1,749 1,958 2,169 2,408 2,618 2,850 

Average number of AFDC/TANF arrears only

cases .............................................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 308 343 404 493 

Number of parents located ................................ 454 779 1,046 1,388 2,062 2,577 3,152 3,777 4,204 4,950 5,808 6,441 Number of paternities established ..................... 111 173 245 307 393 472 512 554 592 659 733 814 Number of support obligations established ....... 315 462 731 871 1,022 3 821 879 1,026 1,025 1,051 1,093 1,156 

Percent of TANF assistance payments recovered

through child support collections .................. NA 6.8 8.6 9.8 10.3 10.7 11.4 12.0 12.5 13.6 15.5 22.0 

Total child support collections per dollar of

total administrative expenses ........................ 3.35 2.89 3.45 3.93 3.74 3.82 3.99 3.98 3.86 3.60 3.93 3.90 

1 Adjusted for inflation using fiscal Consumer Price Index.2 TANF collections are divided into State/Federal shares and incentives are taken from the Federal share thereby reducing the Federal amounts. 3 Data beginning in 1991 exclude modifications of support orders.

NA—Not available.Note.—Data is preliminary for fiscal year 1998. Paternities established do not include the paternities esablished through the In-Hospital Paternity Acknowledgement Program

year 1994, 84,411 paternities were established in hospitals; 272,729 paternities were established in hospitals in fiscal year 1995; 324,595 paternities were established in hofiscal year 1996; 486,551 paternities were established in hospitals in fiscal year 1997; and 614,081 paternities were established in hospitals in fiscal year 1998.

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

468

The statute also requires the Assistant Secretary to provide technical assistance to States to help them establish effective systems

for collecting support and establishing paternity. To fulfill this requirement, OCSE operates a National Child Support Enforcement

Reference Center as a central location for the collection and dissemination of information about State and local programs. OCSE

also provides, under a contract with the American Bar Association

Child Support Project, training and information dissemination on

legal issues to persons working in the field of child support enforcement. Special initiatives, such as assisting major urban areas in

improving program performance, have also been undertaken by

OCSE.

The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 (Public

Law 98–378) extended the research and demonstration authority in

section 1115 of the Social Security Act to the Child Support Enforcement Program. This authority makes it possible for States to

test innovative approaches to support enforcement so long as the

modification does not disadvantage children in need of support nor

result in an increase in Federal TANF costs. The 1984 amendments also authorize $15 million for each fiscal year after 1986 for

special project grants to promote improvement in interstate enforcement. In fiscal year 1999, 38 States had section 1115 grants

or waivers which directly impacted child support: 6 States had

waivers to implement models of collaboration among the CSE agency, Head Start Programs, and child care programs; 4 States had

waivers to test new ways of reviewing and modifying orders; 4

States had waivers designed to improve CSE for Native Americans;

3 States had waivers to test different approaches to handling CSE

cases with a history of domestic violence; 3 States had waivers to

measure and improve CSE Program performance; and other States

had waivers related to access and visitation, child support assurance, fatherhood initiatives, job training, parenting, interviewing

and client referral, paternity establishment, and staffing standards.

The Assistant Secretary for Children and Families has full responsibility for the evaluation of the CSE Program. Pursuant to

Public Law 104–193, States must annually review and report to

the DHHS Secretary information adequate to determine the State’s

compliance with Federal requirements for expedited procedures,

timely case processing, and improvement on the performance indicators. To measure the quality of the data reported by States and

to assess the adequacy of financial management of the State program, the Secretary must conduct an audit of every State at least

once every 3 years and more often if a State fails to meet Federal

requirements. Under the audit’s penalty provision, a State’s TANF

Block Grant must be reduced by an amount equal to at least 1 but

not more than 2 percent for the first failure to comply substantially

with the standards and requirements, at least 2 but not more than

3 percent for the second failure, and at least 3 but not more than

5 percent for the third and subsequent failures.

The 1996 welfare reform law set aside 1 percent of the Federal

share of retained child support collections for information dissemination and technical assistance to States (including technical assistance related to automated systems), training of State and Federal staff, staffing studies, and related activities needed to improve

469

the CSE Program, and research, demonstration, and special

projects of regional or national significance relating to the operation of the CSE Program. An additional 2 percent of the Federal

share of retained child support collections is set aside for the operation of the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS).

The statute creates several Federal mechanisms to assist States

in performing their paternity and child support enforcement functions. These include use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the

Federal courts, and the FPLS. The Assistant Secretary must approve a State’s application for permission to use the courts of the

United States to enforce orders upon a finding that either another

State has not enforced the court order of the originating State

within a reasonable time or Federal courts are the only reasonable

method of enforcing the order. Although Congress authorized the

use of Federal courts to enforce interstate cases, this mechanism

has gone unused, apparently because States view it as costly and

complex.

Finally, the CSE statute requires the establishment of a FPLS

to be used to find absent parents in order to secure and enforce

child support obligations. The role of the FPLS was expanded by

the 1996 welfare reform law. For purposes of establishing parentage; establishing, setting the amount of, modifying, or enforcing

child support obligations; or enforcing child custody or visitation;

the FPLS is to provide information to locate any individual: (1) who

is under an obligation to pay child support or provide child custody

or visitation rights; (2) against whom such an obligation is sought;

or (3) to whom such an obligation is owed. Upon request, the Secretary of DHHS must provide to an authorized person the most recent address and place of employment of any noncustodial parent

if the information is contained in the records of DHHS or can be

obtained from any other department or agency of the United States

or of any State. Public Law 105–33, which was enacted in 1997 and

made numerous changes to the 1996 welfare reform law, allows

FPLS information to be disclosed to noncustodial parents except in

cases where there is evidence of domestic violence or child abuse

and the local court determines that disclosure may result in harm

to the custodial parent or child. The Secretary also must make

available the services of the FPLS to any State that wishes to locate a missing parent or child for the purpose of enforcing any Federal or State law involving the unlawful taking or restraint of a

child or the establishment or maintenance of a child custody or visitation order.

Historically, the Federal Government held the view that visitation (also referred to as child access) and child support should be

legally separate issues, and that only child support should be under

the purview of the CSE Program. Both Federal and State policymakers have maintained that denial of visitation rights should be

treated separately and should not be considered a reason for stopping support payments. Nonetheless, Census Bureau data indicate

that it was more likely for noncustodial parents to make payments

of child support if they had either joint custody or visitation rights.

Thus, in order to promote visitation and better relations between

custodial and noncustodial parents, the 1996 welfare reform law

provided $10 million per year for grants to States for access and

470

visitation programs, including mediation, counseling, education,

and supervised visitation. In addition, as mentioned above, the

1996 law also expanded the scope of the FPLS to allow certain noncustodial parents to obtain information regarding the location of

the custodial parent.

All States and territories applied for and received funding for access and visitation grants in fiscal year 1997. According to a preliminary report on the grant program (American Institutes, 1999),

most participating individuals received parenting education, help

in developing parenting plans, and mediation services. Based on

data from 28 States and 2 territories, nearly 20,000 individuals

were served by the grant program in its first year of operation.

THE STATE ROLE

The Social Security Act requires every State operating a TANF

Program to conduct a Child Support Enforcement Program. Federal

law requires applicants for, and recipients of, TANF to assign their

support rights to the State in order to receive benefits. In addition,

each applicant or recipient must cooperate with the State to establish the paternity of a child born outside marriage and to obtain

child support payments.

TANF recipients or applicants may be excused from the requirement of cooperation if the CSE agency determines that good cause

for noncooperation exists, taking into consideration the best interests of the child on whose behalf aid is claimed. If good cause is

found not to exist and if the relative with whom a child is living

still refuses to cooperate, then the State must reduce the family’s

TANF benefit by at least 25 percent and may remove the family

from the TANF Program. (Federal law also stipulates that no

TANF funds may be used for a family that includes a person who

has not assigned child support rights to the State.) Before the 1996

welfare reform law, cooperation could have been found to be

against the best interests of the child if cooperation could be anticipated to result in physical or emotional harm to the child or caretaker relative; if the child was conceived as a result of incest or

rape; or if legal procedures were underway for the child’s adoption.

Unlike previous law, the welfare reform law provides States

rather than the Federal Government with the authority to define

‘‘good cause.’’ The law now requires States to develop both ‘‘good

cause’’ and ‘‘other exceptions’’ to the cooperation requirement. The

only restriction is that both the ‘‘good cause’’ and ‘‘other exceptions’’

must be based on the ‘‘best interests of the child.’’ In addition to

defining good cause and other exceptions, States must establish the

standard for proving a claim. States also will have to decide which

State agency will inform TANF caretaker relatives about the cooperation exemptions, and which agency will make the decision

about the validity of a given claim. These responsibilities can be

delegated to the State TANF agency, the CSE agency, or the Medicaid agency.

Each State is required to designate a single and separate organizational unit of State government to administer its child support

program. Earlier child support legislation, enacted in 1967, had required that the program be administered by the welfare agency.

The 1975 act deleted this requirement in order to give each State

471

the opportunity to select the most effective administrative mechanism. Most States have placed the child support agency within a

social or human services umbrella agency which also administers

the TANF Program. However, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, and Massachusetts have placed the agency in the department of revenue

and Guam, Hawaii, Texas, and the Virgin Islands have placed the

agency in the office of the attorney general. The law allows the programs to be administered either at the State or local level. Ten programs are locally administered. A few programs are State administered in some counties and locally administered in others.

States must have plans, approved by the director of OCSE, which

set forth the details of their child support program. States must

also enter into cooperative arrangements with courts and law enforcement officials to assist the child support agency in administering the program. These agreements may include provision for reimbursing courts and law enforcement officials for their assistance.

States also must operate a parent locator service to find absent

parents, and they must maintain full records of collections and disbursements and otherwise maintain an adequate reporting system.

In order to facilitate the collection of support in interstate cases,

a State must cooperate with other States in establishing paternity,

locating absent parents, and securing compliance with an order

issued by another State.

States are required to use several enforcement tools. They must

use the IRS tax refund offset procedure for welfare and nonwelfare

families, and they must also determine periodically whether any individuals receiving unemployment compensation owe child support.

The State Employment Security Agency (part of the Federal-State

Unemployment Insurance System), is required to withhold unemployment benefits, and to pay the child support agency any outstanding child support obligations established by an agreement

with the individual or through legal processes.

Other enforcement techniques States must use include:

1. Imposing liens against real and personal property for amounts

of overdue support;

2. Withholding State tax refunds payable to a parent who is delinquent in support payments;

3. Reporting the amount of overdue support to a consumer credit

bureau upon request;

4. Requiring individuals who have demonstrated a pattern of delinquent payments to post a bond or give some other guarantee

to secure payment of overdue support;

5. Establishing expedited processes within the State judicial system or under administrative processes for obtaining and enforcing child support orders and determining paternity. These

expedited procedures include giving States authority to secure

assets to satisfy payment of past-due support by seizing or attaching unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation,

judgments, settlements, lotteries, asset held in financial institutions, and public and private retirement funds;

6. Withholding, suspending, or restricting the use of driver’s licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational

and sporting licenses of noncustodial parents who owe past-due

support;

472

7. Denying passports to persons owing more than $5,000 in pastdue support;

8. Requiring unemployed noncustodial parents who owe child

support to a child receiving TANF benefits to participate in appropriate work activities;

9. Performing quarterly data matches with financial institutions;

and

10. Voiding of fraudulent transfers of assets to avoid payment of

child support.

Each State’s plan must provide that the child support agency will

attempt to secure support for all TANF children. The State must

also provide in its plan that it will undertake to establish the paternity of a TANF child born out of wedlock. These requirements

apply to all cases except those in which the State finds, in accordance with standards established by the Secretary, the best interests of the child would be violated. For families whose TANF eligibility ends due to the receipt of or an increase in child support,

States must continue to provide CSE services without imposing the

application fee.

Foster care agencies are required to take steps, where appropriate, to secure an assignment to the State of any rights to support on behalf of a child receiving foster care maintenance payments under title IV–E of the Social Security Act.

State child support agencies are also required to petition to include medical support as part of any child support order whenever

health care coverage is available to the noncustodial parent at a

reasonable cost. And, if a family loses TANF eligibility as the result

of increased collection of support payments, the State must continue to provide Medicaid benefits for 4 calendar months beginning

with the month of ineligibility. In addition, States must provide

services to families covered by Medicaid who are referred to the

State IV–D agency from the State Medicaid agency.

With respect to non-TANF families, States must provide, once an

application is filed with the State agency, the same child support

collection and paternity determination services which are provided

for TANF families. The State must charge non-TANF families an

application fee of up to $25. States may charge the fee against the

custodial parent, pay the fee out of State funds, or recover it from

the noncustodial parent.

States also have the option of charging a late payment fee equal

to between 3 and 6 percent of the amount of overdue support. Late

payment fees may be charged to noncustodial parents and are to

be collected only after the full amount of the support has been paid

to the child. States may also recover costs in excess of the application fee from either the custodial or noncustodial parent. If a State

chooses to make recovery from the custodial parent, it must have

in effect a procedure whereby all persons in the State who have authority to order support are informed that such costs are to be collected from the custodial parent.

Child support enforcement services must include the enforcement

of spousal support, but only if a support obligation has been established with respect to the spouse, the child and spouse are living

in the same household, and child support is being collected along

with spousal support.

473

Finally, each State must comply with any other requirements

and standards that the Secretary determines to be necessary to the

establishment of an effective child support program.

THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCESS

The goal of the child support program is to combine these Federal and State responsibilities and activities into an efficient machine that provides seven basic products: locating absent parents,

establishing paternity, establishing child support orders, reviewing

and modifying orders, promoting medical support, collecting and

distributing support, and enforcing child support across State lines.

Each of these services deserves extensive discussion.

LOCATING ABSENT PARENTS

In pursuing cases, child support officials try to obtain a great

deal of information and several documents from the custodial parent or other sources. These include the name and address of the

noncustodial parent; the noncustodial parent’s Social Security number (SSN); children’s birth certificates; the child support order; the

divorce decree or separation agreement; the name and address of

the current or most recent employer of the noncustodial parent; the

names of friends and relatives or organizations to which the noncustodial parent might belong; information about income and assets; and any other information about noncustodial parents that

might help locate them. Once this information is provided, it is

used in strictest confidence.

If the Child Support Enforcement Program cannot locate the

noncustodial parent with the information provided by the custodial

parent, it must try to locate the noncustodial parent through the

State parent locator service. The State uses various information

sources such as telephone directories, motor vehicle registries, tax

files, and employment and unemployment records. The State also

can ask the FPLS to locate the noncustodial parent. The FPLS can

access data from the Social Security Administration, the IRS, the

Selective Service System, the Department of Defense, the Veterans

Administration, the National Personnel Records Center, and State

Employment Security Agencies. The FPLS provides SSNs, addresses, and employer and wage information to State and local child

support agencies to establish and enforce child support orders.

The FPLS obtains employer addresses and wage and unemployment compensation information from the State employment security agencies. This information is very useful in helping child support officials work cases in which the custodial parent and children

live in one State and the noncustodial parent lives or works in another State. Employment data are updated quarterly by employers

reporting to their State employment security agency; unemployment data are updated continually from State unemployment compensation payment records.

The FPLS conducts weekly or biweekly matches with most of the

agencies listed above. Each agency runs the cases against its data

base and the names and SSNs that match are returned to FPLS

and through FPLS to the requesting State or local child support ofVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00473 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.008 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
474

fice. During fiscal year 1997, the FPLS processed approximately 4.9

million requests for information from State and local CSE agencies.

Since October 1984, OCSE has participated in Project 1099

which provides State child support agencies access to all of the

earned and unearned income information reported to IRS by employers and financial institutions. Project 1099, named after the

IRS form on which both earned and unearned income is reported,

is a cooperative effort involving State child support agencies, the

OCSE, and the IRS. Examples of reported earned and unearned incomes include: interest paid on savings accounts, stocks and bonds,

and distribution of dividends and capital gains; rent or royalty payments; prizes, awards, or winnings; fees paid directors or subcontractors; and unemployment compensation. The Project 1099 information is used to locate noncustodial parents and to verify income and employment. Project 1099 also helps locate additional

nonwage income and assets of noncustodial parents who are employees as well as income and asset sources of self-employed and

nonwage earning obligors. In fiscal year 1995, OCSE submitted

about 3.9 million cases to the IRS under Project 1099 and over 2.5

million cases were matched (65 percent).

The SSN is the key piece of information around which the child

support information system is constructed. Most computer searches

need the SSN in order to operate effectively. Thus, in the 1996 welfare reform law, Congress gave CSE agencies access to new sources

for obtaining SSNs. Federal CSE law requires States to implement

procedures requiring that the SSN of any applicant for a professional, driver’s, occupational, recreational, or marriage license be

recorded on the application (not on the face of the license itself).

In addition, the 1996 law requires that the SSN of any individual

subject to a divorce decree, support order, or paternity determination or acknowledgment be placed in the records relating to the

matter and that the SSN of any individual who has died be placed

in the death records and recorded on the death certificate.

To further improve CSE’s ability to locate absent parents, the

1996 law also requires States to have automated registries of child

support orders containing records of each case in which CSE services are being provided and each support order established or modified on or after October 1, 1998. Local registries could be linked to

form the State registry. The State registry is to include a record

of the support owed under the order, arrearages, interest or late

penalty charges, amounts collected, amounts distributed, child’s

date of birth, and any liens imposed. The registry also will include

standardized information on both parents, such as name, SSN, date

of birth, and case identification number.

In one of the most important child support reforms in recent

years, the 1996 law required States, by October 1, 1997, to establish an automated directory of new hires containing information

from employers, including Federal, State, and local governments

and labor organizations, for each newly hired employee. The directory must include the name, address and SSN of the employee and

the employer’s name, address, and tax identification number. This

information is to be supplied by employers to the State new hires

directory within 20 days after the employee is hired. Within 3 business days after receipt of new hire information, the State directory

475

of new hires is required to furnish the information to the national

directory of new hires. The new law also requires the establishment of a Federal case registry of child support orders and a national directory of new hires. The Federal directories are to consist

of abstracts of information from the State directories and are located in the FPLS. In fiscal year 1998, there were more than 1 million matches in which employment and address information was returned to States to assist in the location of noncustodial parents

who owed child support. In fiscal year 1999, with the addition of

the case registry to the matching system, there were 2.8 million

matches.

The 1996 reforms allow all States to link up to an array of data

bases and permits the FPLS to be used for the purpose of establishing parentage; establishing, setting the amount of, modifying,

or enforcing child support obligations; or enforcing child custody or

visitation orders. By May 1, 1998, a designated State agency must

directly or by contract conduct automated comparisons of the SSNs

reported by employers to the State directory of new hires and the

SSNs of CSE cases that appear in the records of the State registry

of child support orders. The Secretary of DHHS is required to conduct similar comparisons of the Federal directories. When a match

occurs, the State directory of new hires is required to report to the

State CSE agency the name, date of birth, and SSN of the employee, and the name, address, and identification number of the

employer. The CSE agency must, within 2 business days, instruct

appropriate employers to withhold child support obligations from

the employee’s paycheck, unless the employee’s income is not subject to withholding.

There are two exceptions to the immediate income withholding

rule: (1) if one of the parties demonstrates, and the court (or administrative process) finds, that there is good cause not to require

immediate withholding; or (2) if both parties agree in writing to an

alternative arrangement. Employers must remit to the State disbursement unit income withheld within 7 business days after the

employee’s payday. States also are required to operate a centralized collection and disbursement unit that sends child support payments to custodial parents within 2 business days.

ESTABLISHING PATERNITY

Paternity establishment is a prerequisite for obtaining a child

support order. In 1998, 32.8 percent of children born in the United

States were born to unmarried women. According to the OCSE, in

fiscal year 1997 paternity was established for only 34 percent of

the children who needed paternity established. However, in recent

years the CSE Program has made great strides in establishing paternity. Between 1994 and 1998, for example, the new In-Hospital

Paternity Acknowledgement Program grew from 84,411 to 614,081

paternities established, a jump of well over 600 percent.

But experts agree that the CSE Program must continue to improve paternity establishment. Without paternity established, children have no legal claim on their fathers’ income. In addition to financial benefits, establishing paternity can provide social, psychological, and emotional benefits and in some cases the father’s medical history may be needed to give a child proper care.

476

In the 1980s, legislation was enacted that contained provisions

aimed at increasing the number of paternities established. Public

Law 98–378, the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984,

required States to implement laws that permitted paternity to be

established until a child’s 18th birthday. Under the Family Support

Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–485), States are required to initiate

the establishment of paternity for all children under the age of 18,

including those for whom an action to establish paternity was previously dismissed because of the existence of a statute of limitations of less than 18 years. The 1988 law encourages States to create simple civil procedures for establishing paternity in contested

cases, requires States to have all parties in a contested paternity

case take a genetic test upon the request of any party, requires the

Federal Government to pay 90 percent of the laboratory costs of

these tests, and permits States to charge persons not receiving Aid

to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) for the cost of establishing paternity. The 1988 law also sets paternity establishment

standards for the States and stipulates that each State is required,

in administering any law involving the issuance of birth certificates, to require both parents to furnish their SSN unless the State

finds good cause for not doing so.

Congress took additional action to improve paternity establishment in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. This law

required States to have in effect, by October 1, 1993, the following:

1. A simple civil process for voluntarily acknowledging paternity

under which the State must explain the rights and responsibilities of acknowledging paternity and afford due process safeguards. Procedures must include a hospital-based program for

the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity during the period

immediately preceding or following the birth of a child;

2. A law under which the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity

creates a rebuttable, or at State option, conclusive presumption

of paternity, and under which such voluntary acknowledgments are admissible as evidence of paternity;

3. A law under which the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity

must be recognized as a basis for seeking a support order without requiring any further proceedings to establish paternity;

4. Procedures which provide that any objection to genetic testing

results must be made in writing within a specified number of

days prior to any hearing at which such results may be introduced in evidence; if no objection is made, the test results must

be admissible as evidence of paternity without the need for

foundation testimony or other proof of authenticity or accuracy;

5. A law which creates a rebuttable or, at the option of the State,

conclusive presumption of paternity upon genetic testing results indicating a threshold probability of the alleged father

being the father of the child;

6. Procedures which require default orders in paternity cases

upon a showing that process has been served on the defendant

and whatever additional showing may be required by State

law; and

7. Expedited processes for paternity establishment in contested

cases and full faith and credit to determinations of paternity

made by other States.

477

The 1993 reforms also revised the mandatory paternity establishment requirements imposed on States by the Family Support Act

of 1988. The most notable provision increased the mandatory paternity establishment percentage, which was backed up by financial

penalties linked to a reduction of Federal matching funds for the

State’s AFDC (now TANF) Program (see Audits and Financial Penalties section). The welfare reform law of 1996 further strengthened the Nation’s paternity establishment system. More specifically, the new law streamlines the paternity determination process;

raises the paternity establishment requirement from 75 to 90 percent; implements a simple civil process for establishing paternity;

requires a uniform affidavit to be completed by men voluntarily acknowledging paternity and entitles such affidavit to full faith and

credit in any State; stipulates that a signed acknowledgment of paternity be considered a legal finding of paternity unless rescinded

within 60 days and thereafter may be challenged in court only on

the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact; and provides

that no judicial or administrative action is needed to ratify an acknowledgment that is not challenged. The new law also requires

States to publicize the availability and encourage the use of procedures for voluntary establishment of paternity and child support.

Paternity acknowledgments must be filed with the State birth

records agency. However, before a mother or alleged father can

sign a paternity acknowledgment, each must be given notice (both

orally and in writing) of the alternatives to, legal consequences of,

and rights and responsibilities arising from the signed acknowledgment. Moreover, in the case of unmarried parents, the father’s

name shall not appear on the birth certificate unless he has signed

a voluntary acknowledgment or a court has issued an adjudication

of paternity.

While employing these laws and procedures to establish paternity, States follow a predictable sequence of events. In cases for

which paternity is not voluntarily acknowledged (which is still the

majority of cases), the child support agency locates the alleged father and brings him to court or before an administrative agency

where he can either acknowledge or dispute paternity. If he claims

he is not the father, the court can require that he submit to parentage blood testing to establish the probability that he is the father.

If the father denies paternity, a court usually decides the issue

based on scientific and testimonial evidence. Through the use of

testing techniques, a man may be excluded as a possible natural

father, in which case no further action against him is warranted.

Most States use one or more of several scientific methods for establishing paternity. These include: ABO blood typing system, human

leukocyte antigen testing, red cell enzyme and serum protein electrophoresis, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing.

The State CSE agency has the power (without the need for permission from a court or administrative tribunal) to order genetic

tests in appropriate CSE cases. These CSE agencies also must recognize and enforce the ability of other State CSE agencies to take

such actions. Moreover, genetic test results must be admissible as

evidence so long as they are of a type generally acknowledged as

reliable by accreditation bodies recognized by the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and performed by an entity

478

approved by such an accredited body. Finally, in any case in which

the CSE agency ordered the tests, the State must pay the initial

costs. The State is allowed to recoup the cost from the father if paternity is established. If the original test result is contested, further testing can be ordered by the CSE agency if the contestant

pays the cost in advance.

There are two types of testing procedures for paternity cases: (1)

probability of exclusion tests, and (2) probability of paternity tests.

Most laboratories perform probability of exclusion tests. This type

of testing can determine with 90–99 percent accuracy that a man

is ‘‘not’’ the father of a given child. There is a very high probability

the test will exonerate a falsely accused man (Office of Child Support Enforcement, 1990).

Since the question of paternity is essentially a scientific one, it

is important that the verification process include available advanced scientific technology. Experts now agree that use of the

highly reliableDNA test greatly increases the likelihood of correct

identification of putative fathers. DNA tests can be used either to

exclude unlikely fathers or to establish a high likelihood that a

given man is the father (Office of Child Support, 1990, see pp. 59–

74). One expert, speaking at a child support conference, summed

up the effectiveness of DNA testing as follows:

The DNA fingerprinting technique promises far superior reliability than current

blood grouping or human leukocyte antigen analyses. The probability of an unrelated individual sharing the same patterns is practically zero. The ‘‘DNA

fingerprinting’’ test, developed in England in 1985, refines the favorable statistics

to an even greater degree, reducing the probability that two unrelated individuals

will have the same DNA fingerprint to one in a quadrillion (Georgeson, 1989, p.

568).

If the putative father is not excluded on the basis of the scientific

test results, authorities may still conclude on the basis of witnesses, resemblance, and other evidence that they do not have sufficient evidence to establish paternity and, therefore, will drop

charges against him. Tests resulting in nonexclusion also may

serve to convince the putative father that he is, in fact, the father.

If this occurs, a voluntary admission often leads to a formal court

order. When authorities believe there is enough evidence to support

the mother’s allegation, but the putative father continues to deny

the charges, the case proceeds to a formal adjudication of paternity

in a court of law (McKillop, 1981, pp. 22–23). Using the results of

the blood test and other evidence, the court or the child support

agency, often through an administrative process, may dismiss the

case or enter an order of paternity, a prerequisite to obtaining a

court order requiring a noncustodial parent to pay support (U.S.

General Accounting Office, 1987).

In fiscal year 1998, 848,000 paternities were established, up from

245,000 in fiscal year 1986. While the number of paternities established through child support agencies reached a record high in

1998, huge disparities exist among States. For example, the percentage of children in the Child Support Enforcement Program for

whom paternity was established averaged 64 percent nationally,

but ranged from 16 percent in Iowa to 155 percent in Maryland

(some paternities established are for children born in previous

years). In addition to the 848,000 paternities established in fiscal

479

year 1998, 614,000 paternities were voluntarily acknowledged in

the hospital (see table 8–1).

ESTABLISHING ORDERS

A child support order legally obligates noncustodial parents to

provide financial support for their children and stipulates the

amount of the obligation (current weekly obligation plus arrearages, if any) and how it is to be paid. Many States have statutes

that provide that, in the absence of a child support award, the payment of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits

to the child of a noncustodial parent creates a debt due from the

parent or parents in the amount of the TANF benefit. Other States

operate under the common law principle, which maintains that a

father is obligated to reimburse any person who has provided his

child with food, shelter, clothing, medical attention, or education.

States can establish child support obligations either by judicial or

administrative process.

Judicial and administrative systems

The courts have traditionally played a major role in the child

support program. Judges establish orders, establish paternity, and

provide authority for all enforcement activity. The child support literature generally concludes that the judicial process offers several

advantages, especially by providing more adequate protection for

the legal rights of the noncustodial parent and by offering a wide

range of enforcement remedies, such as civil contempt and possible

incarceration. A major problem of using courts, however, is that

they are often cumbersome, expensive, and time consuming.

Thus, the advantages of an administrative process are very compelling. These include offering quicker service because documents

do not have to be filed with the court clerk nor await the signature

of the judge, eliminating time consuming problems in scheduling

court appearances, providing a more uniform and consistent obligation amount, and saving money because of reduced court costs and

attorney fees.

The 1984 child support amendments required States to limit the

role of the courts significantly by implementing administrative or

judicial expedited processes. States are required to have quasijudicial or administrative systems to expedite the process for obtaining and enforcing a support order. Since 1993, States have

been required to extend these expedited processes to paternity establishment.

Most child support officials view the growth of expedited administrative processes as an improvement in the child support program. An expedited judicial process is a legal process in effect

under a State’s judicial system that reduces the processing time of

establishing and enforcing a support order. To expedite case processing, a ‘‘judge surrogate’’ is given authority to: take testimony

and establish a record, evaluate and make initial decisions, enter

default orders if the noncustodial parent does not respond to ‘‘notice’’ or other State ‘‘service of process’’ in a timely manner, accept

voluntary acknowledgment of support liability and approve stipulated agreements to pay support. In addition, if the State establishes paternity using the expedited judicial process, the surrogate

480

can accept voluntary acknowledgement of paternity. Judge surrogates are sometimes referred to as court masters, referees, hearing

officers, commissioners, or presiding officers.

The purpose of an expedited administrative process is to increase

effectiveness and meet specified processing times in child support

cases and paternity actions. Federal regulations specify that 90

percent of cases must be processed within 3 months, 98 percent

within 6 months, and 100 percent within 12 months.

The Federal regulations also contain additional requirements related to the expedited process. Proceedings conducted pursuant to

either the expedited judicial or expedited administrative process

must be presided over by an individual who is not a judge of the

court. Orders established by expedited process must have the same

force and effect under State law as orders established by full judicial process, although either process may provide that a judge first

ratify the order. Within these broad limitations, each State is free

to design an expedited process that is best suited to its administrative needs and legal traditions.

Under the 1996 welfare reform law, the expedited procedure

rules were broadened to cover modification of support orders. The

new law also requires that State tribunals—whether quasi-judicial

or administrative—must have statewide jurisdiction over the parties and permit intrastate case transfers from one tribunal to another without the need to refile the case or re-serve the respondent.

In addition, once a support/paternity order is entered, the tribunal

must require each party to file and periodically update certain information with both the tribunal and the State’s child support case

registry. This information includes the parent’s SSN, residential

and mailing addresses, telephone number, driver’s license number,

and employer’s name, address and telephone number.

Moreover, the 1996 reforms require States to adopt laws that

give the CSE agency authority to initiate a series of expedited procedures without the necessity of obtaining an order from any other

administrative agency or judicial tribunal. These actions include:

ordering genetic testing; issuing subpoenas; requiring public and

private employers and other entities to provide information on employment, compensation, and benefits or be subject to penalties; obtaining access to vital statistics, State and local tax records, real

and personal property records, records of occupational and professional licenses, business records, employment security and public

assistance records, motor vehicle records, corrections records, customer records of utilities and cable television companies pursuant

to an administrative subpoena, and records of financial institutions; directing the obligor to make payments to the child support

agency in public assistance or income withholding cases; ordering

income withholding; securing assets to satisfy judgments and settlements; and increasing the monthly support due to make payments on arrearages.

Determining the amount of support orders

Before October 1989, the decision of how much a parent should

pay for child support was left primarily to the discretion of the

court. Typically, judges examined financial statements from mothers and fathers and established awards based on children’s needs.

481

1Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, No. 87–1259 (DC Ct. App. October 10, 1989): In October 1989, the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals struck down child support guidelines adopted in October

1987 in response to the Federal requirement. The court held that the superior court committee

that drafted the guidelines lacked authority to do so. It did not rule on the fairness of the guidelines, which awarded children a fixed fraction of the gross income of the noncustodial parent.

The resulting awards varied greatly. Moreover, this case-by-case

approach resulted in very low awards. As late as 1991, the average

amount of child support received by custodial parents was $2,961,

less than $250 per month.

In an attempt to increase the use of objective criteria, the 1984

child support amendments required each State to establish, by October 1987, guidelines for determining child support award

amounts ‘‘by law or by judicial or administrative action’’ 1 and to

make the guidelines available ‘‘to all judges and other officials who

have the power to determine child support awards within the

State.’’ Federal regulations made the provision more specific: State

child support guidelines must be based on specific descriptive and

numeric criteria and result in a computation of the support obligation. The 1984 provision did not make the guidelines binding on

judges and other officials who had the authority to establish child

support obligations. However, the Family Support Act of 1988 required States to pass legislation making the State child support

guidelines a ‘‘rebuttable presumption’’ in any judicial or administrative proceeding and establishing the amount of the order which

results from the application of the State-established guidelines as

the correct amount to be awarded.

States generally use one of three basic types of guidelines to determine award amounts: ‘‘Income shares,’’ which is based on the

combined income of both parents (31 States); ‘‘percentage of income,’’ in which the number of eligible children is used to determine a percentage of the noncustodial parents’ income to be paid

in child support (15 States); and ‘‘Melson-Delaware,’’ which provides a minimum self-support reserve for parents before the cost of

rearing the children is prorated between the parents to determine

the award amount (Delaware, Hawaii, West Virginia). Two jurisdictions (the District of Columbia and Massachusetts) use variants of

one or more of these three approaches (Williams, 1994; see table

8–24 below).

The income shares approach is designed to ensure that the children of divorced parents suffer the lowest possible decline in standard of living. The approach is intended to ensure that the child receives the same proportion of parental income that he would have

received if the parents lived together. The first step in the income

shares approach is to determine the combined income of the two

parents. A percentage of that combined income, which varies by income level, is used to calculate a ‘‘primary support obligation.’’ The

percentages decline as income rises, although the absolute amount

of the primary support obligation increases with income. Many

States add child care costs and extraordinary medical expenses to

the primary support obligation. The resulting total child support

obligation is apportioned between the parents on the basis of their

incomes. The noncustodial parent’s share is the child support

award (Office of Child Support, 1987, pp. II 67–80).

482

2 Net income equals income from employment and other sources plus business expense accounts if they provide the parent with an automobile, lunches, etc., minus income taxes based

on maximum allowable exemptions, other deductions required by law, deductions required by

an employer or union, legitimate business expenses, and benefits such as medical insurance

maintained for dependents.

The percentage of income approach is based on the noncustodial

parent’s gross income and the number of children to be supported

(the child support obligation is not adjusted for the income of the

custodial parent). The percentages vary by State. In Wisconsin,

child support is based on the following proportions of the noncustodial parent’s gross income: one child—17 percent; two children—25

percent; three children—29 percent; four children—31 percent; and

five or more children—34 percent. There is no self support reserve

in this approach nor is there separate treatment for child care or

extraordinary medical expenses. The States that use a percentage

of income approach are Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York,

North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

The Melson-Delaware formula starts with net income.2 After determining net income for each parent, a primary support allowance

is subtracted from each parent’s income. This reserve represents

the minimum amount required for adults to meet their own subsistence requirements. The next step is to determine a primary

support amount for each dependent child. Work-related child care

expenses and extraordinary medical expenses are added to the

child’s primary support amount. The child’s primary support needs

are then apportioned between the parents. To ensure that children

share in any additional income the parents might have, a percentage of the parents’ remaining income is allocated among the children (the percentage is based on the number of dependent children). The States that use the Melson-Delaware approach are Delaware, Hawaii, and West Virginia.

Pirog, Klotz, and Buyers (1997) have examined the differences in

child support guidelines across States. Their approach was to define five hypothetical cases of custodial mothers and noncustodial

fathers that capture a range of differences in income, expenses, and

other factors that influence the amount of child support payments

computed under the guidelines adopted by the various States. State

1997 guidelines were then applied to each of the five cases to compute the amount of child support that would be due. In each of the

five cases, the mother and father are divorced. The father lives

alone while the mother lives with the couples’ two children, ages

7 and 13. The father pays union dues of $30 per month and health

insurance for the children of $25 per month. The mother incurs

monthly employment-related child care expenses of $150. The income of the fathers and mothers are:

Case A: father—$530; mother—$300

Case B: father—$720; mother—$480

Case C: father—$2,500; mother—$1,000

Case D: father—$4,400; mother—$1,760

Case E: father—$6,300; mother—$4,200

Arguably, the most striking generalization that emerges from

table 8–2 is the remarkable differences across States in the amount

483

of the child support obligation established by the guidelines, particularly at the lower income levels.

TABLE 8–2.—AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT AWARDED BY STATE GUIDELINES IN VARIOUS

CASES

State

Case

ABCDE

Alabama ...................... $216 $280 $433 $634 (1)

Alaska ......................... 38 38 312 546 $1,193

Arizona ........................ (1) 75 482 628 1,061

Arkansas ..................... (1) 150 305 475 1,025

California .................... 236 278 478 770 1,457

Colorado ...................... 231 261 409 610 1,066

Connecticut ................. 0 0 404 703 1,198

Delaware ..................... 91 91 467 626 1,157

District of Columbia ... 50 208 458 821 1,495

Florida ......................... 135 261 463 721 1,186

Georgia ........................ 210 210 383 673 1,607

Hawaii ......................... 100 100 470 610 1,260

Idaho ........................... 122 166 345 566 913

Illinois ......................... 102 136 294 485 1,020

Indiana ........................ 215 327 692 899 1,462

Iowa ............................. 50 189 358 566 1,047

Kansas ........................ 188 227 390 582 1,195

Kentucky ...................... 221 293 445 637 1,017

Louisiana ..................... 207 292 451 667 1,052

Maine .......................... 52 290 437 619 1,031

Maryland ..................... 249 295 449 655 1,060

Massachusetts ............ (1) 137 471 789 (1)

Michigan ..................... 128 141 468 657 1,078

Minnesota .................... 62 84 376 606 1,228

Mississippi .................. 92 124 251 427 908

Missouri ....................... 149 265 447 609 1,032

Montana ...................... 6 15 26 456 908

Nebraska ..................... 50 50 390 677 1,035

Nevada ........................ 200 180 375 660 1,575

New Hampshire ........... 50 50 424 667 1,473

New Jersey ................... 112 267 452 710 (1)

New Mexico ................. 183 291 468 588 1,095

New York ..................... 25 50 436 699 1,548

North Carolina ............. 50 57 463 600 1,012

North Dakota ............... 68 126 356 582 1,231

Ohio ............................. 150 278 465 609 1,045

Oklahoma .................... 171 171 295 415 801

Oregon ......................... 73 159 343 587 1,027

Pennsylvania ............... (1) 257 415 554 (1)

Rhode Island ............... 252 315 480 677 1,170

South Carolina ............ 58 183 463 574 1,000

South Dakota .............. 275 275 486 652 1,032

Tennessee .................... 153 200 393 665 1,422

Texas ........................... 109 147 298 517 1,114

Utah ............................ 83 131 447 616 (1)

484

3Traditionally, the courts have taken the position that the father’s prior child support obligations take absolute precedence over the needs of the new family. They have disregarded the father’s plea that his new responsibilities are a ‘‘change in circumstance’’ justifying a reduction

in a prior child support award or at least averting an increase.

TABLE 8–2.—AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT AWARDED BY STATE GUIDELINES IN VARIOUS

CASES—Continued

State

Case

ABCDE

Vermont ....................... (1) (1) 428 642 1,025

Virginia ........................ 231 289 446 641 1,042

Washington ................. 50 50 412 641 1,054

West Virginia ............... 50 117 364 539 1,742

Wisconsin .................... 133 180 375 660 1,575

Wyoming ...................... 105 200 348 519 882

1 In these cases, courts have the discretion to set the amount that seems appropriate to the court.

Note.—See text for explanation of cases A, B, C, D, and E.

Source: Pirog, Klotz, & Buyers, 1997.

Award rates

In 1995, of the 11.6 million custodial mothers of children under

the age of 21 whose father was not living in the household, only

7.1 million or 61 percent had a child support award and were owed

child support. About one-third of the 4.5 million custodial mothers

without awards chose not to pursue a child support award. In other

cases, custodial parents were unable to locate the noncustodial parent, had a nonlegal agreement with the noncustodial parent, or the

noncustodial parent was unable to pay. Never-married custodial

parents were the group least likely to have a child support award.

Only 44 percent of never-married custodial mothers had support

awards compared with 76 percent of divorced custodial mothers.

Moreover, black custodial mothers and custodial mothers of Hispanic origin were much less likely than their white counterparts to

have child support awards. About 72 percent of whites had child

support awards, compared with 45 percent of blacks and 47 percent

of Hispanics (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999).

Unresolved issues

As noted by Garfinkel, Melli, and Robertson (1994), there are a

host of controversial issues associated with child support awards.

These include whether child care costs, extraordinary medical expenses, and college costs are taken into account in determining the

support order; how the income of the noncustodial parent is allocated between first and subsequent families; 3 how the income of

stepparents is treated; whether a minimum child support award

level regardless of age or circumstance of the noncustodial parent

should be imposed; whether income earned as a result of a custodial parent’s participation in an AFDC work, education, and training program is taken into account; and the duration of the support

order (i.e., does the support obligation end when the child reaches

age 18; what happens to arrearages).

485

REVIEWING AND MODIFYING ORDERS

Without periodic modifications, child support obligations can become inadequate and inequitable. Historically, the only way to

modify a child support order was to require a party to petition the

court for a modification based on a ‘‘change in circumstances.’’

What constituted a change in circumstances sufficient to modify

the order depended on the State and the court. The person requesting modification was responsible for filing the motion, serving notice, hiring a lawyer, and proving a change in circumstances of sufficient magnitude to satisfy statutory standards. The modification

proceeding was a two step process. First the court determined

whether a modification was appropriate. Next, the amount of the

new obligation was determined.

Because this approach to updating orders was so cumbersome,

the Family Support Act of 1988 required States both to use guidelines as a rebuttable presumption in all proceedings for the award

of child support and to review and adjust child support orders in

accordance with the guidelines. These provisions reflected congressional intent to simplify the updating of support orders by requiring a process in which the standard for modification was the State

child support guidelines. They also reflect a recognition that the

traditional burden of proof for changing the amount of the support

order was a barrier to updating. Finally, the 1988 law signaled a

need for States to at least expand, if not replace, the traditional

‘‘change in circumstances’’ test as the legal prerequisite for updating support orders by making State guidelines the presumptively

correct amount of support to be paid (Federal Register, 1992, p.

61560).

The Family Support Act also required States to review guidelines

at least once every 4 years and have procedures for review and adjustment of orders, consistent with a plan indicating how and when

child support orders are to be reviewed and adjusted. Review may

take place at the request of either parent subject to the order or

at the request of a State child support agency. Any adjustment to

the award must be consistent with the State’s guidelines, which

must be used as a rebuttable presumption in establishing or adjusting the support order. The Family Support Act also required

States to review all orders being enforced under the child support

program within 36 months after establishment or after the most recent review of the order and to adjust the order in accord with the

State’s guidelines.

Review is required in child support cases in which support rights

are assigned to the State, unless the State has determined that review would not be in the best interests of the child and neither parent has requested a review. This provision applies to child support

orders in cases in which benefits under the TANF, foster care, or

Medicaid Programs are currently being provided, but does not include orders for former TANF, foster care, or Medicaid cases, even

if the State retains an assignment of support rights for arrearages

that accumulated during the time the family was on welfare. In

child support cases in which there is no current assignment of support rights to the State, review is required at least once every 36

months only if a parent requests it. If the review indicates that adVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00485 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.008 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
486

justment of the support amount is appropriate, the State must proceed to adjust the award accordingly.

The Family Support Act also required States to notify parents in

cases being enforced by the State of their right to request a review,

of their right to be informed of the forthcoming review at least 30

days before the review begins, and of any proposed adjustment or

determination that there should be no change in the award

amount. In the latter case, the parent must be given at least 30

days after notification to initiate proceedings to challenge the proposed adjustment or determination.

The 1996 welfare reform law somewhat revised the review and

modification requirements. The mandatory 3-year review of child

support orders is slightly modified to permit States some flexibility

in determining which reviews of welfare cases should be pursued

and in choosing methods of review. States must review orders

every 3 years (or more often at State option) if either parent or the

State requests a review in welfare cases or if either parent requests

a review in nonwelfare cases. States must notify parents of their

review and adjustment rights at least once every 3 years. States

can use one of three different methods for adjusting orders: (1) the

child support guidelines (i.e., current law); (2) an inflation adjustment in accordance with a formula developed by the State; or (3)

an automated method to identify orders eligible for review followed

by an appropriate adjustment to the order, not to exceed any

threshold amount determined by the State. If either an inflation

adjustment or an automated method is used, the State must allow

either parent to contest the adjustment.

Especially during the early 1980s, a major issue in the modification of awards was the practice of retroactive modifications. The

vast majority of such retroactive modifications had the effect of reducing the amount of child support ordered. Thus, for example, an

order for $200 a month for child support, which was unpaid for 36

months, should accumulate an arrearage of $7,200. Yet, if the obligor was brought to court, having made no prior attempt to modify

the order, the order might be reduced to $100 a month retroactive

to 36 months prior to the date of modification. This retroactive

modification would reduce the arrearage from $7,200 to $3,600.

Cases such as this, which had serious impacts on custodial parents

and their children, convinced Congress to take action.

Thus, in 1986 Congress enacted section 9103 of Public Law 99–

509 (section 466(a)(9) of the Social Security Act) to change State

practices involving modification of child support arrears. The provision required States to change their laws so that any payment of

child support, on and after the date due, is a ‘‘judgment’’ (the official decision or finding of a court on the respective rights and

claims of the parties to an action) by operation of law. The provision also requires that the judgment be entitled to full faith and

credit in the originating State and in any other State. Full faith

and credit is a constitutional principle that the various States must

recognize the judgments of other States within the United States

and accord them the force and effect they would have in their home

State.

The 1986 provision also greatly restricts retroactive modification

to make it more difficult for courts and administrative entities to

487

forgive or reduce arrearages. More specifically, orders can be retroactively modified only for a period during which there is pending

a petition for modification and only from the date that notice of the

petition has been given to the custodial or noncustodial parent.

PROMOTING MEDICAL SUPPORT

Section 16 of Public Law 98–378, enacted in 1984, requires the

Secretary of DHHS to issue regulations to require that State child

support agencies petition for the inclusion of medical support as

part of any child support order whenever health care coverage is

available to the noncustodial parent at reasonable cost. According

to Federal regulations, any employment-related or other group coverage is considered reasonable, under the assumption that health

insurance is inexpensive to the employee/noncustodial parent. A

1993 study by Cooper and Johnson that analyzed 1987 data from

the Center for Health Expenditures and Insurance Studies indicated that for workers with income below the poverty line and

employer-provided family health insurance coverage, 77 percent of

the premium was paid for by the employer.

On October 16, 1985, the Office of Child Support Enforcement

(OCSE) published regulations amending previous regulations and

implementing section 16 of Public Law 98–378. The regulations require State child support agencies to obtain basic medical support

information and provide this information to the State Medicaid

agency. The purpose of medical support enforcement is to expand

the number of children for whom private health insurance coverage

is obtained by increasing the availability of third party resources

to pay for medical care and thereby reduce Medicaid costs for both

the States and the Federal Government. If the custodial parent

does not have satisfactory health insurance coverage, the child support agency must petition the court or administrative authority to

include medical support in new or modified support orders and inform the State Medicaid agency of any new or modified support orders that include a medical support obligation. The regulations also

require child support agencies to enforce medical support that has

been ordered by a court or administrative process. States receive

child support matching funds at the 66-percent rate for required

medical support activities. Before these regulations were issued,

medical support activities were pursued by child support agencies

only under optional cooperative agreements with Medicaid agencies.

Some of the functions that the child support agency may perform

under a cooperative agreement with the Medicaid agency include:

receiving referrals from the Medicaid agency, locating noncustodial

parents, establishing paternity, determining whether the noncustodial parent has a health insurance policy or plan that covers the

child, obtaining sufficient information about the health insurance

policy or plan to permit the filing of a claim with the insurer, filing

a claim with the insurer or transmitting the necessary information

to the Medicaid agency, securing health insurance coverage

through court or administrative order, and recovering amounts necessary to reimburse medical assistance payments.

On September 16, 1988, OCSE issued regulations expanding the

medical support enforcement provisions. These regulations require

488

the child support agency to develop criteria to identify existing

child support cases that have a high potential for obtaining medical

support, and to petition the court or administrative authority to

modify support orders to include medical support for these cases

even if no other modification is anticipated. The child support agency also is required to provide the custodial parent with information

regarding the health insurance coverage obtained by the noncustodial parent for the child. Moreover, the regulation deletes the

condition that child support agencies may secure health insurance

coverage under a cooperative agreement only when it will not reduce the noncustodial parent’s ability to pay child support.

Before late 1993, employees covered under their employer’s

health care plans generally could provide coverage to children only

if the children lived with the employee. However, as a result of divorce proceedings, employees often lost custody of their children

but were nonetheless required to provide their health care coverage. While the employee would be obliged to follow the court’s directive, the employer that sponsored the employee’s health care

plan was under no similar obligation. Even if the court ordered the

employer to continue health care coverage for the nonresident child

of their employee, the employer would be under no legal obligation

to do so (Shulman, 1994, pp. 1–2). Aware of this situation, Congress took the following legislative action in the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993:

1. Insurers were prohibited from denying enrollment of a child

under the health insurance coverage of the child’s parent on

the grounds that the child was born out of wedlock, is not

claimed as a dependent on the parent’s Federal income tax return, or does not reside with the parent or in the insurer’s

service area;

2. Insurers and employers were required, in any case in which a

parent is required by court order to provide health coverage for

a child and the child is otherwise eligible for family health coverage through the insurer: (a) to permit the parent, without regard to any enrollment season restrictions, to enroll the child

under such family coverage; (b) if the parent fails to provide

health insurance coverage for a child, to enroll the child upon

application by the child’s other parent or the State child support or Medicaid agency; and (c) with respect to employers, not

to disenroll the child unless there is satisfactory written evidence that the order is no longer in effect or the child is or will

be enrolled in comparable health coverage through another insurer that will take effect not later than the effective date of

the disenrollment;

3. Employers doing business in the State, if they offer health insurance and if a court order is in effect, were required to withhold from the employee’s compensation the employee’s share of

premiums for health insurance and to pay that share to the insurer. The Secretary of DHHS may provide by regulation for

such exceptions to this requirement (and other requirements

described above that apply to employers) as the Secretary determines necessary to ensure compliance with an order, or with

the limits on withholding that are specified in section 303(b) of

the Consumer Credit Protection Act;

489

4. Insurers were prohibited from imposing requirements on a

State agency acting as an agent or assignee of an individual

eligible for medical assistance that are different from requirements applicable to an agent or assignee of any other individual;

5. Insurers were required, in the case of a child who has coverage

through the insurer of a noncustodial parent to: (a) provide the

custodial parent with the information necessary for the child to

obtain benefits; (b) permit the custodial parent (or provider,

with the custodial parent’s approval) to submit claims for covered services without the approval of the noncustodial parent;

and (c) make payment on claims directly to the custodial parent, the provider, or the State agency; and

6. The State Medicaid agency was permitted to garnish the

wages, salary, or other employment income of, and to withhold

State tax refunds to, any person who: (a) is required by court

or administrative order to provide health insurance coverage to

an individual eligible for Medicaid; (b) has received payment

from a third party for the costs of medical services to that individual; and (c) has not reimbursed either the individual or the

provider. The amount subject to garnishment or withholding is

the amount required to reimburse the State agency for expenditures for costs of medical services provided under the Medicaid

Program. Claims for current or past due child support take priority over any claims for the costs of medical services.

These provisions appear to be having an impact on the number

of children in single-parent families with medical coverage. According to OCSE data, 61 percent of support orders established in fiscal

year 1997 included health insurance, up from 46 percent in fiscal

year 1991 but down somewhat from 67 percent in fiscal year 1996.

Nevertheless, only 39 percent of support orders enforced or modified in fiscal year 1997 included health insurance, up only slightly

from 35 percent in 1991. These figures indicate that many children

still lack coverage. One way to increase medical support may be to

require withholding of health insurance premiums in all cases with

medical support orders (Gordon, 1994).

Under the 1996 welfare reform legislation, the definition of ‘‘medical child support order’’ in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was expanded to clarify that any judgment, decree, or order that is issued by a court or by an administrative

process has the force and effect of law. In addition, the new law

stipulates that all orders enforced by the State CSE agency must

include a provision for health care coverage. If the noncustodial

parent changes jobs and the new employer provides health coverage, the State must send notice of coverage to the new employer;

the notice must serve to enroll the child in the health plan of the

new employer.

Public Law 105–200, enacted in 1998, provides for a uniform

manner for States to inform employers about their need to enroll

the children of noncustodial parents in employer-sponsored health

plans. It requires the CSE agency to use a standardized national

medical support notice (developed by the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Department of Labor)

to communicate to employers the issuance of a medical support

490

order. Employers are required to accept the form as a ‘‘qualified

medical support order’’ under ERISA.

COLLECTING CHILD SUPPORT

Local courts and child support enforcement agencies attempt to

collect child support when the noncustodial parent does not pay.

The most important collection method is wage withholding. Other

techniques for enforcing payments include regular billings; delinquency notices; liens on property; offset of unemployment compensation payments; seizure and sale of property; reporting arrearages to credit agencies; garnishment of wages; seizure of State and

Federal income tax refunds; revocation of various types of licenses

(drivers’, business, occupational, recreational) to persons who are

delinquent in their child support payments; attachment of lottery

winnings and insurance settlements of debtor parents; and Federal

imprisonment, fines or both.

In addition to approaches authorized by the Federal Government

through the child support program, States use a variety of other

collection techniques. In fact, States have been at the forefront in

implementing innovative approaches. Some States hire private collection agencies to collect child support payments. Some States

bring charges of criminal nonsupport or civil or criminal contempt

of court against noncustodial parents who fail to pay child support.

These court proceedings are usually lengthy because of court backlogs, delays, and continuances. Once a court decides the case, noncustodial parents are often given probation or suspended sentences,

and occasionally they are even awarded lower support payments

and partial payment of arrearages. To combat problems associated

with court delays, the child support statute requires States to implement expedited processes under the State judicial system or

State administrative processes for obtaining and enforcing support

orders.

Given the pivotal role of collections in the child support process,

this section now turns to detailed discussion of the most effective

collections procedures. Summary data on the effectiveness of four

top collection methods are presented in table 8–3.

Wage withholding

The Family Support Act of 1988 greatly expanded wage withholding by requiring immediate withholding to begin in November

1990 for all new or modified orders being enforced by States.

Equally important, States were required, with some exceptions, to

implement immediate wage withholding in all support orders initially issued on or after January 1, 1994, regardless of whether a

parent has applied for child support services.

TABLE 8–3.—CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS MADE BY VARIOUS ENFORCEMENT TECHNIQUES, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1989–98

[In millions of dollars]

Enforcement technique

Child support collections Percent of total collections

1989 1991 1995 1996 1997 1998 1989 1991 1995 1996 1997 

Wage withholding ................ $2,144 $3,266 $6,111 $6,731 $7,472 $8,003 40.9 47.4 56.9 56.0 55.9 Federal income tax offset ... 411 476 734 906 1,015 1,026 7.9 6.9 6.8 7.5 7.6 State income tax offset ...... 62 72 97 112 120 136 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 Unemployment compensation intercept .................. 54 143 187 211 207 204 1.0 2.1 1.7 1.8 1.5 Other 1 ................................. 2,570 2,929 3,624 4,059 4,549 4,978 49.0 42.6 33.7 33.8 34.0 

Total collections ..... 5,241 6,886 10,753 12,019 13,363 14,347 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

1 The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) does not designate the source of most of these collections. According to the OCSE, the majority of collections in th

category came from noncustodial parents who were complying with their support orders by sending their payments to the child support agency. OCSE officials maintain ability of collection data lessen when specified by techniques of collection.

Note.—Data is preliminary for fiscal year 1998.Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

492

The child support amendments of 1984 also required that States

have in effect two distinct procedures for withholding wages of noncustodial parents. First, for existing cases enforced through the

child support agency, States were required to impose wage withholding whenever an arrearage accrued that was equal to the

amount of support payable for 1 month. Second, for all child support cases, all new or modified orders were required to include a

provision for wage withholding when an arrearage occurs. The intent of the second procedure was to ensure that orders not enforced

through the child support agency contain the authority necessary

to permit wage withholding to be initiated by someone other than

the child support agency if and when an arrearage occurs.

According to the Federal statute, State due process requirements

govern the scope of notice that must be provided to an obligor (i.e.,

noncustodial parent) when withholding is triggered. As a general

rule, the noncustodial parent is entitled to advance notice of the

withholding procedure. This notice, where required, must inform

the noncustodial parent of the following: the amount that will be

withheld; the application of withholding to any current or subsequent period of employment; the procedures available for contesting the withholding and the sole basis for objection (i.e., mistake

of fact); the period allotted to contest the withholding and the result of failure to contact the State within this timeframe (i.e.,

issuance of notification to the employer to begin withholding); and

the steps the State will take if the noncustodial parent contests the

withholding, including the procedure to resolve such contests.

If the noncustodial parent contests the withholding notice, the

State must conduct a hearing, determine if the withholding is

valid, notify the noncustodial parent of the decision, and notify the

employer to commence the deductions if withholding is upheld. All

of this must occur within 45 days of the initial notice of withholding. Whether a State uses a judicial or an administrative process,

the only basis for a hearing is a factual mistake about the amount

owed (current, arrearage or both) or the identity of the noncustodial parent.

When withholding is uncontested or when a contested case is resolved in favor of withholding, the administering agency must

serve a withholding notice on the employer. The employer is required to withhold as much of the noncustodial parent’s wages as

is necessary to comply with the order, including the current support amount plus an amount to be applied toward liquidation of

any arrearage. In addition, the employer may retain a fee to offset

the administrative cost of implementing withholding. Employer

fees per wage withholding transaction range from nothing to $3 per

pay period to $5 per attachment to $10 per month (Office of Child

Support, 1986, p. 7).

The Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act limits garnishment

to 50 percent of disposable earnings for a noncustodial parent who

is the head of a household, and 60 percent for a noncustodial parent who is not supporting a second family. These percentages increase by 5 percentage points, to 55 and 65 percent respectively,

when the arrearages represent support that was due more than 12

weeks before the current pay period.

493

Upon receiving a withholding notice, the employer must begin

withholding the appropriate amount of the obligor’s wages no later

than the first pay period that occurs after 14 days following the

date the notice was mailed. The 1984 amendments regulate the

language in State statutes on the other rights and liabilities of the

employer. For instance, the employer is subject to a fine for discharging a noncustodial parent or taking other forms of retaliation

as a result of a withholding order. In addition, the employer is held

liable for amounts not withheld as directed.

In addition to being able to charge the noncustodial parent a fee

for the administrative costs associated with wage withholding, the

employer can combine all support payments required to be withheld for multiple obligors into a single payment and forward it to

the child support agency or court with a list of the cases to which

the payments apply. The employer need not vary from the normal

pay and disbursement cycle to comply with withholding orders;

however, support payments must be forwarded to the State or

other designated agency within 10 days of the date on which the

noncustodial parent is paid.

When the noncustodial parent changes jobs, the previous employer must notify the court or agency that entered the withholding

order. The State must then notify the new employer or income

source to begin withholding from the obligor’s wages. In addition,

States must develop procedures to terminate income withholding

orders when all of the children are emancipated and no arrearage

exists.

Federal law provides three exceptions to the income withholding

rule: (1) if one of the parents demonstrates, and the court (or administrative process) finds, that there is good cause not to require

immediate income withholding, (2) if both parents agree in writing

to an alternative payment arrangement, or (3) at the DHHS Secretary’s discretion, if a State can demonstrate that the rule will not

increase the effectiveness or efficiency of the State’s CSE Program.

For income withholding purposes, ‘‘income’’ means any periodic

form of payment due an individual, regardless of source, including

wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, workers’ compensation, disability, payments from a pension or retirement program, and interest.

As shown in table 8–3, the congressional emphasis on wage withholding has paid off handsomely. Although the total amount of support collected through wage withholding increased each year,

reaching $8.0 billion in 1998, the percentage of total collections

achieved through wage withholding appears to have leveled off at

about 56 percent.

Federal income tax refund offset

Under this program, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), operating on request from a State filed through the Secretary of DHHS,

simply intercepts tax returns and deducts the amount of certified

child support arrearages. The money is then sent to the State for

distribution. The availability of the IRS collection mechanism for

child support was strengthened by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97–35). IRS can now withhold past

due support from Federal tax refunds upon a simple showing by

494

the State that an individual owes at least $150 in past due support

which has been assigned to the State as a condition of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) eligibility. The withheld

amount is sent to the State agency, together with notice of the taxpayer’s current address.

The 1984 amendments created a similar IRS Offset Program for

non-AFDC families owed child support. States must submit to the

IRS for withholding the names of absent parents who have arrearages of at least $500 and who, on the basis of current payment patterns and the enforcement efforts that have been made, are unlikely to pay the arrearage before the IRS offset can occur. The law

establishes specific notice requirements and mandates that the

noncustodial parent and his spouse (if any) be informed of the impending use of the tax offset procedure. The purpose of this notice

is to protect the unobligated spouse’s portion of the tax refund. The

1988 provision applied to refunds payable after December 31, 1985,

and before January 1, 1991. Public Law 101–508, enacted in 1990,

makes permanent the IRS Offset Program for non-AFDC families.

In tax year 1998, according to DHHS, more than 1.4 million

cases were offset. The total amount intercepted was about $1.3 billion, up by a factor of well over four since 1986 ($308 million). In

tax year 1998, the average collection for Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families (TANF) families was $923; the average collection

for non-TANF families was $952.

State income tax refund offset

The child support amendments of 1984 mandate that States increase the effectiveness of the child support program by, among

other things, enacting several collection procedures. Among the required procedures is the interception of State income tax refunds

payable to noncustodial parents up to the amount of overdue support. As in the case of liens and bonds, this procedure need not be

used in cases found inappropriate under State guidelines.

In order for the State tax refund offset to work effectively, cooperation between the State’s department of revenue and the child

support agency is crucial. The names and Social Security numbers

(SSNs) of delinquent noncustodial parents are submitted to the department of revenue for matching with tax return forms. If a

match occurs and a refund is due, the refund or a portion of it is

transferred from the State department of revenue to the child support agency and then credited to the appropriate noncustodial parent to offset his support debt. The child support agency must give

advance notice of the impending offset to the noncustodial parent

and must also inform him of the process for contesting and resolving the proposed action. If the custodial parent does not respond

to the notice, the money is intercepted and forwarded to the child

support agency for distribution.

In fiscal year 1998, the State Tax Intercept Program collected

$136 million (table 8–3). Unlike the Federal program, which requires that States certify a specified amount before the offset can

be applied ($150 for TANF families and $500 for non-TANF families), States choose their own level for certification. In many States,

the amount is the same for both TANF and non-TANF families. AlVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00494 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.008 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
495

though the amounts vary greatly from State to State, the amount

in the typical State is about $100.

Unemployment compensation intercept

Public Law 97–35, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1981, requires State child support agencies to determine on a periodic basis whether individuals receiving unemployment compensation owe support obligations that are not being met. The act also

requires child support agencies to enforce support obligations in accord with State-developed guidelines for obtaining an agreement

with the individual to have a specified amount of support withheld

from unemployment compensation or, in the absence of an agreement, for bringing legal proceedings to require the withholding.

The child support agency must reimburse the State employment security agency for the administrative costs attributable to withholding unemployment compensation. The unemployment compensation intercept collected $204 million

in fiscal year 1998 (table 8–3). A number of States, especially those

with high levels of unemployment, are finding that the unemployment offset procedure can raise collections significantly.

Property liens

A lien is a legal claim on someone’s property as security against

a just debt. The use of liens for child support enforcement was

characterized during congressional debate on the child support

amendments of 1984 as ‘‘simple to execute and cost effective and

a catalyst for an absent parent to pay past due support in order

to clear title to the property in question’’ (U.S. House, 1983). The

House report also stated that liens would complement the income

withholding provisions of the 1984 law and be particularly helpful

in enforcing support payments owed by noncustodial parents with

substantial assets or income but who are not salaried employees.

The 1984 legislation required States to enact laws and implement ‘‘procedures under which liens are imposed against real property for amount of overdue support owed by an absent parent who

resides or owns property in the State.’’ Liens can apply to property

such as land, vehicles, houses, antique furniture, and livestock. The

law provides, however, that States need not use liens in cases in

which, on the basis of guidelines that generally are available to the

public, they determine that lien procedures would be inappropriate.

This provision implicitly requires States to develop guidelines

about use of liens.

Generally, a lien for delinquent child support is a statutorily created mechanism by which an obligee obtains a nonpossessory interest in property belonging to the noncustodial parent. The interest

of the custodial parent is a slumbering interest that allows the

noncustodial parent to retain possession of the property, but affects

the noncustodial parent’s ability to sell the property or transfer

ownership to anyone else. A child support lien converts the custodial parent from an unsecured to a secured creditor. As such, it

gives the custodial parent priority over unsecured creditors and

subsequent secured creditors. In some States a lien is established

automatically upon entry of a support order and the first incidence

of noncompliance by the obligor. Frequently, the mere imposition

496

of a lien will motivate the delinquent parent to pay past-due support to remove the lien. When this is not the case, it may become

necessary to enforce the lien. Liens are not self-executory. If a lien

exists, a debtor must satisfy the judgment before the property may

be sold or transferred. However, it is not necessary for the obligee

to wait until the obligor tries to transfer the property before taking

action. The obligee may enforce her judgment by execution and levy

against the property if she believes the amount of equity in the

property justifies execution.

A procedure developed by the IRS, known as Project 1099 (that

is, the number of the IRS form used), has helped several States increase their use of liens by identifying individuals who possess appropriate assets. Initiated in 1984 to assist in location efforts, since

the fall of 1988 Project 1099 has routinely provided wage and employer information as well as location and asset information on

noncustodial parents.

The welfare reform legislation passed in 1996 (Public Law 104–

193) requires States to have procedures under which liens arise by

operation of law against property for the amount of the past-due

support. States must grant full faith and credit to liens of other

States if the originating State agency or party has complied with

procedural rules relating to the recording or serving of lien.

Bonds, securities, and other guarantees

The 1984 child support amendments require States to have in effect and use procedures under which noncustodial parents must

post security, bond, or some other guarantee to secure payment of

overdue child support. This technique is useful where significant

assets exist although the noncustodial parent’s income is sporadic,

seasonal, or derived from self-employment. As in the case of liens,

this procedure need not be used in cases found inappropriate under

State guidelines. The State guidelines should define and target assets that can appropriately be sought to secure or guarantee payment without hindering the noncustodial parent from effectively

pursuing his livelihood.

IRS full collection process

Since 1975, Congress has authorized the IRS to collect certain

child support arrearages as if they were delinquent Federal taxes.

This method is known as the IRS full collection process. It works

as follows. The Secretary of DHHS must, upon the request of a

State, certify to the Secretary of Treasury any amounts identified

by the State as delinquent child support. The Secretary of DHHS

may certify only the amounts delinquent under a court or administrative order, and only upon a showing by the State that it has

made diligent and reasonable efforts to collect amounts due using

its own collection mechanisms. States must reimburse the Federal

Government for any costs involved in making the collections. This

full collection process is used only when there is a good chance that

the IRS can make a collection and only for cases in which a child

support obligation is delinquent and the amount owed has been

certified to be at least $750. Use by the States of this regular IRS

collection mechanism, which may include seizure of property, freezing of accounts, and use of other aggressive procedures, has been

497

relatively infrequent. In fiscal year 1995, collections were made in

463 cases nationwide, for a total collection of $1,153,473.

Withholding of passports and various types of licenses

The 1996 welfare reform law required States to implement procedures under which the State would have authority to withhold,

suspend, or restrict use of driver’s licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational and sporting licenses of persons

who owe past-due support or who fail to comply with subpoenas or

warrants relating to paternity or child support proceedings. The

law also authorized the Secretary of State to deny, revoke, or restrict passports of debtor parents whose child support arrearages

exceed $5,000. According to DHHS, the passport denial program

has collected more than $2.25 million in lump sum child support

payments and is currently denying 30 to 40 passports daily to delinquent noncustodial parents.

Credit bureau reporting

The 1984 Federal child support legislation required States to develop procedures for providing child support debt information to

credit reporting agencies (sometimes referred to as credit bureaus).

The primary purposes for reporting delinquent child support payers

to credit reporting agencies are to discourage noncustodial parents

from not making their child support payments, to prevent the

undeserved extension of credit, and to maintain the noncustodial

parent’s ability to pay his child support obligation. Other benefits

include access by child support agencies to address, employment,

and asset information.

The 1984 amendments require States to report overdue child support obligations exceeding $1,000 to consumer reporting agencies if such information is requested by the credit bureau. States

have the option of reporting in cases in which the noncustodial parent is less than $1,000 in arrears. States must provide noncustodial

parents with advance notice of intent to release information on

their child support arrearage and an opportunity for them to contest the accuracy of the information. The child support agency may

charge the credit bureau a fee for the information.

Public Law 102–537, the Ted Weiss Child Support Enforcement

Act of 1992, amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require consumer credit reporting agencies to include in any consumer report

information on child support delinquencies. The information is provided by or verified by State or local child support agencies. Public

Law 103–432, enacted in October 1994, includes a provision that

requires States to periodically report to consumer reporting agencies the name of parents owing at least 2 months of overdue child

support, and the amount of the child support overdue.

In order to facilitate the access of child support officials to credit

information, the 1996 welfare reform legislation states that in response to a request by the head of a State or local CSE agency or

other authorized official; consumer credit agencies must release information if the person making the request makes all of the following certifications: that the consumer report is needed to establish

and individual’s capacity to make child support payments or determine the level of payments; that paternity has been established or

498

acknowledged; that the consumer has been given at least 10 days

notice by certified or registered mail that the report is being requested; and that the consumer report will be kept confidential,

will be used solely for child support purposes, and will not be used

in connection with any other civil, administrative, or criminal proceeding or for any other purpose. Consumer reporting agencies also

must give reports to a CSE agency for use in setting an initial or

modified award. These provisions amend the Fair Credit Reporting

Act.

The 1996 law also requires States to periodically report to consumer reporting agencies the name of any noncustodial parent who

is delinquent in the payment of support and the amount of pastdue support owed by the parent. Before such a report can be sent,

the obligor must have been afforded all due process rights, including notice and reasonable opportunity to contest the claim of child

support delinquency.

Enforcement against Federal employees

The 1975 child support legislation included a provision allowing

garnishment of wages and other payments by the Federal Government for enforcement of child support and alimony obligations. The

law also provided that moneys payable by the United States to any

individual for employment are subject to legal proceedings brought

for the enforcement of child support or alimony. The law sets forth

in detail the procedures that must be followed for service of legal

process and specifies that the term ‘‘based upon remuneration for

employment’’ includes wages, periodic benefits for the payment of

pensions, retirement pay including Social Security, and other kinds

of Federal payments.

The 1996 welfare reform law substantially revised child support

enforcement for Federal employees, including retirees and military

personnel. As under prior law, Federal employees are subject to income withholding and other actions taken against them by State

CSE agencies. However, every Federal agency is responsible for responding to a State CSE Program as if the Federal agency were a

private business. The head of each Federal agency must designate

an agent, whose name and address must be published annually in

the Federal Register, to be responsible for handling child support

cases. The agency must respond to withholding notices and other

matters brought to its attention by CSE officials. Child support

claims are given priority in the allocation of Federal employee income.

Enforcement against military personnel

Child support enforcement workers face unique difficulties when

working on cases in which the absent parent is an active duty

member of the military service. Learning to work through military

channels can prove both challenging and frustrating, especially if

the child support agency is not near a military base. As a result,

military cases are often ignored or not given sufficient attention

(Office of Child Support, 1991).

Public Law 97–248, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act

of 1982, requires allotments from the pay and allowances of any active duty member of the uniformed service who fails to make child

499

or spousal support payments. This requirement arises when the

service member fails to make support payments in an amount at

least equal to the value of 2 months’ worth of support. Provisions

of the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act apply, limiting the

percentage of the member’s pay that is subject to allotment. The

amount of the allotment is the amount of the support payment, as

established under a legally enforceable administrative or judicial

order.

Since October 1, 1995, the Department of Defense has consolidated its garnishment operations at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Cleveland, Ohio. Support orders received by the

Service are processed immediately and notices are sent to the appropriate military pay center to start payments in the first pay

cycle (Office of Child Support, 1995c).

As a result of the 1996 welfare reform law, the Secretary of Defense must establish a central personnel locator service, which

must be updated on a regular basis, that permits location of every

member of the Armed Services. The Secretary of each branch of the

military service must grant leave to facilitate attendance at child

support hearings and other child support proceedings. The Secretary of each branch also must withhold support from retirement

pay and forward it to State disbursement units.

Small business loans

The 103d Congress passed legislation, the Small Business Administration Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1994 (Public

Law 103–403), which included the requirement that recipients of financial assistance from the Small Business Administration, including direct loans and loan guarantees, must certify that the recipient is not more than 60 days delinquent in the payment of child

support.

Other provisions

On February 27, 1995, President Clinton signed an Executive

order establishing the executive branch of the Federal Government,

including its civilian employees and the uniformed services members, as a model employer in promoting and facilitating the establishment and enforcement of child support. The Executive order

states that the Federal Government is the Nation’s largest single

employer and as such should set an example of leadership and encouragement in ensuring that all children are properly supported.

Among other measures, the order requires the Federal agencies

and the uniformed services to cooperate fully in efforts to establish

paternity and child support orders and to enforce the collection of

child and medical support. The order also requires Federal agencies

to provide information to their personnel concerning the services

that are available to them and to ensure that their children are

provided the support to which they are legally entitled (Office of

Child Support, 1995b).

The 1996 welfare reform law requires States to implement expedited procedures that allow them to secure assets to satisfy arrearages by intercepting or seizing periodic or lump sum payments

(such as unemployment and workers’ compensation), lottery

winnings, awards, judgments, or settlements. States must also

500

have expedited procedures that allow them to seize assets of the

debtor parent held by public or private retirement funds and financial institutions.

INTERSTATE ENFORCEMENT

The most difficult child support orders to enforce are interstate

cases. States are required to cooperate in interstate child support

enforcement, but problems arise from the autonomy of local courts.

Family law has traditionally been under the jurisdiction of State

and local governments, and citizens fall under the jurisdiction of

the courts where they live.

During the 1930s and 1940s, such laws were used to establish

and enforce support obligations when the noncustodial parent, custodial parent, and child lived in the same State. But when noncustodial parents lived out of State, enforcing child support was

cumbersome and ineffective. Often the only option in these cases

was to extradite the noncustodial parent and, when successful, to

jail the person for nonsupport. This procedure, rarely used, generally punished the irresponsible parent, but left the abandoned

family without financial support.

A University of Michigan study (Hill, 1988) of separated parents

found that 12 percent lived in different States 1 year after divorce

or separation. That proportion increased to 25 percent after 3

years, and to 40 percent after 8 years. Estimates based on the Federal income tax refund offset and other sources suggest that approximately 30 percent of all child support cases involve interstate

residency of the custodial and noncustodial parents (Weaver & Williams, 1989, p. 510). According to U.S. Census Bureau (1991) data,

20 percent of noncustodial parents lived in a different State than

their children, 3 percent lived overseas, and the residence of 11

percent of the noncustodial parents was unknown.

Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA)

Starting in 1950, interstate cooperation was promoted through

the adoption by the States of URESA. This act, which was first proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform

State Laws in 1950, has been enacted in all 50 States, the District

of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The act

was amended in 1952 and 1958 and revised in 1968. Thus, even

though every State has passed some provisions of URESA, many

provisions vary from State to State. URESA, in short, is uniform

in name only.

The purpose of URESA was to provide a system for the interstate

enforcement of support orders without requiring the person seeking

support to go (or have her legal representative go) to the State in

which the noncustodial parent resided. Where the URESA provisions between the two States are compatible, the law can be used

to establish paternity, locate an absent parent, and establish, modify, or enforce a support order across State lines. However, some

observers note that the use of URESA procedures often resulted in

lower orders for both current support and arrearages. They also

contend that few child support agencies attempted to use URESA

procedures to establish paternity or to obtain a modification in a

support order.

501

Long arm statutes

Unlike URESA, interstate cases established or enforced by long

arm statutes use the court system in the State of the custodial parent rather than that of the noncustodial parent. When a person

commits certain acts in a State of which he is not a resident, that

person may be subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of that State.

The long arm of the law of the State where the event occurs may

reach out to grab the out-of-State person so that issues relating to

the event may be resolved where it happened. Under the long arm

procedure, the State must authorize by statute that the acts allegedly committed by the defendant are those that subject the defendant to the State’s jurisdiction. An example is a paternity statute

stating that if conception takes place in the State and the child

lives in the State, the State may exercise jurisdiction over the alleged father even if he lives in another State. Long arm statute

language usually extends the State’s jurisdiction over an out-ofState defendant to the maximum extent permitted by the U.S. Constitution under the 14th amendment’s due process clause. Long

arm statutes may be used to establish paternity, establish support

awards, and enforce support orders.

Federal courts

The 1975 child support law mandated that the State plan for

child support require States to cooperate with other States in establishing paternity, locating absent parents, and securing compliance with court orders. Further, it authorized the use of Federal

courts as a last resort to enforce an existing order in another State

if that State were uncooperative.

Section 460 of the Social Security Act provides that the district

courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, without regard

to any amount in controversy, to hear and determine any civil action certified by the Secretary of DHHS under section 452(a)(8) of

the act. A civil action under section 460 may be brought in any judicial district in which the claim arose, the plaintiff resides, or the

defendant resides. Section 452(a)(8) states that the Secretary of

DHHS shall receive applications from States for permission to use

the courts of the United States to enforce court orders for support

against noncustodial parents. The Secretary must approve applications if she finds both that a given State has not enforced a court

order of another State within a reasonable time and that using the

Federal courts is the only reasonable method of enforcing the order.

As a condition of obtaining certification from the Secretary, the

child support agency of the initiating State must give the child support agency of the responding State at least 60 days to enforce the

order as well as a 30-day warning of its intent to seek enforcement

in Federal court. If the initiating State receives no response within

the 30-day limit, or if the response is unsatisfactory, the initiating

State may apply to the Office of Child Support Enforcement

(OCSE) Regional Office for certification. The application must attest that all the requirements outlined above have been satisfied.

Upon certification of the case, a civil action may be filed in the U.S.

district court. Although this interstate enforcement procedure has

been available since enactment of the child support program in

1975, there has only been one reported case of its use by a State

502

(the initiating State was California; the responding State was

Texas).

Interstate income withholding

Interstate income withholding is a process by which the State of

the custodial parent seeks the help of the State in which the noncustodial parent’s income is earned to enforce a support order using

the income withholding mechanism. Pursuant to the child support

amendments of 1984, income withholding was authorized for all

valid instate or out-of-State orders issued or modified after October

1, 1985, and for all orders being enforced by the IV–D program, regardless of the date the order was issued. Although Federal law requires a State to enforce another State’s valid orders through interstate withholding, there is no Federal mandate that interstate income withholding procedures be uniform. Approaches vary from the

Model Interstate Income Withholding Act to URESA registration.

The preferred way to handle an interstate income withholding request is to use the interstate action transmittal form from one child

support agency to another. In child support enforcement cases,

Federal regulations required that by August 22, 1988, all interstate

income withholding requests be sent to the enforcing State’s central

registry for referral to the appropriate State or local official. The

actual wage withholding procedure used by the State in which the

noncustodial parent lives is the same as that used in intrastate

cases. In a 1992 report (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992a, p.

4 & pp. 21–28), GAO indicated that the main reason for the failure

of interstate income withholding was the lack of uniformity in its

implementation.

The 1996 welfare law required the DHHS Secretary, in consultation with State CSE directors, to issue forms by October 1, 1996

that States must use for income withholding, for imposing liens,

and for issuing administrative subpoenas in interstate cases. States

were required to begin using the forms by March 1, 1997.

Full faith and credit

One of the most significant barriers to improved interstate collections is that, because a child support order is not considered a final

judgment, the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution

does not preclude modification. Thus, the order is subject to modification upon a showing of changed circumstances by the issuing

court or by another court with jurisdiction. Congress could prohibit

inter- or intrastate modifications of child support orders, but many

students of child support hold that a complete ban on modifications

would be unrealistic and unfair. A more likely approach would be

one under which States were required to give full faith and credit

to each other’s child support orders under most circumstances.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, Public Law 99–

509, took a step in this direction by requiring States to treat past

due support obligations as final judgments entitled to full faith and

credit in every State. Thus, a person who has a support order in

one State does not have to obtain a second order in another State

to obtain the money due should the debtor parent move from the

issuing court’s jurisdiction. The second State can modify the order

prospectively if it finds that circumstances exist to justify a change,

503

but the second State may not retroactively modify a child support

order.

Public Law 103–383, the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support

Orders Act of 1994, restricts a State court’s ability to modify a

child support order issued by another State unless the child and

the custodial parent have moved to the State where the modification is sought or have agreed to the modification.

The full faith and credit rules of the 1996 welfare reform law

clarify the definition of a child’s home State, make several revisions

to ensure that the rules can be applied consistently with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), and clarify the rules

regarding which child support order States must honor when there

is more than one order.

Federal criminal penalties

The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 imposed a Federal criminal penalty for the willful failure to pay a past due child support

obligation to a child who resides in another State and that has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater than $5,000. For

the first conviction, the penalty is a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both; for a second conviction,

the penalty is a fine of not more than $250,000, imprisonment for

up to 2 years, or both.

In response to concerns of law enforcement officials and prosecutors that the 1992 law did not adequately address more serious instances of nonpayment of child support obligations, Congress

passed the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 (Public Law

105–187). The law establishes two new categories of felony offenses, subject to a 2-year maximum prison term. The offenses are:

(1) traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to

evade a support obligation if the obligation has remained unpaid

for more than 1 year or is greater than $5,000; and (2) willfully

failing to pay a child support obligation regarding a child residing

in another State if the obligation has remained unpaid for more

than 2 years or is greater than $10,000. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the administration’s criminal child support enforcement initiative, ‘‘Project Save

Our Children,’’ has investigated 800 cases resulting in 275 arrests,

210 convictions, and the payment of $5.3 million in past-due child

support payments. The initiative is conducted by officials from the

DHHS Office of Inspector General, the OCSE, the Department of

Justice, State CSE agencies, and local law enforcement organizations working together to pursue chronic delinquent parents who

owe large sums of child support.

Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)

UIFSA was drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners

on Uniform State Laws and approved by the Commissioners in August 1992. It is designed to deal with desertion and nonsupport by

instituting uniform laws in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. The core of UIFSA is limiting control of a child support case

to a single State, thereby ensuring that only one child support

order from one court or child support agency is in effect at any

given time. It follows that the controlling State will be able to effecVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00503 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.008 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
504

tively pursue interstate cases, primarily through the use of long

arm statutes, because its jurisdiction is undisputed. Many, perhaps

most, child support officials believe UIFSA will help eliminate jurisdictional disputes between States and lead to substantial increases in interstate collections.

UIFSA allows: (1) direct income withholding by the controlling

State without second State involvement; (2) administrative enforcement without registration; and (3) registered enforcement based on

the substantive laws of the controlling State and the procedural

laws of the registering State. The order cannot be adjusted if only

enforcement is requested, and enforcement may begin upon registration (before notice and hearing) if the receiving State’s due

process rules allow such enforcement. The controlling State may

adjust the support order under its own standards. In addition,

UIFSA includes some uniform evidentiary rules to make interstate

case handling easier, such as using telephonic hearings, easing admissibility of evidence requirements, and admitting petitions into

evidence without the need for live or corroborative testimony to

make a prima facie case.

The 1996 welfare reform law required all States to enact UIFSA,

including all amendments, before January 1, 1998. States are not

required to use UIFSA in all cases if they determine that using

other interstate procedures would be more effective. As of February

1998, all States and jurisdictions had adopted UIFSA, except

Guam, Kentucky, New Jersey, and the Virgin Islands.

Other procedures that aid interstate enforcement

In 1948, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform

State Laws and the American Bar Association approved the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), which simplifies the collection of child support arrearages in interstate cases.

Revised in 1964 and adopted in only 30 States, UEFJA provides

that upon the filing of an authenticated foreign (i.e., out-of-State)

judgment and notice to the obligor, the judgment is to be treated

in the same manner as a local one. A judgment is the official decision or finding of a court on the respective rights of the involved

parties. UEFJA applies only to final judgments. As a general rule,

child support arrearages that have been reduced to judgment are

considered final judgments and thus can be filed under UEFJA. An

advantage of UEFJA is that it does not require reciprocity (i.e., it

need only be in effect in the initiating State). A disadvantage is

that UEFJA is limited to collection of arrearages; it cannot be used

to establish an initial order or to enforce current orders.

In fiscal year 1997, there were 2.4 million interstate cases in

which collections were sent to or received from other States. This

represents a 60 percent increase over the 1.5 million interstate

cases that yielded a payment in fiscal year 1990. Similarly, in fiscal

year 1997, $1.824 billion was collected for interstate cases, up from

$825 million (21 percent) in fiscal year 1990.

Expedited procedures and the financial institution data match program

Regardless of whether a State uses judicial processes, administrative processes, or a combination, the 1996 welfare reform law reVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00504 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.008 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
505

quired States to adopt a series of procedures to expedite both the

establishment of paternity and the establishment, enforcement,

and modification of child support. These procedures must give the

State CSE agency the authority to take several enforcement actions, subject to due process safeguards, without the necessity of

obtaining an order from any other judicial or administrative tribunal. For example, States must have expedited procedures to secure

assets to satisfy an arrearage by intercepting or seizing periodic or

lump sum payments (such as unemployment and workers’ compensation), lottery winnings, awards, judgments, or settlements,

and assets of the debtor parent held by public or private retirement

funds and financial institutions.

The 1996 law also required States to enter into agreements with

financial institutions conducting business within their State for the

purpose of conducting a quarterly data match. The data match is

intended to identify financial accounts (in banks, credit unions,

money-market mutual funds, etc.) belonging to parents who are delinquent in the payment of their child support obligation. When a

match is identified, State CSE agencies may issue liens or levies

on the account(s) of the delinquent parent to collect the past-due

child support. In 1998, Congress made it easier for multistate financial institutions to match records by permitting the Federal

Parent Locator Service (FPLS) to help them coordinate their information. According to DHHS, 662,000 financial accounts with a

value of about $1 billion have been matched since August 1999.

States are using their expedited procedures to seize the accounts

and thereby force debtor noncustodial parents to meet their child

support obligations.

Summary information on collection methods

Table 8–3 shows that 65 percent of the $14.3 billion in child support payments collected in fiscal year 1998 was obtained through

four enforcement techniques: wage withholding, Federal income tax

refund offset, State income tax refund offset, and unemployment

compensation intercept. The remaining 35 percent is listed as collected by ‘‘other’’ means. The ‘‘other’’ category includes collections

from parents who have informal agreements, collections from noncustodial parents who voluntarily sent money for their children

even though a support order had never been established (about 4

percent of all collections), and enforcement techniques such as liens

against property, license and passport revocation, seizure of assets

from financial institutions, posting of bonds or securities, and use

of the full IRS collection procedure. Table 8–3 indicates that by fiscal year 1991 wage withholding had become the primary enforcement method, producing nearly 47 percent of all child support collections. By 1998, the percentage had increased even further,

reaching 56 percent.

PRIVATE COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

According to the OCSE, the Child Support Enforcement Program

handles about 50 percent of all child support cases. The rest are

handled by private attorneys, private collection agencies, locallyfunded public child support enforcement agencies, or through mutual agreements between the parents.

506

Nonfederal CSE activities.—Some localities have taken it upon

themselves to operate a child support program using local funding

sources and fees levied against noncustodial parents. A major complaint of these localities is that the enforcement tools (e.g., Federal

and State tax refund intercepts, license sanctions, passport sanctions, data matches with financial institutions, reporting of delinquencies to credit bureaus) that are now available only to the Federal/State CSE Program should be extended to the entities working

outside the Federal/State system and to private contractors as well.

However, State child support agencies, advocates representing both

noncustodial and custodial parents, and privacy rights organizations have voiced concerns about such an approach, particularly as

it relates to private agencies.

CSE privatization.—While doing business with public and private sector entities outside the CSE Program for such things as

laboratory testing for paternity establishment, service of process,

and automated systems development is not new in the CSE Program, contracting out all of the program’s functions is new. This

approach is usually referred to as privatization.

According to a December 1996 U.S. General Accounting Office report, 15 States had turned to full-service privatization of selected

local CSE offices as a way to improve performance that had been

hampered by growing caseloads, resource constraints, and increased Federal requirements. For some localities, privatization is

also a response to State restrictions on hiring additional public employees.

In many more States, the State or locality had a contract with

a private entity to perform one or several services to supplement

the efforts of the State or local program. Most commonly, States

contract with the private sector for the collection of past-due support, especially support considered hard to collect. Under the terms

of most collection contracts, States pay contractors only if collections are made and payments to contractors are often a fixed percentage of the recovered arrearage payments.

STATE COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT OF SUPPORT

PAYMENTS

One of the major child support provisions of the 1996 welfare reform legislation was the requirement that by October 1, 1998, State

CSE agencies must operate a centralized, automated unit for collection and disbursement of payments on two categories of child support orders: those enforced by the CSE agency and those issued or

modified after December 31, 1993 which are not enforced by the

State CSE agency but for which the noncustodial parent’s income

is subject to withholding.

The State disbursement unit must be operated directly by the

State CSE agency, by two or more State CSE agencies under a regional cooperative agreement, or by a contractor responsible directly to the State CSE agency. The State disbursement unit may

be established by linking local disbursement units through an automated information network if the DHHS Secretary agrees that the

system will not cost more, take more time to establish, nor take

more time to operate than a single State system. All States, includVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00506 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.008 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
507

ing those that operate a linked system, must give employers one

and only one location for submitting withheld income.

The disbursement unit must be used to collect and disburse support payments, to generate orders and notices of withholding to

employers, to keep an accurate identification of payments, to

promptly distribute money to custodial parents or other States, and

to furnish parents with a record of the current status of support

payments made after August 22, 1996. The disbursement unit

must use automated procedures, electronic processes, and

computer-driven technology to the maximum extent feasible, efficient, and economical.

The disbursement unit must distribute all amounts payable within 2 business days after receiving the money and identifying information from the employer or other source of periodic income if sufficient information identifying the payee is provided. The unit may

retain arrearages in the case of appeals until they are resolved.

States must use their automated system to facilitate collection

and disbursement including at least: (1) transmission of orders and

notices to employers within 2 days after receipt of the withholding

notice; (2) monitoring to identify missed payments of support; and

(3) automatic use of enforcement procedures when payments are

missed.

The collection and disbursement unit provisions went into effect

on October 1, 1998. States that process child support payments

through local courts were allowed to continue court payments until

September 30, 1999.

Following enactment of this provision in August 1996, there was

widespread misunderstanding about its breadth of application.

Thus, it is useful to emphasize here that not all child support orders must be a part of the State disbursement unit. First, orders

issued before 1994 that are not being enforced by the State Child

Support Enforcement Agency are exempt. Second, parents can

avoid both wage withholding and involvement in the child support

enforcement system if at the time the original order is issued, the

judge determines that private payment directly between parents is

acceptable.

Because of the total loss of CSE funding plus possible loss of

TANF Block Grant funding for States that are not in compliance

with the State plan requirement related to State disbursement

units, in November 1999, Congress passed legislation (Public Law

106–113) that imposes a lesser alternative penalty for these States.

To qualify, States must have submitted a corrective compliance

plan by April l, 2000, that describes how, by when, and at what

cost the State would achieve compliance with the State disbursement unit requirement. The DHHS Secretary is required to reduce

the amount the State would otherwise have received in Federal

child support payments by the penalty amount for the fiscal year.

The penalty amount percentage is 4 percent in the case of the first

fiscal year of noncompliance; 8 percent in the second year; 16 percent in the third year; 25 percent in the fourth year; and 30 percent in the fifth and subsequent years. If a State that is subject to

a penalty achieves compliance on or before April l, 2000, the DHHS

Secretary is required to waive the first year penalty. If a State

achieves compliance on or after April 1, 2000, and on or before SepVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00507 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.008 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
508

tember 30, 2000, the penalty percentage will be 1. In addition, Public Law 106–113 provides that States that fail to implement both

the CSE automated data processing requirement and the State disbursement unit requirement are subject to only one alternative

penalty process.

BANKRUPTCY AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Giving debtors a fresh start is the goal of this country’s bankruptcy system. Depending on the type of bankruptcy, a debtor may

be able to discharge a debt completely, pay a percentage of the

debt, or pay the full amount of the debt over a longer period of

time. However, several types of debts are not dischargeable, including debts for child support and alimony (U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support, 1992, p. 209).

The 1975 child support legislation included a provision stating

that an assigned child support obligation was not dischargeable in

bankruptcy. In 1978 this provision was incorporated into the uniform law on bankruptcy. The bankruptcy law also listed exceptions

to discharge including alimony and maintenance or support due a

spouse, former spouse, or child. In 1981, a provision stating that

a child support obligation assigned to the State as a condition of

eligibility for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) is

not dischargeable in bankruptcy was reinstated. In 1984, the provision was expanded so that child support obligations assigned to the

State as part of the child support program may not be discharged

in bankruptcy, regardless of whether the payments are to be made

on behalf of a Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or

a non-TANF family and regardless of whether the debtor was married to the child’s other parent.

Some noncustodial parents seek relief from their financial obligations in the U.S. bankruptcy courts. Although child support payments may not be discharged via a filing of bankruptcy, the filing

may cause long delays in securing child support payments. Pursuant to Public Law 103–394, enacted in 1994, a filing of bankruptcy

will not stay a paternity, child support, or alimony proceeding. In

addition, child support and alimony payments are priority claims

and custodial parents are able to appear in bankruptcy court to

protect their interests without having to pay a fee or meet any local

rules for attorney appearances.

The 1996 welfare reform legislation amends the U.S. Bankruptcy

Code to ensure that any child support debt that is owed to a State

and that is enforceable under the CSE Program cannot be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.

AUTOMATED SYSTEMS

In 1980, Congress authorized 90 percent Federal matching funds

on an open-ended basis for States to design and implement automated data systems. Funds go to States that establish an automated data processing and information retrieval system designed

to assist in administration of the State child support plan, and to

control, account for, and monitor all factors in the enforcement, collection, and paternity determination processes. Funds may be used

to plan, design, develop, and install or enhance the system. The

509

Secretary of DHHS must approve the State system as meeting

specified conditions before matching is available.

In 1984, Congress made the 90-percent rate available to pay for

the acquisition of computer hardware and necessary software. The

1984 legislation also specified that if a State met the Federal requirement for 90 percent matching, it could use its funds to pay for

the development and improvement of income withholding and other

procedures required by the 1984 law. In May 1986, OCSE established a transfer policy requiring States seeking the 90 percent

Federal matching rate to transfer existing automated systems from

other States rather than to develop new ones, unless there were a

compelling reason not to use the systems developed by other

States.

In 1988, Congress required States without comprehensive statewide automated systems to submit an advance planning document

to the OCSE by October 1, 1991, for the development of such a system. Congress required that all States have a fully operating system by October 1, 1995, at which time the 90 percent matching

rate was to end. The 1988 law allowed many requirements for

automated systems to be waived under certain circumstances. For

instance, the DHHS Secretary could waive a requirement if a State

demonstrated that it had an alternative system enabling it to substantially comply with program requirements.

As of September 30, 1995, OCSE had approved the automated

data systems of only six States—Delaware, Georgia, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. Most observers agree that

States were delayed primarily by the lateness of Federal regulations specifying the requirements for the data systems and by the

complexity of getting their final systems into operation. Thus, on

October 12, 1995, Congress enacted Public Law 104–35 which extended for 2 years, from October 1, 1995 to October 1, 1997, the

deadline by which States were required to have statewide automated systems for their child support programs. On October 1,

1995, however, the 90 percent matching rate was ended; the Federal matching rate for State spending on data systems reverted

back to the basic administrative rate of 66 percent.

The purpose of requiring States to operate statewide automated

and computerized systems is to ensure that child support functions

are carried out effectively and efficiently. These requirements include case initiation, case management, financial management, enforcement, security, privacy, and reporting. Implementing these requirements can facilitate locating noncustodial parents and monitoring child support cases. For example, by linking automated

child support systems to other State databases, information can be

obtained quickly and cheaply about a noncustodial parent’s current

address, assets, and employment status. Systems can also be connected to the court system to access information on child support

orders (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992b).

Under the 1996 welfare reform legislation, States are required to

have a statewide automated data processing and information retrieval system which has the capacity to perform a wide variety of

functions with a specified frequency. The State data system must

be used to perform functions the DHHS Secretary specifies, including controlling and accounting for the use of Federal, State, and

510

local funds and maintaining the data necessary to meet Federal reporting requirements. The automated system must maintain the

requisite data for Federal reporting, calculate the State’s performance for purposes of the incentive and penalty provisions, and have

in place systems controls to ensure the completeness, reliability,

and accuracy of the data. Final regulations were issued by the Secretary in August 1998.

The 1996 welfare reform law stipulated that, first, all automatic

data processing requirements enacted on or before the date of enactment of the Family Support Act of 1988 (i.e., October 13, 1988)

are to be met by October 1, 1997. Second, requirements enacted on

or before August 22, 1996 must be met by October 1, 2000. The

Federal Government continued the 90 percent matching rate in

1996 and 1997 for provisions outlined in advanced planning documents submitted before September 30, 1995.

The Secretary must create procedures to cap payments to the States to meet the new requirements at $400 million for fiscal

years 1996–2001. The Federal matching rate for the new requirements will be 80 percent. Funds are to be distributed among States

by a formula set in regulations which takes into account the relative size of State caseloads and the level of automation needed to

meet applicable automatic data processing requirements.

The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (Public

Law 105–200), gives the DHHS Secretary an alternative to assessing a 100 percent penalty (i.e., loss of all CSE funding) on States

that failed to comply with the October 1, 1997 statewide automated

system requirements. The alternative penalty is available to States

that the Secretary determines have made and are continuing to

make good faith efforts to comply with the automated system requirements (and have submitted a ‘‘corrective action plan’’ that describes how, by when, and at what cost the State will achieve compliance with the automated system requirements). The alternative

percentage penalty is equal to 4, 8, 16, 25, and 30 percent respectively for the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth or subsequent

years of failing to comply with the data processing requirements.

The percentage penalty is to be applied to the amount payable to

the State in the previous year as Federal administrative reimbursement under the child support program (i.e., the 66 percent

Federal matching funds). A State that fails to comply with the

1996 automated system requirements may nonetheless have its annual penalty reduced by 20 percent for each performance measure

under the new incentive system for which it achieves a maximum

score. Thus, for example, a State being penalized would have its

penalty for a given year reduced by 60 percent if it achieved maximum performance on three of the five proposed performance measures. Further, the Secretary is to reduce the annual penalty

amount by 90 percent in the year in which a State achieves compliance with the automated system requirements. These alternative

penalties apply to all CSE automated system requirements (i.e.,

those required by both Public Law 100–485 and Public Law 104–

193). However, Public Law 105–200 only allows the Secretary to

impose one penalty in any given year. This means that if a State

is not in compliance in fiscal year 2000 with either the 1988 automated system requirements or the 1996 requirements, it can only

511

be penalized once. The 1998 law also stipulates that because States

are subject to the alternative penalty procedures for violations of

the CSE automated system requirements, they are exempt from

the TANF penalty procedure for such violations.

As of January 6, 2000, 11 jurisdictions had not been certified as

meeting the October 1, 1997 CSE automated systems requirements;

7 States had not yet scheduled a certification review (California,

Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina, and the Virgin

Islands), and 4 States had reports pending (District of Columbia,

Indiana, Kansas, and North Dakota).

AUDITS AND FINANCIAL PENALTIES

Audits are required at least every 3 years to determine whether

the standards and requirements prescribed by law and regulations

have been met by the child support program of every State. If a

State fails the audit, Federal TANF funds must be reduced by an

amount equal to at least 1 but not more than 2 percent for the first

failure to comply, at least 2 but not more than 3 percent for the

second failure, and at least 3 but not more than 5 percent for the

third and subsequent failures.

If a penalty is imposed after a followup review, a State may appeal the audit penalty to the DHHS Departmental Appeals Board.

Payment of the penalty is delayed while the appeal is pending. The

appeals board reviews the written records which may be supplemented by informal conferences and evidentiary hearings.

The penalty may be suspended for up to 1 year to allow a State

time to implement corrective actions to remedy the program deficiency. At the end of the corrective action period, a followup audit

is conducted in the areas of deficiency. If the followup audit shows

that the deficiency has been corrected, the penalty is rescinded.

However, if the State remains out of compliance with Federal requirements, a graduated penalty, as provided by law, is assessed

against the State. The actual amount of the penalty—between 1

and 5 percent of the State’s TANF matching funds (see above)—depends on the severity and the duration of the deficiency. If a State

is under penalty, a comprehensive audit is conducted annually

until the cited deficiencies are corrected (Office of Child Support,

1994, pp. 17–19).

The welfare reform law of 1996 requires States to annually review and report to the DHHS Secretary, using data from their

automatic data processing system, both information adequate to determine the State’s compliance with Federal requirements for expedited procedures and case processing as well as the information

necessary to calculate their levels of accomplishment and rates of

improvement on the performance indicators.

The Secretary is required to determine the amount (if any) of incentives or penalties. She also must review State reports on compliance with Federal requirements and provide States with recommendations for corrective action. The purpose of the audits is to

assess the completeness, reliability, and security of data reported

for use in calculating the performance indicators and to assess the

adequacy of financial management of the State program.

In addition to the 1–5 percent penalty for States that the DHHS

Secretary has found, via an audit, to have failed to substantially

512

comply with CSE State plan requirements, there is the possibility

of complete elimination of CSE funding in cases in which a State’s

program has been disapproved. The Secretary must disapprove the

plans of States which fail to implement the CSE State plan requirements under section 454 of the Social Security Act. Disapproval of a State’s plan will result in the cessation of all Federal

child support funding for the State. In addition, because operating

an approved Child Support Enforcement Program is a prerequisite

to a State’s receiving funds under the TANF Program, a State’s

TANF funds also would be terminated. (See above sections on

Automated Systems and State Collection and Disbursement of Support Payments for more details.)

As mentioned elsewhere in this chapter, there are two exceptions

to this rule. First, CSE law establishes an alternative penalty for

a State’s failure to meet the automated data systems requirements.

Second, CSE law (Public Law 106–113) establishes an alternative

penalty for a State’s failure to meet the automated centralized disbursement unit requirements.

ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD SUPPORT

COLLECTIONS

Two parties have claims on child support collections made by the

State. The children and custodial parent on behalf of whom the

payments are made, of course, have a claim on payments by the

noncustodial parent. However, in the case of families that have received public aid, taxpayers who paid to support the destitute family by providing a host of welfare benefits also have a legitimate

claim on the money.

Since the child support program’s inception, the rules determining the distribution of arrearage payments have been complex, but

not nearly as complicated as they are currently. It is helpful to

think of the rules in two categories. First, there are rules in both

Federal and State law that stipulate who has a legal claim on the

payments owed by the noncustodial parent. These are called assignment rules. Second, there are rules that determine the order

in which child support collections are paid in accord with the assignment rules. These are called distribution rules.

DISTRIBUTION OF PAYMENTS WHILE THE FAMILY RECEIVES PUBLIC

ASSISTANCE

When a family applies for TANF, the custodial parent must assign to the State the right to collect both current child support payments and past-due child support obligations which accrue while

the family is on the TANF rolls. Arrearages that accrued to the

family before it went on public assistance are called ‘‘preassistance’’

arrearages; those that accrue while the family is on public assistance are called ‘‘permanently-assigned arrearages.’’ While the family receives TANF benefits, the State is permitted to retain any

current support and any arrearages it collects up to the cumulative

amount of TANF benefits which has been paid to the family. Before

the 1996 reforms, States were required by Federal law to pay (or

‘‘pass through’’) the first $50 of collections to the family. This provision was repealed by the 1996 legislation and States were given the

513

right to decide for themselves how much, if any, of their collections

would be passed through to the family, although they must pay the

Federal share of collections. Thus, amounts passed through come

entirely out of the State share of collections. States also have the

right to decide whether they treat any child support passed

through to the family as income, in which case they may reduce or

even eliminate TANF payments.

DISTRIBUTION OF PAYMENTS AFTER THE FAMILY LEAVES PUBLIC

ASSISTANCE

Distribution rules after the family leaves public assistance are

far more complicated. Most of the problems stem from the requirements that preassistance arrears be assigned to the State, and that

certain arrearages otherwise owed to the former welfare family are

deemed to be owed to the State when the collection is made by Federal tax refund intercept.

When a family leaves welfare, States are required to keep track

of six categories of arrearages: (1) permanently assigned; (2) temporarily assigned; (3) conditionally assigned; (4) never assigned; (5)

unassigned during assistance; and (6) unassigned preassistance.

On the computer, these different categories are called ‘‘buckets.’’

The money shifts among the buckets according to the source of the

collection, the family’s status on or off assistance when the arrearage accrued, the amount of the unreimbursed public assistance balance, and the date of the assignment of support rights as well as

the date the TANF case closed (because of phased-in implementation dates). Moreover, the distribution rules differ depending on

whether the family went on welfare before or after October 1, 1997.

Families that assigned their rights to preassistance arrearages to

the State before October 1, 1997, have ‘‘permanently-assigned arrearages,’’ which are owed to the State. Families that assign their

rights to preassistance arrearages to the State on or after October

1, 1997, have ‘‘temporarily-assigned arrearages.’’ Temporarilyassigned arrearages and permanently-assigned arrearages are

treated differently after a family leaves public assistance. Temporarily-assigned arrearages become ‘‘conditionally-assigned arrearages’’ when the family leaves welfare or on October 1, 2000, whichever is later. These are called conditionally-assigned arrearages because, as will be seen below, if they are collected by Federal tax

refund intercept, they will be paid to the State, not the family.

There are also categories for ‘‘never-assigned arrearages,’’ which

accrue after the family’s most recent period of assistance ends.

These can become temporarily-assigned arrearages if the family

goes back on public assistance. In addition, there are ‘‘unassigned

during assistance arrearages’’ and ‘‘unassigned preassistance arrearages.’’ These are previously assigned arrearages which exceed

the cumulative amount of unreimbursed assistance when the family leaves public assistance, and which accrued either during (unassigned during assistance arrearages) or prior to (unassigned

preassistance arrearages) receipt of assistance.

When the family leaves public assistance, the order of distribution of any collection depends not only on when the arrearages accrued—preassistance, during-assistance, or postassistance—and

when they were assigned, but also on when and how the past-due

514

support was collected. If the collection was made by any means

other than the Federal tax refund intercept, the collection is first

paid to the family up to the amount of the monthly child support

obligation. Any remaining collection is distributed to certain categories of arrearages owed to the family (conditionally assigned,

never assigned and unassigned preassistance), and then to arrearages owed to the State (permanently assigned), with the remainder

to the family (unassigned during assistance).

Once current support is paid, collections on past-due support

made between October 1, 1997, and September 30, 2000, or earlier

at State option, are paid to the family to satisfy any arrearages

that accrued to the family after leaving public assistance (neverassigned arrearages). Once never-assigned arrearages are satisfied,

the collection is to be applied either to other arrearages owed to the

family or to the State (permanently-assigned arrearages). A family

that leaves welfare before October 1, 2000, maintains its

permanently-assigned arrearages, that is, those which accrued before the family went on welfare and while the family received public assistance. These arrearages are always owed to the State and,

unlike temporarily-assigned arrearages, never revert to the family.

On October 1, 2000, the rules change again (although States can

opt to implement these changes sooner). As noted above, the

temporarily-assigned arrearages for a former welfare family that

leaves public assistance on or after October 1, 2000, or when the

case closes, whichever is later, become ‘‘conditionally-assigned arrearages.’’ The distribution of these conditionally-assigned arrearages is ‘‘conditioned’’ upon whether the money is collected by Federal tax refund intercept or by some other method, such as levy of

a bank account, a workers’ compensation lump sum payment, or a

payment agreement to avoid a driver’s license revocation. If the collection is from a tax refund intercept, it will be paid to the State

rather than to the family, up to the cumulative amount of unreimbursed assistance. The distribution from any other method of collection is first made to the family, with current support being paid

first and any balance allocated to any arrearages.

FUNDING OF STATE PROGRAMS

The child support program conducted by States is financed by

three major streams of money. The first and largest is the Federal

Government’s commitment to reimburse States for 66 percent of all

allowable expenditures on child support activities. Allowable expenditures include outlays for locating parents, establishing paternity (with an exception noted below), establishing orders, and collecting payments.

There are two mechanisms through which Federal financial control of State expenditures is exercised. First, States must submit

plans to the Secretary of DHHS outlining the specific child support

activities they intend to pursue. The State plan provides the Secretary with the opportunity to review and approve or disapprove

child support activities that will receive the 66 percent Federal reimbursement. Second, as discussed previously, DHHS conducts a financial audit of State expenditures.

In addition to the general matching rate of 66 percent, the Federal Government provides 90 percent matching for two especially

515

important child support activities. First, the Federal Government

pays 80–90 percent of approved State expenditures on developing

and improving management information systems. Congress decided

to pay this enhanced match rate because data management, the

construction of large data bases containing information on location,

income, and assets of child support obligors, and computer access

to and manipulation of such large data bases were seen as the keys

to a cost effective child support system. In spending the additional

Federal dollars on these data systems, Congress hoped to provide

an incentive for States to adopt and aggressively employ efficient

data management technology.

Second, Congress also provides 90 percent funding for laboratory

costs of blood testing. As in the case of data management systems,

Congress justified enhanced funding of blood tests because paternity establishment is an activity vital to successful child support

enforcement. Historically, establishing paternity in cases of births

outside marriage has proven to be surprisingly difficult. Especially

since the 1960s, more and more children have been born outside

marriage; today nearly a third of all children are born to unwed

mothers, and nearly 50 percent of these babies wind up on welfare.

Thus, establishing paternity has become more and more important

because a growing fraction of the welfare caseload is children

whose paternity has not been established. Congress hopes to stimulate the use of blood tests as a way of improving State performance

in establishing paternity, especially given that recent experience in

the States shows that many men voluntarily acknowledge paternity

once blood tests reveal a high probability of their paternity.

In addition to the Federal administrative matching payments,

the second stream of financing for State programs is child support

collections. As we have seen, when mothers apply for welfare, they

assign the child’s claim rights against the father to the State. As

long as the family receives TANF payments, the State can retain

all child support payments. As explained in detail above in the section on distribution of child support payments, States retain the

right to pursue repayment for TANF benefits from the parent who

owes child support even after the family leaves welfare.

Recovered payments are split between the State and the Federal

Government in accord with the percentage of Federal reimbursement of Medicaid benefits. In the Medicaid Program, the Federal

Government pays States a percentage of their expenditures that

varies inversely with State per capita income—poor States have a

high Federal reimbursement percentage, wealthy States have a

lower Federal reimbursement percentage. Mississippi, for example,

one of the poorest States, receives a reimbursement of about 77

percent for its Medicaid expenditures. By contrast, States like California and New York that have high per capita income receive the

minimum Federal reimbursement of 50 percent.

Though TANF is not a matching grant program, the Federal

Government and the States still share the costs of providing help

to needy families with children. TANF includes a maintenance-ofeffort (MOE) requirement that requires States to expend 75 percent

(80 percent if they fail to meet TANF work requirements) of what

they spent under prior law programs in fiscal year 1994 on families

with children that meet TANF eligibility requirements. The fact

516

that the Federal Government and the States split the costs of

TANF explains why States are required to split child support collections from TANF cases with the Federal Government. The rate

at which States reimburse the Federal Government is the Federal

Medicaid matching rate. The details of this cost-recovery procedure

means that poorer States are rewarded less for their CSE efforts

than wealthier States.

The third stream of child support financing is Federal incentive

payments. The current incentive system is designed to encourage

States to collect child support from both TANF and non-TANF

cases.

Public Law 105–200, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (enacted July 16, 1998), replaced the old incentive

payment system with a new cost-neutral system of incentive payments that provides: (1) incentive payments based on a percentage

of the State’s collections (with no cap on non-TANF collections); (2)

incorporation of five performance measures related to establishment of paternity and child support orders, collections of current

and past-due support payments, and cost-effectiveness; (3) mandatory reinvestment of incentive payments into the CSE Program;

and (4) an incentive payment formula weighted in favor of TANF

and former TANF families.

The new incentive system is scheduled to be gradually phased in

between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2002. The system caps the

Federal incentive pool, thereby forcing States for the first time to

compete against each other for incentive dollars. Under the new incentive system, a State may be eligible to receive an incentive payment for good performance. The total amount of the incentive payment received by a State depends on four factors: (1) the total

amount of money available in a given fiscal year from which to

make incentive payments; (2) the State’s success in making collections on behalf of its caseload; (3) the State’s performance in five

areas (mentioned earlier); and (4) the relative success or failure of

other States in making collections and meeting these performance

criteria.

In fiscal year 1998, the incentive payment, which comes out of

the gross Federal share of child support collected on behalf of

TANF families, was $395 million. Federal law (Public Law 105–

200) stipulates that the incentive payment pool cannot exceed $422

million for fiscal year 2000; $429 million for fiscal year 2001; $450

million for fiscal year 2002; $461 million for fiscal year 2003; $454

million for fiscal year 2004; $446 million for fiscal year 2005; $458

million for fiscal year 2006; $471 million for fiscal year 2007; and

$483 million for fiscal year 2008. For years after fiscal year 2008,

the incentive pool is increased to reflect changes in inflation in the

previous year as measured by the Consumer Price Index.

Given this overview of the three streams of money that support

State CSE Programs, we can now examine the basic financial operations of the child support system. Table 8–4 summarizes both

child support income and expenditures for every State. The first

three columns show State income from each of three funding

streams just described; the fourth column shows State spending on

child support. As demonstrated in the fifth column, the sum of the

three streams of income exceeds expenditures in some 25 States.

517

In other words, most States make a profit on their child support

program. States are free to spend the State share of collections in

any manner the State sees fit, but States must spend Federal incentive payments solely on the CSE Program or on activities approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS) Secretary which contribute to the effectiveness or efficiency of the CSE Program.

TABLE 8–4.—FINANCING OF THE FEDERAL/STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

PROGRAM, FISCAL YEAR 1998

[In thousands of dollars]

State

State income State administrative

expenditures

(costs)

State net

Collections-tocosts

ratio

Federal administrative

payments

State share

of collections

Federal

incentive

payments

Alabama ....... $33,866 $4,102 $2,576 50,747 (10,203) 3.40

Alaska .......... 12,059 8,322 2,733 18,245 4,869 3.52

Arizona ......... 35,982 6,918 3,595 54,189 (7,693) 2.66

Arkansas ...... 22,858 3,392 2,554 34,541 (5,737) 2.88

California ..... 341,359 288,800 83,629 515,391 198,398 2.66

Colorado ....... 29,878 13,830 5,023 45,084 3,646 3.11

Connecticut .. 32,031 23,836 7,409 47,853 15,423 3.23

Delaware ...... 10,933 2,939 1,008 16,490 (1,611) 2.55

District of

Columbia 11,125 2,270 878 16,545 (2,272) 1.98

Florida .......... 110,491 26,584 12,150 166,882 (17,656) 3.04

Georgia ......... 56,402 16,082 8,732 85,109 (3,893) 3.53

Guam ........... 2,790 252 231 4,214 (941) 1.72

Hawaii .......... 15,829 5,743 1,678 23,960 (710) 2.60

Idaho ............ 9,641 2,935 1,563 14,562 (422) 3.69

Illinois .......... 79,325 37,947 11,846 119,900 9,219 2.50

Indiana ......... 26,978 14,024 5,579 41,695 4,886 5.45

Iowa ............. 25,830 15,210 6,215 38,646 8,608 4.79

Kansas ......... 26,568 9,975 3,724 40,066 201 3.05

Kentucky ....... 31,589 11,304 5,390 47,619 664 3.90

Louisiana ..... 28,255 6,351 3,077 42,329 (4,646) 4.03

Maine ........... 11,490 8,258 5,052 17,363 7,438 4.25

Maryland ...... 54,827 16,897 4,121 82,899 (7,054) 4.31

Massachusetts ........ 39,897 29,043 7,706 59,950 16,696 4.58

Michigan ...... 105,950 77,609 19,689 160,376 42,871 7.18

Minnesota .... 69,974 28,649 7,906 102,462 4,068 3.85

Mississippi ... 20,339 3,411 2,646 30,377 (3,981) 3.69

Missouri ....... 56,044 20,512 8,353 85,274 (365) 3.36

Montana ....... 7,753 2,113 1,261 11,706 (579) 3.15

Nebraska ...... 16,675 5,530 1,882 25,109 (1,021) 4.66

Nevada ......... 15,789 3,603 2,314 23,866 (2,160) 2.90

New Hampshire ........ 8,973 4,379 1,383 13,561 1,174 4.50

New Jersey ... 83,306 38,638 10,970 125,290 7,624 4.64

New Mexico .. 15,464 2,570 1,367 23,406 (4,005) 1.59

518

TABLE 8–4.—FINANCING OF THE FEDERAL/STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

PROGRAM, FISCAL YEAR 1998—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

State

State income State administrative

expenditures

(costs)

State net

Collections-tocosts

ratio

Federal administrative

payments

State share

of collections

Federal

incentive

payments

New York ...... 132,900 96,815 26,667 200,762 55,620 4.16

North Carolina .......... 73,071 17,358 7,489 108,863 (10,945) 2.86

North Dakota 5,169 1,399 827 7,594 (199) 4.75

Ohio .............. 140,004 44,084 14,384 202,888 (4,416) 5.67

Oklahoma ..... 18,673 6,629 3,515 27,934 882 3.10

Oregon .......... 26,111 9,980 4,859 39,516 1,434 5.29

Pennsylvania 98,316 52,426 15,829 147,723 18,847 7.06

Puerto Rico .. 17,820 471 350 26,994 (8,353) 5.38

Rhode Island 6,625 8,826 3,487 10,017 8,922 4.18

South Carolina .......... 21,594 3,729 2,947 32,650 (4,381) 4.71

South Dakota 3,807 1,696 966 5,629 840 6.13

Tennessee .... 34,872 5,427 4,607 52,613 (7,706) 3.58

Texas ............ 120,677 40,135 18,474 181,979 (2,692) 3.76

Utah ............. 21,357 6,441 3,248 32,058 (1,012) 3.03

Vermont ........ 5,009 2,715 1,202 7,557 1,369 4.20

Virginia ........ 40,628 19,827 7,006 61,083 6,377 2.67

Virgin Islands 1,521 136 87 2,294 (550) 4.53

Washington .. 83,997 48,575 15,205 126,830 20,947 3.74

West Virginia 16,249 3,420 1,874 24,470 (2,927) 4.47

Wisconsin ..... 60,145 27,990 7,230 90,924 4,442 5.49

Wyoming ....... 6,198 1,047 468 8,891 (1,178) 3.72

Total .... 2,385,011 1,141,151 384,963 3,584,972 326,153 4.00

Note.—The ‘‘State net’’ column in this table is not the same as the comparable figure presented in

annual reports of the Office of Child Support Enforcement (see for example, 1996, p. 78 and tables 8–5

and 8–23 below) because estimated Federal incentive payments are used in the annual reports while

final Federal incentive payments were used in this table.

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The method of financing child support enforcement has received

considerable attention in recent years. One of the most important

issues is that States have little incentive to control their administrative spending. The last column of table 8–4 presents a measure

of State program efficiency obtained by dividing total collections by

total administrative expenses. The table shows the dramatic differences among States in how much child support is collected for

each dollar of administrative expenditure—a crude measure of efficiency—ranging from only $1.59 in New Mexico to $7.06 in Pennsylvania. And yet, about half of the States, including those that

spend up to three or four times as much per dollar of collections

as more efficient States, still make a profit on the program.

Table 8–5 shows one consequence of child support’s financing

system. The first two columns of the table show the net impact of

519

program financing on the Federal and State governments respectively. The Federal Government has lost money on child support

every year since 1979, and the losses have grown almost every year

since then. Overall, losses jumped sharply from $43 million in 1979

to $1.427 billion in 1998.

TABLE 8–5.—FEDERAL AND STATE SHARE OF CHILD SUPPORT ‘‘SAVINGS,’’ FISCAL

YEARS 1979–98

[In millions of dollars]

Fiscal year

Federal

share of

child support savings 1

State share

of child

support

savings

Net public

savings 1

1979 ....................................................................... ¥$43 $244 $201

1980 ....................................................................... ¥103 230 127

1981 ....................................................................... ¥128 261 133

1982 ....................................................................... ¥148 307 159

1983 ....................................................................... ¥138 312 174

1984 ....................................................................... ¥105 366 260

1985 ....................................................................... ¥231 317 86

1986 ....................................................................... ¥264 274 9

1987 ....................................................................... ¥359 363 4

1988 ....................................................................... ¥363 388 25

1989 ....................................................................... ¥454 377 ¥77

1990 ....................................................................... ¥523 333 ¥190

1991 ....................................................................... ¥599 398 ¥201

1992 ....................................................................... ¥645 475 ¥170

1993 ....................................................................... ¥765 494 ¥271

1994 ....................................................................... ¥947 450 ¥497

1995 ....................................................................... ¥1,262 410 ¥852

1996 ....................................................................... ¥1,171 433 ¥738

1997 ....................................................................... ¥1,283 470 ¥813

1998 ....................................................................... ¥1,427 2 340 ¥1,087

1 Negative ‘‘savings’’ are costs.

2 Includes $14 million in Federal hold-harmless payments.

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Annual Reports to Congress; Congressional Research Service, based on data from Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services. The Congressional Research Service analysis slightly changed numbers for years 1987–96 published in previous editions.

State governments by contrast have made a profit on the program every year. In 1979, the first year for which data are available, States in the aggregate cleared $244 million. In 1998, States

cleared $340 million (the peak year was 1993, when States cleared

$494 million).

The last column in table 8–5 portrays an unfortunate historical

progression in child support financing. Beginning in the very first

year of the child support program and for nearly a decade thereafter, the net impact of Federal losses and State profits was a net

savings for taxpayers. Thus, in 1979, although the Federal Government lost money, State savings more than made up for the losses.

As a result, from a public finance perspective, taxpayers were

520

ahead by $201 million (see last column). Total Federal and State

child support expenditures, in other words, were more than offset

by collections from parents whose children had been supported by

AFDC payments. These AFDC collections were retained and used

to reimburse the Federal and State governments for previous

AFDC expenditures. The savings produced in this manner exceeded

overall expenditures.

Unfortunately, net public savings declined over the years. A

major explanation for the negative public savings was that beginning in 1985, as explained above, new Federal legislation required

States to give the first $50 per month of collections in welfare cases

to the custodial parent. This $50 passthrough had an immediate

impact; in its first year, combined Federal-State savings fell to $86

million from $260 million the previous year. By 1989 the overall

‘‘savings’’ in the combined program went negative. For the first

time that year, Federal losses exceeded State gains—by $77 million. The net losses have increased almost every year, reaching

$852 million in 1995 before declining somewhat to $738 million in

1996. By 1998, the net loss was $1.087 billion.

Reflecting on these numbers, two perspectives should be considered. One perspective, the finance perspective, attends simply to

the measurable costs and benefits of the child support program.

But a second, broader perspective includes more diffuse social benefits of child support that are difficult to measure.

From the finance perspective, perhaps the most important question about child support financing is why the Federal Government,

which loses money on the program every year, should provide such

a high reimbursement level for State expenditures when nearly all

States make a profit on their child support program. In the past,

this issue has prompted Congress to reduce the basic administrative reimbursement rate on several occasions. As a result, the rate

has declined from its original level of 75 percent to 66 percent. But

some Members of Congress have suggested that, because most

States are still making a profit while the Federal Government is

losing money, Congress should reduce the Federal administrative

reimbursement rate below 66 percent. Defenders of child support financing respond by pointing out that allowing States to profit from

the program makes it very popular with State policymakers who

control funding of the State share of expenditures. Without financing arrangements favorable to State interests, according to this

view, the child support program would not have posted the impressive gains that have characterized the program since its inception

in 1975. Moreover, many defenders of the current financing structure view retained collections as reimbursement for a portion of a

State’s welfare expenditures, rather than ‘‘income’’ to the State. In

fiscal year 1998 the State’s share of retained collections accounted

for just 10 percent of all States’ expenditures on TANF.

The 66 percent Federal reimbursement of State administrative

expenditures raises a second issue of program financing: Why is

such a large percentage of State expenditures financed without regard to performance? Even if States spend a great deal of money

on activities of dubious value in collecting child support, they can

nonetheless count on 66 percent reimbursement from the Federal

Government. The flat 66 percent reimbursement rate may provide

521

States with an incentive to spend money inefficiently. A potential

solution would be for the Federal Government to provide States

with less money based on gross spending and relatively more

money based on performance.

However, some critics of child support financing question whether incentives should be provided for non-TANF collections. With regard to program financing, there is a striking difference between

the TANF and non-TANF Programs; namely, government retains

part of TANF collections but non-TANF collections are given entirely to the family. When Congress enacted the Child Support Enforcement Program in 1975, the floor debate shows that members

of the House and Senate supported the program primarily because

retaining welfare collections would help offset welfare expenditures.

But program trends since 1975 show that the non-TANF Program is actually much bigger than the TANF Program and grows

faster each year than the TANF Program. As shown in table 8–1

above, welfare collections increased from about $0.5 billion in 1978

to a high point of $2.9 billion in 1996, a growth factor of five. Between 1996 and 1998, welfare collections actually declined somewhat. But non-TANF collections have grown steadily from about

$0.6 billion to $11.7 billion over the same period, for a growth factor of nearly 20.

The point here is that non-TANF collections are growing much

faster than TANF collections and probably will continue to do so

in light of the 1996 welfare reforms. And since the State and Federal Governments receive virtually no direct reimbursement for

non-TANF expenditures, the child support program loses more and

more money every year. Why, then, critics ask, should the Federal

Government encourage greater expenditures by providing incentives for non-TANF collections. Ignoring for the moment possible

social benefits from the non-TANF Program and based entirely on

a finance perspective, some critics argue that non-TANF incentives

encourage inefficiency.

Another issue regarding program financing is whether government should pay such a high percentage of costs in the non-TANF

Program. States must charge an application fee that can be no

more than $25 for the non-TANF Program, but this amount doesn’t

even pay the full cost of opening a case file. In 1998, more than

3 million non-TANF families received services resulting in child

support collections that averaged around $3,800 per case. By collecting this money, government is providing a useful service to millions of families, many of which are not poor. Rather than have

taxpayers pick up the cost of this service, some critics argue that

families receiving the services should pay more of the costs. Federal law allows States to charge additional fees, but few do so.

States argue that, because many of the non-TANF families are poor

or low-income, charging them for child support services would decrease their already tenuous financial stability. States also argue

that setting up an administrative system to establish and collect

the fees would cost more money than the fees actually collected.

The account of child support from the finance perspective given

above relies on measurable spending and collections. However, defenders of the current child support program argue that it may

522

produce social benefits that are not captured by mere spending and

collections data. These program defenders claim that a strong child

support program produces ‘‘cost avoidance’’ by demonstrating to

noncustodial parents who would try to avoid child support that the

system will eventually catch up with them.

Although currently there is only modest evidence that would

allow an estimate of the cost avoidance effect (Wheaton &

Sorensen, 1998), there is nonetheless good reason to believe that at

least some noncustodial parents make child support payments in

part because they fear detection and prosecution. Even more to the

point, a strong child support program may change the way society

thinks about child support. As in the cases of civil rights and smoking, a persistent effort over a period of years may convince millions

of Americans, both those who owe child support and those concerned with the condition of single-parent families, that making

payments is a moral and civic duty. Those who avoid it would then

be subject to something even more potent than legal prosecution—

social ostracism.

To the extent that this reasoning is correct, the public and policymakers may come to regard child support enforcement as a longterm investment similar in many respects to education, job training, and other policies that help families support their children. In

each of these cases, there is expectation that society will be better

off in the long run because the government invests in helping individuals and families. But the expectation that investments will

lead to immediate payoffs, or even that we can devise evaluation

methods that adequately capture the long-term payoffs, is a much

lower criterion of success than the expectation of immediate and

measurable payoffs that characterizes the kind of public finance

reasoning outlined above. Of course, even if the public is willing to

continue paying for child support enforcement as a social investment, Congress and child support administrators may nonetheless

find it desirable to intensify their efforts to make the program as

efficient as possible.

HOW EFFECTIVE IS CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT?

Since the inception of the Federal-State child support program in

1975, there appears to have been growing public awareness of the

problem of nonpayment of child support and increased willingness

by taxpayers to spend money trying to improve child support enforcement. As measured either by expenditures or total collections,

the Federal-State program has grown rapidly since 1978. To the extent that private arrangements fail to ensure child support payments, our laws and, increasingly, our practices bring child support

cases into the public domain. In view of these quite remarkable

changes in law and practice, it seems useful to provide a broad assessment of the performance of the Nation’s child support system

in general and of the IV–D program in particular.

IMPACT ON TAXPAYERS

One useful measure of the Federal-State program is the impact

of collections on TANF costs. As outlined above, States retain and

split with the Federal Government collections from parents whose

523

children are on TANF. In addition, States can often retain part of

collections from parents whose children were on TANF in the past

as repayment for taxpayer-provided TANF benefits.

As shown in table 8–1 above, after a long period of steady growth

TANF collections have started declining, from a high of nearly $2.9

billion in 1996 to $2.6 billion in 1998. Nonetheless, the child support agencies collected a level of payments on behalf of TANF parents that equalled 20 percent of all TANF benefits in 1998, up from

only 7 percent in 1982. Despite this improvement, the overall impact of the child support program on taxpayers is negative. As

shown in table 8–5, taxpayers lost over $0.9 billion on the program

in 1998.

IMPACT ON POVERTY

In 1995, about 30 percent of the 13.7 million women and men

rearing children alone had incomes below the poverty level. By

comparison, only 22 percent of the custodial parents who received

child support payments had incomes below the poverty level (U.S.

Census Bureau, 1999, p. 5). Thus, child support appears to be associated with a modest reduction in poverty. If the child support program could collect support for a substantial fraction of the additional 9 million single parents who did not receive payments in

1995, the antipoverty impact of the program could be substantially

improved.

Despite the modest impact of child support on poverty, many

families on welfare have received enough of a financial boost from

child support payments that they were able to leave the rolls. In

1997, 356,000 families with child support collections, representing

about 10 percent of the welfare caseload, became ineligible for

TANF. Similarly, about 3 percent of families in the non-TANF child

support program were lifted out of poverty by child support payments. This 3 percent figure is more impressive than it appears at

first because a substantial fraction of the non-TANF caseload had

incomes above the poverty level before receiving any child support

payments. For most of these nonpoor families, incomes and standards of living were improved by child support payments. Presumably, even poor families that received child support but remained

in poverty had their standard of living improved by the child support payments.

IMPACT ON NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Perhaps the most important measure of the Federal-State program is its impact on overall national rates of paying child support.

Although the original intent of Congress in creating the child support program was primarily to offset welfare payments, both Congress and the American public have come to see the program as a

means of improving the Nation’s system of ensuring that all parents who no longer live with their children continue to provide for

their financial support.

The U.S. Census Bureau periodically collects national survey information on child support. By interviewing a random sample of

single-parent families, the Census Bureau is able to generate a

host of numbers that can be used to assess the performance of nonVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00523 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.008 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
524

TABLE 8–6.—CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS AWARDED AND RECEIVED BY WOMEN WITH

CHILDREN PRESENT, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS, 1997 1

Characteristics of women

Total

(thousands)

Percent

awarded

child

support

payments 2

Supposed to receive child support in 1997

Total

(thousands)

Received support in 1997

Percent

Mean

child

support

Mean

income

ALL WOMEN

Current marital status:

Married ................................. 2,607 65.3 1,559 75.3 $3,977 $21,087

Divorced ................................ 3,673 70.4 2,357 73.7 4,326 29,752

Separated ............................. 1,565 56.2 765 66.3 3,547 20,510

Widowed 3 ............................. 230 54.3 104 59.6 (5) (5)

Never married ....................... 3,831 46.7 1,547 55.3 1,966 13,769

Race and Hispanic origin:

White ..................................... 8,264 64.2 4,752 73.1 3,886 24,098

Black ..................................... 3321 48.4 1,434 53.3 2,600 18,612

Hispanic origin 4 ................... 1,710 46.7 688 62.9 3,012 17,023

Years of school completed:

Less than high school graduate .................................. 2,385 47.5 976 54.9 2,127 10,131

High school graduate or GED 4,399 59.3 2,336 64.8 3,398 19,413

Some college, no degree ...... 2,624 62.0 1,476 70.5 3,615 21,520

Associate degree .................. 1,043 69.8 653 78.9 3,737 25,607

Bachelors degree or more .... 1,454 67.9 891 81.9 5,312 41,656

Total ............................. 11,905 59.5 6,331 68.5 3,655 23,249

WOMEN BELOW POVERTY

Current marital status:

Married ................................. 238 50.4 109 59.6 (5) (5)

Divorced ................................ 977 60.6 513 62.4 2,839 8,224

Separated ............................. 657 53.9 310 57.4 2,960 7,383

Widowed 3 ............................. 60 68.3 30 36.7 (5) (5)

Never married ....................... 1,884 48.5 761 49.0 1,577 6,890

Race:

White ..................................... 2,292 57.6 1,122 59.4 2,428 7,386

Black ..................................... 1,407 46.2 565 47.4 1,963 7,187

Hispanic origin 4 ................... 820 44.0 286 52.4 2,759 8,485

Total ............................. 3,816 53.0 1,723 55.0 2,290 7,306

1 Preliminary data.

2 Award status as of spring 1998.

3Widowed women whose previous marriage ended in divorce.

4 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

5 Sample too small to produce reliable estimate.

Note.—Women with own children under 21 years of age present from an absent father as of spring

1998.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, in press. (Advance copy of preliminary data furnished to the Congressional

Research Service.)

custodial parents in paying child support. Table 8–6 provides detailed information for 1997, the most recent year for which national

data are available, on child support payments by fathers to families

headed by mothers. Although the 1997 survey, like the 1995, 1993,

525

4The Census Bureau changed its interview procedures before obtaining the 1991 data. Specifically, Census asked whether adults had any children under age 21 in their household who had

a parent living elsewhere. This question may have excluded some mothers who would have anContinued

and 1991 surveys, included custodial fathers, the following discussion is focused solely on custodial mothers. Several points bear emphasis, the most important of which is that many female-headed

families do not receive child support. As shown in the bottom row

of the upper panel in table 8–6, of the 11.9 million female-headed

families eligible for support, only 60 percent even had a support

award. Most observers would say that a major failure of the Nation’s child support system is that entirely too many mothers do

not have a child support award.

Of the 6.3 million mothers who had an award and who were supposed to receive payments in 1997, 68.5 percent actually received

at least one payment (table 8–6). However, as shown in table 8–

7, only about 36 percent of the total of 11.9 million women who did

not live with their children’s father in 1997 actually received at

least one payment and only 22 percent received everything due. So

in addition to its failure to get orders for about 40 percent of eligible mothers, critics assert that a second failure of the child support

system is that a large proportion of the money owed is not paid.

Table 8–6, which also summarizes child support information by

ethnic group, by years of schooling, and by poverty level, suggests

a number of interesting and important features of child support

payments. White mothers are more likely to have a support order

than black or Hispanic mothers (64 percent versus 49 percent for

blacks and 47 percent for Hispanics). Similarly, mothers with a college degree have a 68 percent chance of having an order as compared with 48 percent for high school dropouts and 59 percent for

high school graduates. As for payments, white mothers receive

about $3,900 per year on average as compared with $2,600 for

black mothers and $3,000 for Hispanic mothers. College graduates

receive $5,300 per year in support as compared with $2,100 and

$3,400 for high school dropouts and graduates respectively.

Clearly, mothers who are already financially worse off get less

from child support than mothers who are financially better off.

This generalization is made especially clear by two further pieces

of information depicted in the table. First, never-married mothers,

one of the poorest demographic groups in the Nation, are less likely

to have an award than divorced mothers (47 percent versus 70 percent); even never-married mothers who actually receive support get

considerably less than divorced mothers ($2,000 versus $4,300).

Second, as shown by the data at the bottom of the table, poor

mothers are less likely to have orders and receive less money than

nonpoor mothers. Table 8–8 shows similar data for the award of

health insurance. While demonstrating that 58 percent of all mothers have health insurance included in their award, the table also

shows that the probability of health insurance coverage is greatly

reduced for never-married women, black and Hispanic women, and

women with less schooling.

Table 8–7, which summarizes several child support measures for

selected years from 1978 to 1997, complements and puts into context the conclusions drawn from the 1997 data.4 More specifically,

526

swered the child support questions in previous surveys. In the interviews for the years 1978

through 1989, all never-married mothers were asked the child support questions. Because of this

and other differences in procedure, the Census Bureau recommends ‘‘extreme caution’’ (U.S.

Census Bureau, 1995, p. 40) in comparing data from the 1992 interview with data from previous

interviews. We present the data from all the surveys and recommend that readers draw their

own conclusions.

the pattern of poor women being less likely to have an order and

receive support is nothing new; but the years since 1978 show a

narrowing of the difference. The percentage of poor women who

had an order was up 39 percent over the 19-year period, compared

with a decline of 7 percent for all women. Similarly, the percentage

of poor women who received child support payments increased 39

percent from 1978 to 1997, compared to a decrease of nearly 2 percent for all women. The percentage of all women with an award is

only slightly higher than in 1978, the percentage that actually receive any payment is only slightly higher, and the aggregate payments have grown less rapidly than the number of demographically

eligible mothers. Equally discouraging, while a slightly higher percentage of women were awarded child support (59.5 percent in

1997 versus 59.1 percent in 1978), a smaller percentage of women

received full payment (22 percent in 1997 versus 24 percent in

1978).

In summary, it appears that the performance of the Nation’s

child support system is modest and that only a few of the measures

of national performance have improved in nearly two decades. By

contrast, as shown at the beginning of this chapter (see table 8–

1), the Federal-State child support program has shown improved

performance on a number of important measures virtually every

year since 1978. To promote comparison of performance changes in

the IV–D program with overall national trends in child support

performance, table 8–9 summarizes several measures from both the

IV–D program as revealed in reports from the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and the national system of child support

as revealed in U.S. Census Bureau Surveys. The data are surprising and, at first, confusing. As shown in the top panel, the FederalState program is showing impressive improvement on every measure. Total collections, parents located, paternities established, and

awards established are all up by over 250 percent since 1978, and

the average increase in these four measures is over 670 percent.

By contrast, the measures of overall national trends show little

improvement. In fact, the likelihood of having an award, being legally entitled to a payment, and receiving at least one payment

have been nearly stagnant. Moreover, the percentage of mothers

who received the full amount due has decreased from 49 to 42 percent. On the other hand, total collections increased by 42 percent.

This increase, however, is dwarfed by the 415 percent increase in

IV–D collections. The increase must also be interpreted in view of

the fact that the number of single mothers demographically eligible

for child support increased by 64 percent over the same period.

Clearly, although the IV–D program has been growing steadily

since 1978, and although its performance on many measures of

child support has been improving significantly, the improvement

appears to have had only modest impact on the national picture.

How can these two trends be reconciled?

TABLE 8–7.—CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS FOR ALL WOMEN, WOMEN ABOVE THE POVERTY LEVEL, AND WOMEN BELOW THE POVERTY LEV

SELECTED YEARS 1978–97

Category of women 1978 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 3 1993 4 1995 

All women:

Total (in thousands) .......................... 7,094 8,387 8,690 8,808 9,415 9,955 9,918 11,505 11,634 Percent awarded 1 .............................. 59.1 59.2 57.7 61.3 59.0 57.7 55.9 59.8 61.2 

Percent actually received payment ... 34.6 34.6 34.9 36.8 39.0 37.4 37.6 36.4 37.4 Percent received full payment ........... 23.6 22.5 23.2 24.0 26.3 25.6 25.7 17.8 21.3 

Women above poverty level:

Total (in thousands) .......................... 5,121 5,821 5,792 6,011 6,224 6,749 6,405 7,271 7,763 Percent awarded 1 .............................. 67.3 67.9 65.3 71.0 66.5 64.6 65.2 64.4 66.3 Percent actually received payment ... 41.1 41.4 42.6 44.1 44.8 43.1 45.0 41.6 42.9 

Women below poverty level:

Total (in thousands) .......................... 1,973 2,566 2,898 2,797 3,191 3,206 3,513 4,234 3,871 Percent awarded 1 .............................. 38.1 39.7 42.5 40.4 44.3 43.3 38.9 51.9 51.1 Percent actually received payment ... 17.8 19.3 19.6 21.3 27.7 25.4 24.1 27.5 26.5 

Aggregate payment (in billions of dollars): 2

Child support due .............................. 16.3 17.7 16.2 16.3 20.6 21.1 19.4 23.7 27.1 Child support received ...................... 10.5 10.9 11.5 10.7 14.1 14.4 13.2 15.0 17.3 Aggregate child support deficit ........ 5.8 6.8 4.8 5.6 6.5 6.7 6.2 8.7 9.8 

1 Award status as of spring 1979, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998.2 In 1997 dollars based on Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.3 Data for 1991 are not directly compatible with data from prior years because of refinements to the survey universe.4 Data for 1993 are not directly compatible with data from prior years because of changes to survey questions.5 Preliminary data.

Note.—Payments for women with own children under age 21.Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2000).

528

TABLE 8–8.—CHILD SUPPORT AWARD STATUS AND INCLUSION OF HEALTH INSURANCE

IN AWARD, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF WOMEN, 1997 1

Characteristic

Total

(thousands)

Supposed to receive child support payments

in 1997

Total

(thousands)

Health insurance included in

child support award

Number

(thousands)

Percent of total

awarded

Current marital status: 2

Married ............................................. 2,607 1,559 1134 66.6

Divorced ........................................... 3,673 2,357 1,702 65.8

Separated ......................................... 1,565 765 474 53.9

Never married .................................. 3,831 1,547 726 40.6

Race and Hispanic origin:

White ................................................ 8,264 4,752 3,367 63.4

Black ................................................ 3,321 1,434 652 40.6

Hispanic 3 ......................................... 1,710 688 381 47.7

Age:

15–17 years ..................................... 103 37 17 43.6

18–29 years ..................................... 3,204 1,561 885 49.8

30–39 years ..................................... 4,714 2,653 1,749 60.2

40 years and over ............................ 3,883 2,080 1,461 62.0

Years of school completed:

Less than high school graduate ..... 2,385 976 455 40.2

High school graduate or GED .......... 4,399 2,336 1,509 57.9

Some college, no degree .................. 2,624 1,476 1,053 64.8

Associate degree .............................. 1,043 653 459 63.0

Bachelors degree or more ................ 1,454 891 635 64.3

Number of own children present from an

absent father:

One child .......................................... 6,602 3,181 2,179 60.4

Two children ..................................... 3,450 2,031 1,276 57.4

Three children .................................. 1,335 818 491 54.0

Four children or more ...................... 578 301 166 49.0

Total ........................................ 11,905 6,331 4,112 58.1

1 Preliminary data.

2 Excludes a small number of currently widowed women whose previous marriage ended in divorce.

3 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Note.—Women 15 years and older with own children under 21 years of age present from absent fathers

as of spring 1998.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.

The last panel of table 8–9 suggests an answer. This panel shows

collections by the Federal-State program as a percentage of overall

national child support payments. In 1978, less than one-fourth of

child support payments were collected through the IV–D program.

By 1997, fully 85 percent of all child support payments were made

through the IV–D program. The implication of this trend is that

the IV–D program may be recruiting more and more cases from the

private sector, bringing them into the public sector, providing them

with subsidized services (or substituting Federal spending for State

and local spending), but not greatly improving overall collections.

Whatever the explanation, it seems that improved effectiveness of

TABLE 8–9.—COMPARISON OF MEASURES OF IV–D EFFECTIVENESS WITH CENSUS CHILD SUPPORT DATA, 1978–95

Measure

Year 

1978 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1 1993 1 1995 1997

Federal-State IV–D program

Total IV–D collections (1997 dollars, in billions) 2 .................... 2.6 3.3 3.8 5.5 6.8 8.1 9.9 11.4 13.4 

Parents located (thousands) ....................................................... 454 831 878 1,145 1,624 2,577 3,777 4,950 6,585 Paternities established (thousands) ........................................... 111 208 232 269 339 472 554 659 848 Awards established (thousands) ................................................. 315 496 669 812 936 3 821 1,026 1,051 1,156 

National trends

Total collections (1997 dollars, in billions) 2 ............................. 11.1 11.4 10.2 14.1 14.5 14.0 14.7 18.7 15.8 

Of demographically eligible:

Percent with awards ................................................. 59 58 61 59 58 56 60 61 60 Percent supposed to receive payment ...................... 48 46 50 51 50 49 51 54 53 Percent who received some payment ........................ 35 35 37 39 37 38 37 37 36 

Of mothers supposed to receive payment, percent who received full amount .................................................................. 49 50 48 51 51 52 35 40 42 

IV–D collections as a percentage of national collections

IV–D collections as a percent of total collections ..................... 23 28 37 40 47 58 64 61 85 

1 The Census Bureau collected data on custodial fathers for the first time for 1991; only the data on custodial mothers is included here. 2 Constant fiscal year 1993 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.3 The definition of support orders established changed in 1991.

Note.—Demographically eligible means women with own children under 21 years of age living with them from an absent father.Sources: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Annual Reports to Congress, 1994 and various years; U.S. Census Bureau (1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1995, and 

530

the IV–D program has not led to significant improvement of the

Nation’s child support performance.

The data in table 8–9 suffer from a potentially important flaw.

Given that Congress passed major child support legislation in 1996,

as part of the 1996 welfare reform legislation, the impacts of these

reforms have not yet had time to become fully manifest. Thus, collections may now be improving rapidly, as State level data for 1998

seem to suggest, but national data through 1997 may not yet reflect the improvement.

Two additional statistics must be considered in any general assessment of national child support payments. First, according to

Sorensen (1997), noncustodial parents owe over $30 billion in overdue child support. Some perspective on the magnitude of this figure

is provided by recalling that the entire Federal outlay on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare program in

1999 was about $16.5 billion.

But many critics of the child support system contend that this

figure on arrearages, which is based on child support orders currently in place, is actually an underestimate of the shortcomings of

the Nation’s child support system. These critics hold that too few

noncustodial parents have orders, that the amount of orders is too

low, and that not enough of the amount owed is actually paid. Considerations of this sort have led to several studies of what might

be called ‘‘child support collections potential’’—the amount that

could be collected by a perfectly efficient child support system.

The most recent of these studies, conducted by researchers at the

Urban Institute (Sorensen, 1997), produced the estimate that $51

billion could be collected in child support each year. The assumptions underlying this estimate are that all custodial parents had an

order, that payments were made in accordance with the Wisconsin

guidelines (17 percent for one child, 25 percent for two children, 29

percent for three children, 31 percent for four children, and 34 percent for five or more children), and that the full amount of every

order was actually paid. Of course, no one expects any program to

be perfectly efficient. Even so, comparing the $51 billion that could

be generated by a perfect system with the actual payments of

around $16 billion in 1997 provides a useful index of how far we

need to go as a Nation if we are to provide custodial parents and

children with the measure of financial security that is the major

goal of our child support system.

Finally, there does appear to be one area in which the FederalState program is having some success. As discussed in detail in appendix N, nonmarital births have exploded since the 1960s. These

cases are the most difficult ones in which to establish a child support order and make collections. Because there are more and more

of these difficult cases each year, improved performance with other

types of cases is being masked to some degree. Despite the difficulty of those cases, the Federal-State program has increased the

probability of collections for never-married mothers from 4 percent

in 1976 to 18 percent in 1997 (Sorensen and Halpern, 1999). Even

so, the huge increase in these cases in recent decades has served

to reduce the overall effectiveness of the Federal-State program.

531

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Note: For legislative history before 1996, see previous editions of

the Green Book.

1996

Title III of the 1996 welfare reform bill (Public Law 104–193)

was devoted to major reforms of the Child Support Enforcement

Program. A section-by-section summary of these reforms follows:

Sec. 301.—Imposes a State obligation to provide child support enforcement services for each child receiving assistance under IV–A

(TANF), IV–E (foster care and adoption), and title XIX (Medicaid).

Services must also be provided for others who apply, including families ceasing to receive assistance (no application is permitted for

this group).

Sec. 302.—Changes distribution priorities to provide that families

leaving welfare receive priority in payment of arrears. Changes are

effective October 1, 1997 for postassistance arrears and October 1,

2000 for preassistance arrears. Exception is made for collections

from the Federal Tax Refund Offset Program. Provides a hold

harmless provision so that States are protected if the amount they

lose because of changes in distribution exceeds what they gain from

the elimination of the $50 passthrough (eliminated October 1,

1996).

Sec. 303.—Protects privacy rights with respect to confidential information.

Sec. 304.—Requires States to have procedures for providing notices of proceedings and copies of orders to recipients of program

services or parties to cases being served under title IV–D.

Sec. 311.—Specifies requirements for the central State registry,

including maintaining and updating a payment record and extracting data for matching with other databases. Allows automated linkages of local registries.

Sec. 312.—Specifies requirements for the centralized collection

and disbursement of support payments, including the monitoring of

payments, generating wage withholding notices, and automatic use

of administrative enforcement remedies. Under some circumstances, permits linkages of local disbursement units to form

centralized State disbursement unit for collection and disbursement of child support payments. Requires distribution within 2

business days of receipt of collection; requires transmission of withholding orders to employers within 2 business days of notice of income source subject to withholding.

Sec. 313.—Requires employers and labor organizations to report

name, address, Social Security number (SSN), and employer identification number of new hires to State directory of new hires within

20 days of hire (in the case of an employer transmitting reports

magnetically or electronically, reports may be made by two monthly transmissions); requires the report to be the W–4 or equivalent

at option of the employer with penalties assessed for failure to report. State directory must perform database matching using SSNs

and report findings to any State; directory must also report information to the National directory within 3 business days, and issue

532

withholding notices within 2 business days of match, among other

requirements.

Sec. 314.—Strengthens and expands income withholding from

wages to pay child support by reducing the time for employers to

remit withheld wages to 7 business days and adding a State law

requirement that allows issuance of electronic withholding orders

by State agency and without notice to obligor.

Sec. 315.—Includes requirements for access by State child support agency to locator information from State motor vehicle and

law enforcement systems.

Sec. 316.—Expands the authority of FPLS to obtain information

and locate individuals. Permits access to the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) for the enforcement of child custody and visitation orders but specifies that requests must come through courts or

child support agencies. Requires establishment of a Federal case

registry of child support orders, and details guidelines for the National directory of new hires. Allows disclosure of certain information, including Federal tax offset amounts, to child support enforcement agents.

Sec. 317.—Requires use of SSNs on applications for professional

licenses, commercial driver’s licenses, occupational license or marriage licenses, and in records for divorce decrees, support orders,

paternity determinations or acknowledgments and death certificates.

Sec. 321.—Mandates adoption by all States of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.

Sec. 322.—Clarifies priorities for recognition of orders.

Sec. 323.—Requires States to respond within 5 business days to

a request from another State to enforce a support order; electronic

means are allowed for transmitting requests.

Sec. 324.—Calls for the promulgation of forms, developed by the

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS), to be used in interstate income withholding cases, the imposition of liens, and administrative subpoenas across State lines.

Sec. 325.—Grants authority to State IV–D programs to order genetic testing for paternity establishment, issue a subpoena for financial or other information, and require all entities to respond to

requests for information ‘‘without the necessity of obtaining an

order from any other judicial or administrative tribunal, but subject to due process safeguards as appropriate.’’ Grants States access

to public records such as vital statistics of marriage, birth and divorce, State and local tax records, real and titled personal property,

license records, employment security records, public assistance programs, motor vehicle records, and corrections records. Also grants

access to certain private records such as public utility and cable

television records and financial institution data, among other administrative measures.

Sec. 331.—Streamlines the legal processes for establishment of

paternity, allows establishment of paternity anytime before a child

turns 18, and provides for mandatory genetic testing in contested

cases, among other provisions.

Sec. 332.—Mandates that State programs publicize the availability and encourage the use of procedures for voluntary establishment of paternity and child support.

533

Sec. 333.—Requires States to determine whether recipients of aid

under the TANF Program or Medicaid are cooperating with the

State in conducting child support activities against the noncustodial parent.

Sec. 341.—Requires the Secretary of DHHS to develop a new

cost-neutral incentive system by March 1, 1997 which provides additional payments to any State based on such State’s performance.

Increases the mandatory IV–D paternity establishment percentage

in graduated phases from 75 to 90 percent.

Sec. 342.—Changes the audit process to be based on performance

measures and requires the Secretary to ensure that State data

meets high standards of accuracy and completeness.

Sec. 343.—Requires States to collect and report program data in

a uniform manner as a State plan requirement.

Sec. 344.—Creates additional requirements for the State automated data processing systems, and sets a deadline of October 1,

2000 for implementation. Contains a new implementation timetable that extends to October 1, 1997 the deadline by which a State

must have an automated case tracking and monitoring system

meeting all Federal IV–D requirements up through the enactment

of the Family Support Act of 1988. Caps aggregate spending on the

new automated system at $400,000 and requires the Secretary to

devise a formula for distributing these funds among the States.

The Federal Government will pay 80 percent of State costs of meeting the new requirements.

Sec. 345.—Sets aside 1 percent of the Federal share of reimbursed public assistance for information, training, and related technical assistance concerning State automated systems and research,

demonstration, and special projects of regional or national significance. An additional 2 percent is set aside for the operation of the

FPLS.

Sec. 346.—Clarifies data collection requirements and eliminates

requirements for unnecessary or duplicate information. Several

new data reports are to be included in the annual report to Congress, including information about State compliance.

Sec. 351.—Requires processes for periodic modification of all

child support orders, with review occurring every 3 years, upon request.

Sec. 352.—Expands access and use of consumer reports by child

support agencies for establishing and modifying child support.

Sec. 353.—Specifies that depository institutions are not liable for

disclosing financial information to the Child Support Enforcement

Agency; the Child Support Enforcement Agency is prohibited from

disclosing information obtained except for child support purposes.

Sec. 361.—Makes technical corrections to the Social Security Act

section on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collection of arrearages.

Sec. 362.—Eliminates separate withholding rules for all Federal

employees. Establishes procedures by which Federal agencies must

aggressively pursue child support collections from Federal employees.

Sec. 363.—Establishes procedures by which all branches of the

armed forces must aggressively pursue child support collections

from Federal employees.

534

Sec. 364.—Requires States to have laws that prevent obligor

from transferring income or property to avoid paying child support.

Sec. 365.—Requires State child support officials to have the authority to seek a judicial or administrative order that requires any

individual owing past-due support to pay such support in accordance with a plan approved by the court or participate in work activities.

Sec. 366.—Provides a definition of a support order.

Sec. 367.—Requires all child support delinquencies and their

amounts to be reported to credit bureaus.

Sec. 368.—Requires liens on real and personal property and the

extension of full faith and credit to liens arising in another State

in cases of past-due child support.

Sec. 369.—Requires States to have laws providing for the suspension of driver’s, professional, occupational, and recreational licenses.

Sec. 370.—Establishes a process by which the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services can submit the names of delinquent

obligors who are at least $5,000 in arrears to the State Department

for the denial of their passports.

Sec. 371.—Authorizes Federal officials to declare any foreign

country to be a foreign reciprocating country for purposes of establishment and collection of child support obligations.

Sec. 372.—Requires States to enter agreements with financial institutions doing business in the State to develop a data match system by which records on individuals having accounts with the financial institution are matched against the list of child support obligors who have overdue payments.

Sec. 373.—Adds a State option that a child support order of a

child of minor parents, if the mother is receiving cash assistance,

may be enforceable against parents of the noncustodial parent of

the child.

Sec. 374.—Clarifies that child support assigned to a State in assistance cases is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Sec. 375.—Allows States to enter cooperative agreements with

Indian tribes; allows the Secretary to make direct Federal funding

to Indian tribes meeting certain criteria.

Sec. 381.—Requires the application of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act (ERISA) to support orders that are judgments,

decrees or orders issued by any court of competent jurisdiction or

through a State administrative process.

Sec. 382.—Adds a new State law requirement providing that the

State IV–D agency have procedures for notifying a new employer

of an absent parent, when the absent parent was providing health

care coverage of the child in the previous job, of the medical support obligation.

Sec. 391.—Provides $10 million per year to the Secretary to

award grants to States for the purpose of establishing programs to

facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children.

535

1997

Public Law 105–33, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, made 28

technical changes to the 1996 welfare reform law (Public Law 104–

193).

1998

Public Law 105–187, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of

1998, established two new categories of felony offenses, subject to

a 2-year maximum prison term: (1) traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to evade a support obligation if the

obligation has remained unpaid for more than 1 year or is greater

than $5,000; and (2) willfully failing to pay a child support obligation regarding a child residing in another State if the obligation

has remained unpaid for more than 2 years or is greater than

$10,000.

Public Law 105–200, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, established a new cost/budget-neutral incentive

system based on five performance measures that create strong incentives for States to operate efficient and effective programs. The

law also imposes less severe financial penalties on States that

failed to meet the October 1997 deadline for implementing a statewide CSE automated data processing and information retrieval system. It also includes provisions related to medical support and privacy protections, and makes other minor changes.

Public Law 105–306, the Noncitizen Benefit Clarification and

Other Technical Amendments Act of 1998, includes a correction to

Public Law 105–200 that allows a State that failed to comply with

the 1996 child support data processing requirements to have its annual penalty reduced by 20 percent for each of the five performance

measures under the child support incentive system for which it

achieves a maximum score. In addition, the provision would clarify

the date by which States must pass laws implementing medical

child support provisions to allow time for State legislatures that

meet biennially to pass laws after final Federal regulations are

issued in year 2000.

1999

Public Law 106–113, the Fiscal Year 2000 Consolidated Appropriations Bill, provides an alternative penalty for States that are

not in compliance with the centralized State disbursement unit requirement, but which have submitted a corrective compliance plan

by April l, 2000, that describes how, by when, and at what cost the

State would achieve compliance with the State disbursement unit

requirement. The DHHS Secretary is required to reduce the

amount the State would otherwise have received in Federal child

support payments by the penalty amount for the fiscal year. The

penalty amount percentage is 4 percent in the case of the first fiscal year of noncompliance; 8 percent in the second year; 16 percent

in the third year; 25 percent in the fourth year; or 30 percent in

the fifth or any subsequent year. In addition, the law provides for

coordination of the alternative disbursement unit penalty with the

automated systems penalty so that States that fail to implement

both the automated data processing requirement and the State disVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00535 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.008 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
536

bursement unit requirement are subject to only one alternative

penalty.

Public Law 106–169, the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999,

limits the hold harmless requirement of current law by stipulating

that States would only be entitled to hold harmless funds if the

State’s share of child support collections are less than they were in

fiscal year 1995 and the State has distributed and disregarded to

welfare families at least 80 percent of child support collected on

their behalf in the preceding fiscal year or the State has distributed to former welfare recipients the State share of child support

payments collected via the Federal Income Tax Offset Program. If

these conditions are met, the State’s share of child support collections would be increased by 50 percent of the difference between

what the State would have received in fiscal year 1995 and its

share of child support collections in the pertinent fiscal year. Public

Law 106–169 repeals the hold harmless provision effective October

1, 2001.

STATISTICAL TABLES

TABLE 8–10.—STATE PROFILE OF COLLECTIONS AND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEAR 1998 1

[In millions of dollars]

State Total collections AFDC collections Non-AFDC collections Total ex- penditures

Child support collections per dollar of

administrative expenditures 

(

Total AFDC total Non-AFDC total

Alabama ........................................................................... $172.4 $15.5 $156.9 $50.7 $3.40 $0.31 $3.09 Alaska ............................................................................... 64.3 17.7 46.6 18.2 3.52 0.97 2.55 Arizona .............................................................................. 144.3 20.6 123.7 54.2 2.66 0.38 2.28 Arkansas ........................................................................... 99.4 14.8 84.6 34.5 2.88 0.43 2.45 California .......................................................................... 1,372.4 611.0 761.3 515.4 2.66 1.19 1.48 Colorado ........................................................................... 140.3 30.0 110.4 45.1 3.11 0.66 2.45 Connecticut ...................................................................... 154.4 56.9 97.5 47.9 3.23 1.19 2.04 Delaware ........................................................................... 42.0 7.6 34.4 16.5 2.55 0.46 2.09 District of Columbia ......................................................... 32.7 4.7 28.0 16.5 1.98 0.28 1.69 Florida .............................................................................. 507.1 61.6 445.5 166.9 3.04 0.37 2.67 Georgia ............................................................................. 300.8 58.4 242.4 85.1 3.53 0.69 2.85 Guam ................................................................................ 7.3 1.5 5.8 4.2 1.72 0.35 1.37 Hawaii .............................................................................. 62.3 11.6 50.7 24.0 2.60 0.48 2.12 Idaho ................................................................................ 53.8 7.9 45.9 14.6 3.69 0.54 3.15 Illinois ............................................................................... 300.2 80.6 219.7 119.9 2.50 0.67 1.83 Indiana ............................................................................. 227.2 38.1 189.1 41.7 5.45 0.91 4.54 Iowa .................................................................................. 185.1 42.4 142.7 38.6 4.79 1.10 3.69 Kansas .............................................................................. 122.2 24.8 97.5 40.1 3.05 0.62 2.43 Kentucky ........................................................................... 185.5 37.8 147.8 47.6 3.90 0.79 3.10 Louisiana .......................................................................... 170.6 21.6 149.0 42.3 4.03 0.51 3.52 Maine ................................................................................ 73.8 30.4 43.4 17.4 4.25 1.75 2.50 

TABLE 8–10.—STATE PROFILE OF COLLECTIONS AND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEAR 1998 1—Continued

[In millions of dollars]

State Total collections AFDC collections Non-AFDC collections Total ex- penditures

Child support collections per dollar of

administrative expenditures 

(

Total AFDC total Non-AFDC total

Maryland ........................................................................... 357.1 31.5 325.6 82.9 4.31 0.38 3.93 Massachusetts ................................................................. 274.7 58.2 216.4 59.9 4.58 0.97 3.61 Michigan ........................................................................... 1,151.8 150.4 1,001.5 160.4 7.18 0.94 6.24 Minnesota ......................................................................... 394.7 56.2 338.5 102.5 3.85 0.55 3.30 Mississippi ....................................................................... 112.2 16.9 95.3 30.4 3.69 0.56 3.14 Missouri ............................................................................ 286.7 58.1 228.6 85.3 3.36 0.68 2.68 Montana ........................................................................... 36.9 7.2 30.0 11.7 3.15 0.62 2.54 Nebraska .......................................................................... 117.1 12.9 104.2 25.1 4.66 0.51 4.15 Nevada ............................................................................. 69.1 7.5 61.6 23.9 2.90 0.31 2.58 New Hampshire ................................................................ 61.0 9.0 52.0 13.6 4.50 0.66 3.83 New Jersey ........................................................................ 581.9 77.5 504.4 125.3 4.64 0.62 4.03 New Mexico ....................................................................... 37.3 9.4 27.9 23.4 1.59 0.40 1.19 New York .......................................................................... 834.5 187.6 646.9 200.8 4.16 0.93 3.22 North Carolina .................................................................. 311.7 51.2 260.5 108.9 2.86 0.47 2.39 North Dakota .................................................................... 36.1 4.7 31.3 7.6 4.75 0.62 4.12 Ohio .................................................................................. 1,151.2 102.3 1,048.9 202.9 5.67 0.50 5.17 Oklahoma ......................................................................... 86.7 22.5 64.2 27.9 3.10 0.80 2.30 Oregon .............................................................................. 209.2 25.0 184.2 39.5 5.29 0.63 4.66 Pennsylvania .................................................................... 1,043.0 117.7 925.3 147.7 7.06 0.80 6.26 Puerto Rico ....................................................................... 145.1 2.3 142.8 27.0 5.38 0.09 5.29 Rhode Island .................................................................... 41.9 19.1 22.8 10.0 4.18 1.91 2.27 South Carolina ................................................................. 153.9 20.1 133.8 32.6 4.71 0.61 4.10 South Dakota .................................................................... 34.5 5.3 29.2 5.6 6.13 0.94 5.19 

Tennessee ......................................................................... 188.4 34.2 154.2 52.6 3.58 0.65 2.93 Texas ................................................................................ 685.0 122.0 563.0 182.0 3.76 0.67 3.09 Utah .................................................................................. 97.0 21.3 75.8 32.1 3.03 0.66 2.36 Vermont ............................................................................ 31.7 8.6 23.2 7.6 4.20 1.13 3.06 Virginia ............................................................................. 276.9 43.3 233.5 61.1 4.53 0.71 3.82 Virgin Islands ................................................................... 6.1 0.6 5.5 2.3 2.67 0.25 2.42 Washington ....................................................................... 474.4 102.5 371.9 126.8 3.74 0.81 2.93 West Virginia .................................................................... 109.4 13.2 96.2 24.5 4.47 0.54 3.93 Wisconsin ......................................................................... 499.3 53.6 445.7 90.9 5.49 0.59 4.90 Wyoming ........................................................................... 33.1 2.8 30.3 8.9 3.72 0.32 3.41 

Total ........................................................................ 14,347.7 2,649.9 11,697.8 3,585.0 4.00 0.74 3.26 

1 Totals may not add due of rounding.

Note.—Data is preliminary for fiscal year 1996. AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children.Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 8–11.—TOTAL CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1979–98

[In thousands of dollars]

State 1979 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

Alabama ...................................... $6,854 $66,174 $80,952 $98,141 $113,273 $127,908 $141,212 $157,887 $170,581 Alaska .......................................... 3,844 26,788 30,721 35,613 39,148 45,851 51,734 57,708 64,919 Arizona ......................................... 6,411 27,837 33,277 46,447 66,580 77,419 93,812 113,481 132,049 Arkansas ...................................... 3,921 26,010 32,783 42,065 49,147 55,215 63,875 79,432 91,457 California ..................................... 199,945 522,646 591,243 653,681 736,855 811,493 857,282 1,034,409 1,174,214 1Colorado ....................................... 4,020 39,601 46,997 58,030 67,723 80,288 91,870 108,259 123,565 Connecticut .................................. 23,033 66,724 75,778 84,190 93,454 98,448 117,723 125,234 141,543 Delaware ...................................... 5,814 20,161 22,692 25,926 26,663 29,663 31,551 35,395 38,616 District of Columbia .................... 1,086 13,598 16,578 19,733 21,798 24,079 26,040 27,791 29,906 Florida .......................................... 10,524 176,603 214,153 252,473 289,976 327,296 374,015 411,799 484,630 Georgia ........................................ 5,554 113,095 143,014 174,467 205,566 229,822 244,367 268,599 278,060 Guam ........................................... 160 1,440 3,162 4,697 5,003 7,079 6,037 6,736 6,682 Hawaii .......................................... 5,150 27,638 30,096 34,404 37,327 45,107 48,751 52,182 55,016 Idaho ............................................ 2,501 22,909 23,442 27,846 32,127 36,942 40,747 44,003 48,025 Illinois .......................................... 10,740 136,019 150,134 183,308 183,889 202,191 219,340 249,834 267,360 Indiana ......................................... 9,073 96,145 110,117 124,614 141,164 151,626 174,450 196,935 208,444 Iowa ............................................. 13,017 70,982 80,693 96,046 109,278 122,705 136,138 151,907 166,155 Kansas ......................................... 3,975 44,958 54,832 66,053 59,601 86,744 97,571 107,579 114,979 Kentucky ...................................... 4,881 59,998 73,928 93,902 103,587 121,427 130,640 144,901 164,357 Louisiana ..................................... 12,678 60,527 67,988 84,373 103,054 118,008 129,609 143,644 154,821 Maine ........................................... 4,574 35,741 36,554 38,005 44,963 51,184 57,361 62,585 68,615 Maryland ...................................... 20,856 151,352 163,626 194,009 219,085 244,645 265,344 287,923 322.363 Massachusetts ............................. 36,338 176,915 169,545 185,086 195,374 203,986 223,560 247,948 258,584 Michigan ...................................... 248,414 644,734 697,634 782,804 874,483 898,372 859,629 948,558 1,092,176 1Minnesota .................................... 21,370 139,345 160,363 189,495 214,480 246,252 283,538 318,773 355,372 Mississippi ................................... 1,662 30,532 40,277 48,289 53,505 62,379 68,205 84,551 97,018 Missouri ....................................... 5,829 129,851 141,372 166,339 189,161 214,362 238,700 279,225 318,310 Montana ....................................... 1,213 8,822 12,968 17,436 20,150 21,363 25,532 29,356 33,401 Nebraska ...................................... 2,468 52,378 57,055 66,177 71,708 81,082 90,055 95,373 108,624 Nevada ......................................... 3,487 16,210 23,346 32,080 37,641 43,722 50,066 56,620 60,063 

New Hampshire ........................... 2,089 20,604 22,659 27,360 31,497 36,538 42,570 48,242 54,469 New Jersey ................................... 94,005 281,923 326,879 372,506 407,849 439,748 480,327 500,157 553,713 New Mexico .................................. 1,680 14,416 16,792 19,088 27,117 30,082 26,938 30,114 34,417 New York ...................................... 136,361 373,718 437,371 487,738 536,374 569,682 619,489 701,885 803,826 North Carolina ............................. 9,168 120,344 140,222 167,894 197,254 226,632 233,145 261,672 298,908 North Dakota ............................... 1,723 10,414 12,309 15,599 18,693 21,878 25,522 28,470 32,209 Ohio ............................................. 22,832 489,515 552,649 665,999 714,132 789,319 886,843 981,342 1,083,543 1Oklahoma ..................................... 1,826 32,169 39,922 46,540 52,170 57,578 63,908 73,455 79,782 Oregon ......................................... 88,502 78,374 91,252 107,435 124,929 142,227 156,829 178,428 197,911 Pennsylvania ................................ 186,718 614,222 699,676 775,782 814,480 861,653 895,720 958,281 1,006,860 1Puerto Rico .................................. 1,916 74,535 77,252 84,329 97,357 98,628 107,397 126,711 142,555 Rhode Island ............................... 3,575 20,044 21,609 24,880 26,671 29,900 32,634 35,524 38,825 South Carolina ............................. 3,545 52,320 58,857 68,798 79,280 90,628 102,912 118,147 135,657 South Dakota ............................... 1,407 11,024 13,119 15,881 18,112 21,357 24,838 28,018 30,888 Tennessee .................................... 8,976 71,502 77,032 84,818 116,152 141,388 156,904 159,804 172,823 Texas ............................................ 8,207 132,318 192,797 251,157 309,502 367,171 448,463 538,253 618,066 Utah ............................................. 6,624 38,071 43,895 52,610 56,199 61,135 63,426 77,600 84,542 Vermont ....................................... 1,449 9,353 11,023 13,518 15,831 17,950 21,234 25,370 27,878 Virginia ........................................ 9,197 110,560 129,919 145,114 151,919 182,787 226,682 257,180 292,830 Virgin Islands .............................. 260 3,131 3,338 4,049 4,992 5,562 5,399 5,438 5,921 Washington .................................. 27,018 175,750 222,409 267,455 307,251 340,488 375,257 407,002 451,730 West Virginia ............................... 1,592 21,658 23,527 35,561 49,016 54,402 72,796 84,233 98,148 Wisconsin ..................................... 34,267 241,272 276,712 293,460 332,814 380,584 427,487 440,239 459,882 Wyoming ...................................... 520 7,155 9,079 11,220 13,810 16,184 17,350 25,021 28,683 

Total .................................... 1,332,847 6,010,125 6,885,619 7,964,522 8,909,166 9,850,159 10,752,824 12,018,767 13,363,972 14

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 8–12.—TOTAL AFDC COLLECTIONS BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1979–98

[In thousands of dollars]

State 1979 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

Alabama .................... $6,830 $19,484 $22,788 $23,001 $22,539 $21,148 $21,115 $23,464 $23,361 Alaska ....................... 334 8,160 9,940 11,145 11,722 13,645 16,138 18,464 20,637 Arizona ...................... 642 6,102 7,401 12,693 18,616 21,175 24,217 23,764 26,031 Arkansas ................... 2,428 11,799 13,800 15,766 16,249 15,662 16,831 19,746 19,876 California .................. 117,532 248,440 286,261 314,232 335,235 374,548 401,573 496,185 544,639 Colorado .................... 3,525 16,765 19,281 23,287 26,197 29,415 31,192 35,572 36,950 Connecticut ............... 11,416 27,405 33,816 37,744 41,292 41,465 54,100 54,323 60,342 Delaware ................... 1,386 5,826 6,661 7,306 7,798 7,855 8,029 8,315 7,962 District of Columbia 907 4,118 4,407 4,927 5,197 5,614 5,923 6,032 5,631 Florida ....................... 8,598 48,364 57,071 69,765 78,081 80,368 85,244 80,685 100,231 Georgia ...................... 4,772 45,937 57,765 74,546 84,627 84,820 84,932 102,399 77,173 Guam ........................ 159 520 1,635 2,524 2,344 1,948 1,723 2,003 1,320 Hawaii ....................... 2,544 8,343 7,699 8,161 9,058 9,951 11,367 12,241 11,510 Idaho ......................... 2,047 6,952 7,482 8,543 8,746 10,086 10,912 11,109 10,225 Illinois ....................... 9,916 44,149 48,968 58,842 55,749 61,112 65,091 72,391 77,683 Indiana ...................... 8,116 38,124 45,030 49,247 52,040 51,945 50,962 44,994 39,853 Iowa .......................... 10,654 28,552 30,585 35,401 36,775 40,105 41,007 40,100 40,773 Kansas ...................... 3,454 15,209 17,454 20,869 22,402 24,732 27,567 28,779 27,072 Kentucky .................... 4,615 22,286 27,502 34,702 36,565 37,979 39,299 39,445 39,449 Louisiana .................. 5,244 20,861 23,089 25,975 26,827 26,714 28,133 31,228 27,123 Maine ........................ 4,133 21,089 21,063 21,477 25,683 27,783 28,435 29,542 31,810 Maryland ................... 10,929 42,318 37,162 46,348 51,313 48,031 47,419 46,709 38,008 Massachusetts .......... 29,145 68,968 66,969 71,784 77,292 76,899 77,085 71,421 67,382 Michigan ................... 76,375 145,251 153,690 168,317 169,581 176,100 167,673 170,955 161,658 Minnesota ................. 14,510 43,950 47,802 53,305 55,961 61,418 64,406 64,872 64,572 Mississippi ................ 1,556 14,530 19,494 21,523 21,641 22,962 22,067 24,450 21,857 

Missouri .................... 4,165 38,056 37,021 49,653 51,153 55,959 57,788 66,610 51,858 Montana .................... 685 4,394 5,251 6,413 6,464 6,118 7,452 8,170 8,328 Nebraska ................... 2,083 6,990 7,431 9,195 9,797 10,158 11,337 12,437 12,675 Nevada ...................... 517 3,311 4,465 6,807 7,021 7,271 7,643 8,441 8,433 New Hampshire ......... 2,089 3,606 4,385 6,337 7,638 9,446 10,776 10,532 9,845 New Jersey ................ 28,622 61,473 76,644 83,509 84,020 86,357 88,932 90,644 88,149 New Mexico ............... 1,160 5,573 6,421 7,850 12,922 13,389 9,257 6,253 9,498 New York ................... 56,588 134,040 157,582 174,587 184,583 183,707 187,205 205,855 224,751 North Carolina .......... 7,714 46,176 54,712 64,004 70,304 76,808 75,209 75,017 74,283 North Dakota ............. 1,379 5,103 5,600 6,016 6,098 6,148 6,334 6,108 5,967 Ohio ........................... 21,974 76,888 84,304 100,833 105,719 113,425 120,127 124,814 123,515 Oklahoma .................. 1,260 11,875 14,894 17,682 18,784 20,817 22,287 24,345 23,980 Oregon ....................... 12,977 18,877 21,989 25,637 28,357 30,119 30,586 31,152 29,283 Pennsylvania ............. 33,190 96,328 113,735 123,784 124,490 26,932 134,995 138,685 123,350 Puerto Rico ............... 439 1,707 1,600 1,428 1,344 1,445 2,418 2,821 2,814 Rhode Island ............. 3,438 10,168 10,550 13,486 14,954 16,539 17,704 18,351 18,869 South Carolina .......... 3,065 15,933 17,779 21,066 24,588 27,063 27,933 29,614 24,935 South Dakota ............ 1,137 3,717 4,213 4,888 5,056 5,645 6,129 6,617 6,163 Tennessee ................. 3,871 22,926 27,865 22,777 33,422 34,852 47,576 34,740 31,556 Texas ......................... 6,370 39,659 47,255 59,165 66,199 75,830 88,507 102,752 108,101 Utah .......................... 5,442 14,999 16,261 18,939 19,488 20,691 20,948 21,555 21,001 Vermont ..................... 1,201 5,578 6,380 6,649 7,638 7,424 8,312 8,912 8,379 Virginia ..................... 9,081 27,770 33,910 38,281 39,610 37,579 48,109 46,351 46,883 Virgin Islands ........... 143 210 233 282 343 357 352 484 628 Washington ............... 18,319 65,291 77,402 91,083 100,337 104,063 109,763 112,819 112,561 West Virginia ............ 1,430 4,085 6,859 9,500 16,867 12,377 13,846 15,307 15,919 Wisconsin .................. 26,044 59,303 61,179 63,813 65,439 81,437 94,558 80,986 63,592 Wyoming .................... 379 2,584 3,226 3,749 4,345 4,288 4,665 4,945 4,233 

Total ................. 596,532 1,750,125 1,983,962 2,258,844 2,416,511 2,549,723 2,693,186 2,854,502 2,842,681 2,

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 8–13.—TOTAL NON-AFDC COLLECTIONS BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1979–98

[In thousands of dollars]

State 1979 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

Alabama .................. $16 $46,691 $58,165 $75,140 $90,733 $106,760 $120,098 $134,423 $147,221 $Alaska ..................... 3,510 18,628 20,781 24,468 27,426 32,207 35,596 39,245 44,283 Arizona .................... 5,769 21,735 25,875 33,754 47,963 56,243 69,594 89,273 106,018 Arkansas ................. 1,494 14,211 18,984 26,299 32,899 39,553 47,045 59,686 71,581 California ................ 82,412 274,205 304,982 339,449 401,620 436,945 455,708 538,224 629,575 Colorado .................. 496 22,836 27,715 34,743 41,527 50,873 60,678 72,688 86,614 Connecticut ............. 11,617 39,319 41,960 46,445 52,161 56,983 63,623 70,911 81,201 Delaware ................. 4,428 14,335 16,032 18,620 18,865 21,809 23,522 27,080 30,654 District of Columbia 179 9,481 12,171 14,806 16,601 18,465 20,117 21,759 24,275 Florida ..................... 1,926 128,239 157,081 182,707 211,896 246,928 288,770 331,114 384,399 Georgia .................... 783 67,158 85,249 99,921 120,939 145,002 159,435 166,200 200,887 Guam ...................... (1) 920 1,527 2,172 2,659 5,131 4,314 4,733 5,361 Hawaii ..................... 2,606 19,295 22,397 26,243 28,269 35,156 37,384 39,941 43,505 Idaho ....................... 454 15,957 15,960 19,302 23,381 26,856 29,835 32,894 37,800 Illinois ..................... 823 91,870 101,167 124,467 128,140 141,079 154,249 177,443 189,677 Indiana .................... 957 58,021 65,087 75,368 89,125 99,680 123,488 151,941 168,591 Iowa ........................ 2,363 42,430 50,109 60,645 72,503 82,599 95,131 111,807 125,383 Kansas .................... 520 29,749 37,379 45,183 37,199 62,012 70,003 78,799 87,907 Kentucky .................. 266 37,711 46,426 59,200 67,022 83,448 91,341 105,457 124,908 Louisiana ................ 7,434 39,665 44,898 58,398 76,227 91,293 101,476 112,416 127,699 Maine ...................... 441 14,652 15,490 16,528 19,280 23,402 28,927 33,043 36,806 Maryland ................. 9,927 109,034 126,464 147,660 167,771 196,614 217,925 241,214 284,355 Massachusetts ........ 7,193 107,948 102,576 113,302 118,082 127,087 146,475 176,527 191,202 Michigan ................. 172,039 499,483 543,944 614,488 704,903 722,273 691,956 777,603 930,518 1,Minnesota ............... 6,861 95,395 112,561 136,190 158,519 184,834 219,131 253,900 290,799 Mississippi .............. 106 16,002 20,783 26,766 31,864 39,417 46,139 60,101 75,161 

Missouri .................. 1,664 91,795 104,351 116,686 138,008 158,403 180,912 212,614 266,452 Montana .................. 528 4,427 7,718 11,024 13,686 15,245 18,080 21,187 25,073 Nebraska ................. 385 45,387 49,624 56,983 61,911 70,925 78,718 82,936 95,949 Nevada .................... 2,970 12,899 18,881 25,273 30,620 36,451 42,423 48,179 51,630 New Hampshire ....... 0 16,999 18,274 21,023 23,859 27,092 31,793 37,710 44,624 New Jersey .............. 65,383 220,450 250,235 288,997 323,829 353,390 391,395 409,513 465,564 New Mexico ............. 520 8,843 10,371 11,239 14,195 16,693 17,681 23,860 24,919 New York ................. 79,773 239,678 279,289 313,151 351,791 385,974 432,284 496,030 579,075 North Carolina ........ 1,454 74,167 85,510 103,890 126,951 149,824 157,936 186,655 224,625 North Dakota ........... 344 5,312 6,708 9,583 12,595 15,730 19,188 22,361 26,242 Ohio ......................... 858 412,627 468,346 565,166 608,413 675,895 766,715 856,529 960,029 1,Oklahoma ................ 566 20,293 25,028 28,858 33,386 36,760 41,621 49,109 55,802 Oregon ..................... 75,525 59,497 69,263 81,798 96,572 112,108 126,244 147,276 168,627 Pennsylvania ........... 153,528 517,893 517,893 651,998 689,990 734,721 760,725 819,596 883,510 Puerto Rico ............. 1,477 72,828 75,652 82,901 96,014 97,184 104,979 123,890 139,741 Rhode Island ........... 137 9,876 11,059 11,394 11,717 13,361 14,931 17,173 19,955 South Carolina ........ 480 36,387 41,078 47,732 54,692 63,565 74,978 88,533 110,722 South Dakota .......... 270 7,307 8,906 10,993 13,056 15,711 18,709 21,401 24,724 Tennessee ............... 5,105 48,575 49,167 62,041 82,730 106,536 109,328 125,064 141,267 Texas ....................... 1,837 92,659 145,543 191,993 243,303 291,341 359,956 435,501 509,964 Utah ........................ 1,183 23,073 27,634 33,671 36,712 40,445 42,478 56,045 63,541 Vermont ................... 249 3,775 4,643 6,869 8,193 10,526 12,922 16,458 19,498 Virginia ................... 116 82,789 96,008 106,833 112,309 145,207 178,572 210,828 245,946 Virgin Islands ......... 116 2,920 3,105 3,767 4,649 5,205 5,047 4,955 5,293 Washington ............. 8,699 110,459 145,006 176,372 206,914 236,425 265,495 294,184 339,169 West Virginia .......... 162 17,574 16,668 26,061 32,149 42,025 58,951 68,926 82,229 Wisconsin ................ 8,224 181,969 215,533 229,647 267,374 299,147 332,929 359,253 396,290 Wyoming .................. 141 4,571 5,853 7,471 9,465 11,896 12,685 20,076 24,449 

Total ............... 736,315 4,260,000 4,901,657 5,705,678 6,492,655 7,300,436 8,059,637 9,164,265 10,521,291 11,

1 Less than $500.

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 8–14.—AVERAGE NUMBER OF AFDC CHILD SUPPORT CASES IN WHICH A COLLECTION WAS MADE, BY STATE FOR SELECTED FISCAL Y

1978–98

State 1978 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 

Alabama .................................. 7,966 9,133 10,860 8,347 9,209 9,077 7,679 6,961 5,749 Alaska ..................................... 246 1,120 1,387 1,718 1,949 2,168 2,415 2,620 2,700 Arizona .................................... 819 1,851 3,128 1,930 2,822 3,343 7,384 6,764 6,805 Arkansas ................................. 2,509 5,207 6,372 7,071 8,188 8,301 6,773 6,589 5,673 California ................................ 92,325 103,742 89,304 104,903 116,118 123,776 173,547 224,932 258,104 Colorado .................................. 3,177 5,687 4,437 4,581 5,126 5,210 4,418 4,202 3,730 Connecticut ............................. 8,002 15,565 6,578 7,128 8,445 9,437 10,792 11,574 12,127 Delaware ................................. 1,156 2,891 2,223 2,495 2,663 2,913 2,880 2,543 2,205 District of Columbia ............... 708 1,925 1,758 1,940 2,281 2,437 2,534 2,357 2,109 Florida ..................................... 7,376 16,468 38,500 40,687 40,135 44,727 49,284 41,195 14,477 Georgia .................................... 6,350 6,657 19,310 23,280 24,729 26,676 28,639 25,136 23,768 Guam ...................................... (1) 206 197 573 616 683 646 559 442 

Hawaii ..................................... 1,757 4,622 2,658 2,773 4,651 4,551 2,920 3,428 2,930 Idaho ....................................... 1,346 4,343 1,752 1,992 2,356 2,719 3,130 3,073 2,155 Illinois ..................................... 9,624 18,299 16,968 23,511 23,639 26,028 28,430 29,586 20,045 Indiana .................................... 9,488 22,058 20,444 26,344 30,823 31,159 111,078 30,119 5,927 Iowa ........................................ 8,396 11,871 7,289 7,153 7,681 7,365 7,057 5,604 5,006 Kansas .................................... 2,859 4,769 4,595 5,268 6,120 6,857 7,515 7,064 5,241 Kentucky .................................. 3,083 6,729 10,741 12,513 13,516 15,217 12,679 11,607 10,272 Louisiana ................................ 5,204 7,836 11,842 12,198 12,510 12,164 11,887 11,957 30,353 Maine ...................................... 2,368 7,178 5,515 5,767 5,287 7,013 8,793 8,981 8,946 Maryland ................................. 14,002 15,861 9,237 18,330 19,366 18,684 18,119 16,574 12,786 Massachusetts ........................ 17,782 25,350 16,029 16,106 17,961 18,378 22,245 17,118 15,458 Michigan ................................. 61,985 59,049 51,747 46,647 45,112 45,211 39,332 36,496 30,641 Minnesota ............................... 9,818 14,872 14,192 12,658 14,563 16,440 17,170 15,778 14,733 Mississippi .............................. 1,846 3,742 7,237 8,808 9,604 10,157 9,970 9,732 7,300 Missouri .................................. (2) 7,716 6,483 11,241 13,430 14,135 13,096 13,987 9,880 

Montana .................................. 748 1,600 1,140 1,298 1,551 1,816 2,169 2,319 2,051 Nebraska ................................. 1,509 2,362 2,811 3,255 4,802 4,811 5,538 5,737 5,608 Nevada .................................... 494 2,370 2,269 2,404 3,096 3,506 3,518 4,792 4,603 New Hampshire ....................... 1,530 1,021 1,091 1,454 2,240 2,703 3,328 3,215 2,889 New Jersey .............................. 16,243 27,686 17,591 19,728 24,376 26,241 26,899 27,310 24,833 New Mexico ............................. 1,429 2,034 3,766 4,383 3,865 4,385 6,613 7,427 6,609 New York ................................. 36,287 48,979 40,219 46,382 51,290 51,407 51,943 52,741 51,495 North Carolina ........................ 11,232 14,216 20,381 24,699 28,028 29,649 28,027 25,276 18,728 North Dakota ........................... 759 1,656 1,647 1,665 1,597 1,579 943 1,006 769 Ohio ......................................... 24,419 32,582 35,973 34,446 38,445 39,857 47,323 45994 48,117 Oklahoma ................................ 1,101 3,543 7,787 3,895 4,794 5,294 5,671 5,157 4,332 Oregon ..................................... 6,761 6,687 6,437 7,437 8,321 9,495 9,390 8,899 8,112 Pennsylvania ........................... 15,172 42,088 47,039 52,269 59,514 61,998 58,646 60,952 48,946 Puerto Rico ............................. 413 3,736 3,696 3,103 3,026 2,811 3,454 1,351 1,177 Rhode Island ........................... 2,419 3,233 4,295 3,100 3,346 4,070 4,830 4,739 4,530 South Carolina ........................ 3,343 5,785 14,614 15,349 16,764 19,026 20,964 21,547 20,832 South Dakota .......................... 1,087 1,532 1,234 1,262 1,526 1,642 1,809 2,268 1,341 Tennessee ............................... 4,705 8,336 16,659 11,625 12,179 11,391 10,344 8,892 3,269 Texas ....................................... 5,446 5,652 15,447 18,229 20,387 23,075 26,570 27,897 26,169 Utah ........................................ 3,784 5,209 3,333 3,669 3,973 4,033 3,979 4,034 3,718 Vermont ................................... 953 2,329 2,596 2,826 3,556 4,114 2,594 2,856 2,678 Virginia ................................... 4,729 13,054 14,138 16,761 18,679 19,399 45,576 19,188 16,965 Virgin Islands ......................... 232 199 133 135 165 193 214 158 234 Washington ............................. 14,860 15,895 27,063 23,263 28,618 27,020 29,026 24,317 23,648 West Virginia .......................... 1,430 2,331 2,484 2,622 3,347 4,108 6,185 4,488 4,219 Wisconsin ................................ 16,868 44,799 30,143 30,426 32,693 31,984 32,140 10,681 8,728 Wyoming .................................. 294 453 1,197 1,681 2,094 2,146 2,058 675 547 

Total ............................... 458,439 684,114 700,803 755,328 831,172 872,579 1,050,163 940,452 864,709 

1 Data not reported for this item or insufficient data reported to perform indicated computation. 2 Less than $500.

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 8–15.—AVERAGE NUMBER OF NON-AFDC CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CASES IN WHICH A COLLECTION WAS MADE BY STATE, SEL

FISCAL YEARS 1978–98

State 1978 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 

Alabama .......................................... 110 5,023 19,971 28,512 33,741 39,586 47,785 51,547 57,479 Alaska ............................................. 2,309 3,205 3,947 4,211 4,598 4,997 5,891 6,331 6,714 Arizona ............................................ (1) 4,770 4,668 9,144 11,107 10,283 21,881 25,800 25,788 Arkansas ......................................... 764 3,613 8,473 11,232 15,088 18,449 23,243 27,015 31,538 California ........................................ 69,696 64,686 96,101 101,913 97,597 104,864 155,144 200,129 237,234 Colorado .......................................... 1,017 3,976 7,281 9,008 10,492 11,360 14,524 16,883 19,858 Connecticut ..................................... (1) 9,392 9,884 13,289 14,441 15,721 17,950 20,071 22,526 Delaware ......................................... 3,210 4,395 6,770 8,058 8,303 9,191 11,575 9,856 10,259 District of Columbia ....................... 93 1,007 4,252 4,964 5,704 6,278 6,904 7,164 7,520 Florida ............................................. 1,200 7,593 56,329 66,748 67,948 77,734 96,394 102,045 92,641 Georgia ............................................ 1,207 5,487 30,217 34,545 35,419 40,698 50,178 55,749 81,366 Guam ............................................... (1) 65 114 495 616 803 1,582 1,508 1,398 

Hawaii ............................................. (1) 352 2,804 10,398 15,305 16,299 10,237 10,393 11,637 

Idaho ............................................... 455 1,047 6,493 7,403 8,689 9,889 11,522 11,612 11,599 Illinois ............................................. 196 10,030 26,184 36,363 36,246 40,744 48,174 54,714 62,397 Indiana ............................................ 450 2,881 25,586 27,111 34,855 36,865 39,155 45,017 57,723 Iowa ................................................. 671 4,913 12,400 14,103 16,352 19,266 24,161 25,634 28,661 Kansas ............................................ 210 758 11,520 13,855 16,003 18,846 24,991 27,187 30,415 Kentucky .......................................... 255 3,647 17,473 20,489 23,531 28,950 35,072 38,815 43,479 Louisiana ......................................... 6,866 10,636 16,739 20,001 24,194 28,146 37,396 42,588 47,949 Maine .............................................. 638 1,496 6,425 6,510 5,479 7,630 11,793 12,752 14,070 Maryland ......................................... 130 26,154 27,339 49,380 52,024 54,989 61,259 65,038 70,096 Massachusetts ................................ (1) 0 22,921 14,264 24,605 25,899 33,533 40,266 44,261 

Michigan ......................................... (1) 88,675 115,081 129,461 133,652 141,489 151,518 164,057 179,822 

Minnesota ........................................ 2,766 12,615 26,712 27,174 35,791 43,272 56,720 64,251 72,944 Mississippi ...................................... 81 1,319 7,917 10,077 12,997 16,007 24,355 29,377 29,626 Missouri ........................................... (1) 5,362 26,994 32,317 38,492 41,022 47,438 57,745 50,365 

Montana .......................................... 444 344 1,448 2,208 2,748 3,750 6,148 7,488 8,711 Nebraska ......................................... 176 7,874 14,748 14,883 15,185 17,771 18,399 19,113 18,524 Nevada ............................................ 4,026 5,360 4,451 5,327 6,676 7,819 9,387 10,072 11,146 New Hampshire ............................... (1) 4,939 5,260 5,875 7,077 7,870 10,079 11,316 12,784 New Jersey ....................................... 20,000 45,868 66,885 68,753 78,789 84,267 89,409 97,360 103,379 New Mexico ..................................... 286 2,249 5,360 5,758 5,947 5,849 8,095 9,455 9,509 New York ......................................... 39,623 63,829 83,651 94,031 103,924 108,419 152,556 136,975 152,311 North Carolina ................................. 1,715 10,137 27,632 31,810 37,172 43,884 59,956 68,579 61,255 North Dakota ................................... 154 266 1,911 2,357 3,320 4,026 4,245 6,582 7,028 Ohio ................................................. 1,430 10,853 101,553 107,806 135,535 149,104 191,748 158,967 234,784 Oklahoma ........................................ (1) 1,968 10,509 8,558 8,479 10,707 13,730 15,347 17,094 

Oregon ............................................. 17,957 19,331 25,657 19,754 21,810 25,063 31,968 35,821 31,931 Pennsylvania ................................... 49,621 108,498 147,885 171,525 182,098 190,671 195,144 209,436 219,075 Puerto Rico ...................................... 710 26,873 35,295 36,731 33,075 41,130 45,963 47,320 48,994 Rhode Island ................................... 57 1,969 3,705 3,017 3,060 3,291 4,271 4,670 5,341 South Carolina ................................ 203 2,777 4,896 10,393 25,764 27,771 34,471 36,395 42,911 South Dakota .................................. 297 502 2,739 3,262 3,881 4,607 6,339 7,916 7,709 Tennessee ........................................ 6,360 12,156 28,174 31,554 35,358 40,003 53,498 55,076 42,622 Texas ............................................... 2,861 8,833 37,741 51,039 65,152 79,037 111,451 133,427 151,245 Utah ................................................ 400 1,068 6,738 8,605 9,704 10,573 13,446 15,343 18,848 Vermont ........................................... 181 393 1,659 1,870 2,433 3,154 3,380 4,603 5,644 Virginia ............................................ 38 876 31,492 34,242 38,267 46,760 88,500 66,164 72,765 Virgin Islands .................................. 1 1,288 1,247 1,301 1,348 1,538 1,655 1,410 1,790 Washington ..................................... 4,822 9,802 34,791 46,930 55,788 64,929 74,479 69,233 80,647 West Virginia ................................... 130 288 8,045 7,555 9,513 11,971 22,022 20,762 22,932 Wisconsin ........................................ 4,685 20,288 56,769 65,718 70,780 88,601 111,438 94,760 104,860 Wyoming .......................................... 89 77 2,352 2,853 3,275 1,738 3,564 6,582 7,287 

Total ....................................... 248,590 653,803 1,362,821 1,554,740 1,749,427 1,953,580 2,404,716 2,563,716 2,850,491 3,

1 Data not reported for this item or insufficient data reported to perform indicated computation.

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 8–16.—SUPPORT ORDERS ESTABLISHED, ENFORCED, AND MODIFIED TO INCLUDE HEALTH INSURANCE BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 19

State

Total number

of orders established

Total number

with health insurance

Percent with

health insurance

Total number of

orders enforced or

modified

Total number enforced

or modified with health

insurance

Pe

h

Alabama ......................................................................... 21,176 11,399 53.83 608,877 123,919 Alaska ............................................................................ 3,146 3,119 99.14 3,655 3,540 Arizona ........................................................................... 9,121 9,121 100.00 624,217 8,807 Arkansas ........................................................................ 9,070 6,030 66.48 157,368 6,002 California ....................................................................... 223,541 175,227 78.39 1,378,352 1,043,809 Colorado ......................................................................... 9,982 8,287 83.02 75,453 44,838 Connecticut .................................................................... 31,995 20,726 64.78 169,970 90,931 Delaware ........................................................................ 2,354 2,354 100.00 18,205 15,114 District of Columbia ...................................................... 6,814 79 1.16 6,092 39 Florida ............................................................................ 25,958 3,486 13.43 66,747 13,772 Georgia ........................................................................... 31,092 13,362 42.98 508,876 156,667 Guam ............................................................................. 336 141 41.96 698 267 Hawaii ............................................................................ 4,150 4,150 100.00 117,044 117,044 Idaho .............................................................................. 3,218 3,160 98.20 204,583 144,380 Illinois ............................................................................ 30,765 13,419 43.62 647,959 141,839 Indiana ........................................................................... 32,272 695 2.15 7,271 16 Iowa ............................................................................... 14,930 12,373 82.87 166,137 93,595 Kansas ........................................................................... 17,318 14,473 83.57 172,949 45,405 Kentucky ......................................................................... 27,190 9,849 36.22 161,396 30,602 Louisiana ....................................................................... 17,419 16,594 95.26 169,646 137,112 Maine ............................................................................. 4,687 3,386 72.24 12,759 1,359 Maryland ........................................................................ 20,933 13,949 66.64 1,199,586 265,442 Massachusetts ............................................................... 12,297 6,469 52.61 81,744 1,806 Michigan ........................................................................ 28,212 24,952 88.44 1,407,431 76,904 Minnesota ...................................................................... 18,657 8,134 43.60 371,521 43,957 Mississippi ..................................................................... 14,561 6,542 44.93 92,695 25,344 

Missouri ......................................................................... 22,756 17,064 74.99 88,191 59,112 Montana ......................................................................... 2,232 2,062 92.38 44,300 9,124 Nebraska ........................................................................ 4,887 2,233 45.69 1,613 391 Nevada ........................................................................... 4,186 3,172 75.78 65,302 2,033 New Hampshire .............................................................. 3,877 2,057 53.06 64,798 4,426 New Jersey ..................................................................... 23,192 16,235 70.00 30,712 11,926 New Mexico .................................................................... 3,633 1,833 50.45 9,436 393 New York ........................................................................ 49,481 19,790 40.00 43,048 17,218 North Carolina ............................................................... 35,959 35,959 100.00 71,839 NA North Dakota .................................................................. 2,177 2,076 95.36 13,861 118 Ohio ................................................................................ 63,014 44,891 71.24 723,398 345,704 Oklahoma ....................................................................... 9,272 7,366 79.44 8,651 6,258 Oregon ............................................................................ 12,850 10,915 84.94 58,760 20,161 Pennsylvania .................................................................. 108,510 89,286 82.28 352,843 265,558 Puerto Rico .................................................................... 9,359 NA 0.00 78,542 8 Rhode Island .................................................................. 2,283 1,480 64.83 19,614 14,187 South Carolina ............................................................... 13,641 8,649 63.40 34,463 17,234 South Dakota ................................................................. 3,792 3,430 90.45 26,354 21,507 Tennessee ...................................................................... 28,842 6,804 23.59 50,799 30,365 Texas .............................................................................. 37,019 24,417 65.96 52,081 8,486 Utah ............................................................................... 4,386 3,405 77.63 170,415 149,609 Vermont .......................................................................... 2,229 900 40.38 28,924 13,937 Virginia .......................................................................... 20,298 16,198 79.80 137,783 32,192 Virgin Islands ................................................................ 556 9 1.62 1,216 NA Washington .................................................................... 27,248 24,536 90.05 851,861 395,963 West Virginia ................................................................. 9,712 4,658 47.96 89,607 2,898 Wisconsin ....................................................................... 19,418 8,677 44.69 175,076 22,386 Wyoming ......................................................................... 1,698 874 51.47 47,500 18,475 

Total ...................................................................... 1,147,701 750,452 65.39 11,772,218 4,102,179 

NA—Not available.Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 8–17.—PERCENTAGE OF AFDC PAYMENTS RECOVERED THROUGH CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1

State 1979 1985 1987 1989 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

Alabama .................... 8.5 23.2 30.8 31.7 33.7 27.0 23.8 23.1 25.6 Alaska ....................... 1.5 8.3 12.6 13.7 14.6 12.7 11.9 13.6 16.2 Arizona ...................... 2.0 5.1 3.8 4.4 4.2 5.4 7.1 8.2 9.8 Arkansas ................... 4.8 17.6 21.0 20.7 23.6 26.5 28.0 28.0 32.5 California .................. 6.5 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.3 6.5 7.1 7.8 8.3 Colorado .................... 4.8 9.5 11.4 12.3 13.0 15.0 16.7 19.5 22.7 Connecticut ............... 6.5 12.2 12.7 9.5 10.2 10.5 11.2 11.0 15.0 Delaware ................... 4.4 17.3 21.2 20.3 20.6 19.7 19.8 20.2 22.1 District of Columbia 1.0 3.8 4.7 4.9 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.7 Florida ....................... 5.5 11.5 11.9 11.6 11.1 9.9 9.6 10.2 11.3 Georgia ...................... 4.3 10.4 12.4 14.3 15.4 18.2 20.1 20.3 20.9 Guam ........................ 5.3 9.1 11.9 10.8 32.7 34.6 28.7 18.6 14.5 Hawaii ....................... 2.9 8.9 7.3 8.8 7.4 6.9 6.7 6.6 7.2 Idaho ......................... 8.9 25.0 33.2 35.7 34.7 36.5 35.3 36.3 35.1 Illinois ....................... 1.5 4.8 5.0 5.6 5.7 7.0 6.6 7.1 7.8 Indiana ...................... 7.2 21.5 23.0 22.4 23.8 24.0 24.5 24.2 26.8 Iowa .......................... 9.0 19.3 19.2 20.1 20.6 23.2 24.3 26.3 30.4 Kansas ...................... 5.0 14.1 13.4 15.9 17.8 19.4 19.7 21.8 25.9 Kentucky .................... 3.8 8.5 12.0 12.4 15.0 18.8 20.0 21.0 22.9 Louisiana .................. 5.2 9.1 10.5 11.1 12.4 14.2 15.3 16.1 18.7 Maine ........................ 7.3 20.6 26.1 22.9 21.5 18.8 24.5 28.3 30.4 Maryland ................... 6.1 11.2 13.0 14.5 11.4 14.2 16.9 15.8 15.3 Massachusetts .......... 6.6 10.7 12.0 11.8 10.4 10.5 11.4 11.6 12.8 Michigan ................... 9.0 12.5 13.0 13.9 15.1 15.7 16.6 17.7 18.7 Minnesota ................. 7.8 12.7 14.2 14.4 14.6 16.3 17.3 19.2 23.0 Mississippi ................ 2.9 9.4 13.7 16.8 22.3 24.2 24.9 28.0 29.3 Missouri .................... 2.8 12.0 15.0 17.8 15.6 19.0 18.9 20.1 21.0 Montana .................... 4.4 8.6 9.9 11.1 12.9 16.0 15.0 14.2 17.3 

Nebraska ................... 5.4 11.5 12.9 13.0 13.2 16.0 16.9 18.1 21.4 Nevada ...................... 6.3 16.4 12.4 12.2 14.1 17.1 16.6 15.7 15.3 New Hampshire ......... 9.4 15.2 12.4 11.3 10.1 12.3 14.4 16.0 19.4 New Jersey ................ 5.9 12.5 14.4 14.0 16.4 16.5 16.4 16.9 18.3 New Mexico ............... 3.4 7.4 9.4 9.2 7.8 8.0 11.6 9.7 6.0 New York ................... 3.5 5.0 5.6 6.4 6.7 7.2 7.0 6.7 6.9 North Carolina .......... 5.6 17.4 18.9 18.8 18.4 19.6 20.5 22.4 23.1 North Dakota ............. 9.6 16.8 17.4 21.0 23.4 24.0 24.1 25.4 28.9 Ohio ........................... 4.8 10.1 9.9 10.0 10.3 11.7 12.2 13.4 15.5 Oklahoma .................. 1.6 6.4 8.0 9.0 9.9 10.7 11.1 12.8 14.9 Oregon ....................... 9.0 13.0 13.0 13.5 13.5 12.5 13.4 14.3 15.0 Pennsylvania ............. 4.6 11.0 13.2 12.6 13.7 14.0 13.7 13.6 14.5 Puerto Rico ............... 0.7 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.9 3.5 Rhode Island ............. 6.1 7.6 8.9 10.4 9.2 10.8 11.6 12.6 13.9 South Carolina .......... 5.4 13.1 15.9 16.8 16.8 17.9 21.1 23.6 26.1 South Dakota ............ 6.5 14.4 17.9 17.1 18.1 18.8 19.5 23.2 27.4 Tennessee ................. 5.0 10.3 14.1 13.7 14.3 11.2 15.7 15.9 23.3 Texas ......................... 5.4 6.2 9.4 9.5 10.2 11.8 12.9 14.5 17.6 Utah .......................... 13.7 19.6 22.1 23.4 23.2 25.6 26.2 28.3 29.7 Vermont ..................... 4.1 11.1 13.4 12.7 13.0 12.7 14.7 14.6 17.7 Virginia ..................... 6.3 9.0 13.5 15.7 17.2 17.3 17.3 16.2 21.8 Virgin Islands ........... 8.5 8.3 7.9 7.3 7.1 8.5 10.2 10.6 8.7 Washington ............... 12.5 10.9 14.4 17.1 18.1 20.0 20.8 21.1 22.4 West Virginia ............ 2.6 7.8 6.1 5.1 8.1 10.6 18.2 13.8 15.1 Wisconsin .................. 9.5 12.4 15.4 15.5 15.7 16.2 17.0 21.6 27.3 Wyoming .................... 5.6 8.2 10.0 13.5 13.3 14.3 17.0 20.7 25.1 

Total ................. 5.8 9.1 10.0 10.3 10.7 11.4 12.0 12.5 13.6 

Note.—Payments to Aid to Families with Dependent Children—Unemployed Parent (AFDC–UP) families have been excluded from the payment totals in those State

AFDC–UP Programs.

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 8–18.—FEDERAL INCOME TAX REFUND OFFSET COLLECTIONS BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1983–98

[In thousands of dollars]

State 1983 1987 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 

Alabama ............................ $1,555 $5,135 $8,009 $8,827 $20,586 $17,818 $18,688 $25,609 $25,208 Alaska ............................... 212 891 1,208 1,387 1,711 1,464 2,156 2,946 2,917 Arizona .............................. 385 2,049 2,605 2,876 4,007 8,381 7,538 8,763 12,923 Arkansas ........................... 1,104 3,770 4,669 5,575 7,106 6,862 7,515 11,391 12,176 California .......................... 35,034 46,287 57,624 57,098 67,569 62,460 86,508 129,209 132,838 Colorado ............................ 3,016 3,020 5,604 6,179 7,614 7,851 9,283 13,973 13,932 Connecticut ....................... 4,455 6,140 9,907 9,250 10,190 9,315 10,823 13,699 14,034 Delaware ........................... 166 1,319 1,966 2,467 2,683 2,313 2,626 3,291 3,424 District of Columbia ......... 567 779 1,942 1,606 1,788 1,701 1,992 2,555 2,832 Florida ............................... 1,980 7,318 21,038 24,880 31,569 30,689 38,045 50,377 51,709 Georgia .............................. 1,526 7,258 13,032 15,693 22,016 22,441 30,103 36,429 31,895 Guam ................................ 13 44 13 11 51 43 70 92 99 Hawaii ............................... 817 1,122 1,573 1,976 2,328 3,704 3,589 4,519 4,567 Idaho ................................. 1,183 1,594 2,173 2,270 2,690 2,595 3,205 4,061 4,441 Illinois ............................... 4,525 15,415 19,307 18,876 26,631 20,891 28,836 33,620 37,064 Indiana .............................. 4,940 11,390 15,860 16,853 21,169 19,809 23,429 27,690 26,129 Iowa .................................. 5,526 7,798 8,828 9,439 11,240 10,633 13,055 15,623 15,189 Kansas .............................. 2,525 3,704 5,300 6,101 7,525 7,207 9,196 12,292 13,626 Kentucky ............................ 1,165 3,262 6,680 7,891 12,919 11,994 14,121 16,550 18,097 Louisiana .......................... 1,536 4,722 6,582 6,519 8,438 9,356 13,934 18,758 21,696 Maine ................................ 1,844 3,377 5,383 4,925 5,477 4,862 6,103 7,140 7,406 Maryland ........................... 5,688 9,646 14,343 14,182 15,542 15,454 17,936 22,333 23,833 Massachusetts .................. 3,325 5,269 11,899 10,936 13,077 11,465 9,997 11,739 13,229 Michigan ........................... 18,250 25,893 29,854 32,776 44,968 45,314 49,346 56,625 59,784 Minnesota ......................... 5,576 6,762 8,096 8,831 9,904 9,217 10,575 12,886 13,607 Mississippi ........................ 1,019 2,252 4,958 6,392 8,270 8,532 10,765 19,839 15,959 

Missouri ............................ 4,289 8,482 14,205 10,189 17,711 16,367 19,546 24,207 26,814 Montana ............................ 431 1,209 1,301 1,374 1,636 1,679 1,794 2,242 2,712 Nebraska ........................... 502 1,395 2,485 2,548 3,121 3,213 3,671 4,684 5,411 Nevada .............................. 354 433 768 1,363 2,449 2,291 3,127 4,235 5,144 New Hampshire ................. 757 1,284 1,177 1,350 2,028 1,997 2,869 3,551 3,845 New Jersey ........................ 9,458 14,268 16,171 18,266 20,132 17,990 21,309 25,717 27,200 New Mexico ....................... 533 2,278 2,585 2,863 3,259 3,041 3,907 4,908 5,468 New York ........................... 9,945 27,991 24,763 31,307 33,734 31,084 35,960 42,715 49,517 North Carolina .................. 4,235 7,229 11,270 12,718 16,410 17,403 21,154 28,187 30,002 North Dakota ..................... 352 848 1,302 1,501 1,767 1,656 2,303 2,465 2,715 Ohio ................................... 2,886 11,186 16,514 21,027 27,476 28,651 46,843 58,189 60,171 Oklahoma .......................... 703 2,218 4,647 5,803 7,575 7,077 9,148 10,938 12,469 Oregon ............................... 3,782 4,863 5,381 5,622 6,259 5,694 7,997 10,199 10,451 Pennsylvania ..................... 6,112 17,123 24,354 27,946 32,560 29,012 36,956 44,673 47,174 Puerto Rico ....................... 2 13 6 63 231 218 287 3,107 3,997 Rhode Island ..................... 838 880 1,548 1,522 1,799 1,424 1,857 2,242 2,438 South Carolina .................. 368 1,789 3,233 3,449 4,678 5,198 6,296 8,643 10,153 South Dakota .................... 374 998 1,498 1,648 2,110 2,018 2,465 3,018 3,239 Tennessee ......................... 642 3,025 7,539 8,341 16,033 12,577 16,865 20,384 19,971 Texas ................................. 3,906 11,316 19,926 24,133 34,346 36,561 54,142 70,006 78,613 Utah .................................. 2,540 2,991 4,066 4,297 5,604 5,431 6,270 6,056 5,804 Vermont ............................. 611 887 1,017 1,074 1,294 1,073 1,633 1,881 2,127 Virginia ............................. 1,674 6,840 9,761 10,298 12,594 12,601 16,898 18,962 22,028 Virgin Islands ................... .............. 37 7 25 44 68 81 68 306 Washington ....................... 4,278 10,510 13,732 13,957 17,417 17,236 19,506 23,271 26,012 West Virginia .................... 1,038 2,013 3,066 3,265 3,705 3,551 7,221 7,566 8,741 Wisconsin .......................... 6,266 10,029 13,290 14,384 17,486 18,055 22,800 31,773 27,956 Wyoming ............................ 222 503 684 1,131 1,190 932 1,977 3,328 3,217 

Total ......................... 175,021 338,853 474,748 515,279 661,711 636,466 803,952 1,021,449 1,082,309 1,

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 8–19.—TOTAL CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS PER DOLLAR OF TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL Y

1978–98

State 1978 1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 

Alabama .......................... 0.75 2.45 2.50 2.46 2.78 2.68 3.11 3.27 2.24 3.41 4.14 Alaska .............................. 3.19 2.61 3.46 4.06 4.14 3.64 3.92 3.71 2.93 3.31 3.48 Arizona ............................. 0.88 1.46 2.11 1.84 1.49 1.54 1.57 1.79 1.48 2.41 2.69 Arkansas .......................... 1.00 2.62 2.94 3.38 2.80 3.00 3.15 3.20 2.75 2.77 1.98 California ......................... 2.15 2.37 2.75 2.66 2.59 2.63 2.59 2.54 2.17 2.36 2.29 Colorado .......................... 1.78 1.89 1.99 2.21 2.82 3.22 2.70 2.47 2.54 2.82 3.07 Connecticut ..................... 4.20 3.49 2.73 2.76 2.46 2.73 2.97 3.19 2.88 2.91 3.09 Delaware .......................... 7.14 2.46 2.62 3.01 3.13 2.87 2.88 2.39 2.04 2.50 2.23 District of Columbia ........ 0.73 0.92 1.21 1.33 1.78 1.88 2.33 2.51 2.03 2.38 4.10 Florida ............................. 1.20 2.12 2.28 2.58 2.66 2.86 3.03 3.78 3.53 3.13 3.45 Georgia ............................ 2.22 2.59 2.88 3.06 3.06 3.61 4.26 4.47 3.50 3.92 3.88 Guam ............................... NA 1.39 1.62 1.28 1.24 1.98 1.87 1.89 1.33 2.57 1.89 Hawaii ............................. 1.71 2.26 3.62 3.62 3.64 4.06 3.94 3.79 2.36 2.18 2.35 Idaho ................................ 2.10 3.58 3.79 3.95 4.02 3.21 3.62 3.43 2.39 2.32 2.73 Illinois .............................. 2.10 2.40 2.68 2.77 2.61 2.63 2.90 2.36 2.23 2.41 2.05 Indiana ............................ 2.42 4.82 5.49 5.34 6.15 7.27 6.56 6.45 5.18 6.54 6.18 Iowa ................................. 3.49 6.77 6.36 5.66 4.99 5.02 5.79 5.14 4.72 5.23 4.87 Kansas ............................. 3.01 2.15 2.51 2.00 2.76 3.43 3.73 2.57 1.69 5.82 3.06 Kentucky .......................... 1.14 2.52 2.44 2.63 2.55 2.33 2.97 3.05 3.21 3.43 3.80 Louisiana ......................... 1.82 1.99 2.60 2.85 3.12 2.51 2.74 3.19 3.37 4.16 4.33 Maine ............................... 3.40 3.74 4.01 4.14 3.82 3.06 2.84 3.39 4.28 4.05 4.23 Maryland .......................... 2.14 3.77 3.31 3.36 3.80 3.80 4.49 4.56 4.07 4.36 4.41 Massachusetts ................ 5.12 3.50 4.09 3.24 3.80 3.41 4.18 4.30 3.54 4.05 4.05 Michigan .......................... 9.50 8.33 8.80 8.58 7.83 8.07 8.20 8.43 7.20 6.63 6.76 Minnesota ........................ 2.15 3.02 3.59 3.65 3.58 3.74 4.27 4.20 3.96 4.36 4.14 Mississippi ...................... 0.87 2.29 3.06 2.23 1.56 1.76 2.22 2.20 2.16 2.87 3.15 Missouri ........................... 0.89 3.89 4.22 4.45 4.71 4.75 4.88 4.30 3.41 3.75 4.05 

Montana .......................... 1.58 2.59 2.97 4.21 2.74 2.78 2.38 2.76 2.87 2.42 2.75 Nebraska ......................... 2.10 5.44 5.02 4.69 4.48 3.83 3.54 4.17 3.44 3.16 3.70 Nevada ............................ 1.83 2.10 1.95 2.22 2.12 2.52 3.06 2.39 2.08 2.53 1.61 New Hampshire ............... 4.05 4.39 4.93 3.18 3.71 2.86 3.26 2.87 2.50 3.42 4.01 New Jersey ....................... 4.16 4.64 4.12 3.85 3.66 3.49 4.02 4.02 6.13 4.52 4.78 New Mexico ...................... 1.17 2.27 1.76 1.96 2.00 2.00 2.30 3.08 1.54 1.43 1.45 New York ......................... 1.75 1.83 2.36 2.74 2.55 2.81 3.22 3.10 3.39 4.03 4.01 North Carolina ................. 1.50 3.26 3.32 3.20 3.18 3.15 3.20 3.20 2.40 2.94 2.83 North Dakota ................... 1.83 2.46 3.14 3.31 3.62 3.59 3.93 4.05 4.13 4.34 5.14 Ohio ................................. 2.50 4.41 10.83 6.07 7.21 6.01 5.35 5.48 5.63 6.07 5.19 Oklahoma ........................ 0.76 1.78 2.48 2.28 2.29 2.41 2.69 3.13 2.70 3.06 3.03 Oregon ............................. 9.48 4.47 4.27 4.45 4.49 4.48 5.10 4.95 4.81 5.60 4.65 Pennsylvania ................... 9.14 7.78 8.52 8.97 8.71 8.03 9.27 9.09 8.15 7.74 7.42 Puerto Rico ...................... 0.92 14.02 17.60 13.61 7.84 15.68 10.43 11.73 3.96 4.44 5.37 Rhode Island ................... 3.51 3.90 3.65 3.67 2.52 2.22 2.31 4.35 3.45 4.31 4.33 South Carolina ................ 2.38 2.37 3.23 3.01 2.60 3.01 3.59 3.88 2.84 3.37 4.30 South Dakota ................... 0.99 2.74 3.50 3.99 3.96 4.43 4.82 4.90 5.27 5.87 5.79 Tennessee ........................ 2.49 3.31 4.09 3.57 4.28 4.27 3.87 5.42 3.75 4.06 3.85 Texas ............................... 0.74 2.01 2.81 2.41 1.93 2.50 2.53 2.31 3.01 3.71 3.59 Utah ................................. 1.99 2.21 2.86 2.92 3.09 2.80 3.08 2.86 1.96 2.66 2.84 Vermont ........................... 2.24 2.34 3.31 2.93 3.61 3.77 2.82 3.06 2.69 3.79 3.57 Virginia ............................ 0.72 1.57 2.39 3.03 2.35 3.13 2.91 3.09 3.63 4.18 5.23 Virgin Islands .................. 0.40 2.14 4.16 3.11 4.18 2.07 4.10 4.50 0.86 2.25 2.44 Washington ...................... 2.96 2.42 2.48 2.66 3.13 3.41 3.29 3.42 3.35 3.53 4.06 West Virginia ................... 0.74 1.98 2.16 2.95 2.75 2.55 2.98 2.77 3.24 3.61 4.03 Wisconsin ........................ 3.80 4.78 6.01 6.18 5.76 6.68 6.83 7.15 6.09 5.94 5.81 Wyoming .......................... 3.18 3.27 4.91 3.50 3.37 3.50 4.87 2.34 1.76 2.96 3.34 

Total ....................... 3.35 3.45 3.94 3.85 3.75 3.82 3.99 3.98 3.60 3.93 3.90 

NA—Not available.Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 8–20.—NUMBER OF PATERNITIES ESTABLISHED BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1979–98

State 1979 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 

Alabama ..................... 6,161 6,998 7,839 6,517 6,612 7,942 10,779 7,816 7,103 6,558 Alaska ........................ 3 364 797 767 673 906 1,070 1,576 929 1.025 Arizona ....................... 154 1,009 1,327 1,237 2,674 3,056 5,007 11,608 10,389 10,454 Arkansas .................... 2,586 5,326 4,453 3,191 4,703 5,175 6,580 8,294 8,283 7,122 California ................... 19,364 28,570 35,193 41,065 56,912 65,062 77,324 129,593 183,424 200,272 Colorado ..................... 1,046 1,291 1,939 1,864 2,887 4,135 5,258 6,201 5,908 5,294 Connecticut ................ 3,029 3,908 3,888 4,499 5,309 6,196 5,368 7,578 8,318 8,333 Delaware .................... 205 1,867 1,641 801 728 1,573 1,395 2,292 3,522 3,085 District of Columbia .. 386 1,021 2,079 2,791 3,895 2,792 2,884 1,683 1,482 1,760 Florida ........................ 7,078 12,136 13,399 19,534 17,907 16,119 10,879 13,010 2,806 20,535 Georgia ....................... 3,642 14,112 18,198 24,615 28,015 30,181 29,329 13,978 3,146 6,923 Guam .......................... NA 122 109 563 884 642 440 866 802 461 Hawaii ........................ 854 1,061 1,295 1,843 1,672 1,419 1,746 1,493 1,785 1,761 Idaho .......................... 287 384 1,100 1,310 1,551 1,722 1,509 2,079 2,533 1,942 Illinois ........................ 3,025 20,848 29,926 25,496 21,157 18,900 19,017 22,236 26,483 47,516 Indiana ....................... 1,644 3,570 4,943 5,309 6,291 5,631 4,950 4,202 4,484 19,857 Iowa ............................ 575 1,664 1,980 3,045 1,904 4,416 4,952 4,378 3,414 1,881 Kansas ....................... 696 1,119 2,101 3,644 3,125 3,198 4,445 10,677 11,801 9,218 Kentucky ..................... 784 3,881 4,498 6,092 6,816 7,951 7,979 8,950 9,994 9,747 Louisiana .................... 1,304 2,926 4,451 5,525 11,098 11,764 13,272 9,299 11,235 12,560 Maine ......................... 382 951 1,609 1,381 1,376 3,189 1,370 1,704 2,129 2,274 Maryland .................... 13,307 6,671 9,995 7,538 12,081 11,259 9,993 9,052 10,931 12,716 Massachusetts ........... 2,096 7,025 6,194 6,339 5,742 8,195 6,234 10,862 10,201 10,145 Michigan .................... 7,529 18,274 23,142 25,574 27,955 29,087 28,076 22,471 24,898 17,656 Minnesota ................... 1,786 3,856 6,098 5,661 7,695 5,348 3,749 8,936 9,696 8,801 Mississippi ................. 932 1,824 7,929 10,740 11,950 8,978 8,588 12,734 14,246 14,560 Missouri ...................... NA 14,308 11,146 16,242 21,976 23,982 24,292 24,679 24,800 19,731 Montana ..................... 92 179 388 429 677 1,155 413 1,368 1,567 1,404 

Nebraska .................... NA 710 759 885 1,280 1,628 2,019 4,329 4,598 4,031 Nevada ....................... 233 531 664 1,033 1,655 1,702 1,602 1,797 2,252 1,832 New Hampshire .......... 35 195 518 614 645 580 604 722 628 580 New Jersey .................. 8,242 13,938 13,182 12,243 10,595 10,314 7,453 13,239 14,768 12,574 New Mexico ................ 322 412 1,571 1,992 1,601 1,591 2,491 3,574 2,325 2,774 New York .................... 17,503 18,239 18,056 20,492 30,197 34,434 42,748 36,474 41,292 49,694 North Carolina ............ 6,592 9,916 11,663 14,504 18,186 19,308 21,371 25,429 29,581 24,777 North Dakota .............. 293 1,134 820 784 935 1,446 1,386 906 1,427 1,337 Ohio ............................ 4,808 9,133 11,637 15,823 20,857 23,672 28,151 32,785 34,962 38,239 Oklahoma ................... 43 512 1,361 2,710 4,939 2,721 2,764 4,525 5,312 6,295 Oregon ........................ 1,521 1,902 3,131 4,081 3,836 4,942 5,830 5,159 5,740 5,244 Pennsylvania .............. 4,450 15,277 18,921 20,231 23,063 24,239 23,246 27,642 29,592 80,822 Puerto Rico ................. 22 6 144 216 264 198 206 204 11 21 Rhode Island .............. 347 601 673 868 764 1,425 2,001 3,971 5,489 4,518 South Carolina ........... 1,378 3,994 5,243 5,273 6,066 6,996 8,331 8,038 8,925 13,378 South Dakota ............. 60 552 504 509 687 916 1,333 1,160 1,030 798 Tennessee ................... 5,003 7,666 9,647 8,976 10,309 10,902 11,463 14,358 11,524 10,057 Texas .......................... 202 684 6,465 12,623 19,627 24,890 30,002 38,516 43,272 44,628 Utah ........................... 487 1,292 1,801 2,087 2,484 2,957 3,496 4,287 4,058 2,918 Vermont ...................... 44 1,091 468 533 438 800 1,065 949 863 747 Virginia ....................... 1,452 2,667 8,471 13,647 15,971 18,038 21,506 26,174 18,952 11,570 Virgin Islands ............. 4 235 270 160 215 344 492 485 34 120 Washington ................ 656 4,066 5,762 6,985 8,601 10,540 12,539 13,608 16,963 12,667 West Virginia .............. 156 288 820 997 1,324 2,373 2,790 7,077 4,219 6,521 Wisconsin ................... 4,803 8,750 8,695 10,808 12,931 15,435 17,678 20,982 21,689 13,776 Wyoming ..................... 44 105 340 618 370 3,493 3,670 4,829 1,305 627 

Total .................. 137,645 269,161 339,243 393,304 472,105 515,857 553,135 660,834 716,821 814,136 

NA—Not available.Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 8–21.—OUT-OF-WEDLOCK BIRTHS BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1987–98

State 1987 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

Alabama .................................. 15,955 18,640 19,131 20,000 20,680 21,003 20,798 20,366 20,635 Alaska ..................................... 2,564 2,869 3,113 3,148 3,101 3,125 3.061 3,110 3,048 Arizona .................................... 17,227 20,708 22,532 23,899 26,151 27,162 27,709 29,243 28,495 Arkansas ................................. 8,498 9,944 10,713 10,601 10,878 11,310 11,589 12,335 12,478 California ................................ 136,785 171,189 193,559 204,229 206,376 202,803 177,131 169,313 172,017 Colorado .................................. 10,171 10,787 11,374 12,684 13,373 13,510 13,502 13,863 14,273 Connecticut ............................. 11,045 13,005 13,330 13,581 13,919 13,914 13,575 13,940 14,116 Delaware ................................. 2,742 3,125 3,222 3,559 3,577 3,614 3,586 3,603 3,693 District of Columbia ............... 6,094 7,580 7,692 7,806 7,211 6,831 5,935 5,547 5,041 Florida ..................................... 48,200 58,305 63,169 64,101 67,431 68,127 67,474 68,077 69,285 Georgia .................................... 28,647 34,926 36,979 38,116 39,575 39,429 39,474 39,928 41,879 Guam ....................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,940 2,066 2,125 Hawaii ..................................... 3,968 4,609 5,088 5,195 5,328 5,533 5,428 5,569 5,202 Idaho ....................................... 2,073 2,561 2,738 2,924 3,268 3,273 3,590 3,969 3,848 Illinois ..................................... 50,677 58,867 62,148 63,225 65,130 64,933 62,829 61,743 60,443 Indiana .................................... 17,260 19,898 22,562 24,294 25,844 26,044 26,456 27,002 27,184 Iowa ......................................... 6,147 7,575 8,282 8,657 9,297 9,211 9,267 9,760 9,601 Kansas .................................... 6,633 7,577 8,397 8,746 9,696 9,709 9,619 9,847 10,274 Kentucky .................................. 10,658 12,048 12,829 13,796 14,401 14,646 14,935 15,693 15,669 Louisiana ................................. 23,594 25,692 26,601 27,694 29,179 28,918 27,863 28,320 29,011 Maine ...................................... 3,338 3,806 3,931 4,180 4,061 4,067 3,859 3,959 4,060 Maryland ................................. 22,866 22,607 23,789 24,292 24,335 24,943 24,124 23,977 23,493 Massachusetts ........................ 17,616 21,798 22,886 22,873 22,380 22,291 20,880 20,458 20,836 Michigan ................................. 28,724 36,441 40,289 40,941 36,326 48,339 46,211 45,052 44,454 Minnesota ................................ 11,114 13,142 14,192 14,984 15,099 15,430 15,099 15,798 16,141 Mississippi .............................. 14,499 16,958 17,627 18,317 18,718 19,067 18,747 18,463 18,859 Missouri ................................... 17,823 21,123 22,643 23,736 24,353 23,913 23,421 24,483 24,516 Montana .................................. 2,379 2,539 2,757 2,898 3,104 2,822 2,950 3,026 3,119 

Nebraska ................................. 4,006 4,662 5,056 5,181 5,449 5,739 5,650 5,765 6,021 Nevada .................................... 2,740 4,607 5,480 7,016 7,614 8,359 10,513 11,145 9,555 New Hampshire ....................... 2,511 2,797 2,967 2,996 3,179 3,338 3,259 3,400 3,404 New Jersey ............................... 26,647 29,364 29,756 31,972 31,949 33,043 31,711 31,959 31,738 New Mexico ............................. 8,067 9,447 9,704 10,445 11,526 11,496 11,459 11,470 11,696 New York ................................. 80,939 92,996 98,110 99,738 105,101 104,732 102,791 104,416 90,673 North Carolina ......................... 23,262 28,315 30,718 32,340 32,586 32,321 31,923 33,419 34,468 North Dakota ........................... 1,429 1,615 1,699 1,952 1,999 1,971 1,996 2,099 2,174 Ohio ......................................... 39,237 45,921 48,289 50,826 52,385 51,363 50,852 50,265 51,544 Oklahoma ................................ 9,892 11,258 11,998 12,973 13,441 13,616 13,927 14,267 15,660 Oregon ..................................... 8,672 10,436 11,041 11,324 11,730 12,012 12,365 12,959 12,631 Pennsylvania ........................... 41,143 47,093 49,258 51,360 51,783 51,518 49,228 47,976 47,234 Puerto Rico .............................. NA NA NA NA NA NA 27,069 27,886 29,345 Rhode Island ........................... 3,064 3,684 3,997 4,073 4,436 4,327 3,975 4,208 4,128 South Carolina ........................ 15,333 18,116 19,148 20,000 19,359 19,172 19,071 19,075 19,857 South Dakota .......................... 2,225 2,415 2,515 2,720 2,968 2,914 2,932 3,091 3,166 Tennessee ................................ 17,897 21,281 22,662 24,026 24,556 24,480 24,185 24,645 25,383 Texas ....................................... 57,464 60,303 55,435 56,528 54,670 92,721 96,816 100,573 102,496 Utah ........................................ 3,929 4,504 4,910 5,196 5,744 6,005 6,224 6,809 7,145 Vermont ................................... 1,459 1,685 1,666 1,811 1,805 1,864 1,689 1,786 1,726 Virginia .................................... 20,562 24,410 25,874 27,125 27,532 27,760 27,090 26,634 26,908 Virgin Islands .......................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,288 1,224 1,368 Washington ............................. 14,629 17,638 18,746 19,861 20,670 20,090 20,635 21,287 21,218 West Virginia ........................... 4,722 5,212 5,743 6,040 6,328 6,454 6,463 6,504 6,495 Wisconsin ................................ 14,698 16,815 17,656 18,235 18,882 18,565 18,457 18,413 18,707 Wyoming .................................. 1,189 1,276 1,383 1,546 1,689 1,765 1,653 1,697 1,747 

Total ............................... 933,013 1,094,169 1,165,384 1,213,769 1,240,172 1,289,592 1,253,976 1,260,306 1,257,444 1,

NA—Not available.Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and National Center for Health Statistics (1995 and previous years).

TABLE 8–22.—PERCENTAGE OF CHILD SUPPORT PATERNITIES ESTABLISHED BY STATE, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1987–94

State 1987 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

Alabama ...................................................... 43.9 42.1 34.1 33.05 52.1 40.47 37.6 34.9 31.8 Alaska ......................................................... 14.2 27.8 24.6 21.3 34.5 48.19 51.5 29.9 33.6 Arizona ........................................................ 5.9 6.4 5.5 11.19 19.2 33.18 35.9 34.0 36.7 Arkansas ..................................................... 62.7 44.8 29.8 44.3 60.5 65.31 71.6 67.2 57.1 California .................................................... 20.9 20.6 21.2 27.8 37.4 45.11 73.2 108.3 116.4 Colorado ...................................................... 12.7 18.0 16.4 22.7 39.3 41.56 45.9 42.6 37.1 Connecticut ................................................. 35.4 29.9 33.8 39.1 38.6 40.28 55.8 59.7 59.0 Delaware ..................................................... 68.1 52.5 24.9 20.5 53.8 75.90 63.9 97.8 83.5 District of Columbia ................................... 16.8 27.4 36.3 49.9 40.0 36.39 28.4 26.7 34.9 Florida ......................................................... 25.2 23.0 30.9 27.9 16.1 18.57 19.3 27.0 29.6 Georgia ........................................................ 49.3 52.1 66.6 73.5 74.1 62.95 35.4 7.9 16.5 Guam ........................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 44.6 38.8 21.7 Hawaii ......................................................... 26.7 28.1 36.2 32.2 32.8 37.39 27.5 32.1 33.9 Idaho ........................................................... 18.5 43.0 47.8 53.0 46.2 54.17 57.9 63.8 50.5 Illinois ......................................................... 41.1 50.8 41.0 33.5 29.2 37.63 35.4 42.9 78.6 Indiana ........................................................ 20.7 24.8 23.5 25.9 19.2 15.06 15.9 16.6 73.0 Iowa ............................................................. 27.1 26.1 36.8 22.0 53.3 56.03 47.2 35.0 19.6 Kansas ........................................................ 16.9 27.7 43.4 35.7 45.8 89.20 111.0 119.8 89.7 Kentucky ...................................................... 36.4 37.3 47.5 49.4 55.4 51.12 59.9 63.7 62.2 Louisiana ..................................................... 12.4 17.3 20.8 40.0 45.5 42.42 33.4 39.7 43.3 Maine .......................................................... 28.5 42.3 35.1 32.9 33.7 41.14 44.2 53.8 56.0 Maryland ..................................................... 29.2 44.2 31.7 49.7 41.1 42.46 37.5 45.6 54.1 Massachusetts ............................................ 39.9 28.4 27.7 25.1 23.9 40.96 51.0 49.9 48.7 Michigan ..................................................... 63.6 63.5 63.5 68.3 77.3 55.57 48.6 55.3 39.7 Minnesota .................................................... 34.7 46.4 39.9 51.4 24.8 47.23 59.2 61.4 54.5 Mississippi .................................................. 12.6 46.8 60.9 65.2 45.9 51.92 67.9 77.2 77.2 Missouri ....................................................... 80.3 52.8 71.7 92.6 99.8 96.09 105.4 101.3 80.5 Montana ...................................................... 7.5 15.3 15.6 23.4 13.3 25.27 46.3 51.8 45.0 

Nebraska ..................................................... 17.7 16.3 17.5 24.7 38.2 41.51 76.6 79.8 66.9 Nevada ........................................................ 19.4 18.4 14.4 18.9 21.0 15.61 17.1 20.2 19.2 New Hampshire ........................................... 7.8 18.5 20.7 21.5 19.0 21.93 22.2 18.5 17.0 New Jersey ................................................... 52.3 45.6 44.9 41.1 23.3 27.80 41.7 46.2 39.6 New Mexico ................................................. 5.1 16.6 20.5 15.3 21.6 25.66 31.2 20.3 23.7 New York ..................................................... 22.5 19.4 20.9 30.3 41.1 36.55 35.5 39.5 54.8 North Carolina ............................................. 42.6 41.2 47.2 56.2 65.6 70.24 79.7 88.5 71.9 North Dakota ............................................... 79.4 50.8 46.1 47.9 69.3 70.47 62.8 68.0 61.5 Ohio ............................................................. 23.3 19.7 25.3 32.8 55.6 63.41 64.5 69.6 74.2 Oklahoma .................................................... 5.2 12.1 22.6 38.1 20.6 26.53 32.5 37.2 40.2 Oregon ......................................................... 21.9 30.0 37.0 33.9 49.7 48.52 41.7 44.3 41.5 Pennsylvania ............................................... 37.1 40.2 41.1 44.9 44.9 44.17 56.2 61.7 171.1 Puerto Rico .................................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.8 0.0 0.1 Rhode Island ............................................... 19.6 18.3 21.7 18.8 45.1 61.45 99.9 130.4 109.4 South Carolina ............................................ 26.1 28.9 27.5 30.3 43.0 40.35 42.1 46.8 67.4 South Dakota .............................................. 24.8 20.9 20.2 25.3 44.9 45.92 39.6 33.3 25.2 Tennessee .................................................... 42.8 45.3 39.6 42.9 46.7 59.21 59.4 46.8 39.6 Texas ........................................................... 1.2 10.7 22.8 34.7 54.9 35.88 39.8 43.0 43.5 Utah ............................................................ 32.9 40.0 42.5 47.8 60.9 67.13 68.9 59.6 40.8 Vermont ....................................................... 74.8 27.8 32.0 24.2 59.0 43.78 56.2 48.3 43.3 Virginia ........................................................ 1.3 34.7 52.7 58.9 78.1 79.57 96.8 71.2 43.0 Virgin Islands .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA 37.7 2.8 8.8 Washington ................................................. 27.8 32.7 37.3 43.3 60.7 66.70 65.9 79.7 59.7 West Virginia ............................................... 6.1 15.7 17.4 21.9 44.1 30.68 109.5 87.4 100.4 Wisconsin .................................................... 59.5 51.7 61.2 70.9 93.6 92.51 113.7 117.8 73.6 Wyoming ...................................................... 26.7 44.7 23.9 217.3 59.43 292.1 76.9 35.9 48.9

Total ................................................... 28.8 31.0 33.7 38.8 44.6 45.78 52.6 58.2 64.7 

NA—Not available.Sources: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and National Center for Health Statistics (1995 and previous years).

TABLE 8–23.—STATE SHARE OF PROGRAM SAVINGS BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1989–98

[In thousands of dollars]

State 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

Alabama .................. $380

¥$518

¥$1,982

¥$3,053

¥$2,529

¥$6,319

¥$8,672

¥$6,250

¥$3,291

¥

Alaska ..................... 2,264 2,469 2,982 3,431 3,797 4,278 4,201 5,091 5,629 Arizona ....................

¥1,219

¥2,899

¥3,125

¥3,320

¥4,242

¥4,761

¥6,804

¥5,252

¥3,343

Arkansas ................. 1,574 1,013 1,830 1,009 530

¥283

¥135

¥2,595

¥5,642

California ................ 79,779 76,552 88,584 98,465 101,406 115,539 110,774 139,416 177,731 Colorado .................. 4,552 4,991 5,954 5,661 6,064 7,107 7,490 7,237 8,999 Connecticut ............. 11,330 7,310 10,332 11,711 13,396 12,523 5,671 6,770 17,118 Delaware ................. 797 812 923 902 455 312

¥644 435

¥1,282

District of Columbia

¥3,145

¥89

¥574 144 757

¥272

¥585

¥390 2,274

Florida ..................... 5,601 2,932 7,179 11,482 14,368 14,863 11,797 1,471 11,546

¥

Georgia .................... 2,861 1,299 3,930 7,937 12,856 13,099 10,801 10,379 4,950Guam ......................

¥87

¥227

¥293

¥450

¥305

¥375

¥919

¥591

¥727

Hawaii ..................... 1,648 1,622 1,502 1,655 1,873 1,618 539

¥670 1,645

Idaho ....................... 1,029 895 751 955 922 720 665

¥1,317

¥359

Illinois ..................... 10,935 5,159 5,785 9,767 3,716 3,711 3,965 4,304 6,611 Indiana .................... 14,027 11,731 16,134 20,359 20,257 22,131 18,262 18,475 10,312 Iowa ........................ 11,767 11,631 10,840 11,765 11,000 12,048 12,560 9,599 10,173 Kansas .................... 1,170 2,229 3,694 4,041 3,711 3,142

¥3,222 8,701 3,652 

Kentucky .................. 207 207

¥475 1,958 3,467 5,104 3,696 1,449 1,691 

Louisiana ................ 696 150

¥1,049

¥1,845

¥1,241

¥1,270

¥2,098

¥1,251

¥1,027

Maine ...................... 5,236 4,229 3,852 3,890 5,877 5,509 6,359 9,590 10,147 Maryland ................. 6,860 8,631 6,120 10,366 12,037 8,926 4,819 3,844

¥322

Massachusetts ........ 23,373 23,391 21,789 25,917 29,957 22,670 25,468 20,782 22,964 Michigan ................. 57,413 54,088 58,032 53,107 52,078 53,216 49,500 30,837 32,654 Minnesota ............... 13,969 12,083 11,468 12,377 12,274 11,880 11,950 9,009 10,559 Mississippi ..............

¥232

¥2,987

¥2,549

¥1,243

¥1,065

¥2,843

¥3,336

¥2,599

¥2,524

Missouri .................. 8,046 9,002 7,846 11,772 10,303 10,566 7,695 8,598 1,850Montana .................. 1,093 769 454 532 618 37,868 37,431

¥850

¥160

Nebraska .................

¥252

¥572

¥582

¥2,093

¥1,054

¥574

¥1,270

¥4,617

¥3,410

Nevada ....................

¥32

¥417

¥334 608

¥172 604

¥902

¥1,774

¥4,159

New Hampshire ....... 362 185 271 826 443 1,165 1,157 1,010 1,579 New Jersey .............. 15,081 6,836 9,100 13,551 11,876 13,809 24,571 14,092 17,561 New Mexico ............. 305

¥148

¥361

¥224 1,278 456

¥1,083

¥1,917

¥4,074

New York ................. 24,201 22,865 30,313 41,091 41,790 46,036 43,880 45,673 63,963 North Carolina ........ 5,857 3,598 4,257 6,343 6,962 8,504 2,853 1,898 1,588

¥

North Dakota ........... 955 1,074 1,231 973 989 888 788 441 1,006Ohio ......................... 21,558 12,040 6,054 445 3,453 6,800 5,761 4,422

¥3,673

Oklahoma ................ 705 69 380 1,110 2,457 2,412 2,241 3,205 3,150 Oregon ..................... 3,703 2,658 3,358 4,863 5,935 8,029 5,548 6,200 1,768 Pennsylvania ........... 22,018 19,846 21,226 27,102 29,234 33,738 30,971 27,231 30,183 Puerto Rico .............

¥1,075

¥3,121

¥2,165

¥2,008

¥2,171

¥3,073

¥5,161

¥8,179

¥7,391

Rhode Island ........... 2,999 3,439 3,940 4,375 5,427 5,466 6,142 7,013 9,256 South Carolina ........ 490

¥1,639 91 437 1,309 1,049 191

¥1,159

¥818

South Dakota .......... 969 1,254 820 672 1,048 967 1,338 1,629 1,451 Tennessee ............... 1,278 3,432 5,989 1,578 5,915 5,408 7,519 2,340

¥947

Texas ....................... 2,163

¥4,832

¥4,774

¥6,111 13,969

¥12,335

¥6,212

¥1,274 410

Utah ........................ 1,362 1,111 892 980 343 181

¥1,526

¥1,326

¥1,395

Vermont ................... 1,440 1,957 1,918 1,621 2,066 1,175 1,741 1,602 746 Virginia ................... 2,567

¥1,113 4,292 4,324 6,347 5,109 7,348 4,889 9,216 

Virgin Islands .........

¥223

¥184

¥459

¥227

¥256

¥305

¥885

¥656

¥226

Washington ............. 15,386 14,053 22,038 19,695 24,875 29,978 25,869 26,794 33,265 West Virginia ..........

¥59

¥1,214

¥722

¥1,047 16

¥2,038

¥2,484

¥2,494

¥1,778

Wisconsin ................ 21,306 18,451 16,740 15,553 15,386 15,757 12,695 8,280 1,983 Wyoming .................. 574 363 340 589 226 159 86

¥200

¥681

Total ............... 403,400 338,469 384,691 433,317 462,092 482,243 431,013 407,314 470,398 

Note.—Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding. 1997 and 1998 data include actual incentive payments. 1998 data include Federal hold-harmless payments.Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

566

TABLE 8–24.—STATES USING THE INCOME SHARES AND PERCENTAGE OF INCOME

APPROACHES TO ESTABLISHING CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES

Income shares

Alabama

Arizona

California

Colorado

Florida

Idaho

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

Percentage of income

Alaska

Arkansas

Connecticut

Illinois

Minnesota

New Hampshire

North Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Wyoming

Georgia

Mississippi

Nevada

New York

Wisconsin

Source: Garfinkel, McLanahan, & Robins (1994).

REFERENCES

American Institutes for Research. (1999). State child access and

visitation programs: A preliminary report, Fiscal Year 1997

Funding. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services.

Bumpass, L. (1984). Children and marital disruption: A replication

and update. Demography, 21, 71–82.

Cooper, P., & Johnson, A. (1993, April). Employment-related health

insurance in 1987 (AMCPR Pub. No. 93–0044). Rockville, MD:

Public Health Service.

Federal Register. (1992, December 28). Regulations for updating

child support orders. 57(249).

Garfinkel, I., McLanahan, S., & Robins, P.K. (1994). Child support

and child well-being. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Garfinkel, I., Melli, M.S., & Robertson, J.G. (1994, Spring). Child

support orders: A perspective on reform (pp. 88–93). In R.E.

Behrman (Ed.), The future of children: Children and divorce,

4(1). Los Altos, California: Packard Foundation.

Georgeson, L.M. (1989, May). DNA in paternity cases. Paper presented at the American Bar Association Third National Child

Support Conference, Arlington, VA.

Gordon, A.R. (1994). Implementation of the income withholding

and medical support provisions of the 1984 child support enforcement amendments (pp. 86–87). In I. Garfinkel, S.

McLanahan, & P. Robins (Eds.), Child support and child wellbeing. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

567

Hill, M.S. (1988, May). The role of economic resources and dualfamily status in child support payments. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

McKillop, L.T. (1981). Benefits of establishing paternity. Washington, DC: Office of Child Support Enforcement.

National Center for Health Statistics. (1995, September). Advance

report of final natality statistics: 1993. Monthly Vital Statistics

Report, 44(3, Supplement).

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1986). Employer fees for

wage withholding. Child Support Report, 8(10), p. 7.

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1987, September). Development of guidelines for child support orders: Advisory panel recommendations and final report. Washington, DC: Author.

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1990). Paternity establishment (3d ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1991, June). Child support

enforcement in the military. Washington, DC: Author.

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1992). Uniform Interstate

Family Support Act proposed to replace URESA. Child Support

Report, 14(8), pp. 4–5.

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1994). Annual Report to Congress (for period ending September 30, 1994). Washington, DC:

Author.

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1996 and various years). Annual Report to Congress (21 annual reports for the years 1976–

96). Washington, DC: Author.

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1995a). FYI—Census report:

Single parent growth rate stabilizes. Child Support Report,

17(11), p. 5.

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1995b). President Clinton

signs executive order: Federal agencies to facilitate support

order establishment and enforcement. Child Support Report,

17(3), pp. 1–2.

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (1995c). DOD consolidates

garnishment operation. Child Support Report, 17(3), p. 3.

Pirog, M.A., Klotz, M., & Buyers, K.V. (1997). Interstate comparisons of child support awards using State guidelines, 1997.

Bloomington, IN: Institute for Family and Social Responsibility, Indiana University.

Shulman, G.A. (1994). Qualified medical child support order handbook. New York: Wiley Law Publications.

Smith, M.R. (2000). More money for former welfare moms: Simplify

the distribution rules. Child Support Quarterly, 32(1), pp. 10–

12.

Sorensen, E. (1997, November). A national profile of nonresident

fathers and their ability to pay child support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 785–97.

Sorensen, E., & Halpern, A. (1999, April). Child support enforcement is working better than we think. New Federalism: Issues

and options for States (Series A, No. A–31). Washington, DC:

Urban Institute.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1981). Child support and alimony: 1978. Current Population Reports, Series P–60–112. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

568

U.S. Census Bureau. (1983). Child support and alimony: 1981. Current Population Reports, Series P–60–124. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1985). Child support and alimony: 1983. Current Population Reports, Series P–60–141. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1987). Child support and alimony: 1985. Current Population Reports, Series P–60–152. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1990). Child support and alimony: 1987. Current Population Reports, Series P–60–167. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1991). Child support and alimony: 1989. Current Population Reports, Series P–60–173. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1994). Household and family characteristics:

March 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1995). Child support for custodial mothers

and fathers: 1991. Current Population Reports, Series P–60–

187. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1998). Poverty in the U.S.: 1998. Current

Population Reports, Series P–60–207. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1999). Child support for custodial mothers

and fathers: 1995. Current Population Reports, Series P–60–

196. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. (in press). Child support and alimony: 1997.

Current Population Reports, Series P–60.

U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support. (1992). Supporting

our children: A blueprint for reform. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1987). Child support: Need to improve efforts to identify fathers and obtain support orders

(HRD–87–37). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1992a). Interstate child support:

Wage withholding not fulfilling expectations (HRD–92–65BR).

Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1992b). Child support enforcement—timely action needed to correct system development problems (IMTEC–92–46). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1996). Child support enforcement:

Early results on comparability of privatized and public offices.

(HEHS–97–4). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. House of Representatives. (1983). Child support enforcement

amendments of 1983 (House Report No. 98–527). Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Weaver, R.L., & Williams, R.G. (1989, May). Problems with

URESA: Interstate child support enforcement isn’t working but

could. Paper presented at the American Bar Association Third

National Child Support Conference, Washington, DC.

Wheaton, L., & Sorensen, E. (1998). Reducing welfare costs and dependency: How much bang for the child support buck? Georgetown Public Policy Review, 4(1), 23–37.

569

Williams, R.G. (1994). Implementation of the child support provisions of the Family Support Act: Child support guidelines, updating of awards, and routine income withholding (pp. 93–132).

In I. Garfinkel, S. McLanahan, & P. Robins (Eds.), Child support and child well-being. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.