8-1 

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 

 Establishing and Enforcing 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 

 104th Congress 

 105th Congress 

 106th Congress 

Statistical Tables 

References
8-2 

BACKGROUND 

OVERVIEW 

In 1950, when only a small minority of children were in female-headed 

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 his or her 

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 (CSE) and Paternity Establishment 

program, 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 (CSE) 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 
8-3 

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 CSE services. Parents receiving benefits (or who formerly received 

benefits) under the successor program to AFDC (Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families or TANF), the federally assisted foster care program, or the Medicaid 

Program, automatically receive CSE services. Services are free to such recipients, 

but others (i.e., nonwelfare clients) are charged up to $25 for services. States can 

charge fees based on a sliding scale, pay fees 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 the TANF block grant program. 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 noncustodial parents 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 2001, there 

were an estimated 11.5 million single-parent families with children under age 18; 

about 9.2 million (80 percent) were maintained by the mother and roughly 

2.3 million by the father (Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau, 2002, 

Table 17). It appears that the rate of growth in the number of single parents has 

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

families was 2.1 percent from 1990 to 2000 and 2.8 percent from 1980 to 1990 as 

compared with 8.9 percent from 1970 to 1980. In 2001, one-parent families 

comprised nearly 30 percent of all families. The corresponding share of 

single-parent families in 1970 was 11 percent. In 2000, about 43 percent of the 

mothers had never been married, 35 percent were divorced, 18 percent were 

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

Bureau, 2001, p. 8). 
8-4 

Of equal concern, dynamic estimates indicated that at least half of all 

children born in the United States during the late 1970s and early 1980s would live 

with a single parent before reaching adulthood. For black children, the projection 

was about 80 percent (Bumpass, 1984). Currently, about 27 percent of the 

72 million children under age 18 living in the United States reside in a one-parent 

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 

almost sixteen-fold from 248,000 to 4,181,000. In these latter cases, paternity must 

be determined before the other parent has a legal obligation to financially support 

the child. The nearly 4.2 million families maintained by a never-married mother in 

2000 represent a major concern because only about two-thirds of the children in 

these families have had their paternity established; for the other one-third, a child 

support obligation cannot be established until a paternity determination is made. 

Poverty is endemic among mother-headed families. In 2001, 33.6 percent of the 

9.2 million families maintained solely by a mother with children under 18 had 

incomes below the poverty threshold (Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census 

Bureau, 2002, Table 17). About 11 percent of these families were poor despite the 

fact that the mother worked year round, full time. In sum, an unprecedented number 

of children live in single-parent homes, about 34 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 2001, about 60 percent 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 

2002, $5.2 billion was spent by State child support programs to collect $20.1 billion 

in child support. The combined Federal-State program had 61,797 employees. A 

sum of $3.88 was collected for every dollar of administrative expense, up by about 

34 percent from the low point of only $2.89 in 1982. In addition, in 2002 

1.5 million paternities were established or acknowledged; almost 1.2 million 

support orders were established; and 7.8 million cases had collections. Moreover, 

in 2001 330,000 families were removed from TANF because of child support 

collections (Office of Child Support, 2003a). 

These program trends demonstrate that more and more positive child support 

outcomes have been 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. 
8-5 

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 (HHS). 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 HHS 

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. 

 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, also have 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, 
TABLE 8-1--SUMMARY OF NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM STATISTICS, 

SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1978-2002 

[Numbers in Thousands, Dollars in Millions] 

Measure 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Total child support collections 1,047 1,770 3,246 6,010 9,850 12,019 14,347 15,901 17,854 18,958 2

In 2002 dollars 1 2,629 3,158 5,081 8,018 11,823 13,716 15,808 17,159 18,644 19,260 2

Total TANF collections 2 472 786 1,225 1,750 2,550 2,855 2,649 2,482 2,593 2,592 

 Federal 311 311 369 533 762 888 960 922 968 895  State 148 354 424 620 891 1,013 1,089 1,048 1,080 1,004 

Total non-TANF collections 575 984 2,019 4,260 7,300 9,164 11,698 13,419 15,261 16,366 1

Total administrative expenditures 312 612 941 1,606 2,556 3,049 3,584 4,039 4,526 4,835 

 Federal 236 459 633 1,061 1,741 2,040 2,385 2,680 3,006 3,222  State 76 153 308 545 816 1,015 1,199 1,359 1,519 1,613 Federal incentive payments to States and localities 54 107 173 258 374 410 385 361 391 413 Average number of TANF cases in which a collection was made 458 597 582 701 926 940 790 912 822 774 Average number of non-TANF cases in which a collection was made 249 448 786 1,363 3,169 2,618 3,071 5,688 6,409 6,687 

Number of parents located 454 779 1,046 2,062 4,204 5,808 6,585 NA NA NA 

Number of paternities established 111 173 245 393 592 733 848 845 867 777 Number of support obligations established 315 462 731 1,022 1,025 1,093 1,148 1,220 1,175 1,181 Percent of TANF assistance payments recovered through child support collections NA 6.8 8.6 10.3 12.5 15.5 20.0 NA NA NA Total child support collections per dollar of total administrative expenses 

3.4 2.9 3.5 3.7 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 

1 Adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, research series for urban consumers (CPI-U-RS). 2 TANF collections are divided into State/Federal shares and incentives are taken from the Federal share thereby reducing the Federal amounts. 

NA - Not available. Note-Paternities established do not include the paternities established through the In-Hospital Paternity Acknowledgment Program. In fiscal year 19

84,411 paternities were established in hospitals; 324,595 in fiscal year 1996; 614,081 in fiscal year 1998; 754,774 in fiscal year 1999; 687,349 in fisyear 2000; 790,595 in fiscal year 2001; and 829,988 in fiscal year 2002. Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Data converted into 2002 dollars by the Congressio

Research Service. 
8-7 

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 Secretary of HHS 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 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 HHS must provide to an authorized person the most recent address 

and place of employment of any noncustodial parent if the information is contained 
8-8 

in the records of HHS 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 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 2002. According to a preliminary report on the grant 

program (Office of Child Support, 2002b), most participating individuals received 

parenting education, help in developing parenting plans, and mediation services. 

Based on FY1999 data, nearly 47,000 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 
8-9 

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 1996 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 

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 also must 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. 
8-10 

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 also 

must determine periodically whether any individuals receiving unemployment 

compensation owe child support. The State Employment Security Agency (part of 

the Federal-State Unemployment Compensation 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, assets 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; 

7. Denying passports to persons owing more than $5,000 in past-due 

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 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 also must 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 
8-11 

accordance with standards established by the Secretary of HHS, 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 also are 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 also may 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. Finally, each State must comply with 

any other requirements and standards that the Secretary of HHS 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 process that provides seven basic 

services: locating absent parents, establishing paternity, establishing child support 

orders, reviewing and modifying orders, establishing and enforcing medical 
8-12 

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 office. During fiscal year 2001, the FPLS sent employment and 

address information to States on more than 4.8 million noncustodial parents and 

putative fathers. 

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, 
8-13 

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 to 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. Project 1099 operations were 

suspended in 2002 as a result of escalating IRS costs for Project 1099 processing. 

OCSE indicated that given the benefits of the National Directory of New Hires and 

the Financial Institution Data Match program, States should re-evaluate their 

continuing need to obtain Project 1099 information and, if appropriate, revise the 

criteria they use to select cases for Project 1099 requests. OCSE recommended that 

cases not be submitted for Project 1099 matching until National Directory of New 

Hires and Financial Institution Data Match program comparisons were conducted 

and any hits received are reviewed for action. OCSE indicated that it would 

continue to analyze the costs and benefits of the Project 1099 data (OSCE, 2002a). 

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 and the amendments in 

the 1997 Balanced Budget Act (Public Law 105-33), Congress gave CSE agencies 

access to new sources for obtaining SSNs. Federal CSE law required 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 (but not on the face of the license itself). In addition, the 1996 law 

required 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 

required 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 includes 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 includes standardized information on both parents, such as name, 

SSN, date of birth, and case identification number. 
8-14 

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

directory of new hires. The 1996 law also required the establishment of a Federal 

Case Registry of child support orders and a National Directory of New Hires. The 

Federal directories consist of abstracts of information from the State directories 

and are located in the FPLS. According to HHS, during fiscal year 2000 more than 

642 million records were posted to the National Directory of New Hires, which 

matches child support orders to employment records. The Federal Case Registry 

maintained records involving more than 30 million individuals. The National 

Directory of New Hires information is compared with the Federal Case Registry to 

locate individuals who are involved in child support cases and live in a different 

State than their children. In fiscal year 2001, over 4 million noncustodial parents 

and putative fathers were located through the National Directory of New Hires. 

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 HHS 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. 
8-15 

ESTABLISHING PATERNITY 

Paternity establishment is a prerequisite for obtaining a child support order. 

In 2002, 33.8 percent of children born in the United States were born to unmarried 

women. According to the OCSE, in fiscal year 2002 paternity was established for 

about 74 percent of the children who needed paternity established. Nonetheless, the 

CSE Program has made great strides in establishing paternity. Between 1994 and 

2002, the number of paternities established or acknowledged increased from 

592,000 to 1.5 million, a jump of about 156 percent. 

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. 

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 encouraged 

States to create simple civil procedures for establishing paternity in contested 

cases, required States to have all parties in a contested paternity case take a genetic 

test upon the request of any party, required the Federal Government to pay 

90 percent of the laboratory costs of these tests, and permitted States to charge 

persons not receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) for the 

cost of establishing paternity. The 1988 law also set paternity establishment 

standards for the States and stipulated that each State was required, in administering 

any law involving the issuance of birth certificates, to require both parents to 

furnish their SSN unless the State found 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; 
8-16 

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’s 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. 

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 1996 law 

streamlined the paternity determination process; raised the paternity establishment 

requirement from 75 to 90 percent; implemented a simple civil process for 

establishing paternity; required a uniform affidavit to be completed by men 

voluntarily acknowledging paternity and entitled such affidavit to full faith and 

credit in any State; stipulated 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 provided that no judicial or administrative action is needed to 

ratify an acknowledgment that is not challenged. The new law also required 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 
8-17 

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, 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 (HHS) and performed by an entity 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 reliable DNA 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 Enforcement, 1990, see pp. 59-74). One expert, 

speaking at a child support conference, summed up the effectiveness of DNA 

testing as follows: 
8-18 

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 recent years, a new phenomenon has occurred in the paternity 

establishment area called the “disestablishment” of paternity. New genetic testing 

capabilities have made identification of a biological father more accurate than ever 

before, prompting some parties to attempt to overcome presumptions or previous 

determinations of paternity by using genetic test results (OCSE, 2002c). During the 

last several years, advances in genetic testing have resulted in more instances of 

putative fathers substantiating their claim that they in fact are not the biological 

father of the child in question. In divorce cases in which the mother contends that 

her husband is not the father of her child and genetic tests verify her claim, but the 

husband nevertheless wants to maintain a parent-child relationship and continue the 

emotional and financial responsibilities of fatherhood, many courts considering the 

best interests of the child and the public have ruled in the ex-husbands favor, 

arguing that there is more to fatherhood than biology. In divorce cases in which the 

husband alleges that children of the marriage are not his and can substantiate his 

allegation with genetic testing results, some courts have ruled on behalf of the exhusband, arguing that it is not fair to force a man to assume responsibility for a 

child to whom he has no biological connection. Other courts have not allowed 

husbands to raise the paternity issue at divorce, especially 

if the husband suspected adultery and failed to act, contending that it would not be 

in the best interest of the child or the public. Outcomes of such paternity 

disestablishment cases are varied among jurisdictions; so far, no national consensus 

has emerged. 
8-19 

In fiscal year 2002, 1,527,103 paternities were established or acknowledged. 

For the second time, paternity acknowledgments exceeded paternity establishments. 

In fiscal year 2002, 697,115 paternities were established or acknowledged through 

the CSE agencies and 829,988 paternities were acknowledged primarily through 

hospitals (see Table 8-1). While the percentage of children in the Child Support 

Enforcement program for whom paternity was established or acknowledged 

averaged 74.3 percent nationally in 2002, huge disparities exist among States. For 

example, the percentage of children in the CSE program for whom paternity was 

established or acknowledged in 2002 ranged from 32.4 percent in the District of 

Columbia to 101.2 percent in Utah (some paternities established are for children 

born in previous years). 

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. 
8-20 

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 quasi-judicial 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 can accept voluntary 

acknowledgment 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 required that 

State tribunals--whether quasijudicial 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 reserve 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. 
8-21 

Moreover, the 1996 reforms required 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. 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. 

 

1

 Fitzgerald 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. 
8-22 

By requiring the States to establish child support guidelines, the Federal 

Government hoped to accomplish four main goals, each goal corresponding to the 

perceived problems of the common law method of determining child support: 

(1) increase the adequacy of child support awards; (2) increase the consistency and 

predictability of child support awards; (3) increase compliance through perceived 

fairness of child support awards; and (4) increase the ease of administration of 

child support cases (Morgan, 1996). 

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 

(34 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 (12 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; 

www.supportguidelines.com/links.html; see Table 8-23 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). 

Proponents of the income shares approach note that it reflects the economic 

presumption that as income increases, the percentage of income devoted to child 

care decreases, and explicitly considers the income of both parents in determining 

the support of the child. They claim that the income share approach, more easily 

than the flat percentage model, can take into consideration adjustments for shared 

and split custody, health care needs, child care expenses, serial family development, 

and children's ages by the manipulation of income, add-ons and deductions and by 

then allocating these costs between the parents. Because these factors can be built 

into the income shares formula, there is less reason for deviation from the 

guideline's presumptive award. Limiting deviation meets the ideal of perceived 

fairness, as well as the Federal requirement that the number of cases in which 

deviation is granted be limited. Limited deviation also meets the goals of 
8-23 

consistency and predictability. Given that the ultimate goal of child support 

guidelines is increased compliance through perceived fairness, the income shares 

approach meets this goal (Morgan, 1996). 

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, Georgia, Illinois, 

Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Tennessee, 

Texas, and Wisconsin. 

Proponents of the percentage of income approach contend that it is simpler, 

easier to learn, easier to explain, easier to computerize, and less prone to error. 

They note that although the percentage of income approach does not consider the 

custodial parent's income, neither does it impute income to the custodial parent 

(Morgan, 1996, Child Support Guidelines: Interpretation and Application). 

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. 

Proponents of the Melson-Delaware approach claim that it is fairer than the 

other approaches because it is internally consistent. They contend that it takes into 

consideration not only special custody arrangements and health care needs, but 

each parent's needs as well. They maintain that the Melson-Delaware approach is 

consistent and predictable and not as complex as it appears at first glance (Morgan, 

1996). 

 

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. 
8-24 

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 monthly income of the 

fathers and mothers is: 

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 of the child support obligation 

established by the guidelines, particularly at the lower income levels. 

There is some agreement that there is no evidence that any one approach is 

superior to any other approach in terms of achieving the goals of increased 

compliance, consistency and predictability, and ease of administration. However, 

there is some evidence concerning adequacy of awards. One study indicates that the 

income shares model produces the highest awards for low-income families, the 

Melson-Delaware model produces the highest award for middle-income families, 

and the percentage of income model produces the highest awards in upper-income 

families (Morgan, 1996). 

Award rates

In 2002, of the 13.5 million custodial parents of children under the age of 21 

whose other parent was not living in the household, only 7.9 million or 

59 percent had a child support award. Of all custodial parents, 84 percent were 

mothers and 16 percent were fathers. About 63 percent of custodial mothers and 

39 percent of custodial fathers had child support awards. About 40 percent of the 

5.9 million custodial parents 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 believed that the 

noncustodial parent was unable to pay. 

Never-married custodial parents were the group least likely to have a child 

support award. Only 52 percent of never-married custodial mothers had support 

awards compared with 72 percent of divorced custodial mothers. Moreover, black 
8-25 

custodial mothers and custodial mothers of Hispanic origin were much less likely 

than their white counterparts to have child support awards. About 67 percent of 

whites had child support awards, compared with 54 percent of blacks and 

52 percent of Hispanics (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). 

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; and the duration 

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

age 18; what happens to arrearages). 

3

Traditionally, 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 Achange in circumstance@ justifying a reduction in a prior child support award 

or at east averting an increase. 

TABLE 8-2--AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT AWARDED BY STATE 

GUIDELINES IN VARIOUS CASES 

Case State A B C D E 

 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 
8-26 

TABLE 8-2--AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT AWARDED BY STATE 

GUIDELINES IN VARIOUS CASES-continued

Case State A B C D E 

 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 

 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.

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 
8-27 

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 adjustment 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 was slightly 

modified to permit States some flexibility in determining which reviews of welfare 
8-28 

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 required 

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 restricted retroactive modification to make 

it more difficult for courts and administrative entities to 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. 
8-29 

ESTABLISHING AND ENFORCING MEDICAL SUPPORT 

Medical support is the legal provision of payment of medical, dental, 

prescription, and other health care expenses. The requirement for medical child 

support is a part of all child support orders (administered by CSE agencies), and it 

only pertains to the parent’s dependent children. It can include provisions to cover 

health insurance costs as well as cash payments for unreimbursed medical 

expenses. Medical support can take several forms. The noncustodial parent may be 

ordered to: (1) provide health insurance if available through the noncustodial 

parent’s employer; (2) pay for private health insurance (health care coverage) 

premiums or reimbursement to the custodial parent for all or a portion of the costs 

of health insurance obtained by the custodial parent; or (3) pay additional amounts 

to cover a portion of ongoing medical bills as reimbursement for uninsured medical 

costs. 

The first connection between medical support and child support came as an 

attempt to recoup the costs of Medicaid provided to public assistance families under 

Title XIX of the Social Security Act. Two years after creation of the IV-D program, 

the Medicare/Medicaid Antifraud and Abuse Amendments of 1977 established a 

medical support enforcement program that allowed States to require that Medicaid 

applicants assign their rights to medical support. Further, in an effort to cover 

children by private insurance instead of public programs, when available, it 

permitted IV-D and Medicaid agencies to enter into cooperative agreements to 

pursue medical child support assigned to the State. Also, State IV-D agencies were 

required to notify Medicaid agencies when private family health coverage was 

either obtained or discontinued for a Medicaid-eligible person. 

Section 16 of Public Law 98-378, enacted in 1984, required the Secretary of 

HHS 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 employerprovided family health insurance coverage, 77 percent of the premium was paid for 

by the employer. 

On October 16, 1985, the OCSE published regulations amending previous 

regulations and implementing section 16 of Public Law 98-378. The regulations 

required 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 
8-30 

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 

required 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 required 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 deleted 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: 
8-31 

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 HHS 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; 

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 
8-32 

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 do not appear to be having much of an impact on the 

number of children in single-parent families with medical coverage. According to 

OCSE data, in 2001, only 49 percent of child support orders included health 

insurance coverage and the health insurance order was complied with in only 18 

percent of the cases. 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, provided 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 required the CSE agency to use a 

standardized national medical support notice (developed by HHS and the 

Department of Labor) to communicate to employers the issuance of a medical 

support order. Employers are required to accept the form as a “qualified medical 

support order” under ERISA. States were required to begin using the national 

medical support notice in October 2001, although many States had to delay 

implementation until enactment of required State enabling legislation. (In April 

2003 only about half of the States were using the national medical support notice.) 

 An appropriately completed national medical support notice is considered to be a 

“Qualified Medical Child Support Order” and as such must be honored by the 

employers group health plan. 

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 
8-33 

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. 

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. 
TABLE 8-3--CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS MADE BY VARIOUS ENFORCEMENT TECHNIQUE

SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1989-2002 

[In Millions of Dollars] 

Child Support Collections Percent of Total Collections 

Enforcement Technique 1989 1995 1997 2000 2001 2002 1989 1995 1997 2000 2001 

Income withholding $2,144 $6,111 $7,472 $12,968 $14,583 $15,467 40.9 56.9 55.9 62.0 64.8 Federal income tax offset 411 734 1,015 1,328 1,485 1,497 7.9 6.8 7.6 6.3 6.6 State income tax offset 62 97 120 208 216 210 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 Unemployment compensation intercept 54 187 207 260 338 577 1.0 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.5 Other 1 2,570 3,624 4,549 5,109 5,900 6,044 49.0 33.7 34.0 29.5 26.2 

Total collections 5,241 10,753 13,363 19,873 22,522 23,795 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

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

collections in the "other'' category came from noncustodial parents who were complying with their support orders by sending their payments to 

child support agency. OCSE officials maintain that reliability of collection data lessen when specified by techniques of collection. 

Note: Income withholding includes CSE and non-CSE collections. In 2002, approximately $3.7 billion were non-CSE collections from incomwithholding. Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
8-35 

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 $2 per month to $2 per pay period to $5 per remittance to $10 per 

month to 2 percent of the remittance (Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 2001). 

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. 

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. 
8-36 

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 HHS 

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. The total amount of support collected through wage 

withholding has increased each year, reaching $15.5 billion in 2002 (however, 

about $3.7 billion was from non-CSE collections from wage withholding); the 

percentage of total collections achieved through wage withholding has also 

increased, reaching 65 percent in 2002. 

Federal income tax refund offset

Under this program, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), operating on request 

from a State filed through the Secretary of HHS, simply intercepts tax returns and 

deducts the amount of certified child support arrearages. The money is then sent to 

the State for distribution. Since the enactment of the Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35), IRS has been able to withhold past 

due support from Federal tax refunds upon a simple showing by 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), now 

TANF, eligibility. The withheld amount is sent to the State agency, together with 

notice of the taxpayer's current address. 
8-37 

The 1984 amendments (P.L. 98-378) 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 established specific notice requirements and mandated 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, made permanent the IRS Offset Program for non-AFDC families. 

In tax year 2002, according to HHS, more than 1.4 million cases were offset. 

The total amount intercepted was about $1.5 billion, up by a factor of well over 

four since 1986 ($308 million). 

State income tax refund offset

 The child support amendments of 1984 mandated 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 also must 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 2002, the State Tax Intercept Program collected $210 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. 

Although the amounts vary greatly from State to State, the certification amount in 

the typical State is about $100. 
8-38 

Unemployment compensation intercept

Public Law 97-35, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, required 

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 required 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 $577 million in fiscal year 2002 (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 
8-39 

noncompliance by the obligor. Frequently, the mere imposition 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. As noted earlier, Project 1099 operations were suspended in 2002; OSCE 

contends that the use of the National Directory of New Hires and the Financial 

Institution Data Match program are a more effective use of CSE resources. 

The welfare reform legislation passed in 1996 (Public Law 104-193) 

required 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 required 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 HHS 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 HHS 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 
8-40 

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 relatively infrequent. In 

fiscal year 1998, collections were made in 477 cases nationwide, for a total 

collection of $230,417. In fiscal year 2000, collections were made in 240 cases 

nationwide, for a total collection of $192,935. 

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 HHS, 

in fiscal year 2000, the passport denial program collected more than $6.5 million in 

lump sum child support payments and currently is denying about 60 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 required 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, 

amended 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 
8-41 

support agencies. Public Law 103-432, enacted in October 1994, included 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 stated 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 an 

individual's capacity to make child support payments or determine the level of 

payments; that paternity has been established or 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 amended the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act. 

The 1996 law also required 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 past-due 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 
8-42 

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, 

required allotments from the pay and allowances of any active duty member of the 

uniformed service who fails to make child 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 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. 
8-43 

Other provisions

A February 27, 1995 Executive order established 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 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, 

1995a). 

The 1996 welfare reform law required States to implement expedited 

procedures 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 also must have expedited 

procedures 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 traditionally has 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 the U.S. Census Bureau (1999) data, 13 percent of noncustodial 
8-44 

parents lived in a different State than their children, 3 percent lived overseas, and 

the residence of 10 percent of the noncustodial parents was unknown. According to 

an OCSE Information Memorandum dated January 22, 2003, the interstate caseload 

is about 25 percent of the total CSE caseload. 

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 first was 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. 

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-of-State 

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. 
8-45 

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 HHS 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 HHS 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 he 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 been only 

one reported case of its use by a State (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 
8-46 

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 HHS 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, 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, restricted 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 clarified the 

definition of a child's home State, made several revisions to ensure that the rules 

can be applied consistently with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act 

(UIFSA), and clarified the rules regarding which child support order States must 

honor when there is more than one order. 
8-47 

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 (HHS), the Nation’s criminal child support enforcement initiative, “Project 

Save Our Children,” which began in 1998 has received and reviewed over 

4,600 potential criminal nonsupport cases referred by State and county CSE 

agencies resulting in 273 federal arrests, 173 criminal convictions, and the payment 

of nearly $8 million in past-due child support payments (2002 data). In addition, 

315 arrests have been made at the State level, resulting in 277 criminal convictions 

or civil adjudications and $10.7 million in court-ordered restitution. The Project 

Save Our Children initiative is conducted by officials from the HHS 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 effectively 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. 
8-48 

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. All States and jurisdictions had adopted UIFSA by June 1998. 

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 2002, 

$1.203 billion was collected for interstate cases, up 163 percent from $457 million 

in fiscal year 1990. 

Expedited procedures 

Regardless of whether a State uses judicial processes, administrative 

processes, or a combination, the 1996 welfare reform law required 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 
8-49 

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. 

Financial institution data match program

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 programs may issue liens or levies (often referred to as 

“freeze and seize” procedures) on the accounts of that delinquent obligor to collect 

the past-due child support. In 1998 (P.L. 105-200), Congress made it easier for 

multi-State financial institutions to match records by allowing the OCSE through 

the Federal Parent Locator Service to assist States in conducting data matches with 

multi-State financial institutions. When matches are made, the information is sent 

to the States within 48 hours for placement of a lien on and seizure of all or part of 

the accounts identified. States are using their expedited procedures to seize the 

accounts and thereby force debtor noncustodial parents to meet their child support 

obligations. 

With the introduction of FIDM (Financial Institution Data Match), CSE 

agencies must conduct quarterly matches with hundreds of single-State financial 

institutions operating within their State. State agencies also must participate in 

matching at the Federal level with thousands of multi-State financial institutions 

and process tens of thousands of matches resulting in collections through account 

seizures. State agencies also engage in interstate processing to identify and seize 

accounts located in another State. In addition, they engage in outreach to solicit the 

cooperation of financial institutions, perform customer services to address the 

concerns of delinquent obligors whose access to financial assets has been 

disrupted, and develop automated systems to routinely process and manage large 

numbers of cases. 

In fiscal year 2001, the Financial Institution Data Match program found more 

than 1.4 million accounts belonging to more than 854,000 delinquent noncustodial 

parents nationwide with a value in excess of $3.2 billion. 

Summary information on collection methods

Table 8-3 shows that 75 percent of the $23.8 billion in child support 

payments collected in fiscal year 2002 was obtained through four enforcement 

techniques: income withholding, Federal income tax refund offset, State income tax 

refund offset, and unemployment compensation intercept. The remaining 

25 percent was collected from “other sources.” The “other sources” category 
8-50 

includes collections from parents who have informal agreements, collections from 

noncustodial parents who voluntarily sent money for their children even though a 

support order never had 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. By fiscal year 1991 income 

withholding had become the primary enforcement method, producing nearly 

47 percent of all child support collections. By 2002, the percentage had increased 

even further, reaching 65 percent. (Note: income withholding includes CSE and 

non-CSE collections. Approximately $3.9 billion were non-CSE collections from 

income withholding.) 

PRIVATE COLLECTION ACTIVITIES 

 

 According to the OCSE, the Child Support Enforcement program handles 

about 60 percent of all child support cases. The rest are handled by private 

attorneys, private collection agencies, locally-funded public child support 

enforcement agencies, or through mutual agreements between the parents. 

Nonfederal CSE activities

 Some localities have chosen 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 now are 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 (GAO) 

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 
8-51 

public employees. In its March 2002 report, the GAO identified 38 private firms in 

16 states that regularly collected child support payments on behalf of individual 

parents (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2002.) 

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 Secretary of HHS agrees that the 

system will not cost more, take more time to establish, or take more time to operate 

than a single State system. All States, including 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. 
8-52 

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 Secretary of HHS 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 

achieved compliance on or before April l, 2000, the Secretary of HHS was required 

to waive the first year penalty. If a State achieved compliance on or after 

April 1, 2000, and on or before September 30, 2000, the penalty percentage was 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, 
8-53 

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 Secretary of HHS 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 
8-54 

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 

Secretary of HHS 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 also can 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 Secretary of HHS 

specifies, including controlling and accounting for the use of Federal, State, and 

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, 
8-55 

reliability, and accuracy of the data. Final regulations were issued by the Secretary 

in August 1998. 

The 1996 welfare reform law stipulated that 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. 

Also, (pursuant to the 1996 welfare reform law) the Secretary was required to 

create procedures to cap payments to the States at $400 million for fiscal years 

1996-2001. The Federal matching rate for the new requirements was 80 percent. 

Funds were to be distributed among States by a formula set in regulations which 

took into account the relative size of State caseloads and the level of automation 

needed to meet applicable automatic data processing requirements. 

Until fiscal year 2001, the Federal Government paid 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. 

Federal funding at the enhanced 80 percent rate (for capped funds) was 

available through fiscal year 2001. The 80 percent Federal matching rate for CSE 

automated systems expenditures was eliminated after September 30, 2001. For all 

CSE automated systems expenditures made on or after October 1, 2001, Federal 

funding is available at the 66 percent Federal matching rate. 

The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (Public Law 

105-200), gave the Secretary of HHS 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 
8-56 

Federal matching funds). A State that fails to comply with the 1996 automated 

system requirements nonetheless may 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 was not in compliance in fiscal year 2000 with either the 

1988 automated system requirements or the 1996 requirements, it would be only 

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 March 2003, 4 jurisdictions had not been certified as meeting the 

1988 Family Support Act CSE automated systems requirements; 2 States had not 

yet scheduled a certification review and were still in the planning phase (California 

and South Carolina) and 2 jurisdictions had a review pending (Michigan and the 

Virgin Islands). 

As noted earlier, the 1996 welfare reform law required States to modify their 

automated systems to accommodate the 1996 law provisions. As of March 2003, 

21 jurisdictions were certified as meeting the 1996 Personal Responsibility and 

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act CSE automated systems requirements 

(Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming); 

30 jurisdictions had a review scheduled or in progress; and 3 States did not have a 

review scheduled yet (California, Massachusetts, and South Carolina). 

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. 
8-57 

If a penalty is imposed after a follow up review, a State may appeal the audit 

penalty to the HHS 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 one and five 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 1996 welfare reform law required States to annually review and report to 

the Secretary of HHS, 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. He 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 Secretary of HHS 

has found, via an audit, to have failed to substantially comply with CSE State plan 

requirements, there is the possibility of complete elimination of CSE funding in 

cases in which a State's CSE program has been disapproved. The Secretary must 

disapprove the plans of States which fail to implement the CSE State plan 

requirements under sections 454 and 466 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 the 

complete elimination of Federal funding rule. First, CSE law establishes an 

alternative penalty for a State's failure to meet the automated data systems 
8-58 

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 child support collections to the 

family. This provision was repealed by the 1996 legislation and States were given 

the 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 the child support collections 

may reduce or even eliminate TANF payments to the family. 
8-59 

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.” 

Temporarily-assigned 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 temporarilyassigned 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 support was collected. If the collection was made by 

any means other than the Federal tax refund intercept, the collection is first paid to 
8-60 

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 (never-assigned 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 changed again (although States could 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 HHS 

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. 
8-61 

Second, as discussed previously, HHS 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 one especially important child 

support activity. Congress provides 90 percent funding for laboratory costs incurred 

in determining paternity. Congress justified enhanced funding of paternity 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 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 or DNA 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 or DNA 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-of-effort (MOE) requirement that requires States to 

expend at least 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 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 
8-62 

Government. The rate at which States reimburse the Federal Government is the 

Federal Medicaid matching rate. The details of this cost-recovery procedure mean 

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 nonTANF 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 was 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. 

The incentive payment no longer comes out of the gross Federal share of 

child support collected on behalf of TANF families. Instead, Public Law 105-200 

required the Secretary of HHS to make incentive payments to States. This law 

stipulated that the incentive payment pool could not 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 

exceeded expenditures in some 8 States in fiscal year 2002. In other words, some
TABLE 8-4--FINANCING OF THE FEDERAL/STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, 

FY 2002 

[In Thousands of Dollars] 

State Federal Administrative Payments State Share Collections Federal Incentive Payments State Administrative Expenditures State Net Collection

to Costs Ra

Alabama $41,772,350 $3,229,488 $3,000,000 $62,813,312 -$14,811,474 $3.64 Alaska 13,850,492 7,518,695 2,564,875 20,964,504 $2,969,558 4.49 

Arizona 40,633,973 9,789,966 3,404,209 61,488,020 -$7,659,872 4.25 

Arkansas 35,292,028 2,095,960 1,616,428 53,325,544 -$14,321,128 2.66 

California 640,414,803 261,181,208 43,264,939 967,850,687 -$22,989,737 1.91 

Colorado 42,203,602 12,026,384 5,155,207 63,345,963 -$3,960,770 3.66 Connecticut 41,137,173 24,188,649 6,000,000 62,248,498 $9,077,324 3.76 

Delaware 12,220,632 2,929,957 1,320,000 18,490,612 -$2,020,023 3.66 

District of Columbia 12,123,785 2,331,315 0 18,355,923 -$3,900,823 2.69 Florida 151,549,303 35,144,031 19,547,520 228,940,447 -$22,699,593 4.03 

Georgia 72,856,621 12,581,988 7,776,712 109,974,793 -$16,759,472 4.24 Guam 3,423,657 374,204 245,495 5,180,595 -$1,137,239 1.64 

Hawaii 8,075,600 4,693,441 1,960,000 12,204,056 $2,524,985 6.53 

Idaho 13,195,260 1,239,743 1,178,155 19,943,957 -$4,330,799 5.29 Illinois 116,658,654 22,273,967 4,769,908 175,628,019 -$31,925,490 2.80 

Indiana 38,171,773 10,184,188 948,201 57,415,767 -$8,111,605 7.80 

Iowa 31,562,743 14,152,532 4,884,330 47,746,323 $2,853,282 5.63 

Kansas 37,673,723 7,563,762 1,408,098 57,070,901 -$10,425,318 2.61 

Kentucky 41,644,637 10,507,704 4,500,000 62,855,131 -$6,202,790 4.71 

Louisiana 38,010,816 4,752,990 2,397,750 57,086,791 -$11,925,235 4.87 

Maine 15,608,293 8,391,405 3,250,000 23,605,032 $3,644,666 4.28 

Maryland 66,972,127 10,679,676 4,410,000 101,356,950 -$19,295,147 4.19 Massachusetts 48,348,358 23,365,515 7,715,351 73,157,946 $6,271,278 5.77 

Michigan 209,999,856 48,552,323 19,631,000 317,969,745 -$39,786,566 4.59 Minnesota 90,481,729 23,862,365 13,330,000 136,841,446 -$9,167,352 4.05 

Mississippi 16,746,999 1,844,752 2,000,000 25,093,407 -$4,501,656 7.12 

Missouri 62,026,337 19,287,506 7,800,000 93,519,925 -$4,406,082 4.63 

Montana 8,272,313 1,530,600 1,200,000 12,488,346 -$1,485,433 4.10 
TABLE 8-4--FINANCING OF THE FEDERAL/STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, 

FY 2002-continued 

[In Thousands of Dollars]

State Federal Administrative Payments State Share Collections Federal Incentive Payments State Administrative Expenditures State Net Collection

to Costs Ra

Nebraska 34,022,260 4,174,032 2,085,000 51,452,821 -$11,171,529 2.87 Nevada 26,508,244 2,845,197 1,405,265 40,122,603 -$9,363,897 2.87 

New Hampshire 12,598,325 4,206,036 1,223,270 18,740,756 -$713,125 4.37 

New Jersey 112,259,046 30,557,770 17,100,000 169,893,050 -$9,976,234 4.83 

New Mexico 26,199,265 2,202,487 720,002 39,663,969 -$10,542,215 1.46 

New York 202,847,433 76,443,949 23,000,000 306,731,258 -$4,439,876 4.49 

North Carolina 75,961,551 15,227,706 9,180,000 114,731,870 -$14,362,613 4.43 

North Dakota 7,789,975 1,592,621 764,611 11,793,383 -$1,646,176 4.71 

Ohio 228,191,923 29,385,100 18,560,384 344,634,577 -$68,497,170 4.81 Oklahoma 34,841,729 5,767,732 3,100,000 52,282,771 -$8,573,310 2.80 

Oregon 34,060,493 9,463,432 5,319,000 51,552,166 -$2,709,241 5.85 

Pennsylvania 132,475,460 39,174,104 13,745,000 200,473,876 -$15,079,312 6.85 

Puerto Rico 23,141,964 394,741 528,000 34,938,437 -$10,873,732 6.27 

Rhode Island 8,376,742 7,049,864 2,400,000 12,692,034 $5,134,572 4.52 South Carolina 26,701,035 2,924,397 1,800,000 40,281,284 -$8,855,852 5.87 South Dakota 4,925,871 1,454,306 1,565,866 7,434,866 $511,177 7.59 Tennessee 50,968,814 7,696,055 1,200,000 76,715,673 -$16,850,804 4.50 

Texas 176,302,824 35,044,013 24,165,275 265,126,381 -$29,614,269 5.41 Utah 24,327,960 5,354,932 1,984,582 36,816,553 -$5,149,079 3.89 Vermont 7,383,287 2,290,376 1,289,696 11,146,668 -$183,309 3.93 Virgin Islands 3,496,995 57,978 45,000 5,289,924 -$10,873,732 1.58 Virginia 50,490,635 17,751,367 6,600,000 76,276,031 $5,134,572 6.34 

Washington 83,990,215 41,865,136 14,676,000 127,203,755 $13,327,596 4.95 West Virginia 21,755,127 3,316,222 2,272,681 32,855,073 -$5,511,043 4.87 

Wisconsin 64,429,060 16,730,618 7,550,000 97,279,925 -$8,570,247 6.11 Wyoming 6,757,440 1,232,826 467,936 10,223,927 -$1,765,725 5.00 

Total $3,431,731,310 $950,477,311 $338,025,746 $5,183,316,271 -$463,081,904 $4.13 

1 The collections-to-costs ratio is the ratio that will be used pursuant to the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA). 

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Annual Reports to Congress. 
8-65 

States still 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 Secretary of HHS which contribute to the effectiveness or efficiency of the 

CSE program. 

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 

$0.96 in New Mexico to $6.91 in South Dakota. Fifteen States, including States 

that spend up to two 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 program financing on the 

Federal and State governments respectively. The Federal Government has spent 

more money on child support every year since 1979, with spending rising from 

$43 million in 1979 to $2.327 billion in 2001, and dropping slightly to $2.252 

billion in 2002. 

State governments until recently always made a profit on the program. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2000 they too have experienced aggregate losses every 

year. In 1979, the first year for which data are available, States in the aggregate 

cleared $244 million. In 1993, the peak year, States cleared $482 million. In fiscal 

year 2000, States in the aggregate lost $87 million; in 2001, States lost 

$272 million; and in 2002, States lost $463 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 spending and 

State profits was a net savings for taxpayers. Thus, in 1979, State savings more 

than made up for Federal spending. As a result, from a public finance perspective, 

taxpayers were 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. 

 However, 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 pass through had an immediate 
8-66 

impact; in its first year (1985), combined Federal- State savings fell to $86 million 

from $261 million the previous year. By 1989 the overall “savings” in the 

combined program went negative. For the first time that year, Federal expenditures 

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. In 2002, the net loss had reached $2.715 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 should provide such a high 

reimbursement level for State expenditures when some States still 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 some 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 

TABLE 8-5--FEDERAL AND STATE SHARE OF CHILD SUPPORT 

“SAVINGS,” SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1980-2002 

[In Millions of Dollars]

Fiscal Year Federal Share of Child 

Support Savings 1

State Share of Child 

Support Savings 1

Net Public Savings 1

1980 -103 230 127 

1985 -231 317 86 

1990 -528 338 -190 

1991 -586 385 -201 

1992 -605 434 -170 

1993 -740 462 -278 

1994 -978 482 -496 

1995 -1,273 421 -852 

1996 -1,147 409 -738 

1997 -1,282 469 -813 

1998 -1,424 286 -1,139 

1999 -1,758 66 -1,692 

2000 -2,038 -87 -2,125 

2001 -2,327 -272 -2,599 

2002 -2,252 -463 -2,715 

1

 Negative “savings” are costs. 

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. 

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Annual Reports to Congress. 
8-67 

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 2001 the State's share of retained 

collections accounted for just 6 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 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 2002, welfare collections actually declined somewhat 

(to $2.5 billion in 1999) and then increased back to $2.9 billion in 2002. But 

non-TANF collections have grown steadily from about $0.6 billion to $17.2 billion 

over the period 1978-2002, for a growth factor of about 28. 

 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 
8-68 

amount doesn't even pay the full cost of opening a case file. In 2001, a little more 

than 3.2 million non-TANF families (i.e., families that had never been on TANF) 

received services resulting in child support collections that averaged around 

$3,130 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. Additionally, others have pointed out that 

child support collections often represent the enforcement of court orders, and the 

public is not directly charged for other forms of law enforcement. 

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 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; see also: 

Barnow, Dall, Nowak, Dannhausen, 2000), 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 long-term 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 the 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 
8-69 

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 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 CSE 

program (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) 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 child support collections from parents whose children are on TANF. In 

addition, States often can 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 

declined from a high of nearly $2.9 billion in 1996 to $2.5 billion in fiscal year 

1999 and increased back to $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2002. Despite its many 

successes, the overall financial impact of the child support program on taxpayers is 

negative. As shown in Table 8-5, program expenses totaled $2.7 billion in 2002. 

IMPACT ON POVERTY 

In 2001, about 23 percent of the 13.4 million women and men rearing 

children alone had incomes below the poverty level. By comparison, 

19 percent of the custodial parents who received child support payments had 

incomes below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003a, detailed Table 4). 

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 7.3 million single parents who did not receive payments in 2001, 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 
8-70 

they were able to leave the rolls. In 2001, 330,000 families with child support 

collections, representing about 16 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 noncustodial parent in paying child support. 

Table 8-6 provides detailed information for 2001, the most recent year for 

which national data are available, on child support payments by fathers to families 

headed by mothers. Although the 2001 survey, like 1999, 1997, 1995, 1993, 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 11.3 million female-headed 

families eligible for support, only 63 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 6.2 million mothers who had an award and who were supposed to 

receive payments in 2001, 75 percent actually received at least one payment (Table 

8-6). However, as shown in Table 8-7, only about 41 percent of the total of 11.3 

million women who did not live with their children's father in 2001 actually 

received at least one payment and only 25 percent received everything due. So 

in addition to its failure to get orders for 37 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. 
8-71 

TABLE 8-6--CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS AWARDED 

AND RECEIVED BY WOMEN WITH CHILDREN PRESENT, 

BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS, 2001 1

Custodial Mothers 

Receiving Support in 2001 

Characteristics 

Total Custodial 

Mothers 

(Thousands) 

Percent of 

Custodial 

Mothers 

Awarded 

Child 

Support 

Total 

Custodial 

Mothers with 

Support Order

(Thousands) Percent Mean 

Child Support 

Mean 

Income 

All Women 

Current marital status: 

 Married 2,715 68 1,682 79 $4,126 $25,963 

 Divorced 3,587 72 2,300 79 5,148 34,974 

 Separated 1,349 56 599 74 4,417 26,801 

 Widowed 2

 116 72 61 77 4 4

 Never married 3,524 52 1,570 64 2,864 19,978 

Race and Hispanic origin: 

 White 7,843 67 4,624 78 4,592 29,576 

 Black 3,010 54 1,400 64 3,043 23,445 

 Hispanic origin 3

 1,689 52 755 73 4,014 19,557 

Years of school completed: 

 Less than high school 

 grad 1,915 48 762 60 2,934 12,282 

 High school grad or 

 GED 4,280 63 2,376 74 3,831 21,518 

 Some college 2,552 68 1,505 77 4,219 25,423 

 Associate degree 1,016 69 616 77 4,131 32,786 

 Bachelors degree or 

 more 1,528 70 953 82 6,239 54,414 

Total 11,291 63 6,212 75 4,274 28,258 

Women Below Poverty 

Current marital status: 

 Married 216 59 107 74 2,664 3,593 

 Divorced 763 64 424 73 3,767 8,036 

 Separated 479 48 184 69 3,663 7,941 

 Widowed 2

 23 87 20 30 4 4

 Never married 1,343 52 605 60 2,389 7,955 

Race: 

 White 1,645 60 845 73 3,263 7,617 

 Black 1,063 49 444 52 2,463 7,888 

 Hispanic origin 3

 553 47 217 74 2,887 6,504 

Total 2,823 56 1,339 66 3,078 7,604 1

Award status as of spring 2002. 

2

Widowed women whose previous marriage ended in divorce. 

3

Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 

4

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 2002. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2003) 
8-72 

 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 (67 percent versus 54 percent 

for blacks and 52 percent for Hispanics). Similarly, mothers with a bachelors 

degree have a 70 percent chance of having an order as compared with 48 percent 

for high school dropouts and 63 percent for high school graduates. As for 

payments, white mothers receive $4,592 per year on average as compared with 

$3,043 for black mothers and $4,014 for Hispanic mothers. Mothers with a 

bachelor’s degree receive $6,239 per year in support as compared with $2,934 and 

$3,831 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 (52 percent versus 72 percent); 

even never-married mothers who actually receive support get considerably less than 

divorced mothers ($2,864 versus $5,148). 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 non-poor mothers. Table 8-8 shows similar data for the award of 

health insurance. While demonstrating that about 59 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 (43 percent), 

black (40 percent) and Hispanic women (50 percent), and women with less 

schooling (i.e., high school dropouts, 44 percent). 

Table 8-7, which summarizes several child support measures for selected 

years from 1978 to 2001, complements and puts into context the conclusions drawn 

from the 2001 data.3

 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 46 percent 

over the 23-year period, compared with a decline of 3 percent among women above 

the poverty level. Similarly, the percentage of poor women who received child 

support payments increased 76 percent from 1978 to 2001, compared to an increase 

of 8 percent among non-poor women. The percentage of all women with an award 

and the percentage that actually receive any payment have grown only slightly, and 

 

3

The 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 answered 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 most of the surveys and recommend that readers draw their own conclusions. 
8-73 

in each case by far less than the rate of growth in the number of demographically 

eligible mothers. Equally discouraging, while a slightly higher percentage of 

women were awarded child support (63.0 percent in 2001 versus 59.1 percent in 

1978), the percentage of women who received full payment remained virtually 

unchanged (25 percent in 2001 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 performance measures have improved over 

two decades. However, as shown in 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 compare performance changes in the IV-D 

program with overall national trends in child support performance, Table 8-9 

summarizes 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 Federal-State program is showing 

impressive improvement on every measure. Total collections, parents located, 

paternities established, and awards established are up over 275 percent since 1978. 

 TABLE 8-7--CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS FOR ALL WOMEN, 

WOMEN ABOVE THE POVERTY LEVEL, AND WOMEN BELOW THE 

POVERTY LEVEL, SELECTED YEARS 1978-2001 

Category of Women 1978 1981 1989 19933 1997 1999 2001 

All women: 

 Total (in thousands) 7,094 8,387 9,955 11,505 11,872 11,499 11,291 

 Percent awarded 1

 59.1 59.2 57.7 59.8 59.6 62.2 63.0 

 Percent received payment 34.6 34.6 37.4 39.1 40.4 39.8 41.1 

 Percent received full payment 23.6 22.5 25.6 18.9 24.8 24.5 25.0 

Women above poverty level: 

 Total (in thousands) 5,121 5,821 6,749 7,271 8,062 8,194 8,468 

 Percent awarded 1

 67.3 67.9 64.6 64.4 62.8 66.1 65.4 

 Percent received payment 41.1 41.4 43.1 44.4 45.7 44.9 44.3 

Women below poverty level: 

 Total (in thousands) 1,973 2,566 3,206 4,234 3,810 3,305 2,823 

 Percent awarded 1

 38.1 39.7 43.3 51.9 53.0 52.3 55.7 

 Percent received payment 17.8 19.3 25.4 30.1 29.3 27.2 31.3 

Aggregate payment (in billions of 

dollars): 2

 

 Child support due 17.1 18.4 22.5 28.8 32.0 34.3 34.9 

 Child support received 11.1 11.3 15.4 18.8 21.3 20.2 21.9 

 Aggregate child support deficit 6.0 7.1 7.1 10.0 10.7 14.1 13.0 1

 Survey conducted in spring 1979, 1982, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2000, and 2002 for prior years. 2

 In 2001 dollars based on Consumer Price Index Research Series using current methods (CPI-U-RS). 3

 Data for 1993 are not directly compatible with prior years because of changes to survey questions. 

Note—Payments for women with own children under age 21. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (various years). 

 

 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 
8-74 

receiving at least one payment have been nearly stagnant. Moreover, the percentage 

of mothers who received the full amount due has decreased from 

49 percent to 45 percent. On the other hand, total collections (for custodial mothers) 

increased by 78 percent. This increase, however, is dwarfed by the 631 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 over 59 percent over the same period. 

TABLE 8-8 CHILD SUPPORT AWARD STATUS AND INCLUSION 

OF HEALTH INSURANCE IN AWARD, BY SELECTED 

CHARACTERISTICS OF WOMEN, 2001 

[Numbers in Thousands] 

Supposed to Receive Child Support Payments in 

2001 

Health Insurance Included in 

Child Support Award Characteristic Total 

Total 

Number Percent of Total 

Awarded 

Current marital status: 1

Married 2,715 1,682 1,212 66 

Divorced 3,587 2,300 1,769 68 

Separated 1,349 599 386 51 

Never married 3,524 1,570 796 43 

Race and Hispanic origin: 

White 7,843 4,624 3,459 66 

Black 3,010 1,400 640 40 

Hispanic2

 1,689 755 442 50 

Age: 

15-17 years 50 23 4 17 

18-29 years 2,973 1,365 790 50 

30-39 years 4,394 2,638 1,807 61 

40 years and over 3,875 2,187 1,615 63 

Years of school completed: 

Less than high school 1,915 762 402 44 

High school graduate or 4,280 2,376 1,554 58 

Some college, no degree 2,552 1,505 1,090 63 

Associate degree 1,016 616 459 65 

Bachelors degree or more 1,528 953 711 66 

Number of own children present from an absent father: 

One 6,354 3,156 2,223 61 

Two 3,268 2,102 1,438 62 

Three 1,261 742 451 52 

Four or more 408 211 103 42 

Total 11,291 6,212 4,216 59 

1

 Excludes a small number of currently widowed women whose previous marriage ended in divorce. 2

 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 2002. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002. 

 Clearly, although the IV-D program has been growing steadily since 1978, 

and its performance on many measures has been improving, the improvement 
8-75 

appears to have had only modest impact on the national picture. How can these two 

trends be reconciled? 

 The last panel of Table 8-9 suggests an answer as it 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 2001, the percentage had grown to 87 percent. 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 the CSE program has not led to significant 

improvement of the Nation's child support performance. 

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 $19 billion in 2001 provides a useful index of how far we need to go as a 
TABLE 8-9--COMPARISON OF MEASURES OF IV-D EFFECTIVENESS WITH CENSUS CHILD SUPPORT 

DATA, SELECTED YEARS 1978-2001 

Measure 1978 1981 1985 1989 1991 3 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 Percent cha

1978-200

Total IV-D collections (2001 dollars, in 

billions)1 2.6 3.0 4.2 7.2 8.7 10.7 12.5 14.7 16.9 19.0 631 

Parents located (thousands) 454 696 878 1,624 2,577 3,777 4,950 6,585 NA NA NA 

Paternities established (thousands) 111 164 232 339 472 554 659 848 845 777 600 Awards established 315 414 669 936 821 3 1,026 1,051 1,156 1,220 1,181 275 

Total collections (2001 dollars, in billions)1 NA NA NA NA 15.1 18.8 21.5 21.3 20.2 21.9 NA 

Collections for custodial mothers(2001 dollars, in billions) 1,2 11.1 11.3 11.3 15.4 14.2 17.0 19.5 19.4 18.7 19.8 78 

Of demographically eligible: 

Percent with awards 59 59 61 58 56 60 61 60 62 63 7 Percent supposed to receive payment 48 48 50 50 49 51 54 53 53 55 15 Percent who received some payment 35 35 37 37 38 39 41 40 40 41 17 

Of mothers supposed to receive payment:  Percent who received full amount 49 47 48 51 52 37 43 46 46 45 -8 

IV-D collections as a percent of total collections 23 27 38 47 58 57 58 69 84 87 278 

NA – Not Available. 

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 In 2001 dollars based on Consumer Price Index Research Series Using Current Methods (CPI-U-RS). 3 The definition of support orders established changed in 1991. 4 Note: For 1978-1989, total national collections only include custodial mothers-during that time data on custodial fathers was not 

collected. “Demographically eligible” means women with own children under 21 years of age living with them from an absent parent. 

Sources: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Annual Reports to Congress, 1994 and various years; U.S. Census Bureau (various 

years). 
8-77 

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 Federal-State program 

is having some success. As discussed in detail in Appendix M, 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. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

(Note: For legislative history before 1996, see previous editions of the Green Book) 

104th CONGRESS 

 Title III of the 1996 welfare reform law (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, 
8-78 

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 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 
8-79 

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. 

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 HHS 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 $400,000,000 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 
8-80 

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. 

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 
8-81 

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. 

105th CONGRESS 

Public Law 105-33, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, made 28 technical 

changes to the 1996 welfare reform law (Public Law 104-193). 

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 imposed 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 included 

provisions related to medical support and privacy protections, and makes other 

minor changes. 

Public Law 105-306, the Noncitizen Benefit Clarification and Other 
8-82 

Technical Amendments Act of 1998, included 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 clarified 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. 

106th CONGRESS 

Public Law 106-113, the Fiscal Year 2000 Consolidated Appropriations Bill, 

provided 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 Secretary of HHS 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 

disbursement unit requirement are subject to only one alternative penalty. 

Public Law 106-169, the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, limited 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 repealed the hold harmless provision 

effective October 1, 2001. 
STATISTICAL TABLES 

TABLE 8-10--STATE PROFILE OF COLLECTIONS AND EXPENDITURES, FY 2002 

State 

Total 

Distributed 

Collections 

TANF Collections Non-TANF Collections Total CSE Expenditures CSE Cost Effectiveness Ratio Incentive Payments (Estimated) 

Alabama $210,793,885 $13,070,953 $197,722,932 $62,813,312 $3.64 $3,000,000 Alaska 81,297,436 16,452,343 64,845,093 20,964,504 4.49 2,564,875 Arizona 229,628,128 28,509,842 201,118,286 61,488,020 4.25 3,404,209 

Arkansas 128,845,269 15,741,586 113,103,683 53,325,544 2.66 1,616,428 

California 1,761,395,793 582,988,895 1,178,406,898 967,850,687 1.91 43,264,939 

Colorado 202,513,277 24,836,128 177,677,149 63,345,963 3.66 5,155,207 

Connecticut 216,686,470 63,140,625 153,545,845 62,248,498 3.76 6,000,000 Delaware 59,507,990 7,169,614 52,338,376 18,490,612 3.66 1,320,000 

District of Columbia 40,543,493 4,737,603 35,805,890 18,355,923 2.69 0 

Florida 803,427,506 296,477,106 506,950,400 228,940,447 4.03 19,547,520 Georgia 415,190,279 43,164,775 372,025,504 109,974,793 4.24 7,776,712 

Guam 7,923,440 1,583,590 6,339,850 5,180,595 1.64 245,495 Hawaii 73,490,476 12,248,433 61,242,043 12,204,056 6.53 1,960,000 

Idaho 95,669,488 4,322,906 91,346,582 19,943,957 5.29 1,178,155 Illinois 460,100,983 49,700,941 410,400,042 175,628,019 2.80 4,769,908 

Indiana 430,195,033 27,824,470 402,370,563 57,415,767 7.80 948,201 Iowa 255,489,996 87,456,333 168,033,663 47,746,323 5.63 4,884,330 Kansas 134,192,271 20,025,764 114,166,507 57,070,901 2.61 1,408,098 

Kentucky 280,917,646 35,734,880 245,182,766 62,855,131 4.71 4,500,000 

Louisiana 260,352,264 17,906,938 242,445,326 57,086,791 4.87 2,397,750 

Maine 96,058,639 29,995,734 66,062,905 23,605,032 4.28 3,250,000 

Maryland 396,325,538 21,567,764 374,757,774 101,356,950 4.19 4,410,000 Massachusetts 402,684,665 47,128,826 355,555,839 73,157,946 5.77 7,715,351 

Michigan 1,443,730,382 140,231,850 1,303,498,532 317,969,745 4.59 19,631,000 

Minnesota 537,089,362 57,196,977 479,892,385 136,841,446 4.05 13,330,000 Mississippi 169,034,476 8,277,905 160,756,571 25,093,407 7.12 2,000,000 

Missouri 410,866,655 50,901,728 359,964,927 93,519,925 4.63 7,800,000 
TABLE 8-10--STATE PROFILE OF COLLECTIONS AND EXPENDITURES, FY 2002-continued

State 

Total 

Distributed 

Collections 

TANF Collections Non-TANF Collections Total CSE Expenditures CSE Cost Effectiveness Ratio Incentive Payments (Estimated) 

Montana 43,450,853 5,852,920 37,597,933 12,488,346 4.10 1,200,000Nebraska 143,218,162 15,126,677 128,091,485 51,452,821 2.87 2,085,000 

Nevada 91,416,297 6,176,779 85,239,518 40,122,603 2.87 1,405,265 

New Hampshire 76,021,041 8,472,104 67,548,937 18,740,756 4.37 1,223,270 

New Jersey 774,655,477 63,336,873 711,318,604 169,893,050 4.83 17,100,000 

New Mexico 51,872,707 8,947,173 42,925,534 39,663,969 1.46 720,002 New York 1,289,224,609 168,267,753 1,120,956,856 306,731,258 4.49 23,000,000 

North Carolina 468,742,468 41,289,171 427,453,297 114,731,870 4.43 9,180,000 

North Dakota 50,844,528 5,361,060 45,483,468 11,793,383 4.71 764,611 Ohio 1,617,586,413 79,975,326 1,537,611,087 344,634,577 4.81 18,560,384 Oklahoma 131,791,800 20,005,757 111,786,043 52,282,771 2.80 3,100,000 

Oregon 275,879,302 25,350,822 250,528,480 51,552,166 5.85 5,319,000 

Pennsylvania 1,331,920,478 98,729,901 1,233,190,577 200,473,876 6.85 13,745,000 

Puerto Rico 211,582,627 2,187,325 209,395,302 34,938,437 6.27 528,000 

Rhode Island 53,269,669 14,953,362 38,316,307 12,692,034 4.52 2,400,000 South Carolina 224,346,732 14,027,122 210,319,610 40,281,284 5.87 1,800,000 South Dakota 50,621,425 21,363,037 29,258,388 7,434,866 7.59 1,565,866 

Tennessee 318,253,081 45,919,503 272,333,578 76,715,673 4.50 1,200,000 

Texas 1,346,898,110 174,469,207 1,172,428,903 265,126,381 5.41 24,165,275 Utah 133,052,785 20,818,545 112,234,240 36,816,553 3.89 1,984,582 Vermont 41,502,260 6,272,797 35,229,463 11,146,668 3.93 1,289,696 

Virgin Islands 7,184,209 941,382 6,242,827 5,289,924 1.58 45,000 

Virginia 436,704,128 148,070,621 288,633,507 76,276,031 6.34 6,600,000 

Washington 590,896,606 84,776,087 506,120,519 127,203,755 4.95 14,676,000 

West Virginia 151,193,843 66,009,416 85,184,427 32,855,073 4.87 2,272,681 

Wisconsin 574,178,130 34,738,477 539,439,653 97,279,925 6.11 7,550,000 Wyoming 46,608,491 3,272,291 43,336,200 10,223,927 5.00 467,936 Total $20,136,867,071 $2,893,105,997 $17,243,761,074 $5,183,316,271 $4.13 $338,025,746 

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
TABLE 8-11--TOTAL DISTRIBUTED COLLECTIONS BY STATE, 

FISCAL YEARS 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 

State 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Alabama $170,581,427 $185,929,914 $192,136,827 $200,240,037 $210,793,88Alaska 64,919,032 67,131,846 71,101,719 77,905,418 81,297,436 

Arizona 132,048,847 169,232,529 196,761,640 212,384,196 229,628,12

Arkansas 91,457,022 108,480,840 120,493,465 122,150,043 128,845,26

California 1,174,214,624 1,604,173,701 2,059,472,938 1,987,761,937 1,761,395,79

Colorado 123,564,692 163,546,023 176,120,256 189,729,840 202,513,27Connecticut 141,543,436 175,487,270 190,849,231 202,950,268 216,686,47

Delaware 38,616,387 44,962,003 49,010,326 53,405,899 59,507,990 District of Columbia 29,906,318 35,137,996 35,029,816 37,760,166 40,543,493 

Florida 484,630,121 579,827,499 648,007,202 700,413,455 803,427,50

Georgia 278,059,999 330,631,555 361,895,069 383,496,014 415,190,27

Guam 6,681,544 7,660,532 7,701,905 7,451,417 7,923,440 Hawaii 55,015,639 60,520,055 66,547,674 69,349,488 73,490,476 

Idaho 48,025,328 64,268,499 75,069,124 87,410,927 95,669,488 Illinois 267,359,518 325,562,478 361,276,437 424,100,350 460,100,98

Indiana 208,444,050 271,110,248 366,155,285 366,781,739 430,195,03

Iowa 166,155,139 201,219,305 218,721,976 236,936,971 255,489,99Kansas 114,979,206 137,981,151 139,181,584 127,176,292 134,192,27

Kentucky 164,357,171 206,241,206 226,432,656 248,957,397 280,917,64

Louisiana 154,821,458 188,131,410 213,901,350 233,491,509 260,352,26

Maine 68,615,439 80,663,945 89,399,356 95,101,117 96,058,639 

Maryland 322,363,403 350,165,942 367,930,051 379,403,201 396,325,53Massachusetts 258,584,016 291,485,832 318,570,247 363,060,179 402,684,66

Michigan 1,092,176, 097 1,274,637,793 1,347,410,776 1,385,225,776 1,443,730,38

Minnesota 355,371,919 442,657,451 477,367,932 512,122,192 537,089,36Mississippi 97,017,611 128,877,572 144,398,420 158,091,621 169,034,47

Missouri 318,310,313 285,818,836 338,989,078 372,654,718 410,866,65Montana 33,400,682 38,221,855 40,751,932 41,027,136 43,450,853 
TABLE 8-11--TOTAL DISTRIBUTED COLLECTIONS BY STATE, 

FISCAL YEARS 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002-continue

d

State 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002

Nebraska 108,623,657 110,565,311 142,451,583 159,886,802 143,218,16Nevada 60,063,294 92,121,885 79,309,062 84,050,142 91,416,297 

New Hampshire 54,468,733 66,166,127 71,390,460 73,225,761 76,021,041 

New Jersey 553,712,995 635,116,977 679,194,346 724,682,527 774,655,47

New Mexico 34,417,383 34,894,675 39,542,994 43,594,822 51,872,707 New York 803,825,889 909,755,049 1,101,981,677 1,148,800,884 1,289,224,60

North Carolina 298,907,678 347,969,980 395,597,968 430,346,008 468,742,46

North Dakota 32,209,165 40,878,761 41,828,314 47,628,668 50,844,528 

Ohio 1,083,543,013 1,301,311,021 1,411,208,969 1,461,376,935 1,617,586,4Oklahoma 79,782,128 96,191,903 107,182,337 116,245,538 131,791,80

Oregon 197,910,878 231,875,332 248,205,633 271,048,814 275,879,30Pennsylvania 1,006,859,583 1,107,687,051 1,167,422,477 1,252,202,021 1,331,920,47

Puerto Rico 142,555,415 166,021,553 182,840,956 195,882,360 211,582,62

Rhode Island 38,824,537 44,304,705 48,445,775 48,928,336 53,269,669 South Carolina 135,657,053 173,756,503 188,234,179 208,155,682 224,346,73South Dakota 30,887,684 38,323,366 43,519,157 47,463,266 50,621,425 

Tennessee 172,822,904 224,245,130 248,195,435 276,337,064 318,253,08

Texas 618,065,552 802,911,218 964,935,244 1,174,224,930 1,346,898,1Utah 84,542,092 107,336,206 118,099,773 127,370,896 133,052,78Vermont 27,877,769 34,880,355 38,738,022 40,697,472 41,502,260 Virgin Islands 5,921,270 6,141,919 7,533,124 7,171,741 7,184,209 

Virginia 292,829,779 312,776,989 347,763,838 403,164,627 436,704,12

Washington 451,730,094 515,859,493 548,674,852 572,902,624 590,896,60

West Virginia 98,147,954 109,379,597 120,349,180 137,233,085 151,193,84

Wisconsin 459,882,115 532,502,415 569,045,649 583,722,322 574,178,13Wyoming 28,682,650 38,462,270 41,986,246 44,714,476 46,608,491 

Total $13,363,971,702 $15,901,201,077 $17,854,271,522 $18,957,597,108 $20,136,867,0

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
8-87 

TABLE 8-12-- DISTRIBUTED COLLECTIONS OF CURRENT, FORMER, 

AND NEVER ASSISTANCE, BY STATE, FY 2002 

State Total Current 

Assistance 1

Former 

Assistance 

Never 

Assistance 

Alabama $210,793,885 $13,024,668 $72,569,929 $125,199,288 

Alaska 81,297,436 6,676,478 41,607,301 33,013,657 

Arizona 229,628,128 11,453,708 142,193,163 75,981,257 

Arkansas 128,845,269 11,376,906 77,399,861 40,068,502 

California 1,761,395,793 253,545,441 1,067,582,921 440,267,431 

Colorado 202,513,277 16,452,230 99,683,496 86,377,551 

Connecticut 216,686,470 34,505,914 136,160,356 46,020,200 

Delaware 59,507,990 3,982,784 27,729,988 27,795,218 

District of Columbia 40,543,493 2,927,355 16,194,540 21,421,598 

Florida 803,427,506 255,522,141 304,068,512 243,836,853 

Georgia 415,190,279 31,844,731 196,158,546 187,187,002 

Guam 7,923,440 1,211,820 2,145,330 4,566,290 

Hawaii 73,490,476 6,256,540 32,674,485 34,559,451 

Idaho 95,669,488 994,155 32,280,917 62,394,416 

Illinois 460,100,983 18,961,393 123,452,123 317,687,467 

Indiana 430,195,033 13,917,819 70,500,055 345,777,159 

Iowa 255,489,996 66,947,952 106,556,682 81,985,362 

Kansas 134,192,271 7,934,865 73,085,432 53,171,974 

Kentucky 280,917,646 17,294,335 258,822,157 4,801,154 

Louisiana 260,352,264 7,333,281 129,514,713 123,504,270 

Maine 96,058,639 16,194,613 53,065,332 26,798,694 

Maryland 396,325,538 9,905,370 161,039,537 225,380,631 

Massachusetts 402,684,665 28,172,054 197,133,469 177,379,142 

Maryland 1,443,730,382 55,362,231 469,543,127 918,825,024 

Michigan 537,089,362 32,631,530 265,493,680 238,964,152 

Mississippi 169,034,476 4,594,992 53,296,956 111,142,528 

Missouri 410,866,655 22,395,311 129,461,656 259,009,688 

Montana 43,450,853 3,033,699 23,141,898 17,275,256 

Nebraska 143,218,162 10,493,336 54,021,705 78,703,121 

Nevada 91,416,297 2,566,505 19,622,135 69,227,657 

New Hampshire 76,021,041 5,917,891 31,834,283 38,268,867 

New Jersey 774,655,477 30,700,457 247,229,256 496,725,764 

New Mexico 51,872,707 3,543,151 26,733,395 21,596,161 

New York 1,289,224,609 86,898,853 529,021,884 673,303,872 

North Carolina 468,742,468 20,257,016 264,244,146 184,241,306 

North Dakota 50,844,528 2,032,084 15,347,345 33,465,099 

Ohio 1,617,586,413 30,261,650 431,788,003 1,155,536,760 

Oklahoma 131,791,800 5,545,063 68,803,905 57,442,832 

Oregon 275,879,302 14,962,303 108,347,032 152,569,967 

Pennsylvania 1,331,920,478 59,207,333 362,247,867 910,465,278 

Puerto Rico 211,582,627 1,706,327 6,545,414 203,330,886 

Rhode Island 53,269,669 11,724,497 31,559,905 9,985,267 

South Carolina 224,346,732 9,686,360 26,816,526 187,843,846 

South Dakota 50,621,425 19,416,871 19,926,629 11,277,925 

Tennessee 318,253,081 35,020,706 131,018,507 152,213,868 

Texas 1,346,898,110 122,247,745 674,614,805 550,035,560 

Utah 133,052,785 10,268,429 49,385,052 73,399,304 

Vermont 41,502,260 4,034,064 23,985,044 13,483,152 

Virgin Islands 7,184,209 906,879 352,967 5,924,363 

Virginia 436,704,128 134,405,095 91,629,093 210,669,940 
8-88 

TABLE 8-12-- DISTRIBUTED COLLECTIONS OF CURRENT, FORMER 

AND NEVER ASSISTANCE, BY STATE FY 2002-continued

State Total Current 

Assistance 1

Former 

Assistance 

Never 

Assistance 

Washington 590,896,606 32,766,901 278,653,310 279,476,395 

West Virginia 151,193,843 61,941,547 42,560,044 46,692,252 

Wisconsin 574,178,130 10,809,699 376,563,504 186,804,927 

Wyoming 46,608,491 306,342 22,996,109 23,306,040 

Total $20,136,867,071 $1,682,081,420 $8,298,404,027 $10,156,381,624 1

 Current assistance includes IV-A. 

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

TABLE 8-13--DISTRIBUTED TANF/FOSTER CARE COLLECTIONS BY 

STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 

State 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Alabama $23,360,517 $18,036,476 $12,299,023 $13,407,464 $13,070,953 

Alaska 20,636,510 17,577,892 16,892,594 17,449,991 16,452,343 

Arizona 26,030,525 23,341,886 26,352,856 24,748,562 28,509,842 

Arkansas 19,876,008 10,811,654 10,131,870 9,729,977 15,741,586 

California 544,639,364 620,161,467 750,717,372 695,488,696 582,988,895 

Colorado 36,950,268 31,875,023 30,192,919 25,564,337 24,836,128 

Connecticut 60,342,040 54,111,142 49,972,672 59,476,753 63,140,625 

Delaware 7,962,068 7,423,602 7,181,976 9,750,595 7,169,614 

District of 

Columbia 5,631,212 5,070,325 4,498,173 4,271,870 4,737,603 

Florida 100,231,066 73,134,533 75,246,779 69,741,213 296,477,106 

Georgia 77,172,899 47,776,366 43,828,552 41,404,893 43,164,775 

Guam 1,320,394 1,641,036 1,369,273 1,277,846 1,583,590 

Hawaii 11,510,438 10,351,413 11,709,742 12,612,151 12,248,433 

Idaho 10,224,918 4,070,389 4,317,033 4,504,154 4,322,906 

Illinois 77,682,722 72,846,716 81,333,731 55,965,762 49,700,941 

Indiana 39,853,408 25,249,911 24,162,170 23,664,093 27,824,470 

Iowa 40,772,612 44,115,571 43,711,127 50,909,642 87,456,333 

Kansas 27,071,883 28,907,321 28,151,417 16,530,153 20,025,764 

Kentucky 39,449,293 35,856,698 33,507,796 34,364,821 35,734,880 

Louisiana 27,122,762 17,785,320 16,443,934 17,551,900 17,906,938 

Maine 31,809,926 32,630,295 34,041,771 33,320,437 29,995,734 

Maryland 38,008,067 25,145,281 25,310,057 22,364,732 21,567,764 

Massachusetts 67,381,987 54,187,784 46,690,737 44,148,416 47,128,826 

Michigan 161,658,369 129,076,627 130,035,891 96,577,009 140,231,850 

Minnesota 64,572,484 60,737,596 56,704,024 55,827,990 57,196,977 

Mississippi 21,856,876 11,021,320 8,320,790 8,230,646 8,277,905 

Missouri 51,858,350 36,960,099 46,755,784 46,261,137 50,901,728 

Montana 8,327,589 6,087,975 5,737,782 5,115,717 5,852,920 

Nebraska 12,674,874 12,855,070 11,993,259 15,542,507 15,126,677 

Nevada 8,432,985 7,393,901 8,432,493 6,094,051 6,176,779 

New Hampshire 9,844,988 8,578,969 9,451,700 8,149,455 8,472,104 

New Jersey 88,148,886 72,504,596 65,688,342 63,410,606 63,336,873 
8-89 

TABLE 8-13--DISTRIBUTED TANF/FOSTER CARE COLLECTIONS BY 

STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002-continued

State 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 

New Mexico 9,498,319 10,820,954 7,859,138 7,728,252 8,947,173 

New York 224,750,647 182,002,707 193,062,787 179,339,460 168,267,753 

North Carolina 74,282,560 44,015,750 44,912,414 42,511,100 41,289,171 

North Dakota 5,967,379 4,818,149 4,252,837 5,597,671 5,361,060 

Ohio 123,514,504 93,853,641 99,524,653 82,082,514 79,975,326 

Oklahoma 23,979,742 20,517,317 20,016,128 19,922,193 20,005,757 

Oregon 29,283,418 23,796,596 22,940,519 22,087,898 25,350,822 

Pennsylvania 123,349,974 97,359,317 95,291,974 98,932,246 98,729,901 

Puerto Rico 2,814,548 2,123,303 2,740,130 2,359,269 2,187,325 

Rhode Island 18,869,088 18,096,752 17,021,400 15,760,357 14,953,362 

South Carolina 24,935,402 15,392,614 13,421,742 13,117,847 14,027,122 

South Dakota 6,163,498 13,735,140 16,432,814 18,810,099 21,363,037 

Tennessee 31,555,946 30,129,498 31,331,974 37,701,095 45,919,503 

Texas 108,101,224 108,244,301 82,397,711 102,579,373 174,469,207 

Utah 21,001,369 20,433,786 19,236,492 21,282,202 20,818,545 

Vermont 8,379,338 8,367,119 8,800,878 7,900,909 6,272,797 

Virgin Islands 628,005 453,703 811,966 503,161 941,382 

Virginia 46,883,418 37,756,738 36,410,396 138,520,360 148,070,621 

Washington 112,561,131 95,203,818 92,665,822 88,449,909 84,776,087 

West Virginia 15,919,397 5,810,897 16,134,468 44,986,945 66,009,416 

Wisconsin 63,592,279 37,722,653 43,234,336 44,452,462 34,738,477 

Wyoming 4,233,252 3,733,912 3,403,167 3,444,365 3,272,291 

Total $2,842,680,726 $2,481,712,919 $2,593,087,385 $2,591,527,263 $2,893,105,997 

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

 
TABLE 8-14--DISTRIBUTED NON-TANF COLLECTIONS BY STATE, 

FISCAL YEARS 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 

State 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Alabama $147,220,910 $167,893,438 $179,837,804 $186,832,573 $197,722,9Alaska 44,282,522 49,553,954 54,209,125 60,455,427 64,845,09

Arizona 106,018,322 145,890,643 170,408,784 187,635,634 201,118,2

Arkansas 71,581,014 97,669,186 110,361,595 112,420,066 113,103,6California 629,575,260 984,012,234 1,308,755,566 1,292,273,241 1,178,406,8

Colorado 86,614,424 131,671,000 145,927,337 164,165,503 177,677,1Connecticut 81,201,396 121,376,128 140,876,559 143,473,515 153,545,8Delaware 30,654,319 37,538,401 41,828,350 43,655,304 52,338,37

District of Columbia 24,275,106 30,067,671 30,531,643 33,488,296 35,805,89

Florida 384,399,055 506,692,966 572,760,423 630,672,242 506,950,4Georgia 200,887,100 282,855,189 318,066,517 342,091,121 372,025,5

Guam 5,361,150 6,019,496 6,332,632 6,173,571 6,339,85Hawaii 43,505,201 50,168,642 54,837,932 56,737,337 61,242,04

Idaho 37,800,410 60,198,110 70,752,091 82,906,773 91,346,58

Illinois 189,676,796 252,715,762 279,942,706 279,942,706 410,400,0

Indiana 168,590,642 245,860,337 341,993,115 343,117,646 402,370,5

Iowa 125,382,527 157,103,734 175,010,849 186,027,329 168,033,6Kansas 87,907,323 109,073,830 111,030,167 110,646,139 114,166,5

Kentucky 124,907,878 170,384,508 192,924,860 214,592,576 245,182,7Louisiana 127,698,696 170,346,090 197,457,416 215,939,609 242,445,3Maine 36,805,513 48,033,650 55,357,585 61,780,680 66,062,90Maryland 284,355,336 325,020,661 342,619,994 357,038,469 374,757,7Massachusetts 191,202,029 237,298,048 271,879,510 318,911,763 355,555,8

Michigan 930,517,728 1,145,561,166 1,217,374,885 1,288,648,767 1,303,498,5Minnesota 290,799,435 381,919,855 420,663,908 456,294,202 479,892,3

Mississippi 75,160,735 117,856,252 136,077,630 149,860,975 160,756,5
Missouri 266,451,963 248,858,737 292,233,294 326,393,581 359,964,9

Montana 25,073,093 32,133,880 35,014,150 35,911,419 37,597,93

Nebraska 95,948,783 97,710,241 130,458,324 144,344,295 128,091,4

Nevada 51,630,309 84,727,984 70,876,569 77,956,091 85,239,51New Hampshire 44,623,745 57,587,158 61,938,760 65,076,306 67,548,93

New Jersey 465,564,109 562,612,381 613,506,004 661,271,921 711,318,6

New Mexico 24,919,064 24,073,721 31,683,856 35,866,570 42,925,53

New York 579,075,242 727,752,342 908,918,890 969,461,424 1,120,956,8

North Carolina 224,625,118 303,954,230 350,685,554 387,834,908 427,453,29

North Dakota 26,241,786 36,060,612 37,575,477 42,030,997 45,483,46

Ohio 960,028,509 1,207,457,380 1,311,684,316 1,379,294,421 1,537,611,0Oklahoma 55,802,386 75,674,586 87,166,209 96,323,345 111,786,04

Oregon 168,627,460 208,078,736 225,265,114 248,960,916 250,528,48

Pennsylvania 883,509,609 1,010,327,734 1,072,130,503 1,153,269,775 1,233,190,5

Puerto Rico 139,740,867 163,898,250 180,100,826 193,523,091 209,395,30

Rhode Island 19,955,449 26,207,953 31,424,375 33,167,979 38,316,30

South Carolina 110,721,651 158,363,889 174,812,437 195,037,835 210,319,6

South Dakota 24,724,186 24,588,226 27,086,343 28,653,167 29,258,38Tennessee 141,266,958 194,115,632 216,863,461 238,635,969 272,333,57

Texas 509,964,328 694,666,917 882,537,533 1,071,645,557 1,172,428,9Utah 63,540,723 86,902,420 98,863,281 106,088,694 112,234,24Vermont 19,498,431 26,513,236 29,937,144 32,796,563 35,229,46

Virgin Islands 5,293,265 5,688,216 6,721,158 6,668,580 6,242,827

Virginia 245,946,361 275,020,251 311,353,442 264,644,267 288,633,50

Washington 339,168,963 420,655,675 456,009,030 484,452,715 506,120,5

West Virginia 82,228,557 103,568,700 104,214,712 92,246,140 85,184,42

Wisconsin 396,289,836 494,779,762 525,811,313 539,269,863 539,439,65Wyoming 24,449,398 34,728,358 38,493,079 41,270,111 43,336,20

Total $10,521,290,976 $13,419,488,158 $15,261,184,137 $16,366,069,846 $17,243,761

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-15--NUMBER OF CASES IN WHICH A COLLECTION WAS MADE ON AN OBLIGATION BY 

CURRENT, FORMER, AND NEVER ASSISTANCE, BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 2002 

State Total Current Assistance Former Assistance Never Assistance 

Alabama 113,717 6,000 49,736 57,981 Alaska 29,733 3,244 15,933 10,556 Arizona 92,218 10,581 52,691 28,946 

Arkansas 70,910 6,131 26,738 38,041 

California 793,194 148,739 443,725 200,730 Colorado 62,653 15,496 31,568 15,589 Connecticut 84,369 7,732 55,046 21,591 Delaware 27,550 2,692 13,008 11,850 

District of Columbia 16,910 2,870 6,285 7,755 

Florida 353,708 21,670 214,740 117,298 

Georgia 195,174 31,784 89,391 73,999 Guam 6,197 912 2,724 2,561 

Hawaii 30,583 5,741 12,606 12,236 Idaho 45,410 1,406 18,629 25,375 Illinois 205,219 14,978 94,242 95,999 

Indiana 143,180 10,976 71,036 61,168 

Iowa 128,522 34,030 50,871 43,621 

Kansas 65,341 6,860 32,308 26,173 Kentucky 132,399 13,155 77,297 41,947 

Louisiana 123,955 6,950 67,580 49,425 Maine 41,201 7,951 24,137 9,113 

Maryland 152,033 7,666 60,840 83,527 Massachusetts 110,235 12,908 58,621 38,706 Michigan 453,993 41,452 220,280 192,261 Minnesota 153,346 18,715 91,466 43,165 

Mississippi 104,618 10,248 37,009 57,361 Missouri 172,333 19,922 67,413 84,998 Montana 24,148 2,253 15,078 6,817 Nebraska 57,606 4,798 26,516 26,292 
Nevada 39,079 5,039 8,402 25,638

New Hampshire 26,961 2,744 12,608 11,609

New Jersey 227,583 21,028 103,898 102,657 

New Mexico 23,890 2,551 12,576 8,763 

New York 445,833 53,600 235,970 156,263 

North Carolina 245,796 19,809 147,958 78,029 

North Dakota 21,223 1,576 7,604 12,043 

Ohio 490,479 22,202 166,792 301,485 Oklahoma 70,905 6,077 39,457 25,371 

Oregon 115,226 14,369 51,765 49,092 

Pennsylvania 421,739 37,391 163,846 220,502 Puerto Rico 98,606 4,521 5,382 88,703 

Rhode Island 21,198 5,188 12,623 3,387 

South Carolina 101,586 12,360 53,531 35,695 South Dakota 23,170 1,598 12,265 9,307 

Tennessee 142,947 20,425 60,094 62,428 

Texas 497,260 35,920 223,232 238,108 Utah 57,731 6,651 31,865 19,215 Vermont 15,753 3,879 8,202 3,672 Virgin Islands 3,757 202 327 3,228 Virginia 199,862 14,890 78,022 106,950 

Washington 236,592 23,188 134,513 78,891 West Virginia 59,173 4,434 28,469 26,270 

Wisconsin 220,246 7,552 130,919 81,775

Wyoming 22,384 1,153 10,167 11,064

Total 7,819,434 806,207 3,768,001 3,245,226

NA - Not Available. Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
8-94 

TABLE 8-16--NUMBER OF CASES IN WHICH A COLLECTION WAS 

MADE ON AN OBLIGATION, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1999-2002

State 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Alabama 105,565 107,547 110,222 113,717 

Alaska 27,489 28,402 29,030 29,733 

Arizona 77,157 84,772 89,688 92,218 

Arkansas 66,871 69,477 73,418 70,910 

California 766,733 797,793 781,260 793,194 

Colorado 83,851 76,684 70,782 62,653 

Connecticut 75,326 80,114 80,871 84,369 

Delaware 25,808 27,140 27,349 27,550 

District of Columbia 16,145 15,650 15,716 16,910 

Florida 284,287 305,078 326,243 353,708 

Georgia 198,966 182,781 186,813 195,174 

Guam 3,200 3,360 5,686 6,197 

Hawaii 25,491 28,017 29,353 30,583 

Idaho 28,553 39,663 42,490 45,410 

Illinois 162,782 175,048 192,627 205,219 

Indiana 130,225 141,194 143,071 143,180 

Iowa 97,536 117,942 123,407 128,522 

Kansas 45,351 63,990 64,166 65,341 

Kentucky 104,035 112,505 125,988 132,399 

Louisiana 108,763 114,500 118,774 123,955 

Maine 39,787 41,463 42,089 41,201 

Maryland 143,430 144,310 147,738 152,033 

Massachusetts 98,586 103,882 108,387 110,235 

Michigan 538,596 476,416 434,814 453,993 

Minnesota 138,087 145,540 151,692 153,346 

Mississippi 89,274 96,260 102,366 104,618 

Missouri 144,876 155,895 163,727 172,333 

Montana 23,105 24,076 23,690 24,148 

Nebraska 42,667 55,098 56,971 57,606 

Nevada 28,336 35,703 37,876 39,079 

New Hampshire 25,961 26,451 26,702 26,961 

New Jersey 212,632 218,259 222,025 227,583 

New Mexico 20,126 19,378 21,631 23,890 

New York 400,521 441,369 442,034 445,833 

North Carolina 155,197 220,954 233,756 245,796 

North Dakota 15,853 18,915 20,197 21,223 

Ohio 218,234 435,480 481,723 490,479 

Oklahoma 32,718 62,538 64,748 70,905 

Oregon 107,452 111,285 112,404 115,226 

Pennsylvania 395,073 397,253 413,840 421,739 

Puerto Rico 86,081 92,439 95,053 98,606 

Rhode Island 19,663 20,270 20,382 21,198 

South Carolina 89,581 93,585 99,538 101,586 

South Dakota 3,701 21,300 22,120 23,170 

Tennessee 117,900 122,360 128,737 142,947 

Texas 251,679 303,686 347,535 497,260 

Utah 51,803 55,686 57,076 57,731 

Vermont 15,124 15,989 16,304 15,753 

Virgin Islands NA NA NA 3,757 

Virginia 170,857 181,736 195,227 199,862 

Washington 214,798 226,921 232,809 236,592 
8-95 

TABLE 8-16--TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES IN WHICH A COLLECTION 

WAS MADE ON AN OBLIGATION, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 

1999-2002-continued

State 1999 2000 2001 2002 

West Virginia 51,522 52,287 57,382 59,173 

Wisconsin 204,663 223,967 221,592 220,246 

Wyoming 17,919 19,846 21,340 22,384 

Total 6,599,936 7,232,254 7,460,459 7,819,434 

NA - Not available. 

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

TABLE 8-17--FEDERAL INCOME TAX REFUND 

OFFSET PROGRAM COLLECTIONS, BY STATE, 1997-20011

State 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Alabama $25,207,976 $25,894,332 $24,090,459 $24,638,355 $24,707,633 

Alaska 2,916,897 4,053,435 3,868,250 3,921,427 4,351,656 

Arizona 12,923,158 11,554,450 20,945,877 25,111,485 30,156,853 

Arkansas 12,175,810 13,612,153 15,089,808 14,912,875 15,510,819 

California 132,837,753 153,176,190 200,963,590 241,130,230 273,395,833 

Colorado 13,931,621 14,806,851 18,118,678 16,872,297 18,108,182 

Connecticut 14,034,124 14,819,137 17,917,582 19,900,847 22,939,161 

Delaware 3,424,237 3,694,623 4,124,589 3,966,775 3,686,865 

District of Columbia 2,831,602 2,984,312 4,041,138 3,491,209 4,002,306 

Florida 51,708,934 53,296,570 61,916,563 66,976,220 75,842,867 

Georgia 31,895,028 31,230,286 36,533,066 38,612,575 40,239,518 

Guam 98,579 276,666 319 722,670 657,151 

Hawaii 4,567,040 5,475,196 5,541,815 8,379,354 8,541,261 

Idaho 4,441,441 4,872,607 6,690,572 6,584,840 7,963,961 

Illinois 37,063,693 39,587,150 39,601,568 47,586,601 52,047,841 

Indiana 26,128,824 23,723,109 33,930,579 30,335,141 36,106,147 

Iowa 15,189,453 18,051,295 18,921,698 21,992,829 24,260,883 

Kansas 13,625,662 13,308,114 16,165,804 16,896,149 18,085,848 

Kentucky 18,097,478 17,952,310 21,368,417 23,463,533 30,836,506 

Louisiana 21,695,543 19,536,574 17,908,455 20,826,460 26,026,418 

Maine 7,405,638 7,928,158 9,242,949 9,686,794 11,082,659 

Maryland 23,833,299 22,636,713 19,951,907 21,942,981 26,284,260 

Michigan 59,784,330 61,367,111 67,919,449 74,626,204 90,778,675 

Minnesota 13,607,091 9,595,970 15,961,291 17,566,908 21,396,380 

Mississippi 15,958,928 16,851,588 15,917,211 18,229,960 19,532,884 

Missouri 26,813,712 27,309,570 28,790,237 33,013,939 38,065,746 

Montana 2,712,292 2,854,313 3,664,627 3,361,295 3,947,257 

Nebraska 5,411,190 5,139,788 6,841,600 8,119,357 8,694,074 

Nevada 5,144,326 5,240,671 7,315,582 7,926,120 9,271,201 

New Hampshire 3,844,925 4,108,137 4,896,194 4,818,710 5,588,489 

New Jersey 27,199,550 26,970,401 32,086,625 33,122,338 33,400,141 

New Mexico 5,468,306 5,277,170 5,501,333 6,006,936 4,912,943 

New York 49,517,204 49,262,418 59,784,586 63,915,548 67,685,281 

North Carolina 30,001,986 27,421,654 28,365,569 32,394,624 33,274,501 

North Dakota 2,715,459 2,876,842 3,814,114 3,131,504 5,117,348 

Ohio 60,170,639 63,972,649 77,210,517 91,736,682 97,362,537 

Oklahoma 12,469,128 12,661,373 15,865,004 16,355,895 16,718,557 

Oregon 10,450,619 11,486,379 17,942,643 16,157,625 20,669,643 

Pennsylvania 47,174,470 47,394,360 51,073,074 55,198,332 62,955,904 

Puerto Rico 3,996,795 3,172,321 2,928,593 5,735,849 5,934,767 
8-96 

TABLE 8-17--FEDERAL INCOME TAX REFUND 

OFFSET PROGRAM COLLECTIONS, BY STATE,1997-20011

State 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Rhode Island 2,437,548 2,642,309 2,800,320 3,386,661 3,686,740 

South Carolina 10,153,207 10,249,119 11,361,237 12,114,068 14,953,252 

South Dakota 3,239,328 3,110,950 3,705,048 3,810,803 4,382,575 

Tennessee 19,970,700 24,906,948 27,228,139 23,144,219 35,161,329 

Texas 78,613,496 95,288,651 120,271,738 115,570,121 130,020,156 

Utah 5,803,963 6,226,694 8,487,332 8,540,594 10,100,937 

Vermont 2,127,452 2,211,102 2,982,024 3,195,285 3,364,153 

Virgin Islands 306,445 276,671 313,170 539,672 414,478 

Virginia 22,028,222 21,940,696 22,709,031 25,366,420 31,672,609 

Washington 26,012,026 27,720,085 32,811,548 35,039,700 38,885,074 

West Virginia 8,741,096 8,638,219 10,875,064 12,023,698 12,145,040 

Wisconsin 27,955,698 27,295,925 32,638,935 34,810,686 37,771,376 

Wyoming 3,216,689 2,887,657 4,012,771 4,302,580 5,357,845 

Total $1,082,309,276 $1,133,888,039 $1,342,254,381 $1,458,567,112 $1,647,910,099 

1

 Year is processing year, i.e. the year the collection actually took place. 

Source: Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS). 

TABLE 8-18—COST EFFECTIVENESS RATIO UNDER THE CHILD 

SUPPORT PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE ACT OF 1998 

FISCAL YEARS 1999-2002 

State 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Alabama $3.78 $3.66 $4.01 $3.64 

Alaska 4.41 3.89 4.14 4.49 

Arizona 3.29 3.72 4.12 4.25 

Arkansas 3.28 3.28 2.83 2.66 

California 2.78 3.23 2.61 1.91 

Colorado 3.65 3.23 3.58 3.66 

Connecticut 4.96 3.75 3.86 3.76 

Delaware 2.97 3.19 2.93 3.66 

District of Columbia 3.27 2.64 2.26 2.69 

Florida 3.53 3.45 3.60 4.03 

Georgia 4.16 3.72 3.96 4.24 

Guam 2.25 2.67 1.33 1.64 

Hawaii 3.25 4.54 6.16 6.53 

Idaho 7.09 4.32 4.62 5.29 

Illinois 2.52 2.42 2.50 2.80 

Indiana 7.45 7.69 6.34 7.80 

Iowa 5.01 4.24 5.27 5.63 

Kansas 2.98 2.91 2.51 2.61 

Kentucky 3.90 4.02 4.08 4.71 

Louisiana 4.41 4.92 4.38 4.87 

Maine 4.87 4.90 6.01 4.28 

Maryland 4.42 3.60 4.22 4.19 

Massachusetts 4.07 3.50 5.14 5.77 

Michigan 7.81 5.52 4.82 4.59 

Minnesota 4.06 4.11 4.13 4.05 

Mississippi 4.53 4.92 5.96 7.12 
8-97 

TABLE 8-18-- COST EFFECTIVENESS RATIO UNDER THE CHILD 

SUPPORT PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE ACT OF 1998 

FISCAL YEARS 1999-2002-continued

State 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Missouri 3.26 3.37 3.81 4.63 

Montana 3.87 3.58 3.91 4.10 

Nebraska 3.61 3.78 3.35 2.87 

Nevada 3.08 2.52 3.24 2.87 

New Hampshire 4.24 4.82 5.40 4.37 

New Jersey 4.86 4.60 5.27 4.83 

New Mexico 1.18 1.31 1.07 1.46 

New York 4.58 4.90 5.07 4.49 

North Carolina 2.93 3.86 4.04 4.43 

North Dakota 4.42 4.61 4.19 4.71 

Ohio 4.91 4.82 4.23 4.81 

Oklahoma 3.37 2.83 2.90 2.80 

Oregon 6.08 5.54 6.63 5.85 

Pennsylvania 6.21 6.05 6.98 6.85 

Puerto Rico 5.77 6.31 5.51 6.27 

Rhode Island 4.36 4.44 4.23 4.52 

South Carolina 5.06 5.08 4.60 5.87 

South Dakota 6.75 6.95 7.72 7.59 

Tennessee 4.69 4.85 4.99 4.50 

Texas 4.23 4.96 5.23 5.41 

Utah 3.24 3.47 3.69 3.89 

Vermont 4.15 4.02 3.90 3.93 

Virgin Islands 2.86 1.63 1.12 1.58 

Virginia 4.74 5.00 6.12 6.34 

Washington 4.68 4.53 4.55 4.95 

West Virginia 4.09 4.15 4.64 4.87 

Wisconsin 5.64 6.51 6.06 6.11 

Wyoming 4.84 4.33 4.09 5.00 

Total $4.11 $4.23 $4.21 $4.13 

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
TABLE 8-19--CHILDREN IN THE IV-D CASELOAD FOR WHOM PATERNITY WAS ESTABLISHED OR 

ACKNOWLEDGED, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1998-2002 

State 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Alabama 5,418 6,618 6,689 6,806 7,016 Alaska 1,806 622 745 663 970 Arizona 14,544 14,064 13,929 16,107 14,098 

Arkansas 9,273 3,297 2,324 3,694 3,310 California 210,340 186,620 204,661 144,347 56,346 Colorado 5,065 4,180 3,534 3,044 3,141 Connecticut 7,082 7,936 6,058 5,022 13,860 Delaware 2,946 4,234 2,845 1,930 5,774 District of Columbia 2,364 5,491 3,520 3,630 4,856 Florida 48,385 20,452 48,966 39,548 42,803 

Georgia 9,970 25,172 22,467 30,624 30,051 

Guam 526 993 1,219 1,026 1,203 

Hawaii 1,671 2,085 3,608 4,781 5,282 

Idaho 2,910 4,147 3,526 4,708 8,598 Illinois 50,456 20,927 26,510 34,327 32,346 Indiana 2,260 15,595 25,921 20,527 9,330 Iowa 614 3,800 3,776 3,871 4,297 Kansas 10,404 415 1,225 9,603 11,422 Kentucky 9,345 11,133 10,940 10,925 12,094 

Louisiana 22,391 11,258 10,525 9,912 11,357 

Maine 2,243 2,292 2,228 1,690 1,765 Maryland 38,392 14,503 17,578 13,056 10,790 Massachusetts 10,047 9,990 9,693 7,929 2,672Michigan 13,443 16,740 15,727 18,366 16,204

Minnesota 4,510 7,531 15,468 8,041 8,462Mississippi 13,218 30,863 19,420 19,111 17,836

Missouri 23,970 8,366 15,194 15,921 17,118Montana 1,187 1,181 1,216 1,028 1,274Nebraska 3,536 2,853 2,126 1,869 1,947Nevada 2,293 2,817 18,765 2,081 2,851
New Hampshire 920 754 946 968 860 

New Jersey 11,273 17,615 13,623 14,009 13,648 New Mexico 9,563 45,237 3,372 3,380 5,186 

New York 38,001 34,666 41,692 37,818 37,236 North Carolina 30,592 23,431 29,875 36,309 30,117 North Dakota 1,699 6,486 5,687 5,019 5,027 Ohio 37,784 59,272 31,499 15,982 16,845 

Oklahoma 7,124 8,324 4,614 4,122 4,293 Oregon 3,674 5,040 6,343 3,726 4,462 Pennsylvania 30,555 25,852 30,517 41,307 46,211 Puerto Rico 33 59 50 65 59 

Rhode Island 3,585 3,187 3,747 3,314 3,175 

South Carolina 13,941 13,552 11,687 12,987 12,744 South Dakota 725 703 724 716 803 Tennessee 6,785 36,126 21,919 16,506 21,320 Texas 71,571 63,443 74,482 78,117 78,427 Utah 1,985 2,257 2,478 3,014 2,648 

Vermont 978 731 737 754 1,871 Virgin Islands 31 NA NA NA 14 

Virginia 11,793 15,326 15,588 14,365 11,414 

Washington 13,726 12,781 14,228 16,065 15,014 West Virginia 6,964 1,790 2,391 1,801 2,197 Wisconsin 13,361 21,673 29,429 21,449 23,639 Wyoming 906 725 1,060 934 832 

Total 848,178 845,205 867,091 776,914 697,904 

NA – Not available. Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
8-100 

TABLE 8-20-- NUMBER OF PATERNITIES ESTABLISHED OR 

ACKNOWLEDGED, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1997-2001 

State 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Alabama 12,096 9,995 13,236 6,689 6,806 

Alaska 3,228 3,228 2,811 3,055 2,995 

Arizona 23,350 23,350 39,105 43,515 48,287 

Arkansas 12,436 12,436 3,799 3,062 10,411 

California 286,133 286,133 326,051 306,508 277,307 

Colorado 12,733 12,733 15,559 13,745 15,480 

Connecticut 10,589 10,589 18,816 16,687 17,189 

Delaware 6,128 6,128 5,821 4,611 3,881 

District of Columbia 5,800 5,800 9,710 7,863 3,630 

Florida 29,645 29,645 65,836 98,004 91,299 

Georgia 13,934 13,934 47,163 22,467 62,450 

Guam 461 461 2,162 1,905 2,619 

Hawaii 1,761 1,761 3,710 3,937 5,198 

Idaho 3,395 3,395 6,747 6,071 7,399 

Illinois 76,736 76,736 49,336 71,696 82,706 

Indiana 19,857 19,857 15,595 25,921 20,527 

Iowa 6,524 6,524 10,364 10,561 10,117 

Kansas 15,197 15,197 7,347 8,571 17,454 

Kentucky 12,991 12,991 14,600 16,000 16,318 

Louisiana 29,581 29,581 26,851 20,496 15,206 

Maine 2,274 2,274 3,504 3,372 2,688 

Maryland 22,709 22,709 28,458 32,959 29,016 

Massachusetts 24,367 24,367 24,518 25,197 23,887 

Michigan 38,407 38,407 49,026 49,878 52,659 

Minnesota 18,289 18,289 19,594 26,875 20,399 

Mississippi 20,279 20,279 40,349 19,420 19,111 

Missouri 29,556 29,556 23,652 31,880 32,843 

Montana 2,267 2,267 2,669 3,288 2,894 

Nebraska 7,432 7,432 6,446 5,886 6,028 

Nevada 1,832 1,832 2,817 18,765 2,081 

New Hampshire 3,164 3,164 936 1,411 1,398 

New Jersey 32,727 32,727 41,811 36,987 37,538 

New Mexico 2,774 2,774 52,380 10,992 11,814 

New York 92,439 92,439 90,711 102,368 102,104 

North Carolina 42,445 42,445 23,431 29,875 36,309 

North Dakota 1,337 1,337 8,194 7,478 6,839 

Ohio 38,239 38,239 96,813 67,223 53,602 

Oklahoma 6,295 6,295 17,961 13,694 13,995 

Oregon 13,257 13,257 14,567 16,239 13,496 

Pennsylvania 83,860 83,860 56,051 61,300 72,091 

Puerto Rico 21,968 21,968 59 90 186 

Rhode Island 4,518 4,518 3,187 3,747 3,314 

South Carolina 13,378 13,378 17,867 16,853 18,906 

South Dakota 2,728 2,728 2,701 2,964 3,100 

Tennessee 22,551 22,551 50,908 37,343 34,718 

Texas 82,397 82,397 126,187 126,940 144,468 

Utah 7,425 7,425 7,892 7,869 9,234 

Vermont 886 886 731 737 754 

Virgin Islands NA NA NA NA NA 

Virginia 21,827 21,827 36,417 35,086 34,822 

Washington 23,888 23,888 27,901 27,700 30,083 

West Virginia 11,617 11,617 6,653 7,286 6,593 

Wisconsin 13,776 13,776 29,265 29,429 21,449 

Wyoming 627 627 1,704 1,945 1,811 
8-101 

TABLE 8-20-- NUMBER OF PATERNITIES ESTABLISHED OR 

ACKNOWLEDGED, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1997-2001-continued 

State 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Total 1,294,230 1,294,230 1,599,979 1,554,440 1,567,509 

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, 

 FISCAL YEARS 1999-2001 

State 1999 2000 2001 

Alabama 20,693 21,696 20,777 

Alaska 3,301 3,291 3,281 

Arizona 31,463 33,475 33,776 

Arkansas 12,932 13,490 13,378 

California 170,372 174,050 172,764 

Colorado 15,818 16,369 16,732 

Connecticut 12,562 12,591 12,433 

Delaware 4,147 4,193 4,290 

District of Columbia 4,642 4,626 4,376 

Florida 73,824 78,068 80,221 

Georgia 46,328 49,058 49,834 

Guam NA 2,064 1,985 

Hawaii 5,593 5,658 5,632 

Idaho 4,302 4,392 4,557 

Illinois 62,088 63,852 63,449 

Indiana 29,640 30,409 30,676 

Iowa 10,330 10,711 10,824 

Kansas 11,098 11,497 11,628 

Kentucky 16,540 17,377 17,317 

Louisiana 30,109 30,980 30,267 

Maine 4,260 4,222 4,369 

Maryland 25,083 25,726 25,198 

Massachusetts 21,476 21,654 21,641 

Michigan 44,184 45,354 45,742 

Minnesota 17,065 17,468 17,782 

Mississippi 19,606 20,267 19,582 

Missouri 25,737 26,436 26,235 

Montana 3,232 3,378 3,440 

Nebraska 6,181 6,692 6,870 

Nevada 10,483 11,213 11,679 

New Hampshire 3,399 3,603 3,542 

New Jersey 32,556 33,464 33,807 

New Mexico 12,272 12,401 12,552 

New York 93,613 94,594 90,746 

North Carolina 37,814 40,118 40,507 

North Dakota 2,099 2,173 2,127 

Ohio 52,038 53,864 53,239 

Oklahoma 16,252 17,054 17,637 

Oregon 13,750 13,793 13,764 

Pennsylvania 47,865 47,839 48,536 

Puerto Rico NA 29,507 28,529 

Rhode Island 4,242 4,435 4,543 

South Carolina 21,441 22,341 22,343 
8-102 

TABLE 8-21--OUT-OF-WEDLOCK BIRTHS, 

BY, STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1999-2001-continued

State 1999 2000 2001 

South Dakota 3,348 3,462 3,516 

Tennessee 26,981 27,505 27,974 

Texas 109,244 110,985 113,420 

Utah 7,722 8,186 8,327 

Vermont 1,901 1,827 1,972 

Virgin Islands NA 1,043 1,115 

Virginia 28,334 29,617 29,930 

Washington 22,335 22,852 22,880 

West Virginia 6,581 6,608 6,638 

Wisconsin 19,906 20,327 20,686 

Wyoming 1,778 1,802 1,813 

Total 1,308,560 1,381,657 1,382,879 

NA – Not available. 

Source: National Vital Statistics. 

TABLE 8-22--PERCENTAGE OF CHILD SUPPORT PATERNITIES 

ESTABLISHED, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS1999-2001 

State 1999 2000 2001 

Alabama 47.25 56.89 58.25 

Alaska 92.26 99.07 87.77 

Arizona 22.41 69.26 54.68 

Arkansas 82.98 70.03 81.46 

California 179.58 60.38 142.48 

Colorado 89.14 103.39 103.15 

Connecticut 68.14 76.20 78.63 

Delaware 67.79 66.97 68.26 

District of Columbia 87.28 65.32 NA 

Florida 79.52 82.93 85.64 

Georgia 34.50 54.35 NA 

Guam 92.35 86.75 136.47 

Hawaii 180.89 232.72 100.50 

Idaho 72.13 85.32 94.93 

Illinois 59.54 86.14 108.55 

Indiana 55.36 45.73 62.13 

Iowa 101.80 92.70 94.58 

Kansas 1.37 79.69 77.21 

Kentucky 72.39 75.47 70.59 

Louisiana 23.10 50.20 53.10 

Maine 90.81 90.95 92.24 

Maryland 108.94 149.86 119.97 

Massachusetts 107.93 106.20 92.19 

Michigan 85.45 91.92 119.06 

Minnesota 88.58 86.48 79.57 

Mississippi 54.19 65.74 69.22 

Missouri 86.73 84.28 86.74 

Montana 70.77 105.30 104.30 

Nebraska 93.60 88.29 90.21 

Nevada 67.07 61.75 NA 

New Hampshire 52.97 95.85 NA 

New Jersey 119.30 110.09 113.40 

New Mexico 64.47 99.60 130.31 
8-103 

TABLE 8-22--PERCENTAGE OF CHILD SUPPORT PATERNITIES 

ESTABLISHED, BY STATE, 1999-2001-continued

State 1999 2000 2001

New York 100.69 103.37 95.40 

North Dakota 74.22 65.89 84.35 

Ohio 106.83 109.37 108.89 

Oklahoma 73.19 81.35 86.34 

Oregon 84.22 89.36 85.73 

Pennsylvania 251.69 118.92 137.09 

Rhode Island 57.55 59.14 69.74 

South Carolina 50.97 69.42 76.80 

South Dakota 73.78 95.60 93.86 

Tennessee 78.81 68.10 73.79 

Texas 103.84 104.57 81.81 

Utah 98.40 92.82 99.91 

Vermont 66.20 101.52 101.51 

Virgin Islands 122.59 95.32 110.71 

Virginia 76.85 83.79 85.97 

Washington 109.48 94.41 98.73 

West Virginia 108.97 89.97 89.38 

Wisconsin 83.10 69.93 86.57 

Wyoming 52.92 102.85 79.53 

Total 64.39 68.98 82.85 

Note: May not be comparable to previous years' data. May exceed 100 percent due to 

establishment of paternity for births in prior years. 

Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, IV-D or statewide paternity establishment 

percentage as selected by the State. 

TABLE 8-23--STATES USING THE INCOME SHARES AND 

PERCENTAGE OF INCOME APPROACHES TO ESTABLISHING CHILD 

SUPPORT GUIDELINES 

Income Shares 

Alabama Maine Oklahoma 

Arizona Maryland Oregon 

California Michigan Pennsylvania 

Colorado Missouri Rhode Island 

Connecticut Montana South Carolina 

Florida Nebraska South Dakota 

Idaho New Hampshire Utah 

Indiana New Jersey Vermont 

Iowa New Mexico Virginia 

Kansas North Carolina Washington 

Kentucky Ohio Wyoming 

Louisiana 

Percentage of Income 

Alaska Minnesota Tennessee 

Arkansas Mississippi Texas 

Georgia Nevada Wisconsin 

Illinois New York 

Iowa North Dakota 

Source: See www.supportguidelines.com (2003). 
8-104 

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. 

Automatic Data Processing, Inc., (2001). Employer Reimbursement Guide for 

Child Support and Garnishment Processing. Roseland, New Jersey. 

Barnow, Dall, Nowak, Dannhausen. (2000). The Potential of the Child Support 

Enforcement Program to Avoid Costs to Public Programs: A Review and 

Synthesis of the Literature, Final Report. Washington, DC. 

Bumpass, L. (1984). Children and marital disruption: A replication and update. 

Demography, 21, 71-82. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau. (2002). Annual Demographic 

Survey, March Supplement, table 17. [http://ferret.bls.census.gov 

/macro/032002/pov/new17_003.htm] 

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 well-being. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 

Hill, M.S. (1988, May). The role of economic resources and dual-family 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. 

Morgan, Laura W. (1996). Child Support Guidelines: Interpretation and 

Application. http://www.suportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html 

National Center for Health Statistics. (1995, September). Advance report of final 

natality statistics: 1993 Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 44(3, Supplement). 
8-105 

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. (1995a). 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. (1995b). DOD consolidates garnishment 

operation. Child Support Report, 17(3), p. 3. 

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. (2002a). Re: 1099 Request, DCL-02-22 

(Dear Colleague Letter). Washington, DC. 

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (2002b). Child Access and Visitation Grants: 

State Profiles (FY1999). Washington, DC. 

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (2002c). Essentials for Attorneys (3d ed.). 

 Washington, D.C. 

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (2003a). FY 2001 Annual Statistical 

Report. Washington, DC: Author. 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2003/reports/statistical_report/ 

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (2003b). FY 2002 Preliminary Data 

Report. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/ 

pubs/2003/reports/prelim_datareport/ 

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 
8-106 

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. 

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. Census Bureau (2001). America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2000, 

by Jason Fields and Lynn Casper. Current Population Reports, Series 

P-20-537. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Census Bureau (2002a). Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child 

Support (1999), by Timothy Grall. Series P-60-217.Washington, DC. 

U.S. Census Bureau (2002b). Poverty in the United States (2001), by Bernadette D. 

Proctor and Joseph Dalaker, Current Population Reports, Series P-60-219. 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. Census Bureau (2003). Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child 
8-107 

Support (2001), by Timothy Grall. Series p-6-217. Washington, D.C. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/chldsupt.html 

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. General Accounting Office. (2002). Child support enforcement: Clear 

guidance would help ensure proper access to information and use of wage 

withholding by private firms, GAO-02-349. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

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. 

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.