Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
(545)
SECTION 8. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENTPROGRAM
CONTENTS
BackgroundOverviewDemographic TrendsProgram Trends
The Federal RoleThe State RoleThe Child Support Enforcement Process
Locating Absent ParentsEstablishing PaternityEstablishing OrdersReviewing and Modifying OrdersPromoting Medical SupportCollecting Child SupportInterstate Enforcement
State Collection and Distribution of Support PaymentsBankruptcy and Child Support EnforcementAutomated SystemsAudits and Financial PenaltiesAssignment and Distribution of Child Support CollectionsFunding of State ProgramsHow Effective is Child Support Enforcement?
Impact on TaxpayersImpact on PovertyImpact on National Child Support Payments
Legislative HistoryStatistical TablesReferences
BACKGROUND
OVERVIEW
In 1950, when only a small minority of children were in mother-only families, the Federal Government took its first steps into thechild support arena. Congress amended the Aid to Families withDependent Children (AFDC) law by requiring State welfare agen-cies to notify law enforcement officials when benefits were beingfurnished to a child who had been abandoned by one of her par-ents. Presumably, local officials would then undertake to locatenonresident parents and make them pay child support. From 1950to 1975, the Federal Government confined its child support effortsto these welfare children. With this exception, most Americansthought that child support establishment and collection was a do-
546
mestic relations issue that should be dealt with at the State levelby the courts.
By the early 1970s, however, Congress recognized that the com-position of the AFDC caseload had changed. In earlier years themajority of children needed financial assistance because their fa-thers had died; by the 1970s, the majority needed aid because theirparents were separated, divorced, or never married. The Child Sup-port Enforcement and Paternity Establishment Program (CSE), en-acted in 1975, was a response by Congress to reduce public expend-itures on welfare by obtaining support from noncustodial parentson an ongoing basis, to help non-AFDC families get support so theycould stay off public assistance, and to establish paternity for chil-dren born outside marriage so child support could be obtained forthem.
The 1975 legislation (Public Law 93–647) added a new part D totitle IV of the Social Security Act. This statute, as amended, au-thorizes Federal matching funds to be used for enforcing supportobligations by locating nonresident parents, establishing paternity,establishing child support awards, and collecting child support pay-ments. Since 1981, child support agencies have also been permittedto collect spousal support on behalf of custodial parents, and in1984 they were required to petition for medical support as part ofmost child support orders.
Basic responsibility for administering the program is left toStates, but the Federal Government plays a major role in: dictatingthe major design features of State programs; funding, monitoringand evaluating State programs; providing technical assistance; andgiving direct assistance to States in locating absent parents and ob-taining support payments. The program requires the provision ofchild support enforcement services for both welfare and nonwelfarefamilies and requires States to publicize frequently, through publicservice announcements, the availability of child support enforce-ment services, together with information about the application feeand a telephone number or address to obtain additional informa-tion. Local family and domestic courts and administrative agencieshandle the actual establishment and enforcement of child supportobligations according to Federal, State, and local laws.
The child support program generally does not provide servicesaimed at other issues between parents, such as property settle-ment, custody, and access to children. These issues are handled bylocal courts with the help of private attorneys.
Any parent who needs help in locating an absent parent, estab-lishing paternity, establishing a support obligation, or enforcing asupport obligation may apply for services. Parents receiving bene-fits (or who formerly received benefits) under the successor pro-gram to AFDC (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), the fed-erally assisted foster care program, or the Medicaid Program, auto-matically receive services. Services are free to such recipients, butothers are charged up to $25 for services. In the nonwelfare pro-gram, States also can charge fees on a sliding scale, pay the fee outof State funds, or recover the fees from the noncustodial parent.
In 1996, Public Law 104–193, the Personal Responsibility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, abolished AFDC andrelated programs and replaced them with a block grant program of
547
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). States had tobegin TANF by July 1, 1997. Under the new law, each State mustoperate a CSE Program meeting Federal requirements in order tobe eligible for TANF funds.
In addition to abolishing AFDC, Public Law 104–193 made about50 changes to the CSE Program. These changes include requiringStates to increase the percentage of fathers identified, establishingan integrated, automated network linking all States to informationabout the location and assets of parents, requiring States to imple-ment more enforcement techniques, and revising the rules govern-ing the distribution of past due (arrearage) child support paymentsto former recipients of public assistance.
DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
The need for an effective child support program is clearly sup-ported by a brief review of the demographic trends of the Americanfamily. By 1996, there were an estimated 11.7 million single-parentfamilies with children under age 18; about 9.9 million (84 percent)maintained by the mother and roughly 1.9 million maintained bythe father. It appears that the rate of growth in the number of sin-gle parents has stabilized (Office of Child Support, 1995a, p. 5).The average annual percent increase in the number of one-parentfamilies was 3.9 percent from 1990 to 1994 and 3.4 percent from1980 to 1990 as compared with 6 percent from 1970 to 1980. In1996, one-parent families comprised nearly 32 percent of all fami-lies. The corresponding share of single-parent families in 1970 was13 percent. In 1996, about 38 percent of the mothers had neverbeen married, 37 percent were divorced, 21 percent were separatedfrom their spouse, and about 4 percent were widowed (U.S. Bureauof the Census, 1994, p. xviii).
Of equal concern, dynamic estimates indicate that at least halfof all children born in the United States during the late 1970s andearly 1980s will live with a single parent before reaching adult-hood. For black children, the projection is about 80 percent(Bumpass, 1984). Currently, nearly one-fourth of the 69 millionchildren under age 18 living in the United States reside in a 1-parent family. Moreover, a 1990 current population survey indi-cated that about 16 percent of children living in married-coupledfamilies were living with a stepparent. Although the number offamilies with a mother who has divorced has tripled since 1970, thenumber with a mother who has never married has increasedfifteenfold from 248,000 to 3,829,000. In these latter cases, pater-nity must be determined before the other parent has a legal obliga-tion to financially support the child. The 3.7 million families main-tained by a never-married mother in 1996 represent a major con-cern because only about one-third of the children in these familieshave had their paternity established; for the other two-thirds, achild support obligation cannot be established until a paternity de-termination is made.
Poverty is endemic among mother-headed families. In 1995, 41.5percent of the nearly 8.8 million families maintained solely by themother with children under 18 had incomes below the povertythreshold. A little more than 13 percent of these families were poordespite the fact that the mother worked year round, full time.
548
Today, an unprecedented number of children live in single-parenthomes, nearly half are poor, and many lack adequate or any sup-port from the nonresident parent.
PROGRAM TRENDS
In response to these demographic trends, the Federal-State childsupport program grew rapidly. By 1996, about half of all child sup-port eligible families were actually receiving government fundedchild support services. Most of the information in this chapter ap-plies to the families receiving these government services.
Table 8–1 summarizes trends for the child support program since1978. In 1996, $3 billion was spent by State child support programsto collect $12 billion in child support. The combined Federal-Stateprogram had more than 51,600 employees. A sum of $3.93 was col-lected for every dollar of administrative expense, up by 36 percentfrom the low point of only $2.89 per dollar of administrative ex-pense in 1982, but down about 2 percent since 1992, the year ofpeak child support efficiency. In addition, nearly 5.8 million absentparents were located; 717,000 paternities were established; over 1million support orders were established; 3.5 million cases had col-lections; 294,000 families were removed from AFDC because ofchild support collections (not shown in table 8–1, fiscal year 1995data); and 15.5 percent of AFDC payments were recovered as a re-sult of child support enforcement.
These program trends demonstrate that more and more positivechild support outcomes are achieved by the Federal-State program.But whether these trends indicate program success is a complexmatter. We turn now to a detailed explanation of the Federal-Stateprogram and both its achievements and problems.
THE FEDERAL ROLE
The Federal statute requires the national child support programto be administered by a separate organizational unit under the con-trol of a person designated by and reporting directly to the Sec-retary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).Presently, this office is known as the Federal Office of Child Sup-port Enforcement (OCSE). The Family Support Act of 1988 re-quired the appointment of an Assistant Secretary for Family Sup-port within HHS to administer a number of programs, includingthe Child Support Enforcement Program. Currently, this position isentitled the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Childrenand Families.
A primary responsibility of the Assistant Secretary is to establishstandards for State programs for locating absent parents, establish-ing paternity, and obtaining child support and support for thespouse (or former spouse) with whom the child is living. In additionto this broad statutory mandate, the Assistant Secretary is re-quired to establish minimum organizational and staffing require-ments for State child support agencies, and to review and approveState plans.
549
TABL
E 8–
1.—
SUM
MAR
Y OF
NAT
IONA
L CH
ILD
SUPP
ORT
PROG
RAM
STA
TIST
ICS,
SEL
ECTE
D FI
SCAL
YEA
RS 1
978–
96[N
umbe
rs in
tho
usan
ds, d
olla
rs in
mill
ions
]
Mea
sure
Year
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Tota
l chi
ld s
uppo
rt co
llect
ions
......
......
......
......
......
....
$1,0
47$1
,478
$1,7
70$2
,378
$3,2
46$4
,605
$6,0
10$6
,886
$7,9
65$8
,907
$9,8
50$1
0,82
7$1
2,01
9In
199
6 do
llars
1...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.2,
555
2,88
22,
885
3,59
14,
609
6,12
57,
272
7,91
98,
921
9,62
010
,441
11,1
5212
,019
Tota
l AFD
C co
llect
ions
2...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
472
603
786
1,00
01,
225
1,48
61,
750
1,98
42,
259
2,41
62,
550
2,68
92,
855
Fede
ral
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..31
124
631
140
236
944
953
362
673
877
776
282
188
8St
ate
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
148
274
354
448
424
525
620
700
787
847
891
939
1,01
3To
tal n
on-A
FDC
colle
ctio
ns...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.57
587
498
41,
378
2,01
93,
119
4,26
04,
902
5,70
56,
491
7,30
08,
138
9,16
4To
tal a
dmin
istra
tive
expe
nditu
res
......
......
......
......
.....
312
466
612
723
941
1,17
11,
606
1,80
41,
995
2,24
12,
556
3,01
23,
055
Fede
ral
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..23
634
945
950
763
380
41,
061
1,21
21,
343
1,51
71,
741
2,09
52,
040
Stat
e...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..76
117
153
216
308
366
545
593
652
724
816
917
1,01
5Fe
dera
l inc
entiv
e pa
ymen
ts t
o St
ates
and
loca
litie
s54
7210
713
415
822
226
427
829
933
940
740
040
9Av
erag
e nu
mbe
r of
AFD
C ca
ses
in w
hich
a c
olle
c-tio
n wa
s m
ade
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
458
503
597
647
582
621
701
755
836
879
926
976
940
Aver
age
num
ber
of n
on-A
FDC
case
s in
whi
ch a
col
-le
ctio
n wa
s m
ade
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..24
924
344
854
778
61,
083
1,36
31,
555
1,74
91,
958
2,16
92,
409
2,56
4Nu
mbe
r of
par
ents
loca
ted
......
......
......
......
......
......
...45
464
377
987
51,
046
1,38
82,
062
2,57
73,
152
3,77
74,
204
4,95
05,
769
Num
ber
of p
ater
nitie
s es
tabl
ishe
d...
......
......
......
......
111
144
173
219
245
307
393
472
512
554
592
659
717
Num
ber
of s
uppo
rt ob
ligat
ions
est
ablis
hed
......
......
.31
537
446
257
373
187
11,
022
382
187
91,
026
1,02
51,
051
1,08
3Pe
rcen
t of
AF
DC
assi
stan
ce
paym
ents
re
cove
red
thro
ugh
child
sup
port
colle
ctio
ns...
......
......
......
....
NA5.
26.
87.
08.
69.
810
.310
.711
.412
.012
.513
.615
.5To
tal
child
sup
port
colle
ctio
ns p
er d
olla
r of
tot
alad
min
istra
tive
expe
nses
......
......
......
......
......
......
...3.
353.
172.
893.
293.
453.
933.
743.
823.
993.
983.
863.
603.
93
1Ad
just
ed f
or in
flatio
n us
ing
fisca
l CPI
.2
AFDC
col
lect
ions
are
div
ided
into
Sta
te/F
eder
al s
hare
s an
d in
cent
ives
are
tak
en f
rom
the
Fed
eral
sha
re t
here
by r
educ
ing
the
Fede
ral a
mou
nts.
3Da
ta b
egin
ning
in 1
991
excl
ude
mod
ifica
tions
of
supp
ort
orde
rs.
NA—
Not
avai
labl
e.
Note
.—Da
ta is
pre
limin
ary
for
fisca
l yea
r 19
96. P
ater
nitie
s es
tabl
ishe
d do
not
incl
ude
the
pate
rniti
es e
sabl
ishe
d th
roug
h th
e In
-Hos
pita
l Pat
erni
ty A
ckno
wled
gem
ent
Prog
ram
. In
fisca
lye
ar 1
994,
84,
411
pate
rniti
es w
ere
esta
blis
hed
in h
ospi
tals
; 244
,078
pat
erni
ties
were
est
ablis
hed
in h
ospi
tals
in f
isca
l yea
r 19
95, a
nd 2
77,2
74 p
ater
nitie
s we
re e
stab
lishe
d in
hos
pita
lsin
fis
cal y
ear
1996
.
Sour
ce: O
ffice
of
Child
Sup
port
Enfo
rcem
ent,
U.S.
Dep
artm
ent
of H
ealth
and
Hum
an S
ervi
ces.
550
The statute also requires the Assistant Secretary to provide tech-nical assistance to States to help them establish effective systemsfor collecting support and establishing paternity. To fulfill this re-quirement, OCSE operates a National Child Support EnforcementReference Center as a central location for the collection and dis-semination of information about State and local programs. OCSEalso provides, under a contract with the American Bar AssociationChild Support Project, training and information dissemination onlegal issues to persons working in the field of child support enforce-ment. Special initiatives, such as assisting major urban areas inimproving program performance, have also been undertaken byOCSE.
The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 (PublicLaw 98–378) extended the research and demonstration authority insection 1115 of the Social Security Act to the Child Support En-forcement Program. This authority makes it possible for States totest innovative approaches to support enforcement so long as themodification does not disadvantage children in need of support norresult in an increase in Federal AFDC costs. The 1984 amend-ments also authorize $15 million for each fiscal year after 1986 forspecial project grants to promote improvement in interstate en-forcement. Currently 36 States have waivers which directly impactchild support: 23 States have waivers to provide work and trainingservices to noncustodial parents; 14 States have waivers to dis-regard a portion of child support payments from being counted asincome in determining TANF eligibility and benefit amounts; 19States have waivers that modify cooperation standards and/or pen-alties; and several States have waivers to provide paternity estab-lishment bonuses, child support assurance payments, custody andvisitation mediation and responsible fatherhood services.
The Assistant Secretary for Children and Families has full re-sponsibility for the evaluation of the CSE Program. Pursuant toPublic Law 104–193, States must annually review and report tothe HHS Secretary information adequate to determine the State’scompliance with Federal requirements for expedited procedures,timely case processing, and improvement on the performance indi-cators. To measure the quality of the data reported by States andto assess the adequacy of financial management of the State pro-gram, the Secretary must conduct an audit of every State at leastonce every 3 years and more often if a State fails to meet Federalrequirements.
Under the penalty provision, a State’s TANF Block Grant mustbe reduced by an amount equal to at least 1 but not more than 2percent for the first failure to comply substantially with the stand-ards and requirements, at least 2 but not more than 3 percent forthe second failure, and at least 3 but not more than 5 percent forthe third and subsequent failures.
The statute creates several Federal mechanisms to assist Statesin performing their paternity and child support enforcement func-tions. These include use of the Internal Revenue Service, the Fed-eral courts, and the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS). TheAssistant Secretary must approve a State’s application for permis-sion to use the courts of the United States to enforce orders upona finding that either another State has not enforced the court order
551
of the originating State within a reasonable time or Federal courtsare the only reasonable method of enforcing the order. AlthoughCongress authorized the use of Federal courts to enforce interstatecases, this mechanism has gone unused, apparently because Statesview it as costly and complex.
Finally, the statute requires the establishment of a Federal Par-ent Locator Service to be used to find absent parents in order tosecure and enforce child support obligations. The role of the FPLSwas expanded by Public Law 104–193. For purposes of establishingparentage, establishing, setting the amount of, modifying, or en-forcing child support obligations, or enforcing child custody or visi-tation, the FPLS is to provide information to locate any individual:(1) who is under an obligation to pay child support or provide childcustody or visitation rights; (2) against whom such an obligation issought; or (3) to whom such an obligation is owed. Upon request,the Secretary of HHS must provide to an authorized person themost recent address and place of employment of any noncustodialparent if the information is contained in the records of the Depart-ment of Health and Human Services or can be obtained from anyother department or agency of the United States or of any State.The Secretary also must make available the services of the FPLSto any State that wishes to locate a missing parent or child for thepurpose of enforcing any Federal or State law involving the unlaw-ful taking or restraint of a child or the establishment or mainte-nance of a child custody or visitation order.
THE STATE ROLE
The Social Security Act requires every State operating a TANFProgram to conduct a Child Support Enforcement Program. Federallaw requires applicants for, and recipients of, TANF to assign theirsupport rights to the State in order to receive benefits. In addition,each applicant or recipient must cooperate with the State to estab-lish the paternity of a child born outside marriage and to obtainchild support payments.
TANF recipients or applicants may be excused from the require-ment of cooperation if the CSE agency determines that good causefor noncooperation exists, taking into consideration the best inter-ests of the child on whose behalf aid is claimed. If good cause isfound not to exist and if the relative with whom a child is livingstill refuses to cooperate, then the State must reduce the family’sTANF benefit by at least 25 percent and may remove the familyfrom the TANF Program. (Federal law also stipulates that noTANF funds may be used for a family that includes a person whohas not assigned child support rights to the State.) Before PublicLaw 104–193, cooperation could have been found to be against thebest interests of the child if cooperation could be anticipated to re-sult in physical or emotional harm to the child or caretaker rel-ative; if the child was conceived as a result of incest or rape; or iflegal procedures were underway for the child’s adoption.
Unlike previous law, Public Law 104–193 provides States ratherthan the Federal Government with the authority to define ‘‘goodcause.’’ The law now requires States to develop both ‘‘good cause’’and ‘‘other exceptions’’ to the cooperation requirement. The only re-striction is that both the ‘‘good cause’’ and ‘‘other exceptions’’ must
552
be based on the ‘‘best interests of the child.’’ In addition to defininggood cause and other exceptions, States must establish the stand-ard for proving a claim. States also will have to decide which agen-cy will inform TANF caretaker relatives about the cooperation ex-emptions, and which agency will make the decision about the valid-ity of a given claim. These responsibilities can be delegated to theTANF agency, the CSE agency, or the Medicaid agency.
Each State is required to designate a single and separate organi-zational unit of State government to administer its child supportprogram. Earlier child support legislation, enacted in 1967, had re-quired that the program be administered by the welfare agency.The 1975 act deleted this requirement in order to give each Statethe opportunity to select the most effective administrative mecha-nism. Most States have placed the child support agency within asocial or human services umbrella agency which also administersthe TANF Program. However, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas,and Alaska have placed the agency in the department of revenueand Guam, Hawaii, Texas, and the Virgin Islands have placed theagency in the office of the attorney general. The law allows the pro-grams to be administered either at the State or local level. Ten pro-grams are locally administered. A few programs are State adminis-tered in some counties and locally administered in others.
States must have plans, approved by the director of OCSE, whichset forth the details of their child support program. States mustalso enter into cooperative arrangements with courts and law en-forcement officials to assist the child support agency in administer-ing the program. These agreements may include provision for reim-bursing courts and law enforcement officials for their assistance.States also must operate a parent locator service to find absentparents, and they must maintain full records of collections and dis-bursements and otherwise maintain an adequate reporting system.
In order to facilitate the collection of support in interstate cases,a State must cooperate with other States in establishing paternity,locating absent parents, and securing compliance with an orderissued by another State.
States are required to use several enforcement tools. They mustuse the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax refund offset procedurefor welfare and nonwelfare families, and they must also determineperiodically whether any individuals receiving unemployment com-pensation owe child support. The State Employment Security Agen-cy (part of the Federal-State Unemployment Insurance System), isrequired to withhold unemployment benefits, and to pay the childsupport agency any outstanding child support obligations estab-lished by an agreement with the individual or through legal proc-esses.
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 de-
linquent in support payments;3. Reporting the amount of overdue support to a consumer credit
bureau upon request;
553
4. Requiring individuals who have demonstrated a pattern of de-linquent payments to post a bond or give some other guaranteeto secure payment of overdue support;
5. Establishing expedited processes within the State judicial sys-tem or under administrative processes for obtaining and en-forcing child support orders and determining paternity. Theseexpedited procedures include giving States authority to secureassets to satisfy payment of past-due support by seizing or at-taching unemployment compensation, worker’s compensation,judgments, settlements, lotteries, asset held in financial insti-tutions, and public and private retirement funds;
6. Withholding, suspending, or restricting the use of driver’s li-censes, professional and occupational licenses, and recreationallicenses 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 childsupport to a child receiving TANF benefits to participate in ap-propriate work activities;
9. Performing quarterly data matches with financial institutions;and
10. Voiding of fraudulent transfers of assets to avoid payment ofchild support.
Each State’s plan must provide that the child support agency willattempt to secure support for all TANF children. The State mustalso provide in its plan that it will undertake to establish the pa-ternity of a TANF child born out of wedlock. These requirementsapply to all cases except those in which the State finds, in accord-ance with standards established by the Secretary, the best inter-ests of the child would be violated. For families whose TANF eligi-bility ends due to the receipt of or an increase in child support,States must continue to provide CSE services without imposing theapplication fee.
Foster care agencies are required to take steps, where appro-priate, to secure an assignment to the State of any rights to sup-port on behalf of a child receiving foster care maintenance pay-ments under title IV–E of the Social Security Act.
State child support agencies are also required to petition to in-clude medical support as part of any child support order wheneverhealth care coverage is available to the noncustodial parent at areasonable cost. And, if a family loses TANF eligibility as the resultof increased collection of support payments, the State must con-tinue to provide Medicaid benefits for 4 calendar months beginningwith the month of ineligibility. In addition, States must provideservices to families covered by Medicaid who are referred to theState IV–D agency from the State Medicaid agency.
With respect to non-TANF families, States must provide, once anapplication is filed with the State agency, the same child supportcollection and paternity determination services which are providedfor TANF families. The State must charge non-TANF families anapplication fee of up to $25. The amount of the maximum allowablefee may be adjusted periodically by the Secretary of the Depart-ment of Health and Human Services to reflect changes in adminis-trative costs. States may charge the fee against the custodial par-
554
ent, pay the fee out of State funds, or recover it from the noncusto-dial parent.
States also have the option of charging a late payment fee equalto between 3 and 6 percent of the amount of overdue support. Latepayment fees may be charged to noncustodial parents and are tobe collected only after the full amount of the support has been paidto the child. States may also recover costs in excess of the applica-tion fee from either the custodial or noncustodial parent. If a Statechooses to make recovery from the custodial parent, it must havein effect a procedure whereby all persons in the State who have au-thority to order support are informed that such costs are to be col-lected from the custodial parent.
Child support enforcement services must include the enforcementof spousal support, but only if a support obligation has been estab-lished with respect to the spouse, the child and spouse are livingin the same household, and child support is being collected alongwith spousal support.
Finally, each State must comply with any other requirementsand standards that the Secretary determines to be necessary to theestablishment of an effective child support program.
THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
The goal of the child support program is to combine these Fed-eral and State responsibilities and activities into an efficient ma-chine that provides seven basic products: locating absent parents,establishing paternity, establishing child support orders, reviewingand modifying orders, promoting medical support, collecting anddistributing 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 greatdeal of information and several documents from the custodial par-ent or other sources. These include the name and address of thenoncustodial parent; the noncustodial parent’s Social Security num-ber; children’s birth certificates; the child support order; the divorcedecree or separation agreement; the name and address of the mostrecent employer of the noncustodial parent; the names of friendsand relatives or organizations to which the noncustodial parentmight belong; information about income and assets; and any otherinformation about noncustodial parents that might help locatethem. Once this information is provided, it is used in strictest con-fidence.
If the Child Support Enforcement Program cannot locate thenoncustodial parent with the information provided by the custodialparent, it must try to locate the noncustodial parent through theState parent locator service. The State uses various informationsources such as telephone directories, motor vehicle registries, taxfiles, and employment and unemployment records. The State alsocan ask the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) to locate thenoncustodial parent. The FPLS can access data from the Social Se-curity Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the SelectiveService System, the Department of Defense, the Veterans’ Adminis-
555
tration, the National Personnel Records Center, and State Employ-ment Security Agencies. The FPLS provides Social Security num-bers, addresses, and employer and wage information to State andlocal child support agencies to establish and enforce child supportorders.
The FPLS obtains employer addresses and wage and unemploy-ment compensation information from the State employment secu-rity agencies. This information is very useful in helping child sup-port officials work cases in which the custodial parent and childrenlive in one State and the noncustodial parent lives or works in an-other State. Employment data are updated quarterly by employersreporting to their State employment security agency; unemploy-ment data are updated continually from State unemployment com-pensation payment records.
The FPLS conducts weekly or biweekly matches with most of theagencies listed above. Each agency runs the cases against its database and the names and Social Security numbers that match arereturned to FPLS and through FPLS to the requesting State orlocal child support office. During fiscal year 1995, the FPLS proc-essed approximately 4.3 million requests for information from Stateand local CSE agencies.
Since October 1984, OCSE has participated in Project 1099which provides State child support agencies access to all of theearned and unearned income information reported to IRS by em-ployers and financial institutions. Project 1099, named after theIRS form on which both earned and unearned income is reported,is a cooperative effort involving State child support agencies, theFederal Office of Child Support Enforcement, and the Internal Rev-enue Service. Examples of reported earned and unearned incomesinclude: interest paid on savings accounts, stocks and bonds, anddistribution of dividends and capital gains; rent or royalty pay-ments; prizes, awards, or winnings; fees paid directors or sub-contractors; and unemployment compensation. The Project 1099 in-formation is used to locate noncustodial parents and to verify in-come and employment. Project 1099 also helps locate additionalnonwage income and assets of noncustodial parents who are em-ployees as well as income and asset sources of self-employed andnonwage earning obligors. In fiscal year 1995, OCSE submittedabout 3.9 million cases to the IRS under Project 1099 and over 2.5million cases were matched (65 percent).
To improve the CSE agency’s ability to locate absent parents,Public Law 104–193 requires States to have automated registriesof child support orders containing records of each case in whichCSE services are being provided and each support order estab-lished or modified on or after October 1, 1998. Under Public Law104–193, local registries could be linked to form the State registry.The State registry is to include a record of the support owed underthe order, arrearages, interest or late penalty charges, amounts col-lected, amounts distributed, child’s date of birth, and any liens im-posed. The registry also will include standardized information onboth parents, such as name, Social Security number, date of birth,and case identification number.
Beginning October 1, 1997, States are required to establish anautomated directory of new hires containing information from em-
556
ployers, including Federal, State, and local governments and labororganizations, for each newly hired employee. The directory mustinclude the name, address and Social Security number of the em-ployee and the employer’s name, address, and tax identificationnumber. This information generally is to be supplied to the Statenew hires directory within 20 days after the employee is hired.Within 3 business days after receipt of new hire information fromthe employer, the State directory of new hires is required to fur-nish the information to the national directory of new hires. Thenew law also requires the establishment of a Federal case registryof child support orders and a national directory of new hires. TheFederal directories are to consist of abstracts of information fromthe State directories and are located in the FPLS.
Public Law 104–193 allows all States to link up to an array ofdata bases and permits the FPLS to be used for the purpose of es-tablishing parentage; establishing, setting the amount of, modify-ing, or enforcing child support obligations; or enforcing child cus-tody or visitation orders. By May 1, 1998, a designated State agen-cy must directly or by contract conduct automated comparisons ofthe Social Security numbers reported by employers to the State di-rectory of new hires and the Social Security numbers of CSE casesthat appear in the records of the State registry of child support or-ders. (The new law requires the HHS Secretary to conduct similarcomparisons of the Federal directories.) When a match occurs theState directory of new hires is required to report to the State CSEagency the name, date of birth, and Social Security number of theemployee, and the name, address, and identification number of theemployer. The CSE agency must, within 2 business days, instructappropriate employers to withhold child support obligations fromthe employee’s paycheck, unless the employee’s income is not sub-ject to withholding.
There are two exceptions to the immediate income withholdingrule: (1) if one of the parties demonstrates, and the court (or ad-ministrative process) finds, that there is good cause not to requireimmediate withholding; or (2) if both parties agree in writing to analternative arrangement. Public Law 104–193 requires employersto remit to the State disbursement unit income withheld within 7business days after the employee’s payday. States also are requiredto operate a centralized collection and disbursement unit thatsends child support payments to custodial parents within 2 busi-ness days.
Moreover, Public Law 104–193 expands the scope of the FPLS toprovide information on the location of custodial parents. Federallaw requires the HHS Secretary to operate a FPLS that containsinformation on, or that facilitates the discovery of, the location ofindividuals who are under obligation to pay child support, oragainst whom such an obligation is sought, or to whom such an ob-ligation is owed. The FPLS also is used to find abducted childrenand to make or enforce a child custody or visitation determination.
ESTABLISHING PATERNITY
Paternity establishment is a prerequisite for obtaining a childsupport order. In 1994, 32.6 percent of children born in the UnitedStates were born to unmarried women. According to the OCSE, pa-
557
ternity is established in less than one-third of these cases. Withoutpaternity established, these children have no legal claim on theirfathers’ income. A major weakness of the child support program isits poor performance in securing paternity for such children. In ad-dition to financial benefits, establishing paternity can provide so-cial, psychological, and emotional benefits and in some cases the fa-ther’s medical history may be needed to give a child proper care.
In the 1980s, legislation was enacted that contained provisionsaimed at increasing the number of paternities established. PublicLaw 98–378, the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984,required States to implement laws that permitted paternity to beestablished until a child’s 18th birthday. Under the Family SupportAct of 1988 (Public Law 100–485), States are required to initiatethe establishment of paternity for all children under the age of 18,including those for whom an action to establish paternity was pre-viously dismissed because of the existence of a statute of limita-tions of less than 18 years. The 1988 law encourages States to cre-ate simple civil procedures for establishing paternity in contestedcases, requires States to have all parties in a contested paternitycase take a genetic test upon the request of any party, requires theFederal Government to pay 90 percent of the laboratory costs ofthese tests, and permits States to charge persons not receivingAFDC for the cost of establishing paternity. The 1988 law also setspaternity establishment standards for the States and stipulatesthat each State is required, in administering any law involving theissuance of birth certificates, to require both parents to furnishtheir Social Security number unless the State finds good cause fornot doing so.
Congress took additional action to improve paternity establish-ment in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. This lawrequired 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 responsibil-ities of acknowledging paternity and afford due process safe-guards. Procedures must include a hospital-based program forthe voluntary acknowledgment of paternity during the periodimmediately preceding or following the birth of a child;
2. A law under which the voluntary acknowledgment of paternitycreates a rebuttable, or at State option, conclusive presumptionof paternity, and under which such voluntary acknowledg-ments are admissible as evidence of paternity;
3. A law under which the voluntary acknowledgment of paternitymust be recognized as a basis for seeking a support order with-out requiring any further proceedings to establish paternity;
4. Procedures which provide that any objection to genetic testingresults must be made in writing within a specified number ofdays prior to any hearing at which such results may be intro-duced in evidence; if no objection is made, the test results mustbe admissible as evidence of paternity without the need forfoundation 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 re-sults indicating a threshold probability of the alleged fatherbeing the father of the child;
558
6. Procedures which require default orders in paternity casesupon a showing that process has been served on the defendantand whatever additional showing may be required by Statelaw; and
7. Expedited processes for paternity establishment in contestedcases and full faith and credit to determinations of paternitymade by other States.
The 1993 reforms also revised the mandatory paternity establish-ment requirements imposed on States by the Family Support Actof 1988. The most notable provision increased the mandatory pater-nity establishment percentage, which is backed up by financialpenalties linked to a reduction of Federal matching funds for theState’s TANF Program (see Audits and Financial Penalties sec-tion). Legislation passed in 1996 further strengthened the Nation’spaternity establishment system. More specifically, Public Law 104–193 streamlines the paternity determination process; raises the pa-ternity establishment requirement from 75 to 90 percent; imple-ments a simple civil process for establishing paternity; requires auniform affidavit to be completed by men voluntarily acknowledg-ing paternity and entitles such affidavit to full faith and credit inany State; stipulates that a signed acknowledgment of paternity beconsidered a legal finding of paternity unless rescinded within 60days and thereafter may be challenged in court only on the basisof fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact; and provides that nojudicial or administrative action is needed to ratify an acknowledg-ment that is not challenged. The new law also requires States topublicize the availability and encourage the use of procedures forvoluntary establishment of paternity and child support.
Paternity acknowledgments must be filed with the State birthrecords agency. Public Law 104–193 requires that before a motheror alleged father can sign a paternity acknowledgment, each mustbe given notice (both orally and in writing) of the alternatives to,legal consequences of, and rights and responsibilities arising fromthe signed acknowledgment. Moreover, in the case of unmarriedparents, the father’s name shall not appear on the birth certificateunless he has signed a voluntary acknowledgment or a court hasissued an adjudication of paternity.
While employing these laws and procedures to establish pater-nity, States follow a predictable sequence of events. In cases forwhich paternity is not voluntarily acknowledged (which is still themajority of cases), the child support agency locates the alleged fa-ther and brings him to court or before an administrative agencywhere he can either acknowledge or dispute paternity. If he claimshe is not the father, the court can require that he submit to parent-age blood testing to establish the probability that he is the father.If the father denies paternity, a court usually decides the issuebased on scientific and testimonial evidence. Through the use oftesting techniques, a man may be excluded as a possible naturalfather, in which case no further action against him is warranted.Most States use one or more of several scientific methods for estab-lishing paternity. These include: ABO blood typing system, humanleukocyte antigen (HLA) testing, red cell enzyme and serum pro-tein electrophoresis, and DNA testing.
559
Public Law 104–193 mandates that the State CSE agency havethe power (without the need for permission from a court or admin-istrative tribunal) to order genetic tests in appropriate CSE cases.These CSE agencies also must recognize and enforce the ability ofother State CSE agencies to take such actions. Moreover, genetictest results must be admissible as evidence so long as they are ofa type generally acknowledged as reliable by accreditation bodiesrecognized by HHS and performed by an entity approved by suchan accredited body. Finally, in any case in which the CSE agencyordered the tests, the State must pay for the initial tests. The Stateis allowed to recoup the cost from the father if paternity is estab-lished. If the original test result is contested, further testing canbe ordered by the CSE agency if the contestant pays the cost in ad-vance.
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 typeof testing can determine with 90–99 percent accuracy that a manis ‘‘not’’ the father of a given child. There is a very high probabilitythe test will exonerate a falsely accused man (Office of Child Sup-port Enforcement, 1985).
Since the question of paternity is essentially a scientific one, itis important that the verification process include available ad-vanced scientific technology. Experts now agree that use of thehighly reliable deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fingerprinting testgreatly increases the likelihood of correct identification of putativefathers. DNA tests can be used either to exclude unlikely fathersor to establish a high likelihood that a given man is the father (Of-fice of Child Support, 1990, see pp. 59–74). One expert, speakingat a child support conference, summed up the effectiveness of DNAtesting as follows:
The DNA fingerprinting technique promises far superior reliability than currentblood grouping or HLA (human leukocyte antigen) analyses. The probability of anunrelated individual sharing the same patterns is practically zero. The ‘‘DNAfingerprinting’’ test, developed in England in 1985, refines the favorable statisticsto an even greater degree, reducing the probability that two unrelated individualswill 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 scientifictest results, authorities may still conclude on the basis of wit-nesses, resemblance, and other evidence that they do not have suf-ficient evidence to establish paternity and, therefore, will dropcharges against him. Tests resulting in nonexclusion also mayserve to convince the putative father that he is, in fact, the father.If this occurs, a voluntary admission often leads to a formal courtorder. When authorities believe there is enough evidence to supportthe mother’s allegation, but the putative father continues to denythe charges, the case proceeds to a formal adjudication of paternityin a court of law (McKillop, 1981, pp. 22–23). Using the results ofthe blood test and other evidence, the court or the child supportagency, often through an administrative process, may dismiss thecase or enter an order of paternity, a prerequisite to obtaining acourt order requiring a noncustodial parent to pay support (U.S.General Accounting Office, 1987).
560
In fiscal year 1996, 717,000 paternities were established, up from245,000 in fiscal year 1986. While the number of paternities estab-lished through child support agencies reached a record high in1996, huge disparities exist among States. In the previous year(latest available data), for example, the percentage of children inthe Child Support Enforcement Program for whom paternity wasestablished averaged 50 percent nationally, but ranged from 14percent in Wyoming to 91 percent in Georgia.
ESTABLISHING ORDERS
A child support order legally obligates noncustodial parents toprovide financial support for their children and stipulates theamount of the obligation (current weekly obligation plus arrear-ages, if any) and how it is to be paid. Many States have statutesthat provide that, in the absence of a child support award, the pay-ment of TANF benefits to the child of a noncustodial parent createsa debt due from the parent or parents in the amount of the TANFbenefit. Other States operate under the common law principle,which maintains that a father is obligated to reimburse any personwho has provided his child with food, shelter, clothing, medical at-tention, or education. States can establish child support obligationseither by judicial or administrative process.
Judicial and administrative systemsThe courts have traditionally played a major role in the child
support program. Judges establish orders, establish paternity, andprovide authority for all enforcement activity. The child support lit-erature generally concludes that the judicial process offers severaladvantages, especially by providing more adequate protection forthe legal rights of the noncustodial parent and by offering a widerange of enforcement remedies, such as civil contempt and possibleincarceration. A major problem of using courts, however, is thatthey are often cumbersome, expensive, and time consuming.
The advantages of an administrative process are very compelling.These include offering quicker service because documents do nothave to be filed with the court clerk nor await the signature of thejudge, eliminating time consuming problems in scheduling courttime, providing a more uniform and consistent obligation amount,and saving money because of reduced court costs and attorney fees.
The 1984 child support amendments required States to limit therole of the courts significantly by implementing administrative orjudicial expedited processes. States are required to have quasi-judicial or administrative systems to expedite the process for ob-taining and enforcing a support order. Since 1993, State have beenrequired to extend these expedited processes to paternity establish-ment. These requirements can be waived—either statewide or in alocality—if the judicial system is able to process cases expedi-tiously.
Most child support officials view the growth of expedited admin-istrative processes as an improvement in the child support pro-gram. An expedited judicial process is a legal process in effectunder a State’s judicial system that reduces the processing time ofestablishing and enforcing a support order. To expedite case proc-essing, a ‘‘judge surrogate’’ is given authority to: take testimony
561
and establish a record, evaluate and make initial decisions, enterdefault orders if the noncustodial parent does not respond to ‘‘no-tice’’ or other State ‘‘service of process’’ in a timely manner, acceptvoluntary acknowledgment of support liability and approve stipu-lated agreements to pay support. In addition, if the State estab-lishes paternity using the expedited judicial process, the surrogatecan accept voluntary acknowledgement of paternity. Judge surro-gates are sometimes referred to as court masters, referees, hearingofficers, commissioners, or presiding officers.
The purpose of an expedited administrative process is to increaseeffectiveness and meet specified processing times in child supportcases and, if the State so chose, paternity actions. Federal regula-tions specify that 90 percent of cases must be processed within 3months, 98 percent within 6 months, and 100 percent within 12months.
The Federal regulations also contain additional requirements re-lated to the expedited process. Proceedings conducted pursuant toeither the expedited judicial or expedited administrative processmust be presided over by an individual who is not a judge of thecourt. Orders established by expedited process must have the sameforce and effect under State law as orders established by full judi-cial process, although either process may provide that a judge firstratify the order. Within these broad limitations, each State is freeto design an expedited process that is best suited to its administra-tive needs and legal traditions.
Under Public Law 104–193, the expedited procedure rules werebroadened to cover modification of support orders. The new lawalso requires that State tribunals—whether quasi-judicial or ad-ministrative—must have statewide jurisdiction over the parties andpermit intrastate case transfers from one tribunal to another with-out the need to refile the case or re-serve the respondent. In addi-tion, once a support/paternity order is entered, the tribunal mustrequire each party to file and periodically update certain informa-tion with both the tribunal and the State’s child support case reg-istry. This information includes the parent’s Social Security num-ber, residential and mailing addresses, telephone number, driver’slicense number, and employer’s name, address and telephone num-ber.
Moreover, the 1996 reforms require States to adopt laws thatgive the CSE agency authority to initiate a series of expedited pro-cedures without the necessity of obtaining an order from any otheradministrative agency or judicial tribunal. These actions include:ordering genetic testing; issuing subpoenas; requiring public andprivate employers and other entities to provide information on em-ployment, compensation, and benefits or be subject to penalties; ob-taining access to vital statistics, State and local tax records, realand personal property records, records of occupational and profes-sional licenses, business records, employment security and publicassistance records, motor vehicle records, corrections records, cus-tomer records of utilities and cable television companies pursuantto an administrative subpoena, and records of financial institu-tions; directing the obligor to make payments to the child supportagency in public assistance or income withholding cases; orderingincome withholding; securing assets to satisfy judgments and set-
562
1 Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, No. 87–1259 (D.C. Ct. App. October 10, 1989): In October 1989, theDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals struck down child support guidelines adopted in October1987 in response to the Federal requirement. The court held that the superior court committeethat drafted the guidelines lacked authority to do so. It did not rule on the fairness of the guide-lines, which awarded children a fixed fraction of the gross income of the noncustodial parent.
tlements; and increasing the monthly support due to make pay-ments on arrearages.
Determining the amount of support ordersBefore October 1989, the decision of how much a parent should
pay for child support was left primarily to the discretion of thecourt. Typically, judges examined financial statements from moth-ers and fathers and established awards based on children’s needs.The resulting awards varied greatly. Moreover, this case-by-caseapproach resulted in very low awards. As late as 1991, the averageamount 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 1984child support amendments required each State to establish, by Oc-tober 1987, guidelines for determining child support awardamounts ‘‘by law or by judicial or administrative action’’ 1 and tomake the guidelines available ‘‘to all judges and other officials whohave the power to determine child support awards within theState.’’ Federal regulations made the provision more specific: Statechild support guidelines must be based on specific descriptive andnumeric criteria and result in a computation of the support obliga-tion. The 1984 provision did not make the guidelines binding onjudges and other officials who had the authority to establish childsupport obligations. However, the Family Support Act of 1988 re-quired States to pass legislation making the State child supportguidelines a ‘‘rebuttable presumption’’ in any judicial or adminis-trative proceeding and establishing the amount of the order whichresults from the application of the State-established guidelines asthe correct amount to be awarded.
States generally use one of three basic types of guidelines to de-termine award amounts: ‘‘Income shares,’’ which is based on thecombined income of both parents (31 States); ‘‘percentage of in-come,’’ in which the number of eligible children is used to deter-mine a percentage of the noncustodial parents’ income to be paidin child support (15 States); and ‘‘Melson-Delaware,’’ which pro-vides a minimum self-support reserve for parents before the cost ofrearing the children is prorated between the parents to determinethe award amount (Delaware, Hawaii, West Virginia). Two jurisdic-tions (the District of Columbia and Massachusetts) use variants ofone or more of these three approaches (Williams, 1994; see table8–24 below).
The income shares approach is designed to ensure that the chil-dren of divorced parents suffer the lowest possible decline in stand-ard of living. The approach is intended to ensure that the child re-ceives the same proportion of parental income that he would havereceived if the parents lived together. The first step in the incomeshares approach is to determine the combined income of the twoparents. A percentage of that combined income, which varies by in-come level, is used to calculate a ‘‘primary support obligation.’’ The
563
2 Net income equals income from employment and other sources plus business expense ac-counts if they provide the parent with an automobile, lunches, etc., minus income taxes basedon maximum allowable exemptions, other deductions required by law, deductions required byan employer or union, legitimate business expenses, and benefits such as medical insurancemaintained for dependents.
percentages decline as income rises, although the absolute amountof the primary support obligation increases with income. ManyStates add child care costs and extraordinary medical expenses tothe primary support obligation. The resulting total child supportobligation is apportioned between the parents on the basis of theirincomes. The noncustodial parent’s share is the child supportaward (Office of Child Support, 1987, pp. II 67–80).
The percentage of income approach is based on the noncustodialparent’s gross income and the number of children to be supported(the child support obligation is not adjusted for the income of thecustodial parent). The percentages vary by State. In Wisconsin, ahighly publicized percentage of income guideline State, child sup-port is based on the following proportions of the noncustodial par-ent’s gross income: one child—17 percent; two children—25 percent;three children—29 percent; four children—31 percent; and five ormore children—34 percent. There is no self support reserve in thisapproach nor is there separate treatment for child care or extraor-dinary medical expenses. The States that use a percentage of in-come approach are Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illi-nois, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York,North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The Melson-Delaware formula starts with net income. 2 After de-termining net income for each parent, a primary support allowanceis subtracted from each parent’s income. This reserve representsthe minimum amount required for adults to meet their own sub-sistence requirements. The next step is to determine a primarysupport amount for each dependent child. Work-related child careexpenses and extraordinary medical expenses are added to thechild’s primary support amount. The child’s primary support needsare then apportioned between the parents. To ensure that childrenshare in any additional income the parents might have, a percent-age of the parents’ remaining income is allocated among the chil-dren (the percentage is based on the number of dependent chil-dren). The States that use the Melson-Delaware approach are Dela-ware, Hawaii, and West Virginia.
Pirog, Klotz, and Buyers (1997) have examined the differences inchild support guidelines across States. Their approach was to de-fine five hypothetical cases of custodial mothers and noncustodialfathers that capture a range of differences in income, expenses, andother factors that influence the amount of child support paymentscomputed under the guidelines adopted by the various States. State1997 guidelines were then applied to each of the five cases to com-pute the amount of child support that would be due. In each of thefive cases, the mother and father are divorced. The father livesalone while the mother lives with the couples’ two children, ages7 and 13. The father pays union dues of $30 per month and healthinsurance for the children of $25 per month. The mother incursmonthly employment-related child care expenses of $150. The in-come of the fathers and mothers are:
564
Case A: father—$530; mother—$300Case B: father—$720; mother—$480Case C: father—$2,500; mother—$1,000Case D: father—$4,400; mother—$1,760Case E: father—$6,300; mother—$4,200Arguably, the most striking generalization that emerges from
table 8–2 is the remarkable differences across States in the amountof the child support obligation established by the guidelines, par-ticularly at the lower income levels.
TABLE 8–2.—AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT AWARDED BY STATE GUIDELINES IN VARIOUSCASES
StateCase
A B C D E
Alabama ....................... $216 $280 $433 $634 (1)Alaska .......................... 38 38 312 546 $1,193Arizona ......................... (1) 75 482 628 1,061Arkansas ...................... (1) 150 305 475 1,025California ..................... 236 278 478 770 1,457Colorado ....................... 231 261 409 610 1,066Connecticut .................. 0 0 404 703 1,198Delaware ...................... 91 91 467 626 1,157District of Columbia .... 50 208 458 821 1,495Florida .......................... 135 261 463 721 1,186Georgia ......................... 210 210 383 673 1,607Hawaii .......................... 100 100 470 610 1,260Idaho ............................ 122 166 345 566 913Illinois .......................... 102 136 294 485 1,020Indiana ......................... 215 327 692 899 1,462Iowa .............................. 50 189 358 566 1,047Kansas ......................... 188 227 390 582 1,195Kentucky ....................... 221 293 445 637 1,017Louisiana ...................... 207 292 451 667 1,052Maine ........................... 52 290 437 619 1,031Maryland ...................... 249 295 449 655 1,060Massachusetts ............. (1) 137 471 789 (1)Michigan ...................... 128 141 468 657 1,078Minnesota ..................... 62 84 376 606 1,228Mississippi ................... 92 124 251 427 908Missouri ........................ 149 265 447 609 1,032Montana ....................... 6 15 26 456 908Nebraska ...................... 50 50 390 677 1,035Nevada ......................... 200 180 375 660 1,575New Hampshire ............ 50 50 424 667 1,473New Jersey .................... 112 267 452 710 (1)New Mexico .................. 183 291 468 588 1,095New York ...................... 25 50 436 699 1,548North Carolina .............. 50 57 463 600 1,012North Dakota ................ 68 126 356 582 1,231Ohio .............................. 150 278 465 609 1,045Oklahoma ..................... 171 171 295 415 801Oregon .......................... 73 159 343 587 1,027
565
3 Traditionally, the courts have taken the position that the father’s prior child support obliga-tions take absolute precedence over the needs of the new family. They have disregarded the fa-ther’s plea that his new responsibilities are a ‘‘change in circumstance’’ justifying a reductionin a prior child support award or at least averting an increase.
TABLE 8–2.—AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT AWARDED BY STATE GUIDELINES IN VARIOUSCASES—Continued
StateCase
A B C D E
Pennsylvania .................. (1) 257 415 554 (1)Rhode Island ................ 252 315 480 677 1,170South Carolina ............. 58 183 463 574 1,000South Dakota ............... 275 275 486 652 1,032Tennessee ..................... 153 200 393 665 1,422Texas ............................ 109 147 298 517 1,114Utah ............................. 83 131 447 616 (1)Vermont ........................ (1) (1) 428 642 1,025Virginia ......................... 231 289 446 641 1,042Washington .................. 50 50 412 641 1,054West Virginia ................ 50 117 364 539 1,742Wisconsin ..................... 133 180 375 660 1,575Wyoming ....................... 105 200 348 519 882
1 In these cases, courts have the discretion to set the amount that seems appropriate to the court.
ANote.—See text for explanation of cases A, B, C, D, and E.
Source: Pirog, Klotz, & Buyers, 1997.
Award ratesIn 1993, of the 11.5 million custodial mothers of children under
the age of 21 whose father was not living in the household, only6.9 million or 60 percent had a child support award. About one-third of the 4.6 million custodial mothers without awards chose notto pursue a child support award. In other cases, custodial parentswere unable to locate the noncustodial parent or the noncustodialparent was unable to pay. Never-married custodial parents werethe group least likely to have a child support award. Only 44 per-cent of never-married custodial mothers had support awards com-pared with 70 percent of divorced custodial mothers. Moreover,black custodial mothers and custodial mothers of Hispanic originwere much less likely than their white counterparts to have childsupport awards. About 57 percent of whites had child supportawards, compared with 46 percent of blacks and 38 percent of His-panics (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997).
Unresolved issuesAs 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 ex-penses, and college costs are taken into account in determining thesupport order; how the income of the noncustodial parent is allo-cated between first and subsequent families; 3 how the income ofstepparents is treated; whether a minimum child support award
566
level regardless of age or circumstance of the noncustodial parentshould be imposed; whether income earned as a result of a custo-dial parent’s participation in an AFDC work, education, and train-ing program is taken into account; and the duration of the supportorder (i.e., does the support obligation end when the child reachesage 18; what happens to arrearages).
REVIEWING AND MODIFYING ORDERS
Without periodic modifications, child support obligations can be-come inadequate and inequitable. Historically, the only way tomodify a child support order was to require a party to petition thecourt for a modification based on a ‘‘change in circumstances.’’What constituted a change in circumstances sufficient to modifythe order depended on the State and the court. The person request-ing modification was responsible for filing the motion, serving no-tice, hiring a lawyer, and proving a change in circumstances of suf-ficient magnitude to satisfy statutory standards. The modificationproceeding was a two step process. First the court determinedwhether a modification was appropriate. Next, the amount of thenew obligation was determined.
Because this approach to updating orders was so cumbersome,the Family Support Act of 1988 required States both to use guide-lines as a rebuttable presumption in all proceedings for the awardof child support and to review and adjust child support orders inaccordance with the guidelines. These provisions reflected congres-sional intent to simplify the updating of support orders by requir-ing a process in which the standard for modification was the Statechild support guidelines. They also reflect a recognition that thetraditional burden of proof for changing the amount of the supportorder was a barrier to updating. Finally, the 1988 law signaled aneed for States to at least expand, if not replace, the traditional‘‘change in circumstances’’ test as the legal prerequisite for updat-ing support orders by making State guidelines the presumptivelycorrect amount of support to be paid (Federal Register, 1992, p.61560).
The Family Support Act also required States to review guidelinesat least once every 4 years and have procedures for review and ad-justment of orders, consistent with a plan indicating how and whenchild support orders are to be reviewed and adjusted. Review maytake place at the request of either parent subject to the order orat the request of a State child support agency. Any adjustment tothe award must be consistent with the State’s guidelines, whichmust be used as a rebuttable presumption in establishing or ad-justing the support order. The Family Support Act also requiredStates to review all orders being enforced under the child supportprogram within 36 months after establishment or after the most re-cent review of the order and to adjust the order in accord with theState’s guidelines.
Review is required in child support cases in which support rightsare assigned to the State, unless the State has determined that re-view would not be in the best interests of the child and neither par-ent has requested a review. This provision applies to child supportorders in cases in which benefits under the TANF, foster care, orMedicaid Programs are currently being provided, but does not in-
567
clude orders for former TANF, foster care, or Medicaid cases, evenif the State retains an assignment of support rights for arrearagesthat accumulated during the time the family was on welfare. Inchild support cases in which there is no current assignment of sup-port rights to the State, including former recipients of TANF, fostercare, or Medicaid benefits receiving continued child support serv-ices, review is required at least once every 36 months only if a par-ent requests it. If the review indicates that adjustment of the sup-port amount is appropriate, the State must proceed to adjust theaward accordingly.
The Family Support Act also required States to notify parents incases being enforced by the State both of their right to request areview at least 30 days before it begins and of any proposed adjust-ment or determination that there should be no change in the awardamount. In the latter case, the parent must be given at least 30days after notification to initiate proceedings to challenge the pro-posed adjustment or determination.
Public Law 104–193, the 1996 welfare reform law, somewhat re-vised the review and modification requirements. The mandatory 3-year review of child support orders is slightly modified to permitStates some flexibility in determining which reviews of welfarecases should be pursued and in choosing methods of review. Statesmust review orders every 3 years (or more often at State option)if either parent or the State requests a review in welfare cases orif either parent requests a review in nonwelfare CSE cases. Statesmust notify parents of their review and adjustment rights at leastonce every 3 years. States will be able to use one of three differentmethods for adjusting orders: (1) the child support guidelines (i.e.,current law); (2) an inflation adjustment in accordance with a for-mula developed by the State; or (3) an automated method to iden-tify orders eligible for review followed by an appropriate adjust-ment to the order, not to exceed any threshold amount determinedby the State. If either an inflation adjustment or an automatedmethod is used, the State must allow either parent to contest theadjustment.
The frequency of review and updating of support orders has in-creased greatly since the 1984 amendments. As a result, severalissues have become apparent. When an initial child supportamount is established under guidelines, it generally is reasonableto apply the guidelines to later modification. However, when newlyadopted guidelines are used to modify old orders, some noncusto-dial parents may have to pay substantially higher child support.Noncustodial parents who decided to start second families based onfinancial calculations which assumed the amount of the originalorder argue that it is unfair for States to use new State-establishedguidelines to update or revise their preexisting award obligations(Malone, 1989, pp. 31–32). Other issues associated with updatingchild support awards include the expected increased resources nec-essary to review and update orders, and the disinclination of childsupport staff to initiate downward modifications.
Another major issue in the modification of awards was that 18States permitted retroactive modifications. The vast majority ofsuch retroactive modifications had the effect of reducing theamount of child support ordered. Thus, for example, an order for
568
$200 a month for child support, which was unpaid for 36 months,should accumulate an arrearage of $7,200. Yet, if the obligor wasbrought to court, having made no prior attempt to modify theorder, the order might be reduced to $100 a month retroactive to36 months prior to the date of modification. This retroactive modi-fication would reduce the arrearage from $7,200 to $3,600. Casessuch as this, which had serious impacts on custodial parents andtheir 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 Statepractices involving modification of child support arrears. The provi-sion required States to change their laws so that any payment ofchild support, on and after the date due, is a judgment (the officialdecision or finding of a court on the respective rights and claimsof the parties to an action) by operation of law. The provision alsorequires that the judgment be entitled to full faith and credit in theoriginating State and in any other State. Full faith and credit isa constitutional principle that the various States must recognizethe judgments of other States within the United States and accordthem the force and effect they would have in their home State.
The 1986 provision also greatly restricts retroactive modificationto make it more difficult for courts and administrative entities toforgive or reduce arrearages. More specifically, orders can be retro-actively modified only for a period during which there is pendinga petition for modification and only from the date that notice of thepetition has been given to the custodial or noncustodial parent.
PROMOTING MEDICAL SUPPORT
Section 16 of Public Law 98–378, enacted in 1984, requires theSecretary of HHS to issue regulations to require that State childsupport agencies petition for the inclusion of medical support aspart of any child support order whenever health care coverage isavailable to the noncustodial parent at reasonable cost. Accordingto Federal regulations, any employment-related or other group cov-erage is considered reasonable, under the assumption that healthinsurance is inexpensive to the employee/noncustodial parent. A1993 study by Cooper and Johnson that analyzed 1987 data fromthe Center for Health Expenditures and Insurance Studies indi-cated that, for low-wage (i.e., poor—income below poverty line) em-ployees with employer-provided family health insurance coverage,77 percent of the premium was paid for by the employer.
On October 16, 1985, OCSE published regulations amending pre-vious regulations and implementing section 16 of Public Law 98–378. The regulations require State child support agencies to obtainbasic medical support information and provide this information tothe State Medicaid agency. The purpose of medical support enforce-ment is to expand the number of children for whom private healthinsurance coverage is obtained by increasing the availability ofthird party resources to pay for medical care and thereby reduceMedicaid costs for both the States and the Federal Government. Ifthe custodial parent does not have satisfactory health insurancecoverage, the child support agency must petition the court or ad-ministrative authority to include medical support in new or modi-fied support orders and inform the State Medicaid agency of any
569
new or modified support orders that include a medical support obli-gation. The regulations also require child support agencies to en-force medical support that has been ordered by a court or adminis-trative process. These regulations also permit the use of child sup-port matching funds at the 66-percent rate for required medicalsupport activities. Before these regulations were issued, medicalsupport activities were pursued by child support agencies onlyunder optional cooperative agreements with Medicaid agencies.
Some of the functions that the child support agency may performunder a cooperative agreement with the Medicaid agency include:receiving referrals from the Medicaid agency, locating noncustodialparents, establishing paternity, determining whether the noncusto-dial parent has a health insurance policy or plan that covers thechild, obtaining sufficient information about the health insurancepolicy or plan to permit the filing of a claim with the insurer, filinga claim with the insurer or transmitting the necessary informationto the Medicaid agency, securing health insurance coveragethrough court or administrative order (when it will not reduce thenoncustodial parent’s ability to pay child support), and recoveringamounts necessary to reimburse medical assistance payments.
On September 16, 1988, OCSE issued regulations expanding themedical support enforcement provisions. These regulations requirethe child support agency to develop criteria to identify existingchild support cases that have a high potential for obtaining medicalsupport, and to petition the court or administrative authority tomodify support orders to include medical support for targeted caseseven if no other modification is anticipated. The child support agen-cy also is required to provide the custodial parent with informationregarding the health insurance coverage obtained by the non-custodial parent for the child. Moreover, the regulation deletes thecondition that child support agencies may secure health insurancecoverage under a cooperative agreement only when it will not re-duce the noncustodial parent’s ability to pay child support.
Before late 1993, employees covered under their employer’shealth care plans generally could provide coverage to children onlyif the children lived with the employee. However, as a result of di-vorce proceedings, employees often lost custody of their childrenbut were nonetheless required to provide their health care cov-erage. While the employee would be obliged to follow the court’s di-rective, the employer that sponsored the employee’s health careplan was under no similar obligation. Even if the court ordered theemployer to continue health care coverage for the nonresident childof their employee, the employer would be under no legal obligationto do so (Shulman, 1994, pp. 1–2). Aware of this situation, Con-gress took the following legislative action in the Omnibus BudgetReconciliation Act of 1993:1. Insurers were prohibited from denying enrollment of a child
under the health insurance coverage of the child’s parent onthe grounds that the child was born out of wedlock, is notclaimed as a dependent on the parent’s Federal income tax re-turn, or does not reside with the parent or in the insurer’sservice area;
2. Insurers and employers were required, in any case in which aparent is required by court order to provide health coverage for
570
a child and the child is otherwise eligible for family health cov-erage through the insurer: (a) to permit the parent, without re-gard to any enrollment season restrictions, to enroll the childunder such family coverage; (b) if the parent fails to providehealth insurance coverage for a child, to enroll the child uponapplication by the child’s other parent or the State child sup-port or Medicaid agency; and (c) with respect to employers, notto disenroll the child unless there is satisfactory written evi-dence that the order is no longer in effect or the child is or willbe enrolled in comparable health coverage through another in-surer that will take effect not later than the effective date ofthe disenrollment;
3. Employers doing business in the State, if they offer health in-surance and if a court order is in effect, were required to with-hold from the employee’s compensation the employee’s share ofpremiums for health insurance and to pay that share to the in-surer. The Secretary of HHS may provide by regulation forsuch exceptions to this requirement (and other requirementsdescribed above that apply to employers) as the Secretary de-termines necessary to ensure compliance with an order, or withthe limits on withholding that are specified in section 303(b) ofthe Consumer Credit Protection Act;
4. Insurers were prohibited from imposing requirements on aState agency acting as an agent or assignee of an individualeligible for medical assistance that are different from require-ments applicable to an agent or assignee of any other individ-ual;
5. Insurers were required, in the case of a child who has coveragethrough the insurer of a noncustodial parent to: (a) provide thecustodial parent with the information necessary for the child toobtain benefits; (b) permit the custodial parent (or provider,with the custodial parent’s approval) to submit claims for cov-ered services without the approval of the noncustodial parent;and (c) make payment on claims directly to the custodial par-ent, the provider, or the State agency; and
6. The State Medicaid agency was permitted to garnish thewages, salary, or other employment income of, and to withholdState tax refunds to, any person who: (a) is required by courtor administrative order to provide health insurance coverage toan individual eligible for Medicaid; (b) has received paymentfrom a third party for the costs of medical services to that indi-vidual; and (c) has not reimbursed either the individual or theprovider. The amount subject to garnishment or withholding isthe amount required to reimburse the State agency for expend-itures for costs of medical services provided under the MedicaidProgram. Claims for current or past due child support take pri-ority over any claims for the costs of medical services.
These provisions appear to be having an impact on the numberof children in single-parent families with medical coverage. Accord-ing to OCSE data, 67 percent of support orders established in fiscalyear 1996 included health insurance, up from 46 percent in fiscalyear 1991. Nevertheless, only 34 percent of support orders enforcedor modified in fiscal year 1996 included health insurance, downslightly from 35 percent in 1991. These figures indicate that many
571
children still lack coverage. One way to increase medical supportmay be to require withholding of health insurance premiums in allcases with medical support orders (Gordon, 1994).
Under last year’s welfare reform legislation (Public Law 104–193), the definition of ‘‘medical child support order’’ in the Em-ployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is expanded toclarify that any judgment, decree, or order that is issued by a courtor by an administrative process has the force and effect of law. Inaddition, the new law stipulates that all orders enforced by theState CSE agency must include a provision for health care cov-erage. If the noncustodial parent changes jobs and the new em-ployer provides health coverage, the State must send notice of cov-erage to the new employer; the notice must serve to enroll the childin the health plan of the new employer.
COLLECTING CHILD SUPPORT
Local courts and child support enforcement agencies attempt tocollect child support when the noncustodial parent does not pay.The most important collection method is wage withholding. Othertechniques for enforcing payments include regular billings; delin-quency notices; liens on property; offset of unemployment com-pensation payments; seizure and sale of property; reporting arrear-ages to credit agencies; garnishment of wages; seizure of State andFederal income tax refunds; revocation of various types of licenses(drivers’, business, occupational, recreational) to persons who aredelinquent in their child support payments; attachment of lotterywinnings and insurance settlements of debtor parents; and Federalimprisonment, fines or both.
In addition to approaches authorized by the Federal Governmentthrough the child support program, States use a variety of othercollection techniques. In fact, States have been at the forefront inimplementing innovative approaches. Some States hire private col-lection agencies to collect child support payments. Some Statesbring charges of criminal nonsupport or civil or criminal contemptof court against noncustodial parents who fail to pay child support.These court proceedings are usually lengthy because of court back-logs, delays, and continuances. Once a court decides the case, non-custodial parents are often given probation or suspended sentences,and occasionally they are even awarded lower support paymentsand partial payment of arrearages. To combat problems associatedwith court delays, the child support statute requires States to im-plement expedited processes under the State judicial system orState administrative processes for obtaining and enforcing supportorders.
Given the pivotal role of collections in the child support process,this section now turns to detailed discussion of the most effectivecollections procedures. Summary data on the effectiveness of fourtop collection methods are presented in table 8–3.
572
TABL
E 8–
3.—
CHIL
D SU
PPOR
T CO
LLEC
TION
S M
ADE
BY V
ARIO
US E
NFOR
CEM
ENT
TECH
NIQU
ES, S
ELEC
TED
FISC
AL Y
EARS
198
9–96
[Dol
lars
in m
illio
ns]
Enfo
rcem
ent
tech
niqu
eCh
ild s
uppo
rt co
llect
ions
Perc
ent
of t
otal
col
lect
ions
1989
1991
1993
1994
1995
1996
1989
1991
1993
1994
1995
1996
Wag
e wi
thho
ldin
g...
......
......
......
.$2
,144
$3,2
66$4
,743
$5,4
29$6
,111
$6,7
3140
.947
.453
.155
.156
.956
.0Fe
dera
l inc
ome
tax
offs
et...
......
411
476
570
623
734
906
7.9
6.9
6.4
6.3
6.8
7.5
Stat
e in
com
e ta
x of
fset
......
......
.62
7278
8897
112
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Unem
ploy
men
t co
mpe
nsat
ion
inte
rcep
t...
......
......
......
......
.....
5414
328
622
318
721
11.
02.
13.
22.
31.
71.
8Ot
her1
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
2,57
02,
929
3,23
23,
506
3,62
44,
059
49.0
42.6
36.3
35.5
33.7
33.8
Tota
l col
lect
ions
......
.....
$5,2
41$6
,886
$8,9
07$9
,869
$10,
753
$12,
019
100.
010
0.0
100.
010
0.0
100.
010
0.0
1Th
e Of
fice
of C
hild
Sup
port
Enfo
rcem
ent
(OCS
E) d
oes
not
desi
gnat
e th
e so
urce
of
mos
t of
the
se c
olle
ctio
ns.
Acco
rdin
g to
the
OCS
E, t
he m
ajor
ity o
f co
llect
ions
in
the
‘‘oth
er’’
cate
gory
cam
e fro
m n
oncu
stod
ial
pare
nts
who
were
com
plyin
g wi
th t
heir
supp
ort
orde
rs b
y se
ndin
g th
eir
paym
ents
to
the
child
sup
port
agen
cy.
OCSE
offi
cial
s m
aint
ain
that
rel
i-ab
ility
of
colle
ctio
n da
ta l
esse
n wh
en s
peci
fied
by t
echn
ique
s of
col
lect
ion.
Note
.—Da
ta i
s pr
elim
inar
y fo
r fis
cal
year
199
6.
Sour
ce:
Offic
e of
Chi
ld S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, U.
S. D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
uman
Ser
vice
s.
573
Wage withholdingThe Family Support Act of 1988 greatly expanded wage with-
holding by requiring immediate withholding to begin in November1990 for all new or modified orders being enforced by States.Equally important, States were required, with some exceptions, toimplement immediate wage withholding in all support orders ini-tially issued on or after January 1, 1994, regardless of whether aparent has applied for child support services.
The child support amendments of 1984 also required that Stateshave in effect two distinct procedures for withholding wages of non-custodial parents. First, for existing cases enforced through thechild support agency, States were required to impose wage with-holding whenever an arrearage accrued that was equal to theamount of support payable for 1 month. Second, for all child sup-port cases, all new or modified orders were required to include aprovision for wage withholding when an arrearage occurs. The in-tent of the second procedure was to ensure that orders not enforcedthrough the child support agency contain the authority necessaryto permit wage withholding to be initiated by someone other thanthe child support agency if and when an arrearage occurs.
According to the Federal statute, State due process requirementsgovern the scope of notice that must be provided to an obligor (i.e.,noncustodial parent) when withholding is triggered. As a generalrule, the noncustodial parent is entitled to advance notice of thewithholding procedure. This notice, where required, must informthe noncustodial parent of the following: the amount that will bewithheld; the application of withholding to any current or subse-quent period of employment; the procedures available for contest-ing the withholding and the sole basis for objection (i.e., mistakeof fact); the period allotted to contest the withholding and the re-sult of failure to contact the State within this timeframe (i.e.,issuance of notification to the employer to begin withholding); andthe steps the State will take if the noncustodial parent contests thewithholding, including the procedure to resolve such contests.
If the noncustodial parent contests the withholding notice, theState must conduct a hearing, determine if the withholding isvalid, notify the noncustodial parent of the decision, and notify theemployer to commence the deductions if withholding is upheld. Allof this must occur within 45 days of the initial notice of withhold-ing. Whether a State uses a judicial or an administrative process,the only basis for a hearing is a factual mistake about the amountowed (current, arrearage or both) or the identity of the noncusto-dial parent.
When withholding is uncontested or when a contested case is re-solved in favor of withholding, the administering agency mustserve a withholding notice on the employer. The employer is re-quired to withhold as much of the noncustodial parent’s wages asis necessary to comply with the order, including the current sup-port amount plus an amount to be applied toward liquidation ofany arrearage. In addition, the employer may retain a fee to offsetthe administrative cost of implementing withholding. Employerfees per wage withholding transaction range from nothing to $3 perpay period to $5 per attachment to $10 per month (Office of ChildSupport, 1986, p. 7).
574
The Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act limits garnishmentto 50 percent of disposable earnings for a noncustodial parent whois the head of a household, and 60 percent for a noncustodial par-ent who is not supporting a second family. These percentages in-crease by 5 percentage points, to 55 and 65 percent respectively,when the arrearages represent support that was due more than 12weeks before the current pay period.
Upon receiving a withholding notice, the employer must beginwithholding the appropriate amount of the obligor’s wages no laterthan the first pay period that occurs after 14 days following thedate the notice was mailed. The 1984 amendments regulate thelanguage in State statutes on the other rights and liabilities of theemployer. For instance, the employer is subject to a fine for dis-charging a noncustodial parent or taking other forms of retaliationas a result of a withholding order. In addition, the employer is heldliable for amounts not withheld as directed.
In addition to being able to charge the noncustodial parent a feefor the administrative costs associated with wage withholding, theemployer can combine all support payments required to be with-held for multiple obligors into a single payment and forward it tothe child support agency or court with a list of the cases to whichthe payments apply. The employer need not vary from the normalpay and disbursement cycle to comply with withholding orders;however, support payments must be forwarded to the State orother designated agency within 10 days of the date on which thenoncustodial parent is paid.
When the noncustodial parent changes jobs, the previous em-ployer must notify the court or agency that entered the withholdingorder. The State must then notify the new employer or incomesource to begin withholding from the obligor’s wages. In addition,States must develop procedures to terminate income withholdingorders when all of the children are emancipated and no arrearageexists.
Federal law provides two exceptions to the income withholdingrule: (1) if one of the parents demonstrates, and the court (or ad-ministrative process) finds, that there is good cause not to requireimmediate income withholding or (2) if both parents agree in writ-ing to an alternative payment arrangement. For income withhold-ing purposes, ‘‘income’’ means any periodic form of payment due anindividual, regardless of source, including wages, salaries, commis-sions, bonuses, worker’s compensation, disability, payments from apension or retirement program, and interest.
As shown in table 8–3, the congressional emphasis on wage with-holding has paid off handsomely. Not only has the total amount ofsupport collected through wage withholding increased each year,reaching $6.7 billion in 1996, but the percentage of total collectionsachieved through wage withholding has also increased steadily,growing from about 41 percent in 1989 to nearly 57 percent in1995; in 1996, it dropped back slightly to 56 percent.
Federal income tax refund offsetUnder this program, the IRS, operating on request from a State
filed through the Secretary of HHS, simply intercepts tax returnsand deducts the amount of certified child support arrearages. The
575
money is then sent to the State for distribution. The availability ofthe IRS collection mechanism for child support was strengthenedby the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97–35). IRS can now withhold past due support from Federal tax re-funds upon a simple showing by the State that an individual owesat least $150 in past due support which has been assigned to theState as a condition of AFDC eligibility. The withheld amount issent to the State agency, together with notice of the taxpayer’s cur-rent address.
The 1984 amendments created a similar IRS offset program fornon-AFDC families owed child support. States must submit to theIRS for withholding the names of absent parents who have arrear-ages of at least $500 and who, on the basis of current payment pat-terns and the enforcement efforts that have been made, are un-likely to pay the arrearage before the IRS offset can occur. The lawestablishes specific notice requirements and mandates that thenoncustodial parent and his spouse (if any) be informed of the im-pending use of the tax offset procedure. The purpose of this noticeis to protect the unobligated spouse’s portion of the tax refund. The1988 provision applied to refunds payable after December 31, 1985,and before January 1, 1991. Public Law 101–508, enacted in 1990,makes permanent the IRS offset program for non-AFDC families.
In fiscal year 1996, according to IRS, more than 1 million caseswere offset. The total amount intercepted was $1 billion, up by afactor of well over three since 1986 ($308 million).
State income tax refund offsetThe child support amendments of 1984 mandate that States in-
crease the effectiveness of the child support program by, amongother things, enacting several collection procedures. Among the re-quired procedures is the interception of State income tax refundspayable to noncustodial parents up to the amount of overdue sup-port. As in the case of liens and bonds, this procedure need not beused in cases found inappropriate under State guidelines.
The State Tax Intercept Program allows a State to collect over-due child support payments by intercepting State tax refunds duea noncustodial parent. The State tax refund is applied to a supportarrearage to reduce or eliminate the debt of an obligor that is owedeither to the State or to the custodial parent.
In order for the State tax refund offset to work effectively, co-operation between the State’s department of revenue and the childsupport agency is crucial. The names and Social Security numbersof delinquent noncustodial parents are submitted to the depart-ment of revenue for matching with tax return forms. If a match oc-curs and a refund is due, the refund or a portion of it is transferredfrom the State department of revenue to the child support agencyand then credited to the appropriate noncustodial parent to offsethis support debt. The child support agency must give advance no-tice of the impending offset to the noncustodial parent and mustalso inform him of the process for contesting and resolving the pro-posed action. If the custodial parent does not respond to the notice,the money is intercepted and forwarded to the child support agencyfor distribution.
576
In fiscal year 1996, the State Tax Intercept Program collected$112 million (table 8–3). Unlike the Federal program, which re-quires that States certify a specified amount before the offset canbe applied ($150 for AFDC families and $500 for non-AFDC fami-lies), States choose their own level for certification. In many States,the amount is the same for both AFDC and non-AFDC families. Al-though the amounts vary greatly from State to State, the amountin the typical State is about $100.
Unemployment compensation interceptPublic Law 97–35, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1981, requires State child support agencies to determine on a peri-odic basis whether individuals receiving unemployment compensa-tion owe support obligations that are not being met. The act alsorequires child support agencies to enforce support obligations in ac-cord with State-developed guidelines for obtaining an agreementwith the individual to have a specified amount of support withheldfrom unemployment compensation or, in the absence of an agree-ment, for bringing legal proceedings to require the withholding.The child support agency must reimburse the State employment se-curity agency for the administrative costs attributable to withhold-ing unemployment compensation.
The unemployment compensation intercept collected $211 millionin fiscal year 1996 (table 8–3). A number of States, especially thosewith high levels of unemployment (but where the noncustodial par-ent has had some attachment to the labor force), are finding thatthe unemployment offset procedure can raise collections signifi-cantly.
Property liensA lien is a legal claim on someone’s property as security against
a just debt. The use of liens for child support enforcement wascharacterized during congressional debate on the child supportamendments of 1984 as ‘‘simple to execute and cost effective anda catalyst for an absent parent to pay past due support in orderto clear title to the property in question’’ (U.S. House, 1983). AWays and Means Committee report stated that liens would com-plement the income withholding provisions of the 1984 law and beparticularly helpful in enforcing support payments owed by non-custodial parents with substantial assets or income but who are notsalaried employees.
The 1984 legislation required States to enact laws and imple-ment ‘‘procedures under which liens are imposed against real prop-erty for amount of overdue support owed by an absent parent whoresides or owns property in the State.’’ Liens can apply to propertysuch as land, vehicles, houses, antique furniture, and livestock. Thelaw provides, however, that States need not use liens in cases inwhich, on the basis of guidelines that generally are available to thepublic, they determine that lien procedures would be inappropriate.This provision implicitly requires States to develop guidelinesabout use of liens.
Generally, a lien for delinquent child support is a statutorily cre-ated mechanism by which an obligee obtains a nonpossessory inter-est in property belonging to the noncustodial parent. The interest
577
of the custodial parent is a slumbering interest that allows thenoncustodial parent to retain possession of the property, but affectsthe noncustodial parent’s ability to transfer ownership of the prop-erty to anyone else. A child support lien converts the custodial par-ent from an unsecured to a secured creditor. As such, it gives thecustodial parent priority over unsecured creditors and subsequentsecured creditors. In some States a lien is established automati-cally upon entry of a support order and the first incidence of non-compliance by the obligor. Frequently, the mere imposition of a lienwill motivate the delinquent parent to do whatever is necessary toremove the lien (i.e., pay past due support). When this is not thecase, it may become necessary to enforce the lien. Liens are notself-executory. They merely impede the debtor’s ability to transferproperty. If a lien exists, a debtor must satisfy the judgment beforethe property may be sold or transferred. However, it is not nec-essary for the obligee to wait until the obligor tries to transfer theproperty before taking action. The obligee may enforce her judg-ment by execution and levy against the property if she believes theamount of equity in the property justifies execution.
A procedure developed by the IRS, known as Project 1099 (thatis, the number of the IRS form used), has helped several States in-crease their use of liens by identifying individuals who possess ap-propriate assets. Initiated in 1984 to assist in location efforts, sincethe fall of 1988 Project 1099 has routinely provided wage and em-ployer information as well as location and asset information onnoncustodial parents.
The welfare reform legislation passed in 1996 (Public Law 104–193) requires States to have procedures under which liens arise byoperation of law against property for the amount of the past-duesupport. States must grant full faith and credit to liens of otherStates if the originating State agency or party has complied withprocedural rules relating to the recording or serving of lien. Theserules, however, cannot require judicial notice or hearing before en-forcement of the lien.
Bonds, securities, and other guaranteesThe 1984 child support amendments require States to have in ef-
fect and use procedures under which noncustodial parents mustpost security, bond, or some other guarantee to secure payment ofoverdue child support. This technique is useful where significantassets 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 underState guidelines. The State guidelines should define and target as-sets that can appropriately be sought to secure or guarantee pay-ment without hindering the noncustodial parent from effectivelypursuing his livelihood.
IRS full collection processSince 1975, Congress has authorized the Internal Revenue Serv-
ice to collect certain child support arrearages as if they were delin-quent Federal taxes. This method is known as the IRS full collec-tion process. It works as follows. The Secretary of HHS must, uponthe request of a State, certify to the Secretary of Treasury any
578
amounts identified by the State as delinquent child support. TheSecretary of HHS may certify only the amounts delinquent undera court or administrative order, and only upon a showing by theState that it has made diligent and reasonable efforts to collectamounts due using its own collection mechanisms. States must re-imburse the Federal Government for any costs involved in makingthe collections. This full collection process is used only when thereis a good chance that the IRS can make a collection and only forcases in which a child support obligation is delinquent and theamount owed has been certified to be at least $750. Use by theStates of this regular IRS collection mechanism, which may includeseizure of property, freezing of accounts, and use of other aggres-sive procedures, has been relatively infrequent. In fiscal year 1995,collections were made in 939 cases nationwide, for a total collectionof $764,697.
Credit bureau reportingThe 1984 Federal child support legislation required States to de-
velop procedures for providing child support debt information tocredit reporting agencies (sometimes referred to as credit bureaus).The primary purposes for reporting delinquent child support payersto credit reporting agencies are to discourage noncustodial parentsfrom not making their child support payments, to prevent theundeserved extension of credit, and to maintain the noncustodialparent’s ability to pay his child support obligation. Other benefitsinclude access by child support agencies to address, employment,and asset information.
The 1984 amendments require States to report overdue childsupport obligations exceeding $1,000 to consumer reporting agen-cies if such information is requested by the credit bureau. Stateshave the option of reporting in cases in which the noncustodial par-ent is less than $1,000 in arrears. States must provide noncustodialparents with advance notice of intent to release information ontheir child support arrearage and an opportunity for them to con-test the accuracy of the information. The child support agency maycharge the credit bureau a fee for the information.
Although some States and counties had agreements in place withcredit bureaus to obtain information about the location of absentparents, the 1984 provision requires States to authorize the routinetransfer of information concerning overdue child support to creditbureaus on a much broader basis. Moreover, it is in the interest ofcredit bureaus to request such information because overdue childsupport adversely affects an obligated parent’s ability to pay otherdebts.
Public Law 102–537, the Ted Weiss Child Support EnforcementAct of 1992, amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require con-sumer credit reporting agencies to include in any consumer reportinformation on child support delinquencies. The information is pro-vided by or verified by State or local child support agencies. PublicLaw 103–432, enacted in October 1994, includes a provision thatrequires States to periodically report to consumer reporting agen-cies the name of parents owing at least 2 months of overdue childsupport, and the amount of the child support overdue.
579
In order to facilitate the access of child support officials to creditinformation, the 1996 welfare reform legislation states that in re-sponse to a request by the head of a State or local CSE agency (orby a State or local government official authorized by the head ofa CSE agency), consumer credit agencies must release informationif the person making the request makes all of the following certifi-cations: that the consumer report is needed to establish and indi-vidual’s capacity to make child support payments or determine thelevel of payments; that paternity has been established or acknowl-edged; that the consumer has been given at least 10 days notice bycertified or registered mail that the report is being requested; andthat the consumer report will be kept confidential, will be usedsolely for child support purposes, and will not be used in connectionwith any other civil, administrative, or criminal proceeding or forany other purpose. Consumer reporting agencies also must give re-ports to a CSE agency for use in setting an initial or modifiedaward. These provisions amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The new law also requires States to periodically report to con-sumer reporting agencies the name of any noncustodial parent whois 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, includ-ing notice and reasonable opportunity to contest the claim of childsupport delinquency.
Enforcement against Federal employeesThe 1975 child support legislation included a provision allowing
garnishment of wages and other payments by the Federal Govern-ment for enforcement of child support and alimony obligations. Thelaw also provided that moneys payable by the United States to anyindividual for employment are subject to legal proceedings broughtfor the enforcement of child support or alimony. The law sets forthin detail the procedures that must be followed for service of legalprocess and specifies that the term ‘‘based upon remuneration foremployment’’ includes wages, periodic benefits for the payment ofpensions, retirement pay including Social Security, and other kindsof Federal payments.
The 1996 welfare reform law substantially revised child supportenforcement for Federal employees, including retirees and militarypersonnel. As under prior law, Federal employees are subject to in-come withholding and other actions taken against them by StateCSE agencies. However, every Federal agency is responsible for re-sponding to a State CSE Program as if the Federal agency were aprivate business. The head of each Federal agency must designatean agent, whose name and address must be published annually inthe Federal Register, to be responsible for handling child supportcases. The agency must respond to withholding notices and othermatters brought to its attention by CSE officials. Child supportclaims are given priority in the allocation of Federal employee in-come.
Enforcement against military personnelChild support enforcement workers face unique difficulties when
working on cases in which the absent parent is an active duty
580
member of the military service. Learning to work through militarychannels can prove both challenging and frustrating, especially ifthe 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 Actof 1982, requires allotments from the pay and allowances of any ac-tive duty member of the uniformed service who fails to make childor spousal support payments. This requirement arises when theservice member fails to make support payments in an amount atleast equal to the value of 2 months’ worth of support. Provisionsof the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act apply, limiting thepercentage of the member’s pay that is subject to allotment. Theamount of the allotment is the amount of the support payment, asestablished under a legally enforceable administrative or judicialorder.
Since October 1, 1995, the Department of Defense has consoli-dated its garnishment operations at the Defense Finance and Ac-counting Service in Cleveland, Ohio. Support orders received by theService are processed immediately and notices are sent to the ap-propriate military pay center to start payments in the first paycycle (Office of Child Support, 1995c).
As a result of the 1996 welfare reform law, the Secretary of De-fense must establish a central personnel locator services, whichmust be updated on a regular basis, that permits location of everymember of the Armed Services. The Secretary of each branch of themilitary service must grant leave to facilitate attendance at childsupport hearings and other child support proceedings. The Sec-retary of each branch also must withhold support from retirementpay and forward it to State disbursement units.
Small business loansThe 103d Congress passed legislation, the Small Business Ad-
ministration Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1994 (PublicLaw 103–403), which included the requirement that recipients of fi-nancial assistance from the Small Business Administration, includ-ing direct loans and loan guarantees, must certify that the recipi-ent is not more than 60 days delinquent in the payment of childsupport. The new law requires the administration to promulgate,no later than 6 months after enactment, regulations to enforcecompliance with the provision.
Other provisionsOn February 27, 1995, President Clinton signed an Executive
order establishing the executive branch of the Federal Government,including its civilian employees and the uniformed services mem-bers, as a model employer in promoting and facilitating the estab-lishment and enforcement of child support. The Executive orderstates that the Federal Government is the Nation’s largest singleemployer and as such should set an example of leadership and en-couragement in ensuring that all children are properly supported.Among other measures, the order requires the Federal agenciesand the uniformed services to cooperate fully in efforts to establishpaternity and child support orders and to enforce the collection of
581
child and medical support. The order also requires Federal agenciesto provide information to their personnel concerning the servicesthat are available to them and to ensure that their children areprovided the support to which they are legally entitled (Office ofChild Support, 1995b).
The 1996 welfare reform law requires States to implement expe-dited procedures that allow them to secure assets to satisfy arrear-ages by intercepting or seizing periodic or lump sum payments(such as unemployment and workers’ compensation), lotterywinnings, awards, judgments, or settlements. States must alsohave expedited procedures that allow them to seize assets of thedebtor parent held by public or private retirement funds and finan-cial institutions. States also must have the authority to withhold,suspend, or restrict the use of driver’s licenses, professional and oc-cupational licenses, and recreational licenses of persons who owepast-due support or who fail to comply with subpoenas or warrantsrelating to paternity or child support proceedings. The 1996 lawalso authorizes the Secretary of State to deny, revoke, or restrictpassports of debtor parents.
INTERSTATE ENFORCEMENT
The most difficult child support orders to enforce are interstatecases. States are required to cooperate in interstate child supportenforcement, but problems arise from the autonomy of local courts.Family law has traditionally been under the jurisdiction of Stateand local governments, and citizens fall under the jurisdiction ofthe courts where they live.
During the 1930s and 1940s, such laws were used to establishand enforce support obligations when the noncustodial parent, cus-todial parent, and child lived in the same State. But when non-custodial parents lived out of State, enforcing child support wascumbersome and ineffective. Often the only option in these caseswas to extradite the noncustodial parent and, when successful, tojail the person for nonsupport. Extradition is the process used tobring an obligor charged with or convicted of a crime (in this case,criminal nonsupport) from an asylum State back to the State wherethe children are located. This procedure, rarely used, generallypunished the irresponsible parent, but left the abandoned familywithout financial support.
A University of Michigan study (Hill, 1988) of separated parentsfound that 12 percent lived in different States 1 year after divorceor separation. That proportion increased to 25 percent after 3years, and to 40 percent after 8 years. Estimates based on the Fed-eral income tax refund offset and other sources suggest that ap-proximately 30 percent of all child support cases involve interstateresidency of the custodial and noncustodial parents (Weaver & Wil-liams, 1989, p. 510). According to U.S. Census Bureau data (1991),20 percent of noncustodial parents lived in a different State thantheir children, 3 percent lived overseas, and the residence of 11percent of the noncustodial parents was unknown.
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA)Starting in 1950, interstate cooperation was promoted through
the adoption by the States of URESA. This act, which was first pro-
582
posed by the National Conference of Commissioners on UniformState Laws in 1950, has been enacted in all 50 States, the Districtof Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The actwas amended in 1952 and 1958 and revised in 1968. Thus, eventhough every State has passed some provisions of URESA, manyprovisions vary greatly from State to State. URESA, in short, isuniform in name only.
The purpose of URESA was to provide a system for the interstateenforcement of support orders without requiring the person seekingsupport to go (or have her legal representative go) to the State inwhich the noncustodial parent resided. Where the URESA provi-sions between the two States are compatible, the law can be usedto establish paternity, locate an absent parent, and establish, mod-ify, or enforce a support order across State lines. However, someobservers note that the use of URESA procedures often resulted inlower orders for both current support and arrearages. They alsocontend that few child support agencies attempted to use URESAprocedures to establish paternity or to obtain a modification in asupport order.
Long arm statutesUnlike URESA, interstate cases established or enforced by long
arm statutes use the court system in the State of the custodial par-ent rather than that of the noncustodial parent. When a personcommits certain acts in a State of which he is not a resident, thatperson may be subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of that State.The long arm of the law of the State where the event occurs mayreach out to grab the out-of-State person so that issues relating tothe event may be resolved where it happened. Under the long armprocedure, the State must authorize by statute that the acts alleg-edly committed by the defendant are those that subject the defend-ant to the State’s jurisdiction. An example is a paternity statutestating that if conception takes place in the State and the childlives in the State, the State may exercise jurisdiction over the al-leged father even if he lives in another State. Long arm statutelanguage usually extends the State’s jurisdiction over an out-of-State defendant to the maximum extent permitted by the U.S. Con-stitution under the 14th amendment’s due process clause. Longarm statutes may be used to establish paternity, establish supportawards, and enforce support orders.
Federal courtsThe 1975 child support law mandated that the State plan for
child support require States to cooperate with other States in es-tablishing paternity, locating absent parents, and securing compli-ance with court orders. Further, it authorized the use of Federalcourts as a last resort to enforce an existing order in another Stateif that State were uncooperative.
Section 460 of the Social Security Act provides that the districtcourts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, without regardto any amount in controversy, to hear and determine any civil ac-tion certified by the Secretary of HHS under section 452(a)(8) ofthe act. A civil action under section 460 may be brought in any ju-dicial district in which the claim arose, the plaintiff resides, or the
583
defendant resides. Section 452(a)(8) states that the Secretary ofHHS shall receive applications from States for permission to usethe courts of the United States to enforce court orders for supportagainst noncustodial parents. The Secretary must approve applica-tions if she finds both that a given State has not enforced a courtorder of another State within a reasonable time and that using theFederal courts is the only reasonable method of enforcing the order.
As a condition of obtaining certification from the Secretary, thechild support agency of the initiating State must give the child sup-port agency of the responding State at least 60 days to enforce theorder as well as a 30-day warning of its intent to seek enforcementin Federal court. If the initiating State receives no response withinthe 30-day limit, or if the response is unsatisfactory, the initiatingState may apply to the OCSE Regional Office for certification. Theapplication must attest that all the requirements outlined abovehave been satisfied. Upon certification of the case, a civil actionmay be filed in the U.S. district court. Although this interstate en-forcement procedure has been available since enactment of thechild support program in 1975, there has only been one reportedcase of its use by a State (the initiating State was California; theresponding State was Texas).
Interstate income withholdingInterstate income withholding is a process by which the State of
the custodial parent seeks the help of the State in which the non-custodial parent’s income is earned to enforce a support order usingthe income withholding mechanism. Pursuant to the child supportamendments of 1984, income withholding was authorized for allvalid instate or out-of-State orders issued or modified after October1, 1985, and for all orders in child support enforcement (i.e., IV–D) cases regardless of the date the order was issued. Although Fed-eral law requires a State to enforce another State’s valid ordersthrough interstate withholding, there is no Federal mandate thatinterstate income withholding procedures be uniform. Approachesvary from the Model Interstate Income Withholding Act to URESAregistration. The preferred way to handle an interstate incomewithholding request is to use the interstate action transmittal formfrom one child support agency to another. In child support enforce-ment cases, Federal regulations required that by August 22, 1988,all interstate income withholding requests be sent to the enforcingState’s central registry for referral to the appropriate State or localofficial. The actual wage withholding procedure used by the Statein which the noncustodial parent lives is the same as that used inintrastate cases. In a 1992 report (U.S. General Accounting Office,1992a, p. 4 & pp. 21–28), GAO indicated that the main reason forthe failure of interstate income withholding was the lack of uni-formity in its implementation.
The 1996 welfare law requires the HHS Secretary, in consulta-tion with State CSE directors, to issue forms by October 1, 1996that States must use for income withholding, for imposing liens,and for issuing administrative subpoenas in interstate cases. Statesmust begin using the forms by March 1, 1997.
584
Full faith and creditOne of the most significant barriers to improved interstate collec-
tions is that, because a child support order is not considered a finaljudgment, the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitutiondoes not preclude modification. Thus, the order is subject to modi-fication upon a showing of changed circumstances by the issuingcourt or by another court with jurisdiction. Congress could prohibitinter- or intrastate modifications of child support orders, but manystudents of child support hold that a complete ban on modificationswould be unrealistic and unfair. A more likely approach would beone under which States were required to give full faith and creditto 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 pastdue support obligations as final judgments entitled to full faith andcredit in every State. Thus, a person who has a support order inone State does not have to obtain a second order in another Stateto obtain the money due should the debtor parent move from theissuing court’s jurisdiction. The second State can modify the orderprospectively if it finds that circumstances exist to justify a change,but the second State may not retroactively modify a child supportorder.
Public Law 103–383, the Full Faith and Credit for Child SupportOrders Act (signed into law October 20, 1994), restricts a Statecourt’s ability to modify a child support order issued by anotherState unless the child and the custodial parent have moved to theState where the modification is sought or have agreed to the modi-fication.
The full faith credit rules of Public Law 104–193 clarify the defi-nition of a child’s home State, make several revisions to ensurethat the rules can be applied consistently with UIFSA, and clarifythe rules regarding which child support order States must honorwhen there is more than one order.
Commission on interstate child support enforcementThe Family Support Act of 1988, Public Law 100–485, included
several provisions affecting interstate child support enforcement.The law required States to establish automated statewide, com-prehensive case tracking and monitoring systems, which would im-prove each State’s ability to manage interstate cases. But most im-portantly, the law required the establishment of a 15-member com-mission to study interstate child support establishment and en-forcement.
The U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support’s report toCongress, issued in 1992, includes 120 recommendations for im-proving the Child Support Enforcement Program. The report high-lights several recommendations deemed essential to improvinginterstate enforcement:1. Establishment of an integrated, automated network linking all
States to provide quick access to locate and income information(which would include new hire information based on W–4forms);
585
2. Establishment of income withholding across State lines fromthe person seeking enforcement directly to the income sourcein the other State;
3. Enactment by States of the Uniform Interstate Family SupportAct (UIFSA; which would replace URESA);
4. State use of early, voluntary parentage determination for chil-dren born outside marriage and uniform evidentiary rules forcontested paternity cases;
5. Universal access to health care insurance for children of sepa-rated parents;
6. More emphasis on staff training and increased resources to en-sure that all child support cases are processed on a more time-ly basis; and
7. Revision of child support funding to ensure that action is takenon cases most in need of attention (U.S. Commission on Inter-state Child Support, 1992, p. xiii).
Federal criminal penaltiesThe Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 imposed a Federal crimi-
nal penalty for the willful failure to pay a past due child supportobligation to a child who resides in another State and that has re-mained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater than $5,000. Forthe first conviction, the penalty is a fine of up to $5,000, imprison-ment for not more than 6 months, or both; for a second conviction,the penalty is a fine of not more than $250,000, imprisonment forup to 2 years, or both.
In 1995, 748 cases were referred to U.S. attorneys. So far 42 (6percent) of those cases have resulted in convictions and a total of$1.2 million in restitution.
Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)One of the Commission on Interstate Child Support Enforce-
ment’s major recommendations to Congress was to replace URESAwith UIFSA, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, a modelState law for handling interstate child support cases. The modellaw was drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners onUniform State Laws and approved by the Commissioners in August1992.
UIFSA is designed to deal with desertion and nonsupport by in-stituting uniform laws in all 50 States and the District of Colum-bia. The core of UIFSA is limiting control of a child support caseto a single State, thereby ensuring that only one child supportorder from one court or child support agency will be in effect at anygiven time. It follows that the controlling State will be able to effec-tively pursue interstate cases, primarily through the use of longarm statutes, because its jurisdiction is undisputed. Many, perhapsmost, child support officials believe UIFSA will help eliminate ju-risdictional disputes between States and lead to substantial in-creases in interstate collections.
UIFSA allows: (1) direct income withholding by the controllingState without second State involvement; (2) administrative enforce-ment without registration; and (3) registered enforcement based onthe substantive laws of the controlling State and the procedurallaws of the registering State. The order cannot be adjusted if only
586
enforcement is requested, and enforcement may begin upon reg-istration (before notice and hearing) if the receiving State’s dueprocess rules allow such enforcement. Under UIFSA, the control-ling State may adjust the support order under its own standards.In addition, UIFSA includes some uniform evidentiary rules tomake interstate case handling easier, such as using telephonichearings, easing admissibility of evidence requirements, and admit-ting petitions into evidence without the need for live or corrobora-tive testimony to make a prima facie case.
Pursuant to Public Law 104–193, all States must enact UIFSA,including all amendments, before January 1, 1998. States are notrequired to use UIFSA in all cases if they determine that usingother interstate procedures would be more effective. As of earlySeptember 1997, 42 States and the District of Columbia had adopt-ed UIFSA.
Other procedures that aid interstate enforcementIn 1948, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws and the American Bar Association approved the Uni-form Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), which sim-plifies the collection of child support arrearages in interstate cases.Revised in 1964 and adopted in only 30 States, UEFJA providesthat upon the filing of an authenticated foreign (i.e., out-of-State)judgment and notice to the obligor, the judgment is to be treatedin the same manner as a local one. A judgment is the official deci-sion or finding of a court on the respective rights of the involvedparties. UEFJA applies only to final judgments. As a general rule,child support arrearages that have been reduced to judgment areconsidered final judgments and thus can be filed under UEFJA. Anadvantage of UEFJA is that it does not require reciprocity (i.e., itneed only be in effect in the initiating State). A disadvantage isthat UEFJA is limited to collection of arrearages; it cannot be usedto establish an initial order or to enforce current orders.
Summary information on collection methodsTable 8–3 shows that 66 percent of the $12 billion in child sup-
port payments collected in fiscal year 1996 was obtained throughfour enforcement techniques: wage withholding, Federal income taxrefund offset, State income tax refund offset, and unemploymentcompensation intercept. The remaining 34 percent is listed as col-lected by ‘‘other’’ means. Federal child support officials informed usthat most of these ‘‘other’’ collections came from noncustodial par-ents who comply with their support orders by sending their pay-ments to the CSE agency. The ‘‘other’’ category also includes collec-tions from noncustodial parents who voluntarily sent money fortheir children even though a support order had never been estab-lished (about 1 percent of all collections), and enforcement tech-niques such as liens against property, the posting of bonds or secu-rities, and use of the full IRS collection procedure. Table 8–3 indi-cates that by fiscal year 1991 wage withholding had become theprimary enforcement method, producing nearly 47 percent of allchild support collections. By 1996, the percentage had increasedeven further, reaching 56 percent.
587
STATE COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF SUPPORTPAYMENTS
One of the major child support provisions of the 1996 welfare re-form legislation was the requirement that by October 1, 1998, StateCSE agencies must operate a centralized, automated unit for collec-tion and disbursement of payments on two categories of child sup-port orders: those enforced by the CSE agency and those issued ormodified after December 31, 1993 which are not enforced by theState CSE agency but for which the noncustodial parent’s incomeis subject to withholding.
The State disbursement unit must be operated directly by theState CSE agency, by two or more State CSE agencies under a re-gional cooperative agreement, or by a contractor responsible di-rectly to the State CSE agency. The State disbursement unit maybe established by linking local disbursement units through an auto-mated information network if the HHS Secretary agrees that thesystem will not cost more, take more time to establish, nor takemore time to operate than a single State system. All States, includ-ing those that operate a linked system, must give employers oneand only one location for submitting withheld income.
The disbursement unit must be used to collect and disburse sup-port payments, to generate orders and notices of withholding toemployers, to keep an accurate identification of payments, topromptly distribute money to custodial parents or other States, andto furnish parents with a record of the current status of supportpayments made after August 22, 1996. The disbursement unitmust use automated procedures, electronic processes, andcomputer-driven technology to the maximum extent feasible, effi-cient, and economical.
The disbursement unit must distribute all amounts payable with-in 2 business days after receiving the money and identifying infor-mation from the employer or other source of periodic income if suf-ficient information identifying the payee is provided. The unit mayretain arrearages in the case of appeals until they are resolved.
States must use their automated system to facilitate collectionand disbursement including at least: (1) transmission of orders andnotices to employers within 2 days after receipt of the withholdingnotice; (2) monitoring to identify missed payments of support; and(3) automatic use of enforcement procedures when payments aremissed.
The collection and disbursement unit provisions go into effect onOctober 1, 1998. States that process child support paymentsthrough local courts can continue court payments until September30, 1999.
Following enactment of this provision in August 1996, there waswidespread misunderstanding about its breadth of application.Thus, it is useful to emphasize here that not all child support or-ders must be a part of the State disbursement unit. First, ordersissued before 1994 that are not being enforced by the State ChildSupport Enforcement Agency are exempt. Second, parents canavoid both wage withholding and involvement in the child supportenforcement system if at the time the original order is issued, the
588
judge determines that private payments directly between parentsis acceptable.
BANKRUPTCY AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Giving debtors a fresh start is the goal of this country’s bank-ruptcy system. Depending on the type of bankruptcy, a debtor maybe able to discharge a debt completely, pay a percentage of thedebt, or pay the full amount of the debt over a longer period oftime. However, several types of debts are not dischargeable, includ-ing debts for child support and alimony (U.S. Commission on Inter-state Child Support, 1992, p. 209).
The 1975 child support legislation included a provision statingthat an assigned child support obligation was not dischargeable inbankruptcy. In 1978 this provision was incorporated into the uni-form law on bankruptcy. The bankruptcy law also listed exceptionsto discharge including alimony and maintenance or support due aspouse, former spouse, or child. In 1981, a provision stating thata child support obligation assigned to the State as a condition ofeligibility for AFDC is not dischargeable in bankruptcy was rein-stated. In 1984, the provision was expanded so that child supportobligations assigned to the State as part of the child support pro-gram may not be discharged in bankruptcy, regardless of whetherthe payments are to be made on behalf of an AFDC or a non-AFDCfamily and regardless of whether the debtor was married to thechild’s other parent.
Some noncustodial parents seek relief from their financial obliga-tions in the U.S. bankruptcy courts. Although child support pay-ments may not be discharged via a filing of bankruptcy, the filingmay cause long delays in securing child support payments. Pursu-ant to Public Law 103–394, enacted in 1994, a filing of bankruptcywill not stay a paternity, child support, or alimony proceeding. Inaddition, child support and alimony payments will be priorityclaims and custodial parents will be able to appear in bankruptcycourt to protect their interests without having to pay a fee or meetany local rules for attorney appearances.
The 1996 welfare reform legislation amends the U.S. BankruptcyCode to ensure that any child support debt that is owed to a Stateand that is enforceable under the CSE Program cannot be dis-charged in bankruptcy proceedings.
AUTOMATED SYSTEMS
In 1980, Congress authorized 90 percent Federal matching fundson an open-ended basis for States to design and implement auto-mated data systems. Funds go to States that establish an auto-mated data processing and information retrieval system designedto assist in administration of the State child support plan, and tocontrol, account for, and monitor all factors in the enforcement, col-lection, and paternity determination processes. Funds may be usedto plan, design, develop, and install or enhance the system. TheSecretary of HHS must approve the State system as meeting speci-fied conditions before matching is available.
In 1984, Congress made the 90-percent rate available to pay forthe acquisition of computer hardware and necessary software. The
589
1984 legislation also specified that if a State met the Federal re-quirement for 90 percent matching, it could use its funds to pay forthe development and improvement of income withholding and otherprocedures required by the 1984 law. In May 1986, OCSE estab-lished a transfer policy requiring States seeking the 90 percentFederal matching rate to transfer existing automated systems fromother States rather than to develop new ones, unless there were acompelling reason not to use the systems developed by otherStates.
In 1988, Congress required States without comprehensive state-wide automated systems to submit an advance planning documentto the OCSE by October 1, 1991, for the development of such a sys-tem. Congress required that all States have a fully operating sys-tem by October 1, 1995, at which time the 90 percent matchingrate was to end. The 1988 law allowed many requirements forautomated systems to be waived under certain circumstances. Forinstance, the HHS Secretary could waive a requirement if a Statedemonstrated that it had an alternative system enabling it to sub-stantially comply with program requirements or a State providedassurance that additional steps would be taken to improve its pro-gram.
As of September 30, 1995, OCSE had approved the automateddata systems of only six States—Delaware, Georgia, Utah, Vir-ginia, Washington, and West Virginia. Most observers agree thatStates were delayed primarily by the lateness of Federal regula-tions specifying the requirements for the data systems and by thecomplexity of getting their final systems into operation. Thus, onOctober 12, 1995, Congress enacted Public Law 104–35 which ex-tended for 2 years, from October 1, 1995 to October 1, 1997, thedeadline by which States are required to have statewide automatedsystems for their child support programs. On October 1, 1995, how-ever, the 90 percent matching rate was ended; the Federal match-ing rate for State spending on data systems reverted back to thebasic administrative rate of 66 percent.
The purpose of requiring States to operate statewide automatedand computerized systems is to ensure that child support functionsare carried out effectively and efficiently. These requirements in-clude case initiation, case management, financial management, en-forcement, security, privacy, and reporting. Implementing these re-quirements can facilitate locating noncustodial parents and mon-itoring child support cases. For example, by linking automatedchild support systems to other State databases, information can beobtained quickly and cheaply about a noncustodial parent’s currentaddress, assets, and employment status. Systems can also be con-nected to the court system to access information on child supportorders (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992b).
Under the 1996 welfare reform legislation, States are required tohave a statewide automated data processing and information re-trieval system which has the capacity to perform a wide variety offunctions with a specified frequency. The State data system mustbe used to perform functions the HHS Secretary specifies, includingcontrolling and accounting for the use of Federal, State, and localfunds and maintaining the data necessary to meet Federal report-ing requirements in carrying out the CSE Program. The automated
590
system must maintain the requisite data for Federal reporting, cal-culate the State’s performance for purposes of the incentive andpenalty provisions, and have in place systems controls to ensurethe completeness, reliability, and accuracy of the data. Final regu-lations for implementation of automated systems must be issued bythe Secretary by August 22, 1998.
The statutory provisions for State implementation of Federalautomatic data processing requirements are revised to providethat, first, all requirements enacted on or before the date of enact-ment of the Family Support Act of 1988 (i.e., October 13, 1988) areto be met by October 1, 1997. Second, requirements enacted on orbefore August 22, 1996 must be met by October 1, 2000. The Octo-ber 1, 2000 deadline is to be extended by 1 day for each day bywhich the HHS Secretary fails to meet the 2-year deadline for reg-ulations. The Federal Government will continue the 90 percentmatching rate for 1996 and 1997 in the case of provision outlinedin advanced planning documents submitted before September 30,1995; the enhanced match also is provided retroactively for fundsexpended since expiration of the enhanced rate on October 1, 1995.
The Secretary must create procedures to cap payments to theStates to meet the new requirements at $400 million for fiscalyears 1996–2001. The Federal matching rate for the new require-ments will be 80 percent. Funds are to be distributed among Statesby a formula set in regulations which takes into account the rel-ative size of State caseloads and the level of automation needed tomeet applicable automatic data processing requirements.
AUDITS AND FINANCIAL PENALTIES
Audits are required at least every 3 years to determine whetherthe standards and requirements prescribed by law and regulationshave been met by the child support program of every State. If aState fails the audit, Federal AFDC matching funds must be re-duced by an amount equal to at least 1 but not more than 2 per-cent for the first failure to comply, at least 2 but not more than3 percent for the second failure, and at least 3 but not more than5 percent for the third and subsequent failures.
If a penalty is imposed after a followup review, a State may ap-peal the audit penalty to the HHS Departmental Appeals Board.Payment of the penalty is delayed while the appeal is pending. Theappeals board reviews the written records which may be supple-mented by informal conferences and evidentiary hearings.
The penalty may be suspended for up to 1 year to allow a Statetime to implement corrective actions to remedy the program defi-ciency. At the end of the corrective action period, a followup auditis conducted in the areas of deficiency. If the followup audit showsthat the deficiency has been corrected, the penalty is rescinded.However, if the State remains out of compliance with Federal re-quirements, a graduated penalty, as provided by law, is assessedagainst the State. The actual amount of the penalty—between 1and 5 percent of the State’s AFDC matching funds (see above)—de-pends on the severity and the duration of the deficiency. If a Stateis under penalty, a comprehensive audit is conducted annuallyuntil the cited deficiencies are corrected (Office of Child Support,1994, pp. 14–16).
591
The welfare reform law of 1996 requires States to annually re-view and report to the HHS Secretary, using data from their auto-matic data processing system, both information adequate to deter-mine the State’s compliance with Federal requirements for expe-dited procedures and case processing as well as the informationnecessary to calculate their levels of accomplishment and rates ofimprovement on the performance indicators.
The Secretary is required to determine the amount (if any) of in-centives or penalties. The Secretary also must review State reportson compliance with Federal requirements and provide States withrecommendations for corrective action. Audits must be conductedonce every 3 years, or more often in the case of States that fail tomeet Federal requirements. The purpose of the audits is to assessthe completeness, reliability, and security of data reported for usein calculating the performance indicators and to assess the ade-quacy of financial management of the State program.
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD SUPPORTCOLLECTIONS
Two parties have claims on child support collections made by theState. The children and custodial parent on behalf of whom thepayments are made, of course, have a claim on payments by thenoncustodial parent. However, in the case of families that have re-ceived public aid, taxpayers who paid to support the destitute fam-ily by providing a host of welfare benefits also have a legitimateclaim on the money.
Thus, over the years a series of somewhat complex rules has de-veloped to determine who actually gets the money. It is helpful tothink of these rules in two categories. First, there are rules in bothFederal and State law that stipulate who has a legal claim on thepayments owed by the noncustodial parent. These are called as-signment rules. Second, there are rules that determine the orderin which child support collections are paid in accord with the as-signment rules. These are called distribution rules.
As long as families remain on welfare, the distribution of childsupport is straightforward. When families apply for TANF, the cus-todial parent must assign to the State the right to collect any childsupport obligations that accumulated before the family joined wel-fare as well as support that comes due while the family is receivingwelfare benefits. As long as the family remains on welfare, childsupport collections are generally kept by the State and split withthe Federal Government.
Consider a simple example. Suppose that when a given mothersigned up for welfare, the child support agency was successful inlocating the father, establishing a support order for $200 permonth, and collecting the payments. Each month, the State wouldretain the $200, which in turn would be split with the Federal Gov-ernment. In addition, the amount of welfare reimbursement owedto the State by the noncustodial parent would be reduced by $200each month. If the TANF benefit were $300 per month, the amountowed to the State by the noncustodial parent would increase byonly $100 each month rather than the full $300.
Once families leave welfare, the amount of support assigned tothe State is the amount that equals total TANF payments to the
592
family minus any child support paid by the noncustodial parentwhile the family was on welfare. At the moment the family leaveswelfare, then, the noncustodial parent usually owes child supportto both the government and the family. The amount owed the fam-ily is the amount of payments that accumulated before the familywent on welfare plus any amount that accumulates because of non-payment after the family leaves welfare.
The real issue, of course, is the order in which child support col-lections will be paid against these debts once the family leavesTANF. The first rule is straightforward: Payments against currentsupport always go to the family. In the case above, no matter howlong the mother was on welfare, the first $200 of monthly pay-ments is assigned to and distributed to the mother once the familyleaves welfare. If the father never pays against arrearages, the gov-ernment never gets repaid for the TANF benefits it provided andthe mother never gets repaid for arrearages that accrued before orafter the family was on welfare.
Now assume that the father begins to make payments in excessof the current support amount of $200. The issue arises of whetherthe State can keep the amount above the current support order asrepayment for TANF benefits or whether the State must give thearrearage payments to the family. Here we see that distributionlaw trumps assignment law under some circumstances; namely,whenever two or more parties have been assigned child supportthat is past due. Both parties have legal claims; the issue is whichone is paid first.
Before the 1996 welfare reform law was enacted, Federal law al-lowed States to design their own distribution rules to determinewho got arrearage collections. States could even keep the entire ar-rearage payment and not share any of it with the family. Onlywhen the State and Federal Governments had been repaid the en-tire amount of TANF benefits provided to the family were Statesrequired to pay arrearage collections to the family.
During the 1995–96 welfare reform debate, the Federal policy ofallowing States to decide who gets arrearage payments once thefamily leaves welfare received intense criticism. With the increasedemphasis on helping mothers leave welfare and achieve self sup-port, the additional money mothers could receive from past-duechild support took on additional meaning. Thus, Federal law ondistribution of child support arrearage payments was substantiallyrevised and States were given both mandates and options designedto increase the amount of money received by families, especiallyafter they left welfare. Here is an overview of these new provisions.
In the case of families receiving assistance, the new law givesStates the option of passing the entire child support paymentthrough to families. If a State elects this option, it must still paythe Federal share of the collection to the Federal Government.
In the case of families that have left welfare, current child sup-port payments go to the family as they always have. Payments onarrearages that accrued after the family stopped receiving cash as-sistance and that are collected before October 1, 1997 are to bepaid in accordance with the law in effect before enactment of the1996 welfare reform law, which means that these arrearage pay-ments generally are to be paid to the State as reimbursement for
593
welfare payments (with appropriate reimbursement of the Federalshare of the collection to the Federal Government).
However, with respect to arrearages that accrued after the fam-ily stopped receiving cash assistance that are collected on or afterOctober 1, 1997 (or at the option of the State, before such date),the arrearage is to be paid to the family unless it is collectedthrough the Federal income tax offset program, in which case it isto be paid to the State (and the State must pay the Federal share).Any remaining money is paid to satisfy arrearages that accrued be-fore the family started receiving cash assistance. If there is stillmoney remaining, the State retains its share of the amount andpays to the Federal Government the Federal share of the collection(to the extent necessary to reimburse amounts paid to the familyas cash assistance). Any remaining money is then paid to the fam-ily.
Arrearages that accrued before the family starting receiving cashassistance and that are collected before October 1, 2000 are to bepaid in accordance with the law in effect before enactment of thewelfare reform legislation of 1996, which means that these arrear-age payments generally are paid to the State to reimburse it forany arrearages owed under the welfare assignment (with appro-priate reimbursement of the Federal share of the collection to theFederal Government).
Arrearages that accrued before the family starting receiving cashassistance and that are collected on or after October 1, 2000 (or be-fore such date, at the option of the State), must be paid to the fam-ily unless it is collected through the Federal income tax offset pro-gram, in which case it is paid to the State (and the State pays theFederal share). If any money remains, it is paid to satisfy arrear-ages that accrued before the family starting receiving cash assist-ance. If there is still money remaining, the State retains its shareof the amount and pays to the Federal Government the Federalshare of the collection (to the extent necessary to reimburseamounts paid to the family as cash welfare). If any money remains,it is paid to the family.
With respect to any arrearages that accrued while the family re-ceived cash assistance, States are given the option of passing thechild support arrearage payment through to families. If a Stateelects this option, it must pay the Federal share of the collectionto the Federal Government.
As noted above, arrearages collected through the Federal incometax offset program must be paid to the State. The State may onlyretain arrearages that have been assigned to the State and only upto the amount necessary to reimburse amounts paid to the familyas cash welfare. If the amount collected through the tax offset ex-ceeds the amount of cash welfare, the State must distribute the ex-cess to the family.
Effective October 1, 2000, the State must treat any support ar-rearages collected, except for those collected through the Federalincome tax offset program, as accruing in the following order: (1)to the period after the family stopped receiving cash assistance, (2)to the period before the family received cash assistance, and (3) tothe period while the family was receiving cash assistance.
594
Finally, in the case of families that never received assistance, theentire amount of the child support collection is distributed directlyto the family as it always has been.
FUNDING OF STATE PROGRAMS
The child support program conducted by States is financed bythree major streams of money. The first and largest is the FederalGovernment’s commitment to reimburse States for 66 percent of allallowable expenditures on child support activities. Allowable ex-penditures include outlays for locating parents, establishing pater-nity (with an exception noted below), establishing orders, and col-lecting payments.
There are two mechanisms through which Federal financial con-trol of State expenditures is exercised. First, States must submitplans to the Secretary of HHS outlining the specific child supportactivities they intent to pursue. The State plan provides the Sec-retary with the opportunity to review and approve or disapprovechild support activities that will receive the 66 percent Federal re-imbursement. Second, as discussed previously, HHS conducts a fi-nancial audit of State expenditures.
In addition to the general matching rate of 66 percent, the Fed-eral Government provides 90 percent matching for two especiallyimportant child support activities. First, the Federal Governmentpays 80–90 percent of approved State expenditures on developingand improving management information systems. Congress decidedto pay this enhanced match rate because data management, theconstruction of large data bases containing information on location,income, and assets of child support obligors, and computer accessto and manipulation of such large data bases were seen as the keysto a cost effective child support system. In spending the additionalFederal dollars on these data systems, Congress hoped to providean incentive for States to adopt and aggressively employ efficientdata management technology.
Second, Congress also provides 90 percent funding for laboratorycosts of blood testing. As in the case of data management systems,Congress justified enhanced funding of blood tests because pater-nity establishment is an activity vital to successful child supportenforcement. Historically, establishing paternity in cases of birthsoutside marriage has proven to be surprisingly difficult. Especiallysince the 1960s, more and more children have been born outsidemarriage; today nearly a third of all children are born to unwedmothers, and nearly 50 percent of these babies wind up on welfare.Thus, establishing paternity has become more and more importantbecause a growing fraction of the welfare caseload is childrenwhose paternity has not been established. Congress hopes to stimu-late the use of blood tests as a way of improving State performancein establishing paternity, especially given that recent experience inthe States shows that many men voluntarily acknowledge paternityonce blood tests reveal a high probability of their paternity.
In addition to the Federal administrative matching payments,the second stream of financing for State programs is child supportcollections. As we have seen, when mothers apply for welfare, theyassign the child’s claim rights against the father to the State. Aslong as the family receives TANF payments, the State can retain
595
the entire payment. As explained in detail above in the section ondistribution of child support payments, States retain the right topursue repayment for TANF benefits from the parent who oweschild support even after the family leaves welfare.
Recovered payments are split between the State and the FederalGovernment in accord with the percentage of Federal reimburse-ment of Medicaid benefits. In the Medicaid Program, the FederalGovernment pays States a percentage of their expenditures thatvaries inversely with State per capita income—poor States have ahigh Federal reimbursement percentage, wealthy States have alower Federal reimbursement percentage. Mississippi, for example,one of the poorest States, receives a reimbursement of about 80percent for its Medicaid expenditures. By contrast, States like Cali-fornia and New York that have high per capita income receive theminimum Federal reimbursement of 50 percent.
Since Federal dollars are used to finance a portion of the StateTANF payment, States are required to split child support collec-tions from TANF cases with the Federal Government. The rate atwhich States reimburse the Federal Government is the Federalmatching rate in the TANF Program. Thus, Mississippi must send80 percent of child support collections made on behalf of TANFfamilies to the Federal Government. New York and California sendonly 50 percent of TANF collections back to Washington.
The third stream of child support financing is Federal incentivepayments. The current incentive system is designed to encourageStates to collect child support from both TANF and non-TANFcases. Under the incentive formula, each State receives a paymentequal to at least 6 percent of both TANF collections and of non-TANF collections. States that perform efficiently as indicated bythe ratio of collections to administrative expenditures can receiveincentive payments of up to 10 percent of collections in both theTANF and non-TANF Programs. The specific incentive percentagebetween 6 and 10 for which a State qualifies is based on thecollections-to-expenditures ratios (see table 8–4).
TABLE 8–4.—INCENTIVE PAYMENT STRUCTURE
Collection-to-cost ratio Incentive paymentreceived (percent)
Less than 1.4 to 1 .................................................................................. 6.0At least 1.4 to 1 ..................................................................................... 6.5At least 1.6 to 1 ..................................................................................... 7.0At least 1.8 to 1 ..................................................................................... 7.5At least 2.0 to 1 ..................................................................................... 8.0At least 2.2 to 1 ..................................................................................... 8.5At least 2.4 to 1 ..................................................................................... 9.0At least 2.6 to 1 ..................................................................................... 9.5At least 2.8 to 1 ..................................................................................... 10.0
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Incentive payments for non-TANF collections have been con-troversial since the inception of the child support program, espe-cially given the guarantee of an incentive payment equal to 6 per-
596
cent of collections (table 8–4). Until fiscal year 1985, nonwelfare(AFDC) collections were not eligible for incentive payments at all.Congress adopted this policy because welfare collections are re-tained and split between State and Federal Governments while allnonwelfare collections are paid to custodial parents.
In 1984 (effective for 1985 and thereafter), Congress extended in-centive payments to nonwelfare collections. To limit Federal costsand to retain a substantial incentive for welfare collections, non-welfare incentive payments were capped as a percentage of welfareincentive payments. The 1984 law (Public Law 98–378) stipulatedthat nonwelfare incentive payments were not to exceed welfare in-centive payments in fiscal years 1986 and 1987, were not to exceed105 percent of welfare incentive payments in 1988, and were notto exceed 110 percent in 1989. Since 1990, the 1984 law has al-lowed States to receive incentive payments in the nonwelfare pro-gram of up to 115 percent of those in the welfare program.
Two criticisms of the current incentive payment structure arethat it focuses only on comparing collections to the cost of makingthem, while ignoring measures such as paternity and support orderestablishment, and that States currently receive a minimum levelof incentive payments regardless of their performance. The 1996welfare reform law required the HHS Secretary, in consultationwith the State CSE directors, to develop a performance-based, reve-nue neutral system of incentive payments, and report to the appro-priate congressional committees the details of the proposed incen-tive system by March 1, 1997.
The Secretary’s report, submitted on March 13, responds to theflaws in the current incentive system by recommending that: (1)the incentive system provide additional payments to States basedon five performance measures related to establishment of paternityand child support orders, collections of current and past-due sup-port payments, and cost effectiveness; (2) incentive payments avail-able to each State be based on a percentage of the State’s collec-tions (with no cap on nonwelfare collections); (3) the incentive sys-tem be phased in over a 1-year period beginning in fiscal year2000; (4) incentive payments be reinvested in the State CSE Pro-gram; (5) the Federal Government maintain its 66 percent match-ing rate of CSE expenditures; and (6) the new incentive system bereviewed on a periodic basis. It is expected that legislation basedon the Secretary’s recommendations will be introduced and consid-ered during the 105th Congress.
Given this overview of the three streams of money that supportState CSE Programs, we can now examine the basic financial oper-ations of the child support system. Table 8–5 summarizes bothchild support income and expenditures for every State. The firstthree columns show State income from each of three fundingstreams just described; the fourth column shows State spending onchild support. As demonstrated in the fifth column, the sum of thethree streams of income exceeds expenditures in some 34 States.In other words, most States make a profit on their child supportprogram. States are free to spend this profit in any manner theState sees fit.
597
TABLE 8–5.—FINANCING OF THE FEDERAL/STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENTPROGRAM, FISCAL YEAR 1996
[In thousands of dollars]
State
State income State ad-ministrativeexpenditures
(costs)
State net
Collec-tions-
to-costsratio
Federal ad-ministrativepayments
State shareof collec-
tions
Federalincentivepayments
Alabama ........ $31,161 $5,737 $3,548 $46,314 ($5,868) 3.41Alaska ............ 11,517 8,085 2,973 17,439 5,136 3.31Arizona ........... 31,177 6,647 3,842 46,909 (5,244) 2.41Arkansas ........ 19,048 4,163 3,195 28,669 (2,263) 2.77California ....... 293,731 222,548 66,752 437,991 145,040 2.36Colorado ........ 25,399 15,001 5,590 38,361 7,628 2.82Connecticut ... 29,035 12,645 7,086 43,027 5,740 2.91Delaware ........ 9,941 3,393 1,112 14,168 279 2.50District of Co-
lumbia ........ 7,731 2,526 1,103 11,696 (336) 2.38Florida ........... 86,999 30,216 13,501 131,363 (647) 3.13Georgia .......... 45,496 16,780 15,110 68,505 8,881 3.92Guam ............. 1,744 289 281 2,624 (310) 2.57Hawaii ........... 16,113 5,396 1,758 23,907 (640) 2.18Idaho ............. 12,535 2,942 1,961 18,928 (1,490) 2.32Illinois ............ 68,905 28,513 10,691 103,803 4,304 2.41Indiana .......... 21,416 14,186 7,658 30,091 13,170 6.54Iowa ............... 19,209 12,911 6,319 29,048 9,391 5.23Kansas ........... 12,296 10,704 5,265 18,489 9,776 5.82Kentucky ........ 27,927 9,646 5,514 42,210 877 3.43Louisiana ....... 23,058 6,266 4,270 34,495 (900) 4.16Maine ............. 10,224 9,459 4,907 15,435 9,155 4.05Maryland ........ 43,688 19,120 6,540 66,017 3,332 4.36Massachusetts 40,626 30,494 9,828 61,286 19,662 4.05Michigan ........ 94,572 60,098 22,323 143,132 33,860 6.63Minnesota ...... 48,457 25,680 9,017 73,195 9,960 4.36Mississippi1 .. 9,522 3,959 3,553 29,463 (2,430) 2.87Missouri ......... 52,173 22,161 9,635 74,419 9,549 3.75Montana ........ 8,038 2,122 1,326 12,120 (634) 2.42Nebraska ....... 20,007 3,964 1,750 30,179 (4,457) 3.16Nevada .......... 14,782 3,737 2,279 22,346 (1,548) 2.53New Hamp-
shire ........... 9,377 4,518 1,539 14,091 1,343 3.42New Jersey ..... 73,147 39,238 12,698 110,735 14,348 4.52New Mexico .... 15,914 1,344 975 21,129 (2,896) 1.43New York ....... 115,020 79,891 28,461 174,183 49,188 4.03North Carolina 59,282 20,653 10,732 89,147 1,521 2.94North Dakota 4,352 1,662 990 6,563 441 4.34Ohio ............... 106,594 41,141 17,008 161,618 3,125 6.07Oklahoma ...... 16,968 6,674 3,666 24,040 3,269 3.06Oregon ........... 21,129 10,544 5,480 31,874 5,278 5.60Pennsylvania 82,784 49,576 18,619 123,808 27,171 7.74Puerto Rico .... 19,504 291 372 28,569 (8,401) 4.44Rhode Island 5,451 6,839 3,262 8,251 7,300 4.31South Carolina 23,296 6,797 4,154 35,100 (853) 3.37South Dakota 3,173 1,936 1,399 4,770 1,738 5.87
598
TABLE 8–5.—FINANCING OF THE FEDERAL/STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENTPROGRAM, FISCAL YEAR 1996—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
State
State income State ad-ministrativeexpenditures
(costs)
State net
Collec-tions-
to-costsratio
Federal ad-ministrativepayments
State shareof collec-
tions
Federalincentivepayments
Tennessee ...... 26,165 10,195 5,328 39,342 2,347 4.06Texas ............. 96,614 32,915 15,873 144,984 418 3.71Utah ............... 19,497 5,136 3,217 29,170 (1,321) 2.66Vermont ......... 4,467 2,602 1,346 6,701 1,714 3.79Virgin Islands 1,597 94 67 2,418 (660) 2.25Virginia .......... 40,844 18,475 5,988 61,507 3,800 4.18Washington .... 76,319 49,348 16,449 115,322 26,795 3.53West Virginia 15,578 3,230 2,065 23,358 (2,484) 3.61Wisconsin ...... 50,394 19,115 10,659 74,058 6,110 5.94Wyoming ........ 5,575 1,835 647 8,455 (398) 2.96
Nation-wide ... 2,039,569 1,013,437 409,681 3,054,821 407,866 3.93
Note.—The ‘‘State net’’ column in this table is not the same as the comparable figure presented inannual reports of the Office of Child Support Enforcement (see for example, 1996, p. 78 and table 8–23below) because estimated Federal incentive payments are used in the annual reports while final Federalincentive payments were used in this table.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The method of financing child support enforcement has receivedconsiderable attention in recent years. Perhaps the most importantissue is that States have little incentive to control their administra-tive spending. The last column of table 8–5 presents a measure ofState program efficiency obtained by dividing total collections bytotal administrative expenses. The table shows the dramatic dif-ferences among States in how much child support is collected foreach dollar of administrative expenditure—a crude measure of effi-ciency—ranging from only $1.43 in New Mexico to $7.74 in Penn-sylvania. And yet, most States, including those that spend up tothree or four times as much per dollar of collections as more effi-cient States, still make a profit on the program.
Table 8–6 shows one consequence of child support’s financingsystem. The first two columns of the table show the net impact ofprogram financing on the Federal and State governments respec-tively. The Federal Government has lost money on child supportevery year since 1979, and the losses have grown almost every yearsince then. Overall, losses jumped sharply from $43 million in 1979to $1.257 billion in 1995, and then fell back slightly to $1.152 bil-lion in 1996.
State governments by contrast have made a profit on the pro-gram every year. In 1979, the first year for which data are avail-able, States cleared $244 million on child support. By 1996, Statescleared $407 million (the peak year was 1994, when States cleared$482 million). As Federal losses have mounted, State profits haveincreased.
599
The last column in table 8–6 portrays an unfortunate historicalprogression in child support financing. Beginning in the very firstyear of the child support program and for nearly a decade there-after, the net impact of Federal losses and State profits was a netsavings for taxpayers. Thus, in 1979, although the Federal Govern-ment lost money, State savings more than made up for the loses.As a result, from a public finance perspective, taxpayers wereahead by $201 million (see last column). Total Federal and Statechild support expenditures, in other words, were more than offsetby collections from parents whose children had been supported byAFDC payments. These AFDC collections were retained and usedto reimburse the Federal and State governments for previousAFDC expenditures. The savings produced in this manner exceededoverall expenditures.
TABLE 8–6.—FEDERAL AND STATE SHARE OF CHILD SUPPORT ‘‘SAVINGS,’’ FISCALYEARS 1979–96
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year
Federalshare of
child sup-port sav-
ings 1
State shareof childsupportsavings
Net publicsavings 1
1979 ....................................................................... ¥$43 $244 $2011980 ....................................................................... ¥103 230 1271981 ....................................................................... ¥128 261 1331982 ....................................................................... ¥148 307 1591983 ....................................................................... ¥138 312 1741984 ....................................................................... ¥105 366 2601985 ....................................................................... ¥231 317 861986 ....................................................................... ¥264 274 91987 ....................................................................... ¥337 342 51988 ....................................................................... ¥355 381 261989 ....................................................................... ¥480 403 ¥771990 ....................................................................... ¥528 338 ¥1901991 ....................................................................... ¥586 385 ¥2011992 ....................................................................... ¥605 434 ¥1701993 ....................................................................... ¥740 462 ¥2781994 ....................................................................... ¥978 482 ¥4961995 ....................................................................... ¥1,274 421 ¥8531996 (preliminary) .................................................. ¥1,152 407 ¥745
1 Negative ‘‘savings’’ are costs.
Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Annual Reports to Congress, 1996 and various years.
Unfortunately, net public savings declined over the years. Amajor explanation for the negative public savings was that begin-ning in 1985, as explained above, new Federal legislation requiredStates to give the first $50 per month of collections in welfare casesto the custodial parent. This $50 passthrough had an immediateimpact; in its first year, combined Federal-State savings fell to $86million from $260 million the previous year. By 1989 the overall‘‘savings’’ in the combined program went negative. For the first
600
time that year, Federal losses exceeded State gains—by $77 mil-lion. The net losses have increased almost every year, reaching$853 million in 1995 before declining somewhat to $745 million in1996.
Reflecting on these numbers, two perspectives should be consid-ered. One perspective, the finance perspective, attends simply tothe measurable costs and benefits of the child support program.But a second, broader perspective includes more diffuse social ben-efits of child support that are difficult to measure.
From the finance perspective, perhaps the most important ques-tion about child support financing is why the Federal Government,which loses money on the program every year, should provide sucha high reimbursement level for State expenditures when nearly allStates make a profit on their child support program. In the past,this issue has prompted Congress to reduce the basic administra-tive reimbursement rate on several occasions. As a result, the ratehas declined from its original level of 75 percent to 66 percent. Butsome Members of Congresss have suggested that, because mostStates are still making a profit while the Federal Government islosing money, Congress should reduce the Federal administrativereimbursement rate below 66 percent. Defenders of child support fi-nancing respond by pointing out that allowing States to profit fromthe program makes it very popular with State policymakers whocontrol funding of the State share of expenditures. Without financ-ing arrangements favorable to State interests, according to thisview, the child support program would not have posted the impres-sive gains that have characterized the program since its inceptionin 1975.
The 66 percent Federal reimbursement of State administrativeexpenditures raises a second issue of program financing: Why issuch a large percentage of State expenditures financed without re-gard to performance? Even if States spend a great deal of moneyon activities of dubious value in collecting child support, they cannonetheless count on 66 percent reimbursement from the FederalGovernment. The flat 66 percent reimbursement rate may provideStates with an incentive to spend money inefficiently. A potentialsolution would be for the Federal Government to provide Stateswith less money based on gross spending and relatively moremoney based on performance.
However, there is widespread criticism of the current incentivesystem. First, some critics of child support financing questionwhether incentives should be provided for non-TANF collections.With regard to program financing, there is a striking difference be-tween the TANF and non-TANF Programs; namely, government re-tains part of TANF collections but non-TANF collections are givenentirely to the family. When Congress enacted the Child SupportEnforcement Program in 1975, the floor debate shows that mem-bers of the House and Senate supported the program primarily be-cause retaining AFDC collections would help offset AFDC expendi-tures.
But program trends since 1975 show that the non-AFDC Pro-gram is actually much bigger than the AFDC Program and growsfaster each year than the AFDC Program. As shown in table 8–1above, AFDC collections have grown from about $0.5 billion in 1978
601
to $2.9 billion in 1996, a growth factor of five. But non-AFDC col-lections have grown from about $0.6 billion to more than $9 billionover the same period, for a growth factor of nearly 15.
The point here is that although TANF collections are growing,non-TANF collections are growing much faster. And since the Stateand Federal Governments receive virtually no direct reimburse-ment for non-TANF expenditures, the child support program losesmore and more money every year. Why, then, critics ask, shouldthe Federal Government encourage greater expenditures by provid-ing incentives for non-TANF collections. Ignoring for the momentpossible social benefits from the non-TANF Program and based en-tirely on a finance perspective, some critics argue that non-TANFincentives encourage inefficiency.
A second issue raised about the current incentive system is thatit does not necessarily base rewards on the best measure of per-formance. Just as the basic 66 percent reimbursement rate ignoresefficiency by relying exclusively on expenditures, the incentive sys-tem ignores efficiency by relying exclusively on collections. A bettermeasure of efficiency may be one that combines expenditures andcollections in a single measure. If incentive payments were basedon child support collections per dollar of administrative expendi-ture, States would have incentive to collect more money while hold-ing down expenditures. An incentive system based just on expendi-tures or just on collections is at best half an incentive system.
Third, the incentive system is also criticized because States re-ceive an incentive payment of 6 percent of collections regardless ofprogram efficiency. One might question whether a system thatguarantees substantial payments independent of performance isreally an incentive system.
A final issue of program financing is whether government shouldpay such a high percentage of costs in the non-TANF Program.States must charge an application fee that can be no more than$25 for the non-TANF Program, but this amount doesn’t even paythe full cost of opening a case file. In 1996, more than 2.5 millionnon-TANF families received services resulting in child support col-lections that averaged around $3,600 per case. By collecting thismoney, government is providing a useful service to millions of fami-lies, many of which are not poor. Rather than have taxpayers pickup the cost of this service, some critics argue that families receiv-ing the services should pay more of the costs. Federal law allowsStates 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 al-ready tenuous financial stability. States also argue that setting upan administrative system to establish and collect the fees wouldcost more money than the fees actually collected.
The account of child support from the finance perspective givenabove relies on measurable spending and collections. However, de-fenders of the current child support program argue that it mayproduce social benefits that are not captured by mere spending andcollections data. These program defenders claim that a strong childsupport program produces ‘‘cost avoidance’’ by demonstrating tononcustodial parents who would try to avoid child support that thesystem will eventually catch up with them.
602
Although there is little evidence that would allow an estimate ofthe cost avoidance effect, there is nonetheless good reason to be-lieve that at least some noncustodial parents make child supportpayments in part because they fear detection and prosecution.Even more to the point, a strong child support program maychange the way society thinks about child support. As in the casesof civil rights and smoking, a persistent effort over a period ofyears may convince millions of Americans, both those who owechild 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 morepotent than legal prosecution—social ostracism.
To the extent that this reasoning is correct, the public and policy-makers may come to regard child support enforcement as a long-term investment similar in many respects to education, job train-ing, and other policies that help families support their children. Ineach of these cases, there is expectation that society will be betteroff in the long run because the government invests in helping indi-viduals and families. But the expectation that investments willlead to immediate payoffs, or even that we can devise evaluationmethods that adequately capture the long-term payoffs, is muchless than the expectation of immediate and measurable payoffsthat characterizes the kind of public finance reasoning outlinedabove. Of course, even if the public is willing to continue paying forchild support enforcement as a social investment, Congress andchild support administrators may nonetheless find it desirable tointensify 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 in1975, there appears to have been growing public awareness of theproblem of nonpayment of child support and increased willingnessby taxpayers to spend money trying to improve child support en-forcement. As measured either by expenditures or total collections,the Federal-State program has grown about tenfold since 1978. Tothe extent that private arrangements fail to ensure child supportpayments, our laws and, increasingly, our practices bring child sup-port cases into the public domain. In view of these quite remark-able changes in law and practice, it seems useful to provide a broadassessment of the performance of the Nation’s child support systemin general and of the IV–D program in particular.
IMPACT ON TAXPAYERS
One useful measure of the Federal-State program is the impactof collections on TANF costs. As outlined above, States retain andsplit with the Federal Government collections from parents whosechildren are on TANF. In addition, States can often retain part ofcollections from parents whose children were on TANF in the pastas repayment for taxpayer-provided TANF benefits.
As shown in table 8–1 above, TANF collections have in fact beenrising every year since 1978, growing from less than $0.5 billion inthat year to nearly $2.9 billion in 1996. Equally important, thechild support agencies collected a level of payments on behalf of
603
TANF parents that equalled 15.5 percent of all TANF benefits in1995. This figure, which has been rising every year since 1980,seems especially impressive in view of the fact that even if Statescould collect all of the child support due, it would not be possiblefor some States to recover 100 percent of TANF benefits becauseTANF benefit payments usually exceed child support award levels.
Of course, it will be recalled that despite this impressive rise inTANF collections and cost offset, the overall impact of the childsupport program on taxpayers is negative. As shown in table 8–5,taxpayers lost over $0.7 billion on the program in 1996, althoughthe loss has dropped from its peak of $853 in 1995. The rise ofTANF collections and cost offset ratios suggests that with reform,the child support program could become more efficient.
IMPACT ON POVERTY
Another good measure of child support performance is the impactof collections on poverty. In 1991, 1.26 million (24 percent) of the5.3 million women and men rearing children alone who were sup-posed to receive child support payments had incomes below thepoverty level. If full payment had been made to these custodial par-ents and if none of these families had received welfare payments,only 140,000 of them would have received enough income fromchild support payments to put them above the poverty level (U.S.Bureau of the Census, 1995, pp. 7 & 26). Thus, the potential ofchild support to greatly reduce poverty appears to be modest. Ofcourse, if the child support program could obtain orders and collectsupport for a substantial fraction of the additional 5.3 million sin-gle parents who don’t even have an award, the antipoverty impactof child support could be increased somewhat.
Despite the modest impact of child support on poverty, manyfamilies on welfare have received enough of a financial boost fromchild support payments that they were able to leave the rolls. In1995, 294,000 families with child support collections, representingabout 6 percent of the welfare caseload, became ineligible forAFDC. Similarly, about 3 percent of families in the non-AFDCchild support program were lifted out of poverty by child supportpayments. This 3 percent figure is more impressive than it appearsat first because a substantial fraction of the non-AFDC caseloadhad incomes above the poverty level before receiving any child sup-port payments. For most of these nonpoor families, incomes andstandards of living were improved by child support payments. Pre-sumably, even poor families that received child support but re-mained in poverty had their standard of living improved by thechild support payments.
IMPACT ON NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS
Perhaps the most important measure of the Federal-State pro-gram is its impact on overall national rates of paying child support.Although the original intent of Congress in creating the child sup-port program was primarily to offset welfare payments, both Con-gress and the American public have come to see the program as ameans of improving the Nation’s system of ensuring that parentswho no longer live with their children continue to provide for their
604
financial support. An examination of whether the IV–D programhas had an impact on national child support payments must beginwith an assessment of the record of noncustodial parents in payingchild support.
The U.S. Census Bureau periodically collects national survey in-formation on child support. By interviewing a random sample ofsingle-parent families, the Census Bureau is able to generate ahost of numbers that can be used to assess the performance of non-custodial parents in paying child support. Table 8–7 provides de-tailed information for 1993, the most recent year for which nationaldata are available, on child support payments by fathers to familiesheaded by mothers. Although the 1993 survey like the 1991 surveyincluded custodial fathers, the following discussion is focused solelyon custodial mothers. Several points bear emphasis, the most im-portant of which is that many female-headed families do not re-ceive child support. As shown in the top panel of table 8–7, of the11.5 million female-headed families eligible for support, only 60percent even had a support award. Most observers would say thata major failure of the Nation’s child support system is that entirelytoo many mothers do not have a child support award.
Of the 5.9 million mothers who do have an award and who weresupposed to receive payments in 1993, 71 percent actually receivedat least one payment. However, as shown in tables appended tothis chapter, only about half of those due money actually receivedeverything that was due. So in addition to its failure to get ordersfor a significant percentage of mothers, critics assert that a secondfailure of the child support system is that a large proportion of themoney owed is not paid.
Table 8–7, which also summarizes child support information byethnic group, by years of schooling, and by poverty level, suggestsa number of interesting and important features of child supportpayments. White mothers are more likely to have a support orderthan black or Hispanic mothers (65 percent versus about 50 per-cent for blacks and 41 percent for Hispanics). Similarly, motherswith a college degree have a 73 percent chance of having an orderas compared with 48 percent for high school dropouts and 60 per-cent for high school graduates. As for payments, white mothers re-ceive over $3,400 per year on average as compared with aroundonly $2,100 for black mothers and $2,700 for Hispanic mothers.College graduates receive $4,800 per year in support as comparedwith $1,700 and $2,800 for high school dropouts and graduates re-spectively.
Clearly, mothers who are already financially worse off get lessfrom child support than mothers who are financially better off.This generalization is made especially clear by two further piecesof information depicted in the table. First, never-married mothers,one of the poorest demographic groups in the Nation, are less likelyto have an award than divorced mothers (44 percent versus 73 per-cent); even never-married mothers who actually receive support getconsiderably less than divorced mothers ($1,700 versus $3,600).Second, as shown by the data at the bottom of the table, poormothers are less likely to have orders and receive less money thannonpoor mothers. Table 8–8 shows similar data for the award of
605
TABLE 8–7.—CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS AWARDED AND RECEIVED BY WOMEN WITHCHILDREN PRESENT, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS, 1993
Characteristics of womenTotal
(thou-sands)
Percentawarded
childsupport
pay-ments 1
Supposed to receive child support in 1993
Total(thou-sands)
Received support in 1993
PercentMeanchild
support
Meanincome
ALL WOMENCurrent marital status:
Married 2 ................................ 2,408 70.5 1,547 74.3 $3,088 $17,538Divorced ................................. 3,813 73.3 2,488 75.7 3,632 21,760Separated ............................... 1,725 49.1 654 66.4 3,528 17,723Widowed 3 ............................... 126 42.1 38 55.3 (5) (5)Never married ........................ 3,398 43.6 1,177 59.6 1,738 10,689
Race and Hispanic origin:White ...................................... 7,798 64.7 4,381 74.7 3,439 19,721Black ...................................... 328.1 49.8 1,345 60.8 2,055 12,785Hispanic origin 4 .................... 1,455 41.1 507 65.5 2,732 14,829
Years of school completed:Less than high school grad-
uate ................................... 2,529 48.4 1,025 62.7 1,675 8,320High school graduate or GED 4,273 60.3 2,161 70.7 2,797 15,053Some college, no degree ....... 2,688 62.6 1,504 73.3 3,548 19,363Associate degree .................... 821 66.1 466 69.3 3,263 23,089Bachelors degree or more ..... 1,150 73.0 747 79.7 4,831 32,849
Total .............................. 11,470 59.9 5,903 71.0 3,147 18,301
WOMEN BELOW POVERTYCurrent marital status:
Married 2 ................................ 299 55.5 148 65.5 1,224 5,318Divorced ................................. 1,135 69.7 691 71.1 2,360 6,851Separated ............................... 838 46.2 287 62.7 2,713 6,025Widowed ................................. 63 23.8 10 40.0 (5) (5)Never married 3 ...................... 1,894 44.3 654 59.8 1,526 5,298
Race:White ...................................... 2,371 57.0 1,109 68.3 2,266 6,177Black ...................................... 1,716 46.3 634 60.1 1,580 5,851Hispanic origin 4 .................... 698 37.7 203 69.0 1,925 6,242
Total .............................. 4,230 52.0 1,790 65.0 2,034 6,087
1 Award status as of spring 1994.2 Remarried women whose previous marriage ended in divorce.3 Widowed women whose previous marriage ended in divorce.4 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.5 Sample too small to produce reliable estimate.
Note.—Women with own children under 21 years of age present from an absent father as of spring1994.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997. Forthcoming report: child support for custodial mothers andfathers: 1993. Current Population Reports. (Advance copy of preliminary data furnished to CRS.)
606
TABLE 8–8.—CHILD SUPPORT AWARD STATUS AND INCLUSION OF HEALTH INSURANCEIN AWARD, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF WOMEN, 1993
CharacteristicTotal
(thou-sands)
Supposed to receive child support paymentsin 1993
Total(thou-sands)
Health insurance included inchild support award
Number (thou-sands)
Percent oftotal awarded
Current marital status: 1
Remarried 2 ....................................... 1,839 1,278 881 68.9Divorced ............................................ 3,813 2,488 1,719 69.1Separated .......................................... 1,725 654 334 51.1Never married ................................... 3,398 1,177 474 40.3
Race and Hispanic origin:White ................................................. 7,798 4,381 2,898 66.1Black ................................................. 3,281 1,345 568 42.2Hispanic 3 .......................................... 1,455 507 223 44.0
Age:15–17 years ...................................... 99 25 11 44.018–29 years ...................................... 3,445 1,451 723 49.830–39 years ...................................... 5,022 2,852 1,729 60.640 years and over ............................ 2,904 1,576 1,100 69.8
Years of school completed:Less than high school graduate ...... 2,539 1,025 423 41.3High school graduate or GED ........... 4,273 2,161 1,292 59.8Some college, no degree .................. 2,688 1,504 979 65.1Associate degree ............................... 821 466 302 64.8Bachelors degree or more ................ 1,150 747 566 75.8
Number of own children present from anabsent father:
One child .......................................... 6,398 2,952 1,882 63.8Two children ..................................... 3,299 1,982 1,179 59.5Three children ................................... 1,225 699 388 55.5Four children or more ....................... 549 270 114 42.2
Total ......................................... 11,470 5,903 3,562 60.3
1 Excludes a small number of current widowed women whose previous marriage ended in divorce.2 Remarried women whose previous marriage ended in divorce.3 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Note.—Women 15 years and older with own children under 21 years of age present from absent fathersas of spring 1994.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997.
health insurance. While demonstrating that 60 percent of all moth-ers have health insurance included in their award, the table alsoshows that the probability of health insurance coverage is greatlyreduced for never-married women, black and Hispanic women, andwomen with less schooling.
607
4 The Census Bureau changed its interview procedures before obtaining the 1991 data. Specifi-cally, Census asked whether adults had any children under age 21 in their household who hada parent living elsewhere. This question may have excluded some mothers who would have an-swered the child support questions in previous surveys. In the interviews for the years 1978through 1989, all never-married mothers were asked the child support questions. Because of thisand other differences in procedure, the Census Bureau recommends ‘‘extreme caution’’ (U.S. Bu-reau of the Census, 1995, p. 40) in comparing data from the 1992 interview with data from pre-vious interviews. We present the data from all the surveys and recommend that readers drawtheir own conclusions.
Table 8–9, which summarizes several child support measures forselected years between 1978 and 1993, complements and extendsthe conclusions drawn from the 1993 data. 4 More specifically, thepattern of poor women being less likely to have an order and re-ceive support is nothing new; the years since 1978 show no changein this pattern. Overall, the percentage of mothers with an awardis only slightly higher than in 1978, the percentage that actuallyreceive any payment is only slightly higher, and the aggregate pay-ments have grown less rapidly than the number of demographicallyeligible mothers. Table 8–9 shows that while a slightly higher per-centage of women were awarded child support (60 percent in 1993versus 59 percent in 1978), a significantly smaller percentage ofwomen received full payment (18 percent in 1993 versus 24 percentin 1978).
In summary, it appears that the performance of the Nation’schild support system is modest and that few if any of the measuresof national performance have improved in nearly two decades. Bycontrast, as shown at the beginning of this chapter (see table 8–1), the Federal-State child support program has shown improvedperformance on a number of important measures virtually everyyear since 1978. To promote comparison of performance changes inthe IV–D program with overall national trends in child supportperformance, table 8–10 summarizes several measures from boththe IV–D program as revealed in reports from the Federal Officeof Child Support Enforcement and the national system of child sup-port as revealed in U.S. Census Bureau Surveys. The data are sur-prising and, at first, confusing. As shown in the top panel, theFederal-State program is showing impressive improvement onevery measure. Total collections, parents located, paternities estab-lished, and awards established are all up by over 200 percent since1978.
By contrast, the measures of overall national trends show littleimprovement. In fact, the likelihood of having an award, being le-gally entitled to a payment, and the percentage of those with anaward who received at least one payment have been stagnant.Moreover, the percentage of mothers who received the full amountdue has decreased significantly, from 49 to 35 percent. On theother hand, total collections increased by about 31 percent. This in-crease, however, is dwarfed by the 271 percent increase in IV–Dcollections. The increase must also be interpreted in view of thefact that the number of single mothers demographically eligible forchild support increased by 62 percent over the same period.
608
TABL
E 8–
9.—
CHIL
D SU
PPOR
T PA
YMEN
TS F
OR A
LL W
OMEN
, WOM
EN A
BOVE
THE
POV
ERTY
LEV
EL, A
ND W
OMEN
BEL
OW T
HE P
OVER
TY L
EVEL
,SE
LECT
ED Y
EARS
197
8–93
Cate
gory
of
wom
en19
7819
8119
8319
8519
8719
8919
913
1993
4
All w
omen
:To
tal (
in t
hous
ands
)...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
7,09
48,
387
8,69
08,
808
9,41
59,
955
9,91
811
,470
Perc
ent
awar
ded
1...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
59.1
59.2
57.7
61.3
59.0
57.7
55.9
59.9
Perc
ent
actu
ally
rece
ived
pay
men
t...
......
......
......
......
.34
.634
.634
.936
.839
.037
.438
.136
.5Pe
rcen
t re
ceiv
ed f
ull p
aym
ent
......
......
......
......
......
......
23.6
22.5
23.2
24.0
26.3
25.6
25.7
17.8
Wom
en a
bove
pov
erty
leve
l:To
tal (
in t
hous
ands
)...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
5,12
15,
821
5,79
26,
011
6,22
46,
749
6,40
57,
240
Perc
ent
awar
ded
1...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
67.3
67.9
65.3
71.0
66.5
64.6
65.2
64.6
Perc
ent
actu
ally
rece
ived
pay
men
t...
......
......
......
......
.41
.141
.442
.644
.144
.843
.145
.941
.8W
omen
bel
ow p
over
ty le
vel:
Tota
l (in
tho
usan
ds)
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
973
2,56
62,
898
2,79
73,
191
3,20
63,
513
4,23
0Pe
rcen
t aw
arde
d1
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.38
.139
.742
.540
.444
.343
.338
.952
.0Pe
rcen
t ac
tual
ly re
ceiv
ed p
aym
ent
......
......
......
......
....
17.8
19.3
19.6
21.3
27.7
25.4
24.1
27.5
Aggr
egat
e pa
ymen
t (in
bill
ions
of
dolla
rs):
2
Child
sup
port
due
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.15
.516
.014
.714
.718
.619
.118
.821
.4Ch
ild s
uppo
rt re
ceiv
ed...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..10
.19.
810
.39.
712
.813
.112
.613
.2Ag
greg
ate
child
sup
port
defic
it...
......
......
......
......
......
5.4
6.1
4.4
5.0
5.9
6.0
6.1
8.2
1Aw
ard
stat
us a
s of
spr
ing
1979
, 19
82,
1984
, 19
86,
1988
, 19
90,
1992
and
199
4.2
In f
isca
l ye
ar 1
993
dolla
rs b
ased
on
Cons
umer
Pric
e In
dex
for
Urba
n Co
nsum
ers.
3Da
ta f
or 1
991
are
not
dire
ctly
com
patib
le w
ith d
ata
from
oth
er y
ears
bec
ause
of
refin
emen
ts t
o th
e su
rvey
uni
vers
e.4
Data
for
199
3 ar
e no
t di
rect
ly co
mpa
tible
with
dat
a fro
m o
ther
yea
rs b
ecau
se o
f ch
ange
s to
sur
vey
ques
tions
.
Note
.—Pa
ymen
ts f
or w
omen
with
own
chi
ldre
n un
der
age
21.
Sour
ce:
U.S.
Bur
eau
of t
he C
ensu
s (1
981,
198
3, 1
985,
198
7, 1
990,
199
1, 1
995,
199
7).
609
TABL
E 8–
10.—
COM
PARI
SON
OF M
EASU
RES
OF IV
–D E
FFEC
TIVE
NESS
WIT
H CE
NSUS
CHI
LD S
UPPO
RT D
ATA,
197
8–93
Mea
sure
Year
Perc
ent
chan
ge,
1978
–93
1978
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
119
931
Fede
ral-S
tate
IV–D
Pro
gram
Tota
l col
lect
ions
(19
93 d
olla
rs, i
n bi
llion
s)2
......
......
......
......
......
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.6
5.0
6.1
7.3
8.9
271
Pare
nts
loca
ted
(thou
sand
s)...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
454
696
831
878
1,14
51,
624
2,57
73,
777
732
Pate
rniti
es e
stab
lishe
d (th
ousa
nds)
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..11
116
420
823
226
933
947
255
439
9Aw
ards
est
ablis
hed
(thou
sand
s)...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
315
414
496
669
812
936
382
11,
026
226
Natio
nal T
rend
s
Tota
l col
lect
ions
(19
93 d
olla
rs, i
n bi
llion
s)2
......
......
......
......
......
10.1
9.8
10.3
9.7
12.8
13.1
12.6
13.2
31Of
dem
ogra
phic
ally
elig
ible
:Pe
rcen
t wi
th a
ward
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
5959
5861
5958
5660
2Pe
rcen
t su
ppos
ed t
o re
ceiv
e pa
ymen
t...
......
......
......
..48
4846
5051
5049
516
Perc
ent
who
rece
ived
som
e pa
ymen
t...
......
......
......
...35
3535
3739
3738
376
Of m
othe
rs s
uppo
sed
to r
ecei
ve p
aym
ent,
perc
ent
who
rece
ived
full
amou
nt...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...49
4750
4851
5152
3529
IV–D
Col
lect
ions
as
a Pe
rcen
tage
of
Natio
nal C
olle
ctio
ns
IV–D
col
lect
ions
as
a pe
rcen
t of
tot
al c
olle
ctio
ns...
......
......
......
.24
2728
3739
4758
6717
9
1Th
e Ce
nsus
Bur
eau
colle
cted
dat
a on
cus
todi
al f
athe
rs f
or t
he f
irst
time
for
1991
; on
ly th
e da
ta o
n cu
stod
ial
mot
hers
is
incl
uded
her
e.2
Cons
tant
fis
cal
year
199
3 do
llars
usi
ng t
he C
onsu
mer
Pric
e In
dex
for
Urba
n Co
nsum
ers.
3Th
e de
finiti
on o
f su
ppor
t or
ders
est
ablis
hed
chan
ged
in 1
991.
Note
.—De
mog
raph
ical
ly el
igib
le m
eans
wom
en w
ith o
wn c
hild
ren
unde
r 21
yea
rs o
f ag
e liv
ing
with
the
m f
rom
an
abse
nt f
athe
r.
Sour
ces:
Offi
ce o
f Ch
ild S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, An
nual
Rep
orts
to
Cong
ress
, 19
94 a
nd v
ario
us y
ears
; U.
S. B
urea
u of
the
Cen
sus
(198
1, 1
983,
198
5, 1
987,
199
0, 1
991,
199
5, a
nd19
97).
610
Clearly, although the IV–D program has been growing steadilysince 1978, and although its performance on many measures ofchild support has been improving, the improvement appears tohave had only modest impact on the national picture. How canthese two trends be reconciled?
The last panel of table 8–10 suggests an answer. This panelshows collections by the Federal-State program as a percentage ofoverall national child support payments. In 1978, less than one-fourth of child support payments were collected through the IV–Dprogram. This percentage, however, has increased every year since1978. By 1993, more than two-thirds (67 percent) of all child sup-port payments were made through the IV–D program. The implica-tion of this trend is that the IV–D program may be recruiting moreand more cases from the private sector, bringing them into thepublic sector, providing them with subsidized services (or substitut-ing Federal spending for State spending), but not greatly improvingchild support collections. Whatever the explanation, it seems thatimproved effectiveness of the IV–D program has not led to signifi-cant improvement of the Nation’s child support performance.
The data in table 8–10 suffer from a potentially important flaw.Given that Congress passed major child support legislation in 1996,as part of the 1996 welfare reform legislation, the impacts of thesereforms have yet to be studied. The 1993 Census data is too old tocapture any of the effects of the innovative reforms enacted in1996.
Two additional statistics must be considered in any general as-sessment of national child support payments. First, according toSorensen (1994), noncustodial parents owe over $30 billion in over-due child support. Some perspective on the magnitude of this figureis provided by recalling that the entire Federal outlay on the Aidto Families with Dependent Children Program in 1996 was about$13 billion.
But many critics of the child support system contend that thisfigure on arrearages, which is based on child support orders cur-rently in place, is actually an underestimate of the shortcomings ofthe Nation’s child support system. These critics hold that too fewnoncustodial parents have orders, that the amount of orders is toolow, and that not enough of the amount owed is actually paid. Con-siderations of this sort have led to several studies of what mightbe called ‘‘child support collections potential’’—the amount thatcould be collected by a perfectly efficient child support system.
The most recent of these studies, conducted by researchers at theUrban Institute (Sorensen, 1995), produced the estimate that $47billion could be collected in child support each year. The assump-tions underlying this estimate are that all custodial parents had anorder, that payments averaged $5,400 per year, and that the fullamount of every order was actually paid. Of course, no one expectsany program to be perfectly efficient. Even so, comparing the $47billion that could be generated by a perfect system with the actualpayments of around $17 billion in 1996 provides a useful index ofhow far we need to go as a Nation if we are to provide custodialparents and children with the measure of financial security that isthe major goal of our child support system.
611
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1950
The first Federal child support enforcement legislation was Pub-lic Law 81–734, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1950,which added section 402(a)(11) to the Social Security Act (42 USC602(a)(11)). The legislation required State welfare agencies to no-tify appropriate law enforcement officials upon providing Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children (AFDC) to a child who wasabandoned or deserted by a parent. Also that year, the NationalConference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and theAmerican Bar Association approved the Uniform Reciprocal En-forcement of Support Act (URESA; subsequent amendments to thisact were approved in 1952, 1958, and 1968).
1965
Public Law 89–97, the Social Security Amendments of 1965, al-lowed a State or local welfare agency to obtain from the Secretaryof Health, Education, and Welfare the address and place of employ-ment of an absent parent who owed child support under a courtorder for support.
1967
Public Law 90–248, the Social Security Amendments of 1967, al-lowed States to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) theaddress of nonresident parents who owed child support under acourt order for support. In addition, each State was required to es-tablish a single organizational unit to establish paternity and col-lect child support for deserted children receiving AFDC. Stateswere also required to work cooperatively with each other underchild support reciprocity agreements and with courts and law en-forcement officials.
1975
Public Law 93–647, the Social Security Amendments of 1974,created part D of title IV of the Social Security Act (sections 451,et seq.; 42 USC 651, et seq.). The key child support enforcementprovisions, which reflect 3 years of intense congressional attention,are as follows: The Secretary of the Department of Health, Edu-cation, and Welfare (now the Department of Health and HumanServices or HHS) has primary responsibility for the program andis required to establish a separate organizational unit to operatethe program. Operational responsibilities include: (1) establishing aparent locator service; (2) establishing standards for State programorganization, staffing, and operation; (3) reviewing and approvingState plans for the program; (4) evaluating State program oper-ations by conducting audits of each State’s program; (5) certifyingcases for referral to the Federal courts to enforce support obliga-tions; (6) certifying cases for referral to the IRS for support collec-tions; (7) providing technical assistance to States and assistingthem with reporting procedures; (8) maintaining records of pro-
612
gram operations, expenditures, and collections; and (9) submittingan annual report to the Congress.
Primary responsibility for operating the Child Support Enforce-ment Program was placed on the States pursuant to the State plan.The major requirements of a State plan are that: (1) the State des-ignate a single and separate organizational unit to administer theprogram; (2) the State undertake to establish paternity and securesupport for individuals receiving AFDC and others who apply di-rectly for child support enforcement services; (3) child support pay-ments be made to the State for distribution; (4) the State enter intocooperative agreements with appropriate courts and law enforce-ment officials; (5) the State establish a State parent locator servicethat uses State and local parent location resources and the FederalParent Locator Service; (6) the State cooperate with any otherState in locating an absent parent, establishing paternity, and se-curing support; and (7) the State maintain a full record of collec-tions and disbursements made under the plan.
In addition, the 1975 legislation established procedures for thedistribution of child support collections received on behalf of fami-lies on AFDC, created an incentive system to encourage States tocollect payments from parents of children on AFDC, and subjectedmoneys due and payable to Federal employees to garnishment forthe collection of child support.
New eligibility requirements were added to the AFDC Programrequiring applicants for, or recipients of, AFDC to make an assign-ment of support rights to the State, to cooperate with the State inestablishing paternity and securing support, and to furnish theirSocial Security number to the State. The effective date of PublicLaw 93–647 was July 1, 1975, except for the provision regardinggarnishment of Federal employees, which was effective upon enact-ment. However, several problems were identified prior to the effec-tive date and Congress passed Public Law 94–46 to extend the ef-fective date to August 1, 1975. In addition, Public Law 94–88 waspassed in August 1975 to allow States to obtain waivers from cer-tain program requirements under certain conditions until June 30,1976 and to receive Federal reimbursement at a reduced rate. Thislaw also eased the requirement for AFDC recipients to cooperatewith State child support agencies when such cooperation would notbe in the best interests of the child and provided for supplementalpayments to AFDC recipients whose grants would be reduced dueto the implementation of the Child Support Enforcement Program.
1976
Public Law 94–566, effective October 20, 1976, required Stateemployment agencies to provide absent parents’ addresses to Statechild support enforcement agencies.
1977
Public Law 95–30, effective May 23, 1977, made several amend-ments to title IV–D. Provisions relating to the garnishment of aFederal employee’s wages for child support were amended to: (1)include employees of the District of Columbia; (2) specify the condi-tions and procedures to be followed to serve garnishments on Fed-
613
eral agencies; (3) authorize the issuance of garnishment regulationsby the three branches of the Federal Government and by the Dis-trict; and (4) clarify several terms used in the statute. Public Law95–30 also amended section 454 of the Social Security Act (42 USC654) to require the State plan to provide bonding for employeeswho receive, handle, or disburse cash and to insure that the ac-counting and collection functions are performed by different indi-viduals. In addition, the incentive payment provision, under section458(a) of the Social Security Act (42 USC 658(a)), was amended tochange the rate to 15 percent of AFDC collections (from 25 percentfor the first 12 months and 10 percent thereafter).
Public Law 95–142, the Medicare-Medicaid Antifraud and AbuseAmendments of 1977, established a medical support enforcementprogram under which States could require Medicaid applicants toassign to the State their rights to medical support. State Medicaidagencies were allowed to enter into cooperative agreements withany appropriate agency of any State, including the IV–D agency,for assistance with the enforcement and collection of medical sup-port obligations. Incentives were also made available to localitiesmaking child support collections for States and for States securingcollections on behalf of other States.
1978
Public Law 95–598, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, repealedsection 456(b) of the Social Security Act (42 USC 656(b)), whichhad barred the discharge in bankruptcy of assigned child supportdebts. (This section of the act (now 546(h)) was restored by PublicLaw 97–35 in 1981.)
1980
Public Law 96–178 extended Federal financial participation(FFP) for non-AFDC services to March 31, 1980, retroactive to Oc-tober 1, 1978.
Public Law 96–265, the Social Security Disability Amendmentsof 1980, increased Federal matching funds to 90 percent, effectiveJuly 1, 1981, for the costs of developing, implementing, and en-hancing approved automated child support management informa-tion systems. Federal matching funds were also made available forchild support enforcement duties performed by certain court per-sonnel. In another provision, the law authorized IRS to collect childsupport arrearages on behalf of non-AFDC families. Finally, thelaw provided State and local IV–D agencies access to wage informa-tion held by the Social Security Administration and State employ-ment security agencies for use in establishing and enforcing childsupport obligations.
Public Law 96–272, the Adoption Assistance and Child WelfareAct of 1980, contained four amendments to title IV–D of the SocialSecurity Act. First, the law made FFP for non-AFDC services avail-able on a permanent basis. Second, it allowed States to receive in-centive payments on all AFDC collections as well as interstate col-lections. Third, as of October 1, 1979, States were required to claimreimbursement for expenditures within 2 years, with some excep-tions. The fourth change postponed until October, 1980 the imposi-
614
tion of the 5 percent penalty on AFDC reimbursement for Statesnot having effective Child Support Enforcement Programs.
1981
Public Law 97–35, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1981, amended IV–D in five ways. First, IRS was authorized towithhold all or part of certain individuals’ Federal income tax re-funds for collection of delinquent child support obligations. Second,IV–D agencies were required to collect spousal support for AFDCfamilies. Third, for non-AFDC cases, IV–D agencies were requiredto collect fees from absent parents who were delinquent in theirchild support payments. Fourth, child support obligations assignedto the State no longer were dischargeable in bankruptcy proceed-ings. Fifth, States were required to withhold a portion of unemploy-ment benefits from absent parents delinquent in their support pay-ments.
1982
Public Law 97–248, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Actof 1982, included the following provisions affecting the IV–D pro-gram: FFP was reduced from 75 to 70 percent, effective October 1,1982; incentives were reduced from 15 to 12 percent, effective Octo-ber 1, 1983; the provision for reimbursement of costs of certaincourt personnel that exceed the amount of funds spent by a Stateon similar court expenses during calendar year 1978 was repealed;the mandatory non-AFDC collection fee imposed by Public Law 97–35 was repealed, retroactive to August 13, 1981, and States weregiven the option of recovering costs by imposing fees on non-AFDCparents; States were allowed to collect spousal support in certainnon-AFDC cases; as of October 1, 1982, members of the uniformedservices on active duty were required to make allotments fromtheir pay when support arrearages reached the equivalent of a 2-month delinquency; beginning October 1, 1982, States were allowedto reimburse themselves for AFDC grants paid to families for thefirst month in which the collection of child support is sufficient tomake a family ineligible for AFDC.
Public Law 97–253, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1982, provided for the disclosure of information obtained under au-thority of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to various programs, includ-ing State child support enforcement agencies.
Public Law 97–252, the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’Protection Act, authorized treatment of military retirement or re-tainer pay as property to be divided by State courts in connectionwith divorce, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation proceed-ings.
1984
Public Law 98–378, the Child Support Enforcement Amendmentsof 1984, featured provisions that required improvements in Stateand local Child Support Enforcement Programs in four majorareas:
615
Mandatory enforcement practicesAll States must enact statutes to improve enforcement mecha-
nisms, including: (1) mandatory income withholding procedures; (2)expedited processes for establishing and enforcing support orders;(3) State income tax refund interceptions; (4) liens against real andpersonal property, security or bonds to assure compliance with sup-port obligations; and (5) reports of support delinquency informationto consumer reporting agencies. State law must allow for the bring-ing of paternity actions any time prior to a child’s 18th birthdayand all support orders issued or modified after October 1, 1985,must include a provision for wage withholding.
Federal financial participation and audit provisionsTo encourage greater reliance on performance-based incentives,
Federal matching funds were reduced by 2 percent in 1988 (to 68percent) and another 2 percent in 1990 (to 66 percent). Federalmatching funds at 90 percent were made available for the develop-ment and installation of automated systems, including computerhardware purchases, to facilitate income withholding and othernewly required procedures. State incentive payments were reset at6 percent for both AFDC and non-AFDC collections. These percent-ages could rise as high as 10 percent for each category for cost-effective States, but a State’s non-AFDC incentive payments couldnot exceed its AFDC incentives. States were required to pass incen-tives through to local child support enforcement agencies if theseagencies had accumulated child support enforcement costs. AnnualState audits were replaced with audits conducted at least onceevery 3 years. The focus of the audits was altered to evaluate aState’s effectiveness on the basis of program performance as wellas operational compliance. Penalties for noncompliance are from 1to 5 percent of the Federal share of the State’s AFDC funds. TheFederal Government may suspend imposition of a penalty based ona State’s filing of, and complying with, an acceptable corrective ac-tion plan.
Improved interstate enforcementStates were required to apply a host of enforcement techniques
to interstate cases as well as intrastate cases. Both States involvedin an interstate case may take credit for the collection when report-ing total collections for the purpose of calculating incentives. Spe-cial demonstration grants were authorized beginning in 1985 tofund innovative methods of interstate enforcement and collection.Federal audits were focused on States’ effectiveness in establishingand enforcing obligations across State lines.
Equal services for welfare and non-AFDC familiesSeveral specific requirements were directed at improving State
services to non-AFDC families. All of the mandatory practices mustbe made available for both classes of cases; the interception of Fed-eral income tax refunds was extended to non-AFDC cases; incentivepayments for non-AFDC cases became available for the first time;States were required to continue child support services to familiesterminated from the welfare rolls without charging an application
616
fee; and States were required to publicize the availability of sup-port enforcement services for non-AFDC parents.
Other provisionsStates were required to: (1) collect support in certain foster care
cases; (2) collect spousal support in addition to child support whereboth are due in a case; (3) notify AFDC recipients, at least yearly,of the collections made in their behalf; (4) establish State commis-sions to study the operation of the State’s child support system andreport findings to the State’s Governor; (5) formulate guidelines fordetermining appropriate child support obligation amounts and dis-tribute the guidelines to judges and other individuals who possessauthority to establish obligation amounts; (6) offset the costs of theprogram by charging various fees to non-AFDC families and to de-linquent nonresident parents; (7) allow families whose AFDC eligi-bility is terminated as a result of the payment of child support toremain eligible to receive Medicaid for 4 months (sunsets on Octo-ber 1, 1988); and (8) establish medical support orders in additionto monetary awards. The Federal Parent Locator Service was mademore accessible and effective in locating absent parents. Sunsetprovisions were included in the extension of Medicaid eligibilityand Federal tax offsets for non-AFDC families.
Public Law 98–369, the Tax Reform Act of 1984, included two taxprovisions pertaining to alimony and child support. Under priorlaw, alimony was deductible by the payor and includable in the in-come of the payee. The 1984 law revised the rules relating to thedefinition of alimony. Generally, only cash payments that termi-nate on the death of the payee spouse qualify as alimony. Alimonypayments, if in excess of $10,000 per year, generally must be pay-able for at least 6 years and must not decline by more than$10,000. The prior law requirement that the payment be based ona legal support obligation was repealed and payors were requiredto furnish to the IRS the Social Security number of the payeespouse. A $50 penalty for failure to do so was imposed. The provi-sion was effective for divorce or separation agreements or ordersexecuted after 1984. The 1984 law also provided that the $1,000dependency exemption for a child of divorced or separated parentsbe allocated to the custodial parent unless the custodial parentsigns a written declaration that she will not claim the exemptionfor the year. For purposes of computing the medical expense deduc-tion for years after 1984, each parent may claim the medical ex-penses that he or she pays for the child.
1986
Public Law 99–509, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1986, included one child support enforcement amendment prohibit-ing the retroactive modification of child support awards. Under thisnew requirement, State laws must provide for either parent toapply for modification of an existing order with notice provided tothe other parent. No modification is permitted before the date ofthis notification.
617
1987
Public Law 100–203, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1987, required States to provide child support enforcement servicesto all families with an absent parent who receives Medicaid andhave assigned their support rights to the State, regardless ofwhether they are receiving AFDC.
1988
Public Law 100–485, the Family Support Act of 1988, empha-sized the duties of parents to work and support their children and,in particular, emphasized child support enforcement as the firstline of defense against welfare dependence. The key child supportprovisions include:
Guidelines for child support awardsJudges and other officials are required to use State guidelines for
child support unless they rebut the guidelines by a written findingthat applying them would be unjust or inappropriate in a particu-lar case. States must review guidelines for awards every four years.Beginning 5 years after enactment, States generally must reviewand adjust individual case awards every 3 years for AFDC cases.The same applies to other IV–D cases, except review and adjust-ment must be at the request of a parent.
Establishment of paternityStates are required to meet Federal standards for the establish-
ment of paternity. The primary standard relates to the percentageobtained by dividing the number of children in the State who areborn out of wedlock, are receiving cash benefits or IV–D child sup-port services, and for whom paternity has been established by thenumber of children who are born out of wedlock and are receivingcash benefits or IV–D child support services. To meet Federal re-quirements, this percentage in a State must: (1) be at least 50 per-cent; (2) be at least equal to the average for all States; or (3) haveincreased by 3 percentage points from fiscal years 1988 to 1991 andby 3 percentage points each year thereafter. States are mandatedto require all parties in a contested paternity case to take a genetictest upon request of any party. The Federal matching rate for lab-oratory testing to establish paternity is set at 90 percent.
Disregard of child supportThe child support enforcement disregard authorized under the
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 is clarified so that it applies to a pay-ment made by the noncustodial parent in the month it was dueeven though it was received in a subsequent month.
Requirement for prompt State responseThe Secretary of HHS was required to set time limits within
which States must accept and respond to requests for assistance inestablishing and enforcing support orders as well as time limitswithin which child support payments collected by the State IV–Dagency must be distributed to the families to whom they are owed.
618
Requirement for automated tracking and monitoring systemEvery State that does not have a statewide automated tracking
and monitoring system in effect must submit an advance planningdocument that meets Federal requirements by October 1, 1991. TheSecretary must approve each document within 9 months after sub-mission. By October 1, 1995, every State must have an approvedsystem in effect. States were awarded 90 percent Federal matchingrates for this activity until September 30, 1995.
Interstate enforcementA Commission on Interstate Child Support was created to hold
national conferences on interstate child support enforcement re-form and to report to Congress no later than October 1, 1990 onrecommendations for improvements in the system and revisions inthe Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act.
Computing incentive paymentsAmounts spent by States for interstate demonstration projects
are excluded from calculating the amount of the States’ incentivepayments.
Use of INTERNET systemThe Secretaries of Labor and HHS are required to enter into an
agreement to give the Federal Parent Locator Service prompt ac-cess to wage and unemployment compensation claims informationuseful in locating absent parents.
Wage withholdingWith respect to IV–D cases, each State must provide for imme-
diate wage withholding in the case of orders that are issued ormodified on or after the first day of the 25th month beginning afterthe date of enactment unless: (1) one of the parties demonstrates,and the court finds, that there is good cause not to require suchwithholding; or (2) there is a written agreement between both par-ties providing for an alternative arrangement. Prior law require-ments for mandatory wage withholding in cases where paymentsare in arrears apply to orders that are not subject to immediatewage withholding. States are required to provide for immediatewage withholding for all support orders initially issued on or afterJanuary 1, 1994, regardless of whether a parent has applied forIV–D services.
Work and training demonstration programs for noncustodial par-ents
The Secretary of HHS is required to grant waivers to up to fiveStates to allow them to provide services to noncustodial parentsunder the JOBS Program. No new power is granted to the Statesto require participation by noncustodial parents.
Data collection and reportingThe Secretary of HHS is required to collect and maintain State-
by-State statistics on paternity establishment, location of absentparent for the purpose of establishing a support obligation, enforce-
619
ment of a child support obligation, and location of absent parentsfor the purpose of enforcing or modifying an established obligation.
Use of Social Security numberEach State must, in the administration of any law involving the
issuance of a birth certificate, require each parent to furnish his orher Social Security number (SSN), unless the State finds goodcause for not requiring the parent to furnish it. The SSN shall ap-pear in the birth record but not on the birth certificate, and the useof the SSN obtained through the birth record is restricted to childsupport enforcement purposes, except under certain circumstances.
Notification of support collectedEach State is required to inform families receiving AFDC of the
amount of support collected on their behalf on a monthly basis,rather than annually as provided under prior law. States may pro-vide quarterly notification if the Secretary of HHS determines thatmonthly reporting imposes an unreasonable administrative burden.This provision is effective 4 years after the date of enactment. TheMedicaid transition benefit in child support cases is extended fromOctober 1, 1988 to October 1, 1989.
1989
Public Law 101–239, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1989, made permanent the requirement that Medicaid benefits con-tinue for 4 months after a family loses AFDC eligibility as a resultof collection of child support payments.
1990
Public Law 101–508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1990, permanently extended the Federal provision that allowsStates to ask the IRS to collect child support arrearages of at least$500 out of income tax refunds otherwise due to noncustodial par-ents. The minor child restriction is eliminated for adults with acurrent support order who are disabled, as defined under OASDIor SSI. The IRS offset can be used for spousal support when spous-al and child support are included in the same support order. Thelife of the Interstate Child Support Commission was extended fromJuly 1, 1991 to July 1, 1992, and the Commission was required tosubmit its report no later than May 1, 1992. The Commission wasallowed to hire its own staff.
1992
Public Law 102–521, the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, im-posed a Federal criminal penalty for the willful failure to pay apast due child support obligation with respect to a child who re-sides in another State that has remained unpaid for longer thana year or is greater than $5,000. For the first conviction the pen-alty is a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment for not more than 6months, or both; for a second conviction, the penalty is a fine of notmore than $250,000, imprisonment for up to 2 years, or both.
Public Law 102–537, the Ted Weiss Child Support EnforcementAct of 1992, amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require
620
consumer credit reporting agencies to include in any consumer re-port information on child support delinquencies provided by or veri-fied by State or local child support agencies, which antedates thereport by 7 years.
1993
Public Law 103–66, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1993, increased the percentage of children, from 50 to 75, for whomthe State must establish paternity and required States to adoptlaws requiring civil procedures to voluntarily acknowledge pater-nity (including hospital-based programs). The act also requiredStates to adopt laws to ensure the compliance of health insurersand employers in carrying out court or administrative orders formedical child support and included a provision that forbids healthinsurers to deny coverage to children who are not living with thecovered individual or who were born outside marriage.
1994
Public Law 103–383, the Full Faith and Credit for Child SupportOrders Act, requires each State to enforce, according to its terms,a child support order by a court (or administrative authority) of an-other State, with conditions and specifications for resolving issuesof jurisdiction.
Public Law 103–394, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, stipu-lates that a filing of bankruptcy does not stay a paternity, childsupport, or alimony proceeding. In addition, child support and ali-mony payments are made priority claims and custodial parents areable to appear in bankruptcy court to protect their interests with-out paying a fee or meeting any local rules for attorney appear-ances.
Public Law 103–403, the Small Business Administration Amend-ments of 1994, makes parents who fail to pay child support ineli-gible for small business loans.
Public Law 103–432, the Social Security Act Amendments of1994, includes a provision that requires States to implement proce-dures that require the State to periodically report to consumer re-porting agencies the name of debtor parents owing at least 2months of overdue child support, and the amount of child supportoverdue.
1995
Public Law 104–35 extends for 2 years the deadline by whichStates are required to have in effect an automated data processingand information retrieval system for use in the administration oftheir Child Support Enforcement Program (from October 1, 1995,to October 1, 1997). The 90 percent Federal funding was not ex-tended.
1996
Title III of the 1996 welfare reform bill (Public Law 104–193)was devoted to major reforms of the Child Support EnforcementProgram. A section-by-section summary of these reforms follows:
621
Sec. 301. State obligation to provide child support enforcement serv-ices
Imposes a State obligation to provide child support enforcementservices for each child receiving assistance under IV–A (TANF),IV–E (foster care and adoption), and title XIX (Medicaid). Servicesmust also be provided for others who apply, including families ceas-ing to receive assistance (no application is permitted for thisgroup).
Sec. 302. Distribution of collected supportChanges distribution priorities to provide that families leaving
welfare receive priority in payment of arrears. Changes are effec-tive October 1, 1997 for postassistance arrears and October 1, 2000for preassistance arrears. Exception is made for collections fromthe Tax Refund Intercept Program. Provides a hold harmless provi-sion so that States are protected if the amount they lose becauseof changes in distribution exceeds what they gain from the elimi-nation of the $50 pass-through (eliminated October 1, 1996).
Sec. 303. Privacy safeguardsProtects privacy rights with respect to confidential information.
Sec. 304. Rights to notification of hearingsRequires States to have procedures for providing notices of pro-
ceedings and copies of orders to recipients of program services orparties to cases being served under title IV–D.
Sec. 311. State case registrySpecifies requirements for the central State registry, including
maintaining and updating a payment record and extracting datafor matching with other databases. Allows automated linkages oflocal registries.
Sec. 312. Collection and disbursement of support paymentsSpecifies requirements for the centralized collection and dis-
bursement of support payments, including the monitoring of pay-ments, generating wage withholding notices, and automatic use ofadministrative enforcement remedies. Under some circumstances,permits linkages of local disbursement units to form centralizedState disbursement unit for collection and disbursement of childsupport payments. Requires distribution within 2 business days ofreceipt of collection; requires transmission of withholding orders toemployers within 2 business days of notice of income source subjectto withholding.
Sec. 313. State directory of new hiresRequires employers and labor organizations to report name, ad-
dress, Social Security number (SSN), and employer identificationnumber of new hires to State directory of new hires within 20 daysof hire (in the case of an employer transmitting reports magneti-cally or electronically, reports may be made by two monthly trans-missions); requires the report to be the W–4 or equivalent at optionof the employer with penalties assessed for failure to report. Statedirectory must perform database matching using SSNs and report
622
findings to any State; directory must also report information to theNational directory within 3 business days, and issue withholdingnotices within 2 business days of match, among other require-ments.
Sec. 314. Amendments concerning income withholdingStrengthens and expands income withholding from wages to pay
child support by reducing the time for employers to remit withheldwages to 7 business days and adding a State law requirement thatallows issuance of electronic withholding orders by State agencyand without notice to obligor.
Sec. 315. Locator information from interstate networksIncludes requirements for access by State child support agency to
locator information from State motor vehicle and law enforcementsystems.
Sec. 316. Expansion of the Federal Parent Locator ServiceExpands the authority of FPLS to obtain information and locate
individuals. Permits access to FPLS for the enforcement of childcustody and visitation orders but specifies that requests must comethrough courts or child support agencies. Requires establishment ofa Federal case registry of child support orders, and details guide-lines for the National directory of new hires. Allows disclosure ofcertain information, including Federal tax offset amounts, to childsupport enforcement agents.
Sec. 317. Collection and use of Social Security numbers for use inchild support enforcement
Requires use of Social Security numbers on applications for pro-fessional licenses, commercial driver’s licenses, occupational licenseor marriage licenses, and in records for divorce decrees, support or-ders, paternity determinations or acknowledgments and death cer-tificates.
Sec. 321. Adoption of uniform State lawsMandates adoption by all States of the Uniform Interstate Fam-
ily Support Act.
Sec. 322. Improvements to full faith and credit for child support or-ders
Clarifies priorities for recognition of orders.
Sec. 323. Administrative enforcement in interstate casesRequires States to respond within 5 business days to a request
from another State to enforce a support order; electronic means areallowed for transmitting requests.
Sec. 324. Use of forms in interstate enforcementCalls for the promulgation of forms, developed by the Secretary
of HHS, to be used in interstate income withholding cases, the im-position of liens, and administrative subpoenas across State lines.
623
Sec. 325. State laws providing expedited proceduresGrants authority to State IV–D programs to order genetic testing
for paternity establishment, issue a subpoena for financial or otherinformation, and require all entities to respond to requests for in-formation ‘‘without the necessity of obtaining an order from anyother judicial or administrative tribunal, but subject to due processsafeguards as appropriate.’’ Grants States access to public recordssuch as vital statistics of marriage, birth and divorce, State andlocal tax records, real and titled personal property, license records,employment security records, public assistance programs, motor ve-hicle records, and corrections records. Also grants access to certainprivate records such as public utility and cable television recordsand financial institution data, among other administrative meas-ures.
Sec. 331. State laws concerning paternity establishmentStreamlines the legal processes for establishment of paternity, al-
lows establishment of paternity anytime before a child turns 18,and provides for mandatory genetic testing in contested cases,among other provisions.
Sec. 332. Outreach for voluntary paternity establishmentMandates that State programs publicize the availability and en-
courage the use of procedures for voluntary establishment of pater-nity and child support.
Sec. 333. Cooperation by applicants for and recipients of part A as-sistance
Requires States to determine whether recipients of aid under theTANF program or Medicaid are cooperating with the State in con-ducting child support activities against the noncustodial parent.
Sec. 341. Performance-based incentives and penaltiesRequires the Secretary of HHS to develop a new cost-neutral in-
centive system by March 1, 1997 which provides additional pay-ments to any State based on such State’s performance. Increasesthe mandatory IV–D paternity establishment percentage in grad-uated phases from 75 to 90 percent.
Sec. 342. Federal and State reviews and auditsChanges the audit process to be based on performance measures
and requires the Secretary to ensure that State data meets highstandards of accuracy and completeness.
Sec. 343. Required reporting proceduresRequires States to collect and report program data in a uniform
manner as a State plan requirement.
Sec. 344. Automated data processing requirementsCreates additional requirements for the State automated data
processing systems, and sets a deadline of October 1, 2000 for im-plementation. Contains a new implementation timetable that ex-tends to October 1, 1997 the deadline by which a State must havean automated case tracking and monitoring system meeting all
624
Federal IV–D requirements up through the enactment of the Fam-ily Support Act of 1988. Caps aggregate spending on the new auto-mated system at $400,000 and requires the Secretary to devise aformula for distributing these funds among the States. The FederalGovernment will pay 80 percent of State costs of meeting the newrequirements.
Sec. 345. Technical assistanceSets aside 1 percent of the Federal share of reimbursed public as-
sistance for information, training, and related technical assistanceconcerning State automated systems and research, demonstration,and special projects of regional or national significance. An addi-tional 2 percent is set aside for the operation of the Federal ParentLocator Service.
Sec. 346. Reports and data collection by the SecretaryClarifies data collection requirements and eliminates require-
ments for unnecessary or duplicate information. Several new datareports are to be included in the annual report to Congress, includ-ing information about State compliance.
Sec. 351. Simplified process for review and adjustment of child sup-port orders
Requires processes for periodic modification of all child supportorders, with review occurring every 3 years, upon request.
Sec. 352. Furnishing consumer reports for certain purposes relatingto child support
Expands access and use of consumer reports by child supportagencies for establishing and modifying child support.
Sec. 353. Nonliability for depository institutions providing financialrecords to State child support enforcement agencies in childsupport cases
Specifies that depository institutions are not liable for disclosingfinancial information to the Child Support Enforcement Agency;the Child Support Enforcement Agency is prohibited from disclos-ing information obtained except for child support purposes.
Sec. 361. Internal Revenue Service collection of arrearagesMakes technical corrections to the Social Security Act section on
IRS collection of arrearages.
Sec. 362. Authority to collect support from Federal employeesEliminates separate withholding rules for all Federal employees.
Establishes procedures by which Federal agencies must aggres-sively pursue child support collections from Federal employees.
Sec. 363. Enforcement of child support obligations of members of theArmed Forces
Establishes procedures by which all branches of the armed forcesmust aggressively pursue child support collections from Federalemployees.
625
Sec. 364. Voiding of fraudulent transfersRequires States to have laws that prevent obligor from transfer-
ring income or property to avoid paying child support.
Sec. 365. Work requirement for persons owing past-due child sup-port
Requires State child support officials to have the authority toseek a judicial or administrative order that requires any individualowing past-due support to pay such support in accordance with aplan approved by the court or participate in work activities.
Sec. 366. Definition of support orderProvides a definition of a support order.
Sec. 367. Reporting arrearages to credit bureausRequires all child support delinquencies and their amounts to be
reported to credit bureaus.
Sec. 368. LiensRequires liens on real and personal property and the extension
of full faith and credit to liens arising in another State in cases ofpast-due child support.
Sec. 369. State law authorizing suspension of licensesRequires States to have laws providing for the suspension of
driver’s, professional, occupational, and recreational licenses.
Sec. 370. Denial of passports for nonpayment of child supportEstablishes a process by which the Department of Health and
Human Services can submit the names of delinquent obligors whoare at least $5,000 in arrears to the State Department for the de-nial of their passports.
Sec. 371. International support enforcementAuthorizes Federal officials to declare any foreign country to be
a foreign reciprocating country for purposes of establishment andcollection of child support obligations.
Sec. 372. Financial institution data matchesRequires States to enter agreements with financial institutions
doing business in the State to develop a data match system bywhich records on individuals having accounts with the financial in-stitution are matched against the list of child support obligors whohave overdue payments.
Sec. 373. Enforcement of orders against paternal grandparents incases of minor parents
Adds a State option that a child support order of a child of minorparents, if the mother is receiving cash assistance, may be enforce-able against parents of the noncustodial parent of the child.
626
Sec. 374. Nondischargeability in bankruptcy of certain debts for thesupport of a child
Clarifies that child support assigned to a State in assistancecases is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Sec. 375. Child support enforcement for Indian tribesAllows States to enter cooperative agreements with Indian tribes;
allows the Secretary to make direct Federal funding to Indiantribes meeting certain criteria.
Sec. 381. Correction to ERISA definition of medical child supportorder
Requires the application of ERISA to support orders that arejudgments, decrees or orders issued by any court of competent ju-risdiction or through a State administrative process.
Sec. 382. Enforcement of orders for health care coverageAdds a new State law requirement providing that the State IV–
D agency have procedures for notifying a new employer of an ab-sent parent, when the absent parent was providing health care cov-erage of the child in the previous job, of the medical support obliga-tion.
Sec. 391. Grants to States for access and visitation programsProvides $10 million per year to the Secretary to award grants
to States for the purpose of establishing programs to facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children.
627
ST
AT
IST
ICA
L T
AB
LE
S
TABL
E 8–
11.—
STAT
E PR
OFIL
E OF
COL
LECT
IONS
AND
EXP
ENDI
TURE
S, F
ISCA
L YE
AR 1
996
1
[In m
illio
ns o
f do
llars
]
Stat
eTo
tal c
olle
c-tio
nsAF
DC c
ol-
lect
ions
Non-
AFDC
colle
ctio
nsTo
tal e
x-pe
nditu
res
Child
sup
port
colle
ctio
ns p
er d
olla
r of
adm
inis
trativ
e ex
pend
iture
sIn
cent
ive
paym
ents
(est
imat
e)To
tal
AFDC
tot
alNo
n-AF
DCto
tal
Alab
ama
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
$157
.9$2
3.5
$134
.4$4
6.3
3.41
0.51
2.90
$3.2
Alas
ka...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
57.7
18.5
39.2
17.4
3.31
1.06
2.25
2.9
Arizo
na...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
113.
023
.889
.346
.92.
410.
511.
903.
8Ar
kans
as...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.79
.419
.759
.728
.72.
770.
692.
082.
9Ca
lifor
nia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
034.
449
6.2
538.
243
8.0
2.36
1.13
1.23
61.1
Colo
rado
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
108.
335
.672
.738
.42.
820.
931.
895.
2Co
nnec
ticut
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
125.
254
.370
.943
.02.
911.
261.
658.
1De
lawa
re...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.35
.48.
327
.114
.22.
500.
591.
911.
3Di
stric
t of
Col
umbi
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.27
.86.
021
.811
.72.
380.
521.
861.
0Fl
orid
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
411.
880
.733
1.1
131.
43.
130.
612.
5215
.6Ge
orgi
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
268.
610
2.4
166.
268
.53.
921.
492.
4316
.6Gu
am...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
6.7
2.0
4.7
2.6
2.57
0.76
1.80
0.0
Hawa
ii...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
52.2
12.2
39.9
23.9
2.18
0.51
1.67
1.7
Idah
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.44
.011
.132
.918
.92.
320.
591.
742.
1Ill
inoi
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
249.
872
.417
7.4
103.
82.
410.
701.
7110
.7In
dian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
196.
945
.015
1.9
30.1
76.
541.
505.
0513
.0Io
wa...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..15
1.9
40.1
111.
829
.05.
231.
383.
856.
5Ka
nsas
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.10
7.6
28.8
78.8
18.5
5.82
1.56
4.26
4.2
Kent
ucky
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
144.
939
.410
5.5
42.2
3.43
0.93
2.50
6.1
Loui
sian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
143.
631
.211
2.4
34.5
4.16
0.91
3.26
3.9
Mai
ne...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
62.6
29.5
33.0
15.4
4.05
1.91
2.14
5.3
628
TABL
E 8–
11.—
STAT
E PR
OFIL
E OF
COL
LECT
IONS
AND
EXP
ENDI
TURE
S, F
ISCA
L YE
AR 1
996
1 —Co
ntin
ued
[In m
illio
ns o
f do
llars
]
Stat
eTo
tal c
olle
c-tio
nsAF
DC c
ol-
lect
ions
Non-
AFDC
colle
ctio
nsTo
tal e
x-pe
nditu
res
Child
sup
port
colle
ctio
ns p
er d
olla
r of
adm
inis
trativ
e ex
pend
iture
sIn
cent
ive
paym
ents
(est
imat
e)To
tal
AFDC
tot
alNo
n-AF
DCto
tal
Mar
yland
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
287.
946
.724
1.2
66.0
4.36
0.71
3.65
7.1
Mas
sach
uset
ts...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
247.
971
.417
6.5
61.3
4.05
1.17
2.88
10.9
Mic
higa
n...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.94
8.6
171.
077
7.6
143.
16.
631.
195.
4319
.3M
inne
sota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..31
8.8
64.9
253.
973
.24.
360.
893.
478.
1M
issi
ssip
pi...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
84.6
24.4
60.1
29.5
2.87
0.83
2.04
3.4
Mis
sour
i...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..27
9.2
66.6
212.
674
.43.
750.
902.
868.
7M
onta
na...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..29
.48.
221
.212
.12.
420.
671.
751.
1Ne
bras
ka...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.95
.412
.482
.930
.23.
160.
412.
751.
6Ne
vada
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.56
.68.
448
.222
.32.
530.
382.
162.
1Ne
w Ha
mps
hire
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
48.2
10.5
37.7
14.1
3.42
0.75
2.68
1.2
New
Jers
ey...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
500.
290
.640
9.5
110.
74.
520.
823.
7012
.4Ne
w M
exic
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...30
.16.
323
.921
.11.
430.
301.
132.
0Ne
w Yo
rk...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.70
1.9
205.
949
6.0
174.
24.
031.
182.
8524
.9No
rth C
arol
ina
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.26
1.7
75.0
186.
789
.12.
940.
842.
0911
.1No
rth D
akot
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.28
.56.
122
.46.
64.
340.
933.
411.
0Oh
io...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...98
1.3
124.
885
6.5
161.
66.
070.
775.
3018
.3Ok
laho
ma
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...73
.524
.349
.124
.03.
061.
012.
043.
6Or
egon
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..17
8.4
31.2
147.
331
.95.
600.
984.
626.
4Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.95
8.3
138.
781
9.6
123.
87.
741.
126.
6218
.7Pu
erto
Ric
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...12
6.7
2.8
123.
928
.64.
440.
104.
340.
6Rh
ode
Isla
nd...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.35
.518
.417
.28.
34.
312.
222.
083.
0So
uth
Caro
lina
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.11
8.1
29.6
88.5
35.1
3.37
0.84
2.52
3.8
Sout
h Da
kota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...28
.06.
621
.44.
85.
871.
394.
491.
3
629
Tenn
esse
e...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
159.
834
.712
5.1
39.3
4.06
0.88
3.18
5.3
Texa
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.53
8.3
102.
843
5.5
145.
03.
710.
713.
0014
.2Ut
ah...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..77
.621
.656
.029
.22.
660.
741.
923.
2Ve
rmon
t...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...25
.48.
916
.56.
73.
791.
332.
461.
2Vi
rgin
Isla
nds
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..5.
40.
55.
02.
42.
250.
202.
050.
0Vi
rgin
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...25
7.2
46.4
210.
861
.54.
180.
753.
437.
1W
ashi
ngto
n...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...40
7.0
112.
829
4.2
115.
33.
530.
982.
5516
.4W
est
Virg
inia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...84
.215
.368
.923
.43.
610.
662.
952.
1W
isco
nsin
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...44
0.2
81.0
359.
374
.15.
941.
094.
8512
.8W
yom
ing
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
25.0
4.9
20.1
8.5
2.96
0.58
2.37
0.8
U.S.
tot
als
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
12,0
18.6
2,85
4.4
9,16
4.2
3,05
4.8
3.93
0.93
3.00
408.
91
Tota
ls m
ay n
ot a
dd d
ue o
f ro
undi
ng.
Note
.—Da
ta i
s pr
elim
inar
y fo
r fis
cal
year
199
6. A
FDC
= A
id t
o Fa
mili
es w
ith D
epen
dent
Chi
ldre
n.
Sour
ce:
Offic
e of
Chi
ld S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, U.
S. D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
uman
Ser
vice
s.
630
TABL
E 8–
12.—
TOTA
L CH
ILD
SUPP
ORT
COLL
ECTI
ONS
BY S
TATE
, SEL
ECTE
D FI
SCAL
YEA
RS 1
979–
96
[In t
hous
ands
of
dolla
rs]
Stat
e19
7919
9019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
96
Alab
ama
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
$6,8
54$6
6,17
4$8
0,95
2$9
8,14
1$1
13,2
73$1
27,9
08$1
41,2
12$1
57,8
87Al
aska
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..3,
844
26,7
8830
,721
35,6
1339
,148
45,8
5151
,734
57,7
08Ar
izona
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.6,
411
27,8
3733
,277
46,4
4766
,580
77,4
1993
,812
113,
037
Arka
nsas
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
3,92
126
,010
32,7
8342
,065
49,1
4755
,215
63,8
7579
,432
Calif
orni
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
199,
945
522,
646
591,
243
653,
681
736,
855
811,
493
857,
282
1,03
4,40
9Co
lora
do...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..4,
020
39,6
0146
,997
58,0
3067
,723
80,2
8891
,870
108,
259
Conn
ectic
ut...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...23
,033
66,7
2475
,778
84,1
9093
,454
98,4
4811
7,72
312
5,23
4De
lawa
re...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.5,
814
20,1
6122
,692
25,9
2626
,663
29,6
6331
,551
35,3
95Di
stric
t of
Col
umbi
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1,
086
13,5
9816
,578
19,7
3321
,798
24,0
7926
,040
27,7
91Fl
orid
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
10,5
2417
6,60
321
4,15
325
2,47
328
9,97
632
7,29
637
4,01
541
1,79
9Ge
orgi
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
5,55
411
3,09
514
3,01
417
4,46
720
5,56
622
9,82
224
4,36
726
8,59
9Gu
am...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
160
1,44
03,
162
4,69
75,
003
7,07
96,
037
6,73
6Ha
waii
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..5,
150
27,6
3830
,096
34,4
0437
,327
45,1
0748
,751
52,1
82Id
aho
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
2,50
122
,909
23,4
4227
,846
32,1
2736
,942
40,7
4744
,003
Illin
ois
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..10
,740
136,
019
150,
134
183,
308
183,
889
202,
191
219,
340
249,
834
Indi
ana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.9,
073
96,1
4511
0,11
712
4,61
414
1,16
415
1,62
617
4,45
019
6,93
5Io
wa...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..13
,017
70,9
8280
,693
96,0
4610
9,27
812
2,70
513
6,13
815
1,90
7Ka
nsas
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.3,
975
44,9
5854
,832
66,0
5359
,601
86,7
4497
,571
107,
579
Kent
ucky
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
4,88
159
,998
73,9
2893
,902
103,
587
121,
427
130,
640
144,
901
Loui
sian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
12,6
7860
,527
67,9
8884
,373
103,
054
118,
008
129,
609
143,
644
Mai
ne...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
4,57
435
,741
36,5
5438
,005
44,9
6351
,184
57,3
6162
,585
Mar
yland
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
20,8
5615
1,35
216
3,62
619
4,00
921
9,08
524
4,64
526
5,34
428
7,92
3M
assa
chus
etts
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.36
,338
176,
915
169,
545
185,
086
195,
374
203,
986
223,
560
247,
948
Mic
higa
n...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.24
8,41
464
4,73
469
7,63
478
2,80
487
4,48
389
8,37
285
9,62
994
8,55
8M
inne
sota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..21
,370
139,
345
160,
363
189,
495
214,
480
246,
252
283,
538
318,
773
Mis
siss
ippi
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1,
662
30,5
3240
,277
48,2
8953
,505
62,3
7968
,205
84,5
51
631
Mis
sour
i...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..5,
829
129,
851
141,
372
166,
339
189,
161
214,
362
238,
700
279,
225
Mon
tana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
1,21
38,
822
12,9
6817
,436
20,1
5021
,363
25,5
3229
,356
Nebr
aska
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
2,46
852
,378
57,0
5566
,177
71,7
0881
,082
90,0
5595
,373
Neva
da...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
3,48
716
,210
23,3
4632
,080
37,6
4143
,722
50,0
6656
,620
New
Ham
pshi
re...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...2,
089
20,6
0422
,659
27,3
6031
,497
36,5
3842
,570
48,2
42Ne
w Je
rsey
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.94
,005
281,
923
326,
879
372,
506
407,
849
439,
748
480,
327
500,
157
New
Mex
ico
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,68
014
,416
16,7
9219
,088
27,1
1730
,082
26,9
3830
,114
New
York
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
136,
361
373,
718
437,
371
487,
738
536,
374
569,
682
619,
489
701,
885
North
Car
olin
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
9,16
812
0,34
414
0,22
216
7,89
419
7,25
422
6,63
223
3,14
526
1,67
2No
rth D
akot
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1,
723
10,4
1412
,309
15,5
9918
,693
21,8
7825
,522
28,4
70Oh
io...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...22
,832
489,
515
552,
649
665,
999
714,
132
789,
319
886,
843
981,
342
Okla
hom
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,82
632
,169
39,9
2246
,540
52,1
7057
,578
63,9
0873
,455
Oreg
on...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
88,5
0278
,374
91,2
5210
7,43
512
4,92
914
2,22
715
6,82
917
8,42
8Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.18
6,71
861
4,22
269
9,67
677
5,78
281
4,48
086
1,65
389
5,72
095
8,28
1Pu
erto
Ric
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
916
74,5
3577
,252
84,3
2997
,357
98,6
2810
7,39
712
6,71
1Rh
ode
Isla
nd...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.3,
575
20,0
4421
,609
24,8
8026
,671
29,9
0032
,634
35,5
24So
uth
Caro
lina
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.3,
545
52,3
2058
,857
68,7
9879
,280
90,6
2810
2,91
211
8,14
7So
uth
Dako
ta...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,40
711
,024
13,1
1915
,881
18,1
1221
,357
24,8
3828
,018
Tenn
esse
e...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
8,97
671
,502
77,0
3284
,818
116,
152
141,
388
156,
904
159,
804
Texa
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.8,
207
132,
318
192,
797
251,
157
309,
502
367,
171
448,
463
538,
253
Utah
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
6,62
438
,071
43,8
9552
,610
56,1
9961
,135
63,4
2677
,600
Verm
ont
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,44
99,
353
11,0
2313
,518
15,8
3117
,950
21,2
3425
,370
Virg
in Is
land
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
260
3,13
13,
338
4,04
94,
992
5,56
25,
399
5,43
8Vi
rgin
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...9,
197
110,
560
129,
919
145,
114
151,
919
182,
787
226,
682
257,
180
Was
hing
ton
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
27,0
1817
5,75
022
2,40
926
7,45
530
7,25
134
0,48
837
5,25
740
7,00
2W
est
Virg
inia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
592
21,6
5823
,527
35,5
6149
,016
54,4
0272
,796
84,2
33W
isco
nsin
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...34
,267
241,
272
276,
712
293,
460
332,
814
380,
584
427,
487
440,
239
Wyo
min
g...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..52
07,
155
9,07
911
,220
13,8
1016
,184
17,3
5025
,021
Natio
nwid
e to
tal
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1,
332,
847
6,01
0,12
56,
885,
619
7,96
4,52
28,
909,
166
9,85
0,15
910
,752
,824
12,0
18,7
67
Sour
ce:
Offic
e of
Chi
ld S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, U.
S. D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
uman
Ser
vice
s.
632
TABL
E 8–
13.—
TOTA
L AF
DC C
OLLE
CTIO
NS B
Y ST
ATE,
SEL
ECTE
D FI
SCAL
YEA
RS 1
979–
96
[In t
hous
ands
of
dolla
rs]
Stat
e19
7919
9019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
96
Alab
ama
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...$6
,830
$19,
484
$22,
788
$23,
001
$22,
539
$21,
148
$21,
115
$23,
464
Alas
ka...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...33
48,
160
9,94
011
,145
11,7
2213
,645
16,1
3818
,464
Arizo
na...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..64
26,
102
7,40
112
,693
18,6
1621
,175
24,2
1723
,764
Arka
nsas
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..2,
428
11,7
9913
,800
15,7
6616
,249
15,6
6216
,831
19,7
46Ca
lifor
nia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.11
7,53
224
8,44
028
6,26
131
4,23
233
5,23
537
4,54
840
1,57
349
6,18
5Co
lora
do...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
3,52
516
,765
19,2
8123
,287
26,1
9729
,415
31,1
9235
,572
Conn
ectic
ut...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.11
,416
27,4
0533
,816
37,7
4441
,292
41,4
6554
,100
54,3
23De
lawa
re...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
1,38
65,
826
6,66
17,
306
7,79
87,
855
8,02
98,
315
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..90
74,
118
4,40
74,
927
5,19
75,
614
5,92
36,
032
Flor
ida
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
8,59
848
,364
57,0
7169
,765
78,0
8180
,368
85,2
4480
,685
Geor
gia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
4,77
245
,937
57,7
6574
,546
84,6
2784
,820
84,9
3210
2,39
9Gu
am...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
159
520
1,63
52,
524
2,34
41,
948
1,72
32,
003
Hawa
ii...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...2,
544
8,34
37,
699
8,16
19,
058
9,95
111
,367
12,2
41Id
aho
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..2,
047
6,95
27,
482
8,54
38,
746
10,0
8610
,912
11,1
09Ill
inoi
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...9,
916
44,1
4948
,968
58,8
4255
,749
61,1
1265
,091
72,3
91In
dian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..8,
116
38,1
2445
,030
49,2
4752
,040
51,9
4550
,962
44,9
94Io
wa...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
10,6
5428
,552
30,5
8535
,401
36,7
7540
,105
41,0
0740
,100
Kans
as...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..3,
454
15,2
0917
,454
20,8
6922
,402
24,7
3227
,567
28,7
79Ke
ntuc
ky...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
4,61
522
,286
27,5
0234
,702
36,5
6537
,979
39,2
9939
,445
Loui
sian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
5,24
420
,861
23,0
8925
,975
26,8
2726
,714
28,1
3331
,228
Mai
ne...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
4,13
321
,089
21,0
6321
,477
25,6
8327
,783
28,4
3529
,542
Mar
yland
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..10
,929
42,3
1837
,162
46,3
4851
,313
48,0
3147
,419
46,7
09M
assa
chus
etts
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
29,1
4568
,968
66,9
6971
,784
77,2
9276
,899
77,0
8571
,421
Mic
higa
n...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
76,3
7514
5,25
115
3,69
016
8,31
716
9,58
117
6,10
016
7,67
317
0,95
5M
inne
sota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
14,5
1043
,950
47,8
0253
,305
55,9
6161
,418
64,4
0664
,872
Mis
siss
ippi
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
1,55
614
,530
19,4
9421
,523
21,6
4122
,962
22,0
6724
,450
633
Mis
sour
i...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
4,16
538
,056
37,0
2149
,653
51,1
5355
,959
57,7
8866
,610
Mon
tana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...68
54,
394
5,25
16,
413
6,46
46,
118
7,45
28,
170
Nebr
aska
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..2,
083
6,99
07,
431
9,19
59,
797
10,1
5811
,337
12,4
37Ne
vada
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
517
3,31
14,
465
6,80
77,
021
7,27
17,
643
8,44
1Ne
w Ha
mps
hire
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
2,08
93,
606
4,38
56,
337
7,63
89,
446
10,7
7610
,532
New
Jers
ey...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..28
,622
61,4
7376
,644
83,5
0984
,020
86,3
5788
,932
90,6
44Ne
w M
exic
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1,
160
5,57
36,
421
7,85
012
,922
13,3
899,
257
6,25
3Ne
w Yo
rk...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
56,5
8813
4,04
015
7,58
217
4,58
718
4,58
318
3,70
718
7,20
520
5,85
5No
rth C
arol
ina
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
7,71
446
,176
54,7
1264
,004
70,3
0476
,808
75,2
0975
,017
North
Dak
ota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..1,
379
5,10
35,
600
6,01
66,
098
6,14
86,
334
6,10
8Oh
io...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.21
,974
76,8
8884
,304
100,
833
105,
719
113,
425
120,
127
124,
814
Okla
hom
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
1,26
011
,875
14,8
9417
,682
18,7
8420
,817
22,2
8724
,345
Oreg
on...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...12
,977
18,8
7721
,989
25,6
3728
,357
30,1
1930
,586
31,1
52Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
33,1
9096
,328
113,
735
123,
784
124,
490
26,9
3213
4,99
513
8,68
5Pu
erto
Ric
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.43
91,
707
1,60
01,
428
1,34
41,
445
2,41
82,
821
Rhod
e Is
land
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..3,
438
10,1
6810
,550
13,4
8614
,954
16,5
3917
,704
18,3
51So
uth
Caro
lina
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
3,06
515
,933
17,7
7921
,066
24,5
8827
,063
27,9
3329
,614
Sout
h Da
kota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1,
137
3,71
74,
213
4,88
85,
056
5,64
56,
129
6,61
7Te
nnes
see
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
3,87
122
,926
27,8
6522
,777
33,4
2234
,852
47,5
7634
,740
Texa
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
6,37
039
,659
47,2
5559
,165
66,1
9975
,830
88,5
0710
2,75
2Ut
ah...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
5,44
214
,999
16,2
6118
,939
19,4
8820
,691
20,9
4821
,555
Verm
ont
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
1,20
15,
578
6,38
06,
649
7,63
87,
424
8,31
28,
912
Virg
in Is
land
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...14
321
023
328
234
335
735
248
4Vi
rgin
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.9,
081
27,7
7033
,910
38,2
8139
,610
37,5
7948
,109
46,3
51W
ashi
ngto
n...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.18
,319
65,2
9177
,402
91,0
8310
0,33
710
4,06
310
9,76
311
2,81
9W
est
Virg
inia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1,
430
4,08
56,
859
9,50
016
,867
12,3
7713
,846
15,3
07W
isco
nsin
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.26
,044
59,3
0361
,179
63,8
1365
,439
81,4
3794
,558
80,9
86W
yom
ing
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...37
92,
584
3,22
63,
749
4,34
54,
288
4,66
54,
945
Natio
nwid
e to
tal
......
......
......
......
......
..59
6,53
21,
750,
125
1,98
3,96
22,
258,
844
2,41
6,51
12,
549,
723
2,69
3,18
62,
854,
502
Sour
ce:
Offic
e of
Chi
ld S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, U.
S. D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
uman
Ser
vice
s.
634
TABL
E 8–
14.—
TOTA
L NO
N-AF
DC C
OLLE
CTIO
NS B
Y ST
ATE,
SEL
ECTE
D FI
SCAL
YEA
RS 1
979–
96
[In t
hous
ands
of
dolla
rs]
Stat
e19
7919
9019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
96
Alab
ama
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
$16
$46,
691
$58,
165
$75,
140
$90,
733
$106
,760
$120
,098
$134
,423
Alas
ka...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
3,51
018
,628
20,7
8124
,468
27,4
2632
,207
35,5
9639
,245
Arizo
na...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
5,76
921
,735
25,8
7533
,754
47,9
6356
,243
69,5
9489
,273
Arka
nsas
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
1,49
414
,211
18,9
8426
,299
32,8
9939
,553
47,0
4559
,686
Calif
orni
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
82,4
1227
4,20
530
4,98
233
9,44
940
1,62
043
6,94
545
5,70
853
8,22
4Co
lora
do...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..49
622
,836
27,7
1534
,743
41,5
2750
,873
60,6
7872
,688
Conn
ectic
ut...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...11
,617
39,3
1941
,960
46,4
4552
,161
56,9
8363
,623
70,9
11De
lawa
re...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.4,
428
14,3
3516
,032
18,6
2018
,865
21,8
0923
,522
27,0
80Di
stric
t of
Col
umbi
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.17
99,
481
12,1
7114
,806
16,6
0118
,465
20,1
1721
,759
Flor
ida
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..1,
926
128,
239
157,
081
182,
707
211,
896
246,
928
288,
770
331,
114
Geor
gia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.78
367
,158
85,2
4999
,921
120,
939
145,
002
159,
435
166,
200
Guam
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...(1
)92
01,
527
2,17
22,
659
5,13
14,
314
4,73
3Ha
waii
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..2,
606
19,2
9522
,397
26,2
4328
,269
35,1
5637
,384
39,9
41Id
aho
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
454
15,9
5715
,960
19,3
0223
,381
26,8
5629
,835
32,8
94Ill
inoi
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
823
91,8
7010
1,16
712
4,46
712
8,14
014
1,07
915
4,24
917
7,44
3In
dian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
957
58,0
2165
,087
75,3
6889
,125
99,6
8012
3,48
815
1,94
1Io
wa...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..2,
363
42,4
3050
,109
60,6
4572
,503
82,5
9995
,131
111,
807
Kans
as...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
520
29,7
4937
,379
45,1
8337
,199
62,0
1270
,003
78,7
99Ke
ntuc
ky...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..26
637
,711
46,4
2659
,200
67,0
2283
,448
91,3
4110
5,45
7Lo
uisi
ana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...7,
434
39,6
6544
,898
58,3
9876
,227
91,2
9310
1,47
611
2,41
6M
aine
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...44
114
,652
15,4
9016
,528
19,2
8023
,402
28,9
2733
,043
Mar
yland
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
9,92
710
9,03
412
6,46
414
7,66
016
7,77
119
6,61
421
7,92
524
1,21
4M
assa
chus
etts
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.7,
193
107,
948
102,
576
113,
302
118,
082
127,
087
146,
475
176,
527
Mic
higa
n...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.17
2,03
949
9,48
354
3,94
461
4,48
870
4,90
372
2,27
369
1,95
677
7,60
3M
inne
sota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..6,
861
95,3
9511
2,56
113
6,19
015
8,51
918
4,83
421
9,13
125
3,90
0M
issi
ssip
pi...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
106
16,0
0220
,783
26,7
6631
,864
39,4
1746
,139
60,1
01
635
Mis
sour
i...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..1,
664
91,7
9510
4,35
111
6,68
613
8,00
815
8,40
318
0,91
221
2,61
4M
onta
na...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..52
84,
427
7,71
811
,024
13,6
8615
,245
18,0
8021
,187
Nebr
aska
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
385
45,3
8749
,624
56,9
8361
,911
70,9
2578
,718
82,9
36Ne
vada
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.2,
970
12,8
9918
,881
25,2
7330
,620
36,4
5142
,423
48,1
79Ne
w Ha
mps
hire
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
016
,999
18,2
7421
,023
23,8
5927
,092
31,7
9337
,710
New
Jers
ey...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
65,3
8322
0,45
025
0,23
528
8,99
732
3,82
935
3,39
039
1,39
540
9,51
3Ne
w M
exic
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...52
08,
843
10,3
7111
,239
14,1
9516
,693
17,6
8123
,860
New
York
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
79,7
7323
9,67
827
9,28
931
3,15
135
1,79
138
5,97
443
2,28
449
6,03
0No
rth C
arol
ina
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1,
454
74,1
6785
,510
103,
890
126,
951
149,
824
157,
936
186,
655
North
Dak
ota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
344
5,31
26,
708
9,58
312
,595
15,7
3019
,188
22,3
61Oh
io...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...85
841
2,62
746
8,34
656
5,16
660
8,41
367
5,89
576
6,71
585
6,52
9Ok
laho
ma
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...56
620
,293
25,0
2828
,858
33,3
8636
,760
41,6
2149
,109
Oreg
on...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
75,5
2559
,497
69,2
6381
,798
96,5
7211
2,10
812
6,24
414
7,27
6Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.15
3,52
851
7,89
351
7,89
365
1,99
868
9,99
073
4,72
176
0,72
581
9,59
6Pu
erto
Ric
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
477
72,8
2875
,652
82,9
0196
,014
97,1
8410
4,97
912
3,89
0Rh
ode
Isla
nd...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.13
79,
876
11,0
5911
,394
11,7
1713
,361
14,9
3117
,173
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
480
36,3
8741
,078
47,7
3254
,692
63,5
6574
,978
88,5
33So
uth
Dako
ta...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
270
7,30
78,
906
10,9
9313
,056
15,7
1118
,709
21,4
01Te
nnes
see
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..5,
105
48,5
7549
,167
62,0
4182
,730
106,
536
109,
328
125,
064
Texa
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1,
837
92,6
5914
5,54
319
1,99
324
3,30
329
1,34
135
9,95
643
5,50
1Ut
ah...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..1,
183
23,0
7327
,634
33,6
7136
,712
40,4
4542
,478
56,0
45Ve
rmon
t...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...24
93,
775
4,64
36,
869
8,19
310
,526
12,9
2216
,458
Virg
in Is
land
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
116
2,92
03,
105
3,76
74,
649
5,20
55,
047
4,95
5Vi
rgin
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...11
682
,789
96,0
0810
6,83
311
2,30
914
5,20
717
8,57
221
0,82
8W
ashi
ngto
n...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...8,
699
110,
459
145,
006
176,
372
206,
914
236,
425
265,
495
294,
184
Wes
t Vi
rgin
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
162
17,5
7416
,668
26,0
6132
,149
42,0
2558
,951
68,9
26W
isco
nsin
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...8,
224
181,
969
215,
533
229,
647
267,
374
299,
147
332,
929
359,
253
Wyo
min
g...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..14
14,
571
5,85
37,
471
9,46
511
,896
12,6
8520
,076
Natio
nwid
e to
tal
......
......
......
......
.73
6,31
54,
260,
000
4,90
1,65
75,
705,
678
6,49
2,65
57,
300,
436
8,05
9,63
79,
164,
265
1Le
ss t
han
$500
.
Sour
ce:
Offic
e of
Chi
ld S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, U.
S. D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
uman
Ser
vice
s.
636
TABL
E 8–
15.—
AVER
AGE
NUM
BER
OF A
FDC
CHIL
D SU
PPOR
T CA
SES
IN W
HICH
A C
OLLE
CTIO
N W
AS M
ADE,
BY
STAT
E FO
R SE
LECT
ED F
ISCA
L YE
ARS
1978
–96
Stat
e19
7819
8519
8719
8919
9019
9119
9219
9319
9519
96
Alab
ama
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
7,96
69,
133
11,5
7212
,316
10,8
608,
347
9,20
99,
077
7,67
96,
961
Alas
ka...
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
246
1,12
01,
038
1,21
31,
387
1,71
81,
949
2,16
82,
415
2,62
0Ar
izona
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
819
1,85
11,
470
2,54
53,
128
1,93
02,
822
3,34
37,
384
6,76
4Ar
kans
as...
......
......
......
......
......
......
2,50
95,
207
5,50
66,
278
6,37
27,
071
8,18
88,
301
6,77
36,
589
Calif
orni
a...
......
......
......
......
......
.....
92,3
2510
3,74
274
,081
84,3
6789
,304
104,
903
116,
118
123,
776
173,
547
224,
932
Colo
rado
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
3,17
75,
687
4,09
24,
771
4,43
74,
581
5,12
65,
210
4,41
84,
202
Conn
ectic
ut...
......
......
......
......
......
..8,
002
15,5
6513
,337
7,47
06,
578
7,12
88,
445
9,43
710
,792
11,5
74De
lawa
re...
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,15
62,
891
2,85
82,
111
2,22
32,
495
2,66
32,
913
2,88
02,
543
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
......
......
......
...70
81,
925
2,13
82,
553
1,75
81,
940
2,28
12,
437
2,53
42,
357
Flor
ida
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.7,
376
16,4
6830
,114
34,8
8338
,500
40,6
8740
,135
44,7
2749
,284
41,1
95Ge
orgi
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
...6,
350
6,65
710
,710
14,8
3319
,310
23,2
8024
,729
26,6
7628
,639
25,1
36Gu
am...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
(1)
206
197
182
339
573
616
683
646
559
Hawa
ii...
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
1,75
74,
622
3,17
53,
831
2,65
82,
773
4,65
14,
551
2,92
03,
428
Idah
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,34
64,
343
1,24
51,
522
1,75
21,
992
2,35
62,
719
3,13
03,
073
Illin
ois
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.9,
624
18,2
9914
,352
14,9
8616
,968
23,5
1123
,639
26,0
2828
,430
29,5
86In
dian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
...9,
488
22,0
5816
,188
17,7
1620
,444
26,3
4430
,823
31,1
5911
1,07
830
,119
Iowa
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
8,39
611
,871
7,01
57,
241
7,28
97,
153
7,68
17,
365
7,05
75,
604
Kans
as...
......
......
......
......
......
......
...2,
859
4,76
93,
798
3,56
54,
595
5,26
86,
120
6,85
77,
515
7,06
4Ke
ntuc
ky...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.3,
083
6,72
96,
853
8,69
910
,741
12,5
1313
,516
15,2
1712
,679
11,6
07Lo
uisi
ana
......
......
......
......
......
......
..5,
204
7,83
69,
916
11,5
8211
,842
12,1
9812
,510
12,1
6411
,887
11,9
57M
aine
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..2,
368
7,17
84,
734
5,20
05,
515
5,76
75,
287
7,01
38,
793
8,98
1M
aryla
nd...
......
......
......
......
......
......
14,0
0215
,861
9,07
35,
250
9,23
718
,330
19,3
6618
,684
18,1
1916
,574
Mas
sach
uset
ts...
......
......
......
......
...17
,782
25,3
5017
,211
16,6
1016
,029
16,1
0617
,961
18,3
7822
,245
17,1
18M
ichi
gan
......
......
......
......
......
......
...61
,985
59,0
4958
,364
47,3
8851
,747
46,6
4745
,112
45,2
1139
,332
36,4
96M
inne
sota
......
......
......
......
......
......
.9,
818
14,8
7212
,442
13,8
2214
,192
12,6
5814
,563
16,4
4017
,170
15,7
78M
issi
ssip
pi...
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
846
3,74
24,
544
6,41
07,
237
8,80
89,
604
10,1
579,
970
9,73
2M
isso
uri
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
(2)
7,71
66,
483
9,89
411
,178
11,2
4113
,430
14,1
3513
,096
13,9
87
637
Mon
tana
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
748
1,60
084
91,
086
1,14
01,
298
1,55
11,
816
2,16
92,
319
Nebr
aska
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
509
2,36
22,
555
2,66
62,
811
3,25
54,
802
4,81
15,
538
5,73
7Ne
vada
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
494
2,37
01,
645
1,91
72,
269
2,40
43,
096
3,50
63,
518
4,79
2Ne
w Ha
mps
hire
......
......
......
......
....
1,53
01,
021
981
988
1,09
11,
454
2,24
02,
703
3,32
83,
215
New
Jers
ey...
......
......
......
......
......
...16
,243
27,6
8625
,182
18,4
1517
,591
19,7
2824
,376
26,2
4126
,899
27,3
10Ne
w M
exic
o...
......
......
......
......
......
..1,
429
2,03
42,
175
3,14
73,
766
4,38
33,
865
4,38
56,
613
7,42
7Ne
w Yo
rk...
......
......
......
......
......
......
36,2
8748
,979
30,9
9336
,695
40,2
1946
,382
51,2
9051
,407
51,9
4352
,741
North
Car
olin
a...
......
......
......
......
...11
,232
14,2
1617
,089
19,1
5720
,381
24,6
9928
,028
29,6
4928
,027
25,2
76No
rth D
akot
a...
......
......
......
......
......
759
1,65
61,
130
1,33
81,
647
1,66
51,
597
1,57
994
31,
006
Ohio
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
24,4
1932
,582
35,2
7340
,308
35,9
7334
,446
38,4
4539
,857
47,3
2345
994
Okla
hom
a...
......
......
......
......
......
.....
1,10
13,
543
1,46
86,
605
7,78
73,
895
4,79
45,
294
5,67
15,
157
Oreg
on...
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
6,76
16,
687
5,93
55,
829
6,43
77,
437
8,32
19,
495
9,39
08,
899
Penn
sylv
ania
......
......
......
......
......
...15
,172
42,0
8849
,100
45,7
7247
,039
52,2
6959
,514
61,9
9858
,646
60,9
52Pu
erto
Ric
o...
......
......
......
......
......
..41
33,
736
3,58
83,
991
3,69
63,
103
3,02
62,
811
3,45
41,
351
Rhod
e Is
land
......
......
......
......
......
...2,
419
3,23
33,
092
4,14
14,
295
3,10
03,
346
4,07
04,
830
4,73
9So
uth
Caro
lina
......
......
......
......
......
3,34
35,
785
10,4
9513
,954
14,6
1415
,349
16,7
6419
,026
20,9
6421
,547
Sout
h Da
kota
......
......
......
......
......
..1,
087
1,53
21,
887
1,74
41,
234
1,26
21,
526
1,64
21,
809
2,26
8Te
nnes
see
......
......
......
......
......
......
.4,
705
8,33
69,
430
13,1
1416
,659
11,6
2512
,179
11,3
9110
,344
8,89
2Te
xas
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...5,
446
5,65
29,
167
13,5
0915
,447
18,2
2920
,387
23,0
7526
,570
27,8
97Ut
ah...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.3,
784
5,20
93,
627
3,65
23,
333
3,66
93,
973
4,03
33,
979
4,03
4Ve
rmon
t...
......
......
......
......
......
......
..95
32,
329
1,98
42,
462
2,59
62,
826
3,55
64,
114
2,59
42,
856
Virg
in Is
land
s...
......
......
......
......
....
232
199
220
184
133
135
165
193
214
158
Virg
inia
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
4,72
913
,054
10,8
1311
,854
14,1
3816
,761
18,6
7919
,399
45,5
7619
,188
Was
hing
ton
......
......
......
......
......
.....
14,8
6015
,895
18,1
1022
,921
27,0
6323
,263
28,6
1827
,020
29,0
2624
,317
Wes
t Vi
rgin
ia...
......
......
......
......
.....
1,43
02,
331
2,10
72,
426
2,48
42,
622
3,34
74,
108
6,18
54,
488
Wis
cons
in...
......
......
......
......
......
.....
16,8
6844
,799
26,8
4731
,438
30,1
4330
,426
32,6
9331
,984
32,1
4010
,681
Wyo
min
g...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.29
445
373
81,
034
1,19
71,
681
2,09
42,
146
2,05
867
5
Tota
l...
......
......
......
......
.....
458,
439
684,
114
608,
986
657,
585
700,
803
755,
328
831,
172
872,
579
1,05
0,16
394
0,45
21
Data
not
rep
orte
d fo
r th
is i
tem
or
insu
ffici
ent
data
rep
orte
d to
per
form
ind
icat
ed c
ompu
tatio
n.2
Less
tha
n $5
00.
Sour
ce:
Offic
e of
Chi
ld S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, U.
S. D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
uman
Ser
vice
s.
638
TABL
E 8–
16.—
AVER
AGE
NUM
BER
OF N
ON-A
FDC
CHIL
D SU
PPOR
T EN
FORC
EMEN
T CA
SES
IN W
HICH
A C
OLLE
CTIO
N W
AS M
ADE
BY S
TATE
, SEL
ECTE
DFI
SCAL
YEA
RS 1
978–
96
Stat
e19
7819
8519
8719
8919
9019
9119
9219
9319
9519
96
Alab
ama
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
110
5,02
311
,583
16,6
0219
,971
28,5
1233
,741
39,5
8647
,785
51,5
47Al
aska
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...2,
309
3,20
53,
184
3,63
73,
947
4,21
14,
598
4,99
75,
891
6,33
1Ar
izona
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..(1
)4,
770
4,66
86,
740
7,33
39,
144
11,1
0710
,283
21,8
8125
,800
Arka
nsas
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
764
3,61
35,
074
7,24
18,
473
11,2
3215
,088
18,4
4923
,243
27,0
15Ca
lifor
nia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
69,6
9664
,686
77,4
4891
,029
96,1
0110
1,91
397
,597
104,
864
155,
144
200,
129
Colo
rado
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,01
73,
976
4,53
76,
054
7,28
19,
008
10,4
9211
,360
14,5
2416
,883
Conn
ectic
ut...
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
(1)
9,39
29,
884
10,6
0611
,289
13,2
8914
,441
15,7
2117
,950
20,0
71De
lawa
re...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..3,
210
4,39
55,
073
6,38
06,
770
8,05
88,
303
9,19
111
,575
9,85
6Di
stric
t of
Col
umbi
a...
......
......
......
......
..93
1,00
71,
264
2,65
34,
252
4,96
45,
704
6,27
86,
904
7,16
4Fl
orid
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,20
07,
593
25,5
7350
,995
56,3
2966
,748
67,9
4877
,734
96,3
9410
2,04
5Ge
orgi
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
1,20
75,
487
14,8
8324
,992
30,2
1734
,545
35,4
1940
,698
50,1
7855
,749
Guam
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
(1)
6511
420
737
849
561
680
31,
582
1,50
8Ha
waii
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...(1
)35
22,
804
6,68
28,
103
10,3
9815
,305
16,2
9910
,237
10,3
93Id
aho
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
455
1,04
72,
529
5,54
06,
493
7,40
38,
689
9,88
911
,522
11,6
12Ill
inoi
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
196
10,0
3014
,479
21,7
8126
,184
36,3
6336
,246
40,7
4448
,174
54,7
14In
dian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
450
2,88
112
,759
17,9
9025
,586
27,1
1134
,855
36,8
6539
,155
45,0
17Io
wa...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...67
14,
913
3,44
110
,807
12,4
0014
,103
16,3
5219
,266
24,1
6125
,634
Kans
as...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
210
758
5,26
09,
308
11,5
2013
,855
16,0
0318
,846
24,9
9127
,187
Kent
ucky
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
255
3,64
715
,549
13,6
8617
,473
20,4
8923
,531
28,9
5035
,072
38,8
15Lo
uisi
ana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
6,86
610
,636
11,6
9514
,883
16,7
3920
,001
24,1
9428
,146
37,3
9642
,588
Mai
ne...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.63
81,
496
3,86
25,
774
6,42
56,
510
5,47
97,
630
11,7
9312
,752
Mar
yland
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
130
26,1
5412
,685
15,9
6927
,339
49,3
8052
,024
54,9
8961
,259
65,0
38M
assa
chus
etts
......
......
......
......
......
......
..(1
)0
26,5
4927
,950
22,9
2114
,264
24,6
0525
,899
33,5
3340
,266
Mic
higa
n...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..(1
)88
,675
126,
187
120,
969
115,
081
129,
461
133,
652
141,
489
151,
518
164,
057
Min
neso
ta...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
2,76
612
,615
16,1
3723
,502
26,7
1227
,174
35,7
9143
,272
56,7
2064
,251
Mis
siss
ippi
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..81
1,31
94,
348
6,93
77,
917
10,0
7712
,997
16,0
0724
,355
29,3
77M
isso
uri
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
(1)
5,36
214
,676
22,8
0226
,994
32,3
1738
,492
41,0
2247
,438
57,7
45
639
Mon
tana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
444
344
800
1,01
21,
448
2,20
82,
748
3,75
06,
148
7,48
8Ne
bras
ka...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..17
67,
874
10,5
4013
,464
14,7
4814
,883
15,1
8517
,771
18,3
9919
,113
Neva
da...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
4,02
65,
360
3,21
24,
085
4,45
15,
327
6,67
67,
819
9,38
710
,072
New
Ham
pshi
re...
......
......
......
......
......
....
(1)
4,93
95,
474
5,80
95,
260
5,87
57,
077
7,87
010
,079
11,3
16Ne
w Je
rsey
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..20
,000
45,8
6851
,706
65,9
4766
,885
68,7
5378
,789
84,2
6789
,409
97,3
60Ne
w M
exic
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
286
2,24
92,
462
4,49
05,
360
5,75
85,
947
5,84
98,
095
9,45
5Ne
w Yo
rk...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..39
,623
63,8
2967
,460
78,6
3883
,651
94,0
3110
3,92
410
8,41
915
2,55
613
6,97
5No
rth C
arol
ina
......
......
......
......
......
......
..1,
715
10,1
3715
,323
22,5
8427
,632
31,8
1037
,172
43,8
8459
,956
68,5
79No
rth D
akot
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
..15
426
686
51,
427
1,91
12,
357
3,32
04,
026
4,24
56,
582
Ohio
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1,
430
10,8
5339
,114
100,
069
101,
553
107,
806
135,
535
149,
104
191,
748
158,
967
Okla
hom
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.(1
)1,
968
4,86
78,
635
10,5
098,
558
8,47
910
,707
13,7
3015
,347
Oreg
on...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
17,9
5719
,331
20,6
2023
,747
25,6
5719
,754
21,8
1025
,063
31,9
6835
,821
Penn
sylv
ania
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
49,6
2110
8,49
812
3,24
814
0,75
014
7,88
517
1,52
518
2,09
819
0,67
119
5,14
420
9,43
6Pu
erto
Ric
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
710
26,8
7330
,490
35,3
4635
,295
36,7
3133
,075
41,1
3045
,963
47,3
20Rh
ode
Isla
nd...
......
......
......
......
......
......
..57
1,96
92,
750
3,55
93,
705
3,01
73,
060
3,29
14,
271
4,67
0So
uth
Caro
lina
......
......
......
......
......
......
..20
32,
777
3,16
54,
671
4,89
610
,393
25,7
6427
,771
34,4
7136
,395
Sout
h Da
kota
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
297
502
2,17
53,
154
2,73
93,
262
3,88
14,
607
6,33
97,
916
Tenn
esse
e...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
6,36
012
,156
14,9
5721
,649
28,1
7431
,554
35,3
5840
,003
53,4
9855
,076
Texa
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..2,
861
8,83
315
,079
26,6
4337
,741
51,0
3965
,152
79,0
3711
1,45
113
3,42
7Ut
ah...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...40
01,
068
4,00
85,
437
6,73
88,
605
9,70
410
,573
13,4
4615
,343
Verm
ont
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.18
139
396
71,
459
1,65
91,
870
2,43
33,
154
3,38
04,
603
Virg
in Is
land
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
11,
288
1,25
21,
499
1,24
71,
301
1,34
81,
538
1,65
51,
410
Virg
inia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.38
876
19,2
7326
,638
31,4
9234
,242
38,2
6746
,760
88,5
0066
,164
Was
hing
ton
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.4,
822
9,80
213
,656
24,3
3134
,791
46,9
3055
,788
64,9
2974
,479
69,2
33W
est
Virg
inia
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
130
288
1,95
35,
246
8,04
57,
555
9,51
311
,971
22,0
2220
,762
Wis
cons
in...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.4,
685
20,2
8841
,953
63,5
5456
,769
65,7
1870
,780
88,6
0111
1,43
894
,760
Wyo
min
g...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...89
7756
31,
669
2,35
22,
853
3,27
51,
738
3,56
46,
582
Tota
l...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.24
8,59
065
3,80
393
4,17
71,
247,
228
1,36
2,82
11,
554,
740
1,74
9,42
71,
953,
580
2,40
4,71
62,
563,
716
1Da
ta n
ot r
epor
ted
for
this
ite
m o
r in
suffi
cien
t da
ta r
epor
ted
to p
erfo
rm i
ndic
ated
com
puta
tion.
Sour
ce:
Offic
e of
Chi
ld S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, U.
S. D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
uman
Ser
vice
s.
640
TABL
E 8–
17.—
SUPP
ORT
ORDE
RS E
STAB
LISH
ED, E
NFOR
CED,
AND
MOD
IFIE
D TO
INCL
UDE
HEAL
TH IN
SURA
NCE
BY S
TATE
, FIS
CAL
YEAR
199
6
Stat
eTo
tal n
umbe
rof
ord
ers
es-
tabl
ishe
d
Tota
l num
ber
with
hea
lth in
-su
ranc
e
Perc
ent
with
heal
th in
-su
ranc
e
Tota
l num
ber
ofor
ders
enf
orce
d or
mod
ified
Tota
l num
ber
enfo
rced
or m
odifi
ed w
ith h
ealth
insu
ranc
e
Perc
ent
with
heal
th in
-su
ranc
e
Alab
ama
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..11
,932
2,52
521
.16
436,
090
5,04
71.
16Al
aska
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
3,26
43,
182
97.4
93,
934
3,70
794
.23
Arizo
na...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.10
,918
10,9
1810
0.00
233.
943
20,5
838.
80Ar
kans
as...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
8,61
64,
713
54.7
07,
667
4,68
861
.15
Calif
orni
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...19
6,58
516
2,78
282
.80
922,
802
764,
840
82.8
8Co
lora
do...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
8,90
67,
570
85.0
054
,576
26,5
0148
.56
Conn
ectic
ut...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
25,4
7815
,028
58.9
811
4,45
955
,855
48.8
0De
lawa
re...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
3,02
22,
172
71.8
713
,039
9,59
873
.61
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1,
133
40.
352,
950
NA0.
00Fl
orid
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..3,
188
NA0.
0013
,224
NA0.
00Ge
orgi
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.26
,758
13,0
5748
.80
303,
470
2,18
40.
72Gu
am...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...64
437
057
.45
891
466
52.3
0Ha
waii
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
4,21
14,
211
100.
0010
0,66
010
0,66
010
0.00
Idah
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
3,39
13,
391
100.
0080
,737
7,26
49.
00Ill
inoi
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..22
,797
6,65
129
.17
12,8
393,
650
28.4
3In
dian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.25
,504
NA0.
00NA
NA0.
00Io
wa...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
11,4
889,
301
80.9
628
4,82
614
7,46
951
.78
Kans
as...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.15
,579
13,1
7784
.58
160,
939
40,6
3825
.25
Kent
ucky
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..29
,328
6,29
421
.46
111,
247
19,8
3417
.83
Loui
sian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...14
,357
13,2
9092
.57
136,
946
97,5
5871
.24
Mai
ne...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...5,
584
3,51
562
.95
14,1
751,
463
10.3
2M
aryla
nd...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
17,1
3113
,087
76.3
922
1,21
145
,751
20.6
8M
assa
chus
etts
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
13,8
249,
121
65.9
88,
235
3,95
147
.98
Mic
higa
n...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
35,0
6732
,674
93.1
81,
072,
008
69,0
336.
44M
inne
sota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
20,1
8211
,447
56.7
252
,386
40,0
5076
.45
Mis
siss
ippi
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
18,5
185,
374
29.0
26,
396
1,54
924
.22
641
Mis
sour
i...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
30,3
9722
,844
75.1
511
1,59
266
,890
59.9
4M
onta
na...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
2,95
42,
739
92.7
233
,235
1,96
65.
92Ne
bras
ka...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
5,22
72,
885
55.1
92,
674
736
27.5
2Ne
vada
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
5,20
84,
045
77.6
744
,875
1,91
64.
27Ne
w Ha
mps
hire
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...4,
087
2,71
266
.36
49,1
315,
620
11.4
4Ne
w Je
rsey
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
25,4
1622
,053
86.7
722
,104
20,5
8693
.13
New
Mex
ico
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...4,
531
1,97
743
.63
1,29
855
842
.99
New
York
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.32
,787
13,1
1339
.99
37,9
0015
,158
39.9
9No
rth C
arol
ina
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
40,1
2726
,926
67.1
025
3,39
64,
257
1.68
North
Dak
ota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.2,
005
1,93
896
.66
6,81
718
22.
67Oh
io...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
55,2
0326
,956
48.8
345
9,05
414
1,14
530
.75
Okla
hom
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...8,
357
6,10
973
.10
30,7
092,
538
8.26
Oreg
on...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..15
,542
13,3
6485
.99
60,2
8623
,712
39.3
3Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
134,
067
91,5
3268
.27
395,
227
248,
263
62.8
2Pu
erto
Ric
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
480
183.
7575
,776
NA0.
00Rh
ode
Isla
nd...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
3,10
32,
086
67.2
312
,975
8,39
264
.68
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.10
,517
6,54
462
.22
29,2
8614
,649
50.0
2So
uth
Dako
ta...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...2,
270
2,04
690
.13
13,8
0412
,242
88.6
8Te
nnes
see
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
18,7
078,
659
46.2
932
,170
9,04
528
.12
Texa
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
40,4
8040
,480
100.
0011
2,06
229
,954
26.7
3Ut
ah...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
6,61
45,
362
81.0
725
6,36
817
7,24
869
.14
Verm
ont
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
495
854
57.1
23,
336
1,93
357
.94
Virg
in Is
land
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..55
53
0.54
1,11
0NA
0.00
Virg
inia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...24
,176
16,5
8568
.60
118,
661
23,7
7520
.04
Was
hing
ton
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...32
,776
27,9
2285
.19
657,
158
335,
479
51.0
5W
est
Virg
inia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
6,50
93,
324
51.0
764
2,41
355
,174
8.59
Wis
cons
in...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...29
,702
15,5
2152
.26
67,1
6431
,621
47.0
8W
yom
ing
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..2,
367
390
16.4
82,
836
433
15.2
7U.
S. t
otal
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
1,08
3,06
472
2,84
166
.74
7,90
3,06
72,
705,
811
34.2
4
NA—
Not
avai
labl
e.
Sour
ce:
Offic
e of
Chi
ld S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, U.
S. D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
uman
Ser
vice
s.
642
TABL
E 8–
18.—
PERC
ENTA
GE O
F AF
DC P
AYM
ENTS
REC
OVER
ED T
HROU
GH C
HILD
SUP
PORT
COL
LECT
IONS
BY
STAT
E, S
ELEC
TED
FISC
AL Y
EARS
197
9–96
Stat
e19
7919
8519
8719
8919
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
96
Alab
ama
......
......
......
....
8.5
23.2
30.8
31.7
33.7
27.0
23.8
23.1
25.6
31.2
Alas
ka...
......
......
......
....
1.5
8.3
12.6
13.7
14.6
12.7
11.9
13.6
16.2
18.9
Arizo
na...
......
......
......
...2.
05.
13.
84.
44.
25.
47.
18.
29.
810
.6Ar
kans
as...
......
......
......
4.8
17.6
21.0
20.7
23.6
26.5
28.0
28.0
32.5
41.3
Calif
orni
a...
......
......
.....
6.5
6.1
6.0
5.9
6.3
6.5
7.1
7.8
8.3
10.6
Colo
rado
......
......
......
....
4.8
9.5
11.4
12.3
13.0
15.0
16.7
19.5
22.7
28.6
Conn
ectic
ut...
......
......
..6.
512
.212
.79.
510
.210
.511
.211
.015
.018
.0De
lawa
re...
......
......
......
4.4
17.3
21.2
20.3
20.6
19.7
19.8
20.2
22.1
24.5
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
...1.
03.
84.
74.
94.
54.
74.
64.
44.
75.
0Fl
orid
a...
......
......
......
....
5.5
11.5
11.9
11.6
11.1
9.9
9.6
10.2
11.3
12.1
Geor
gia
......
......
......
......
4.3
10.4
12.4
14.3
15.4
18.2
20.1
20.3
20.9
27.2
Guam
......
......
......
......
..5.
39.
111
.910
.832
.734
.628
.718
.614
.516
.0Ha
waii
......
......
......
......
.2.
98.
97.
38.
87.
46.
96.
76.
67.
27.
8Id
aho
......
......
......
......
...8.
925
.033
.235
.734
.736
.535
.336
.335
.138
.1Ill
inoi
s...
......
......
......
....
1.5
4.8
5.0
5.6
5.7
7.0
6.6
7.1
7.8
9.1
Indi
ana
......
......
......
......
7.2
21.5
23.0
22.4
23.8
24.0
24.5
24.2
26.8
30.4
Iowa
......
......
......
......
....
9.0
19.3
19.2
20.1
20.6
23.2
24.3
26.3
30.4
34.1
Kans
as...
......
......
......
...5.
014
.113
.415
.917
.819
.419
.721
.825
.930
.8Ke
ntuc
ky...
......
......
......
.3.
88.
512
.012
.415
.018
.820
.021
.022
.921
.6Lo
uisi
ana
......
......
......
..5.
29.
110
.511
.112
.414
.215
.316
.118
.723
.8M
aine
......
......
......
......
..7.
320
.626
.122
.921
.518
.824
.528
.330
.433
.5M
aryla
nd...
......
......
......
6.1
11.2
13.0
14.5
11.4
14.2
16.9
15.8
15.3
16.5
Mas
sach
uset
ts...
......
...6.
610
.712
.011
.810
.410
.511
.411
.612
.813
.6M
ichi
gan
......
......
......
...9.
012
.513
.013
.915
.115
.716
.617
.718
.721
.9M
inne
sota
......
......
......
.7.
812
.714
.214
.414
.616
.317
.319
.223
.021
.5M
issi
ssip
pi...
......
......
...2.
99.
413
.716
.822
.324
.224
.928
.029
.335
.9M
isso
uri
......
......
......
....
2.8
12.0
15.0
17.8
15.6
19.0
18.9
20.1
21.0
26.0
Mon
tana
......
......
......
....
4.4
8.6
9.9
11.1
12.9
16.0
15.0
14.2
17.3
20.3
643
Nebr
aska
......
......
......
...5.
411
.512
.913
.013
.216
.016
.918
.121
.424
.6Ne
vada
......
......
......
......
6.3
16.4
12.4
12.2
14.1
17.1
16.6
15.7
15.3
17.9
New
Ham
pshi
re...
......
.9.
415
.212
.411
.310
.112
.314
.416
.019
.421
.5Ne
w Je
rsey
......
......
......
5.9
12.5
14.4
14.0
16.4
16.5
16.4
16.9
18.3
20.2
New
Mex
ico
......
......
.....
3.4
7.4
9.4
9.2
7.8
8.0
11.6
9.7
6.0
4.2
New
York
......
......
......
...3.
55.
05.
66.
46.
77.
27.
06.
76.
98.
0No
rth C
arol
ina
......
......
5.6
17.4
18.9
18.8
18.4
19.6
20.5
22.4
23.1
25.7
North
Dak
ota
......
......
...9.
616
.817
.421
.023
.424
.024
.125
.428
.929
.7Oh
io...
......
......
......
......
..4.
810
.19.
910
.010
.311
.712
.213
.415
.517
.5Ok
laho
ma
......
......
......
..1.
66.
48.
09.
09.
910
.711
.112
.814
.920
.1Or
egon
......
......
......
......
.9.
013
.013
.013
.513
.512
.513
.414
.315
.016
.9Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia...
......
......
4.6
11.0
13.2
12.6
13.7
14.0
13.7
13.6
14.5
16.2
Puer
to R
ico
......
......
.....
0.7
2.7
2.3
2.4
2.1
1.8
1.7
1.9
3.5
4.4
Rhod
e Is
land
......
......
...6.
17.
68.
910
.49.
210
.811
.612
.613
.915
.2So
uth
Caro
lina
......
......
5.4
13.1
15.9
16.8
16.8
17.9
21.1
23.6
26.1
29.5
Sout
h Da
kota
......
......
..6.
514
.417
.917
.118
.118
.819
.523
.227
.431
.2Te
nnes
see
......
......
......
.5.
010
.314
.113
.714
.311
.215
.715
.923
.317
.7Te
xas
......
......
......
......
...5.
46.
29.
49.
510
.211
.812
.914
.517
.622
.2Ut
ah...
......
......
......
......
.13
.719
.622
.123
.423
.225
.626
.228
.329
.734
.5Ve
rmon
t...
......
......
......
..4.
111
.113
.412
.713
.012
.714
.714
.617
.721
.4Vi
rgin
Isla
nds
......
......
.8.
58.
37.
97.
37.
18.
510
.210
.68.
711
.0Vi
rgin
ia...
......
......
......
..6.
39.
013
.515
.717
.217
.317
.316
.221
.823
.8W
ashi
ngto
n...
......
......
..12
.510
.914
.417
.118
.120
.020
.821
.122
.423
.5W
est
Virg
inia
......
......
..2.
67.
86.
15.
18.
110
.618
.213
.815
.117
.5W
isco
nsin
......
......
......
..9.
512
.415
.415
.515
.716
.217
.021
.627
.328
.5W
yom
ing
......
......
......
....
5.6
8.2
10.0
13.5
13.3
14.3
17.0
20.7
25.1
30.1
Tota
l...
......
.....
5.8
9.1
10.0
10.3
10.7
11.4
12.0
12.5
13.6
15.5
Note
.—Pa
ymen
ts t
o AF
DC U
nem
ploy
ed P
aren
t (U
P) f
amili
es h
ave
been
exc
lude
d fro
m t
he p
aym
ents
tot
als
in t
hose
Sta
tes
havi
ng A
FDC–
UP P
rogr
ams.
Sour
ce:
Offic
e of
Chi
ld S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, U.
S. D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
uman
Ser
vice
s.
644
TABL
E 8–
19.—
FEDE
RAL
INCO
ME
TAX
REFU
ND O
FFSE
T CO
LLEC
TION
S BY
STA
TE, F
ISCA
L YE
ARS
1983
–96
[In t
hous
ands
of
dolla
rs]
Stat
e19
8319
8719
8919
9019
9119
9219
9319
9519
96
Alab
ama
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
$1,5
55$5
,135
$7,4
50$8
,009
$8,8
27$2
0,58
6$1
7,81
8$1
8,68
8$2
5,95
8Al
aska
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..21
289
199
51,
208
1,38
71,
711
1,46
42,
156
2,94
6Ar
izona
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.38
52,
049
2,59
22,
605
2,87
64,
007
8,38
17,
538
8,76
3Ar
kans
as...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1,
104
3,77
04,
490
4,66
95,
575
7,10
66,
862
7,51
511
,391
Calif
orni
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
35,0
3446
,287
50,4
7257
,624
57,0
9867
,569
62,4
6086
,508
129,
209
Colo
rado
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
3,01
63,
020
4,94
75,
604
6,17
97,
614
7,85
19,
283
13,9
73Co
nnec
ticut
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
4,45
56,
140
12,1
329,
907
9,25
010
,190
9,31
510
,823
13,6
99De
lawa
re...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.16
61,
319
1,81
21,
966
2,46
72,
683
2,31
32,
626
3,29
1Di
stric
t of
Col
umbi
a...
......
......
......
......
......
.56
777
91,
202
1,94
21,
606
1,78
81,
701
1,99
22,
555
Flor
ida
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1,
980
7,31
821
,294
21,0
3824
,880
31,5
6930
,689
38,0
4550
,377
Geor
gia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,52
67,
258
11,5
6613
,032
15,6
9322
,016
22,4
4130
,103
36,4
29Gu
am...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1344
2613
1151
4370
92Ha
waii
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.81
71,
122
1,51
11,
573
1,97
62,
328
3,70
43,
589
4,51
9Id
aho
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
183
1,59
41,
959
2,17
32,
270
2,69
02,
595
3,20
54,
061
Illin
ois
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..4,
525
15,4
1513
,887
19,3
0718
,876
26,6
3120
,891
28,8
3633
,620
Indi
ana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
4,94
011
,390
15,6
4215
,860
16,8
5321
,169
19,8
0923
,429
27,6
90Io
wa...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..5,
526
7,79
88,
990
8,82
89,
439
11,2
4010
,633
13,0
5515
,623
Kans
as...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
2,52
53,
704
4,94
75,
300
6,10
17,
525
7,20
79,
196
12,6
33Ke
ntuc
ky...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1,
165
3,26
26,
812
6,68
07,
891
12,9
1911
,994
14,1
2117
,324
Loui
sian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,53
64,
722
5,79
76,
582
6,51
98,
438
9,35
613
,934
18,8
99M
aine
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
844
3,37
74,
866
5,38
34,
925
5,47
74,
862
6,10
37,
302
Mar
yland
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
5,68
89,
646
17,0
3914
,343
14,1
8215
,542
15,4
5417
,936
22,6
83M
assa
chus
etts
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
3,32
55,
269
10,1
0111
,899
10,9
3613
,077
11,4
659,
997
12,0
49M
ichi
gan
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
18,2
5025
,893
30,2
4629
,854
32,7
7644
,968
45,3
1449
,346
58,2
32M
inne
sota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..5,
576
6,76
27,
936
8,09
68,
831
9,90
49,
217
10,5
7513
,263
Mis
siss
ippi
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,01
92,
252
4,14
74,
958
6,39
28,
270
8,53
210
,765
20,1
56
645
Mis
sour
i...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..4,
289
8,48
212
,438
14,2
0510
,189
17,7
1116
,367
19,5
4625
,036
Mon
tana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
431
1,20
91,
366
1,30
11,
374
1,63
61,
679
1,79
42,
317
Nebr
aska
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...50
21,
395
2,59
82,
485
2,54
83,
121
3,21
33,
671
4,81
1Ne
vada
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
354
433
630
768
1,36
32,
449
2,29
13,
127
4,33
4Ne
w Ha
mps
hire
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
757
1,28
41,
137
1,17
71,
350
2,02
81,
997
2,86
93,
658
New
Jers
ey...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
9,45
814
,268
16,2
0116
,171
18,2
6620
,132
17,9
9021
,309
26,1
64Ne
w M
exic
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...53
32,
278
2,27
92,
585
2,86
33,
259
3,04
13,
907
5,05
2Ne
w Yo
rk...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
9,94
527
,991
23,4
7224
,763
31,3
0733
,734
31,0
8435
,960
43,8
54No
rth C
arol
ina
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.4,
235
7,22
911
,359
11,2
7012
,718
16,4
1017
,403
21,1
5428
,671
North
Dak
ota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...35
284
877
31,
302
1,50
11,
767
1,65
62,
303
2,52
1Oh
io...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..2,
886
11,1
8614
,346
16,5
1421
,027
27,4
7628
,651
46,8
4360
,010
Okla
hom
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
703
2,21
84,
197
4,64
75,
803
7,57
57,
077
9,14
811
,235
Oreg
on...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
3,78
24,
863
5,11
35,
381
5,62
26,
259
5,69
47,
997
10,4
97Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
6,11
217
,123
21,3
3224
,354
27,9
4632
,560
29,0
1236
,956
45,7
42Pu
erto
Ric
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...2
1347
663
231
218
287
3,18
1Rh
ode
Isla
nd...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
838
880
1,40
11,
548
1,52
21,
799
1,42
41,
857
2,30
7So
uth
Caro
lina
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
368
1,78
92,
788
3,23
33,
449
4,67
85,
198
6,29
68,
751
Sout
h Da
kota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...37
499
81,
465
1,49
81,
648
2,11
02,
018
2,46
53,
066
Tenn
esse
e...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
642
3,02
57,
110
7,53
98,
341
16,0
3312
,577
16,8
6520
,874
Texa
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
3,90
611
,316
17,9
3419
,926
24,1
3334
,346
36,5
6154
,142
71,0
26Ut
ah...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..2,
540
2,99
13,
730
4,06
64,
297
5,60
45,
431
6,27
06,
206
Verm
ont
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
611
887
1,15
41,
017
1,07
41,
294
1,07
31,
633
1,95
2Vi
rgin
Isla
nds
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
......
.....
3734
725
4468
8168
Virg
inia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,67
46,
840
8,91
39,
761
10,2
9812
,594
12,6
0116
,898
19,5
07W
ashi
ngto
n...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...4,
278
10,5
1012
,537
13,7
3213
,957
17,4
1717
,236
19,5
0623
,801
Wes
t Vi
rgin
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,03
82,
013
2,94
43,
066
3,26
53,
705
3,55
17,
221
7,86
3W
isco
nsin
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..6,
266
10,0
2912
,902
13,2
9014
,384
17,4
8618
,055
22,8
0032
,765
Wyo
min
g...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.22
250
353
468
41,
131
1,19
093
21,
977
3,44
1
Natio
nwid
e to
tal
......
......
......
......
..17
5,02
133
8,85
344
3,59
447
4,74
851
5,27
966
1,71
163
6,46
680
3,95
21,
045,
450
Sour
ce:
Offic
e of
Chi
ld S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, U.
S. D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
uman
Ser
vice
s.
646
TABL
E 8–
20.—
TOTA
L CH
ILD
SUPP
ORT
COLL
ECTI
ONS
PER
DOLL
AR O
F TO
TAL
ADM
INIS
TRAT
IVE
EXPE
NDIT
URES
BY
STAT
E, S
ELEC
TED
FISC
AL Y
EARS
1978
–96
Stat
e19
7819
8619
8719
8819
8919
9019
9119
9219
9319
9519
96
Alab
ama
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...0.
752.
452.
692.
502.
462.
782.
683.
113.
272.
243.
41Al
aska
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
3.19
2.61
3.05
3.46
4.06
4.14
3.64
3.92
3.71
2.93
3.31
Arizo
na...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..0.
881.
462.
212.
111.
841.
491.
541.
571.
791.
482.
41Ar
kans
as...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
1.00
2.62
2.94
2.94
3.38
2.80
3.00
3.15
3.20
2.75
2.77
Calif
orni
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
2.15
2.37
2.52
2.75
2.66
2.59
2.63
2.59
2.54
2.17
2.36
Colo
rado
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1.
781.
891.
901.
992.
212.
823.
222.
702.
472.
542.
82Co
nnec
ticut
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
4.20
3.49
2.91
2.73
2.76
2.46
2.73
2.97
3.19
2.88
2.91
Dela
ware
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..7.
142.
463.
072.
623.
013.
132.
872.
882.
392.
042.
50Di
stric
t of
Col
umbi
a...
......
......
......
.....
0.73
0.92
0.97
1.21
1.33
1.78
1.88
2.33
2.51
2.03
2.38
Flor
ida
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1.20
2.12
1.98
2.28
2.58
2.66
2.86
3.03
3.78
3.53
3.13
Geor
gia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
2.22
2.59
3.16
2.88
3.06
3.06
3.61
4.26
4.47
3.50
3.92
Guam
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..NA
1.39
1.53
1.62
1.28
1.24
1.98
1.87
1.89
1.33
2.57
Hawa
ii...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1.
712.
263.
103.
623.
623.
644.
063.
943.
792.
362.
18Id
aho
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..2.
103.
584.
063.
793.
954.
023.
213.
623.
432.
392.
32Ill
inoi
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...2.
102.
402.
512.
682.
772.
612.
632.
902.
362.
232.
41In
dian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..2.
424.
825.
225.
495.
346.
157.
276.
566.
455.
186.
54Io
wa...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.3.
496.
776.
126.
365.
664.
995.
025.
795.
144.
725.
23Ka
nsas
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
3.01
2.15
2.58
2.51
2.00
2.76
3.43
3.73
2.57
1.69
5.82
Kent
ucky
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1.
142.
522.
592.
442.
632.
552.
332.
973.
053.
213.
43Lo
uisi
ana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..1.
821.
992.
282.
602.
853.
122.
512.
743.
193.
374.
16M
aine
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.3.
403.
743.
754.
014.
143.
823.
062.
843.
394.
284.
05M
aryla
nd...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
2.14
3.77
3.02
3.31
3.36
3.80
3.80
4.49
4.56
4.07
4.36
Mas
sach
uset
ts...
......
......
......
......
......
..5.
123.
503.
464.
093.
243.
803.
414.
184.
303.
544.
05M
ichi
gan
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..9.
508.
339.
528.
808.
587.
838.
078.
208.
437.
206.
63M
inne
sota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.2.
153.
023.
513.
593.
653.
583.
744.
274.
203.
964.
36M
issi
ssip
pi...
......
......
......
......
......
......
..0.
872.
293.
363.
062.
231.
561.
762.
222.
202.
162.
87M
isso
uri
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
0.89
3.89
4.55
4.22
4.45
4.71
4.75
4.88
4.30
3.41
3.75
647
Mon
tana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1.
582.
593.
162.
974.
212.
742.
782.
382.
762.
872.
42Ne
bras
ka...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
2.10
5.44
5.20
5.02
4.69
4.48
3.83
3.54
4.17
3.44
3.16
Neva
da...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..1.
832.
102.
301.
952.
222.
122.
523.
062.
392.
082.
53Ne
w Ha
mps
hire
......
......
......
......
......
....
4.05
4.39
5.33
4.93
3.18
3.71
2.86
3.26
2.87
2.50
3.42
New
Jers
ey...
......
......
......
......
......
......
...4.
164.
644.
474.
123.
853.
663.
494.
024.
026.
134.
52Ne
w M
exic
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.1.
172.
271.
991.
761.
962.
002.
002.
303.
081.
541.
43Ne
w Yo
rk...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
1.75
1.83
1.98
2.36
2.74
2.55
2.81
3.22
3.10
3.39
4.03
North
Car
olin
a...
......
......
......
......
......
...1.
503.
263.
833.
323.
203.
183.
153.
203.
202.
402.
94No
rth D
akot
a...
......
......
......
......
......
.....
1.83
2.46
2.65
3.14
3.31
3.62
3.59
3.93
4.05
4.13
4.34
Ohio
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
2.50
4.41
5.65
10.8
36.
077.
216.
015.
355.
485.
636.
07Ok
laho
ma
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.0.
761.
782.
222.
482.
282.
292.
412.
693.
132.
703.
06Or
egon
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
9.48
4.47
4.03
4.27
4.45
4.49
4.48
5.10
4.95
4.81
5.60
Penn
sylv
ania
......
......
......
......
......
......
..9.
147.
787.
568.
528.
978.
718.
039.
279.
098.
157.
74Pu
erto
Ric
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
..0.
9214
.02
18.9
317
.60
13.6
17.
8415
.68
10.4
311
.73
3.96
4.44
Rhod
e Is
land
......
......
......
......
......
......
..3.
513.
903.
313.
653.
672.
522.
222.
314.
353.
454.
31So
uth
Caro
lina
......
......
......
......
......
.....
2.38
2.37
3.01
3.23
3.01
2.60
3.01
3.59
3.88
2.84
3.37
Sout
h Da
kota
......
......
......
......
......
......
.0.
992.
742.
963.
503.
993.
964.
434.
824.
905.
275.
87Te
nnes
see
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.2.
493.
313.
074.
093.
574.
284.
273.
875.
423.
754.
06Te
xas
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..0.
742.
012.
602.
812.
411.
932.
502.
532.
313.
013.
71Ut
ah...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1.99
2.21
2.39
2.86
2.92
3.09
2.80
3.08
2.86
1.96
2.66
Verm
ont
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
2.24
2.34
2.95
3.31
2.93
3.61
3.77
2.82
3.06
2.69
3.79
Virg
in Is
land
s...
......
......
......
......
......
....
0.40
2.14
4.13
4.16
3.11
4.18
2.07
4.10
4.50
0.86
2.25
Virg
inia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
0.72
1.57
2.41
2.39
3.03
2.35
3.13
2.91
3.09
3.63
4.18
Was
hing
ton
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
2.96
2.42
2.56
2.48
2.66
3.13
3.41
3.29
3.42
3.35
3.53
Wes
t Vi
rgin
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
.....
0.74
1.98
2.00
2.16
2.95
2.75
2.55
2.98
2.77
3.24
3.61
Wis
cons
in...
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
3.80
4.78
6.20
6.01
6.18
5.76
6.68
6.83
7.15
6.09
5.94
Wyo
min
g...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
3.18
3.27
4.64
4.91
3.50
3.37
3.50
4.87
2.34
1.76
2.96
U.S.
rat
io...
......
......
......
......
...3.
353.
453.
683.
943.
853.
753.
823.
993.
983.
603.
93
NA—
Not
avai
labl
e.
Sour
ce:
Offic
e of
Chi
ld S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, U.
S. D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
uman
Ser
vice
s.
648
TABL
E 8–
21.—
NUM
BER
OF P
ATER
NITI
ES E
STAB
LISH
ED B
Y ST
ATE,
SEL
ECTE
D FI
SCAL
YEA
RS 1
979–
96
Stat
e19
7919
8719
8919
9019
9119
9219
9319
9519
96
Alab
ama
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
6,16
16,
998
7,83
96,
517
6,61
27,
942
10,7
797,
816
7,10
3Al
aska
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
336
479
776
767
390
61,
070
1,57
692
9Ar
izona
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...15
41,
009
1,32
71,
237
2,67
43,
056
5,00
711
,608
10,3
89Ar
kans
as...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...2,
586
5,32
64,
453
3,19
14,
703
5,17
56,
580
8,29
48,
283
Calif
orni
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..19
,364
28,5
7035
,193
41,0
6556
,912
65,0
6277
,324
129,
593
183,
424
Colo
rado
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,04
61,
291
1,93
91,
864
2,88
74,
135
5,25
86,
201
5,90
8Co
nnec
ticut
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.3,
029
3,90
83,
888
4,49
95,
309
6,19
65,
368
7,57
88,
318
Dela
ware
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
205
1,86
71,
641
801
728
1,57
31,
395
2,29
23,
522
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
386
1,02
12,
079
2,79
13,
895
2,79
22,
884
1,68
31,
482
Flor
ida
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...7,
078
12,1
3613
,399
19,5
3417
,907
16,1
1910
,879
13,0
102,
806
Geor
gia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..3,
642
14,1
1218
,198
24,6
1528
,015
30,1
8129
,329
13,9
783,
146
Guam
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
NA12
210
956
388
464
244
086
680
2Ha
waii
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...85
41,
061
1,29
51,
843
1,67
21,
419
1,74
61,
493
1,78
5Id
aho
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
287
384
1,10
01,
310
1,55
11,
722
1,50
92,
079
2,53
3Ill
inoi
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.3,
025
20,8
4829
,926
25,4
9621
,157
18,9
0019
,017
22,2
3626
,483
Indi
ana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..1,
644
3,57
04,
943
5,30
96,
291
5,63
14,
950
4,20
24,
484
Iowa
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.57
51,
664
1,98
03,
045
1,90
44,
416
4,95
24,
378
3,41
4Ka
nsas
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...69
61,
119
2,10
13,
644
3,12
53,
198
4,44
510
,677
11,8
01Ke
ntuc
ky...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...78
43,
881
4,49
86,
092
6,81
67,
951
7,97
98,
950
9,99
4Lo
uisi
ana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
1,30
42,
926
4,45
15,
525
11,0
9811
,764
13,2
729,
299
11,2
35M
aine
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
382
951
1,60
91,
381
1,37
63,
189
1,37
01,
704
2,12
9M
aryla
nd...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...13
,307
6,67
19,
995
7,53
812
,081
11,2
599,
993
9,05
210
,931
Mas
sach
uset
ts...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
2,09
67,
025
6,19
46,
339
5,74
28,
195
6,23
410
,862
10,2
01M
ichi
gan
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
7,52
918
,274
23,1
4225
,574
27,9
5529
,087
28,0
7622
,471
24,8
98M
inne
sota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
1,78
63,
856
6,09
85,
661
7,69
55,
348
3,74
98,
936
9,69
6M
issi
ssip
pi...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
932
1,82
47,
929
10,7
4011
,950
8,97
88,
588
12,7
3414
,246
Mis
sour
i...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
NA14
,308
11,1
4616
,242
21,9
7623
,982
24,2
9224
,679
24,8
00M
onta
na...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...92
179
388
429
677
1,15
541
31,
368
1,56
7
649
Nebr
aska
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
NA71
075
988
51,
280
1,62
82,
019
4,32
94,
299
Neva
da...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
233
531
664
1,03
31,
655
1,70
21,
602
1,79
72,
252
New
Ham
pshi
re...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
3519
551
861
464
558
060
472
262
8Ne
w Je
rsey
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...8,
242
13,9
3813
,182
12,2
4310
,595
10,3
147,
453
13,2
3914
,768
New
Mex
ico
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..32
241
21,
571
1,99
21,
601
1,59
12,
491
3,57
42,
325
New
York
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
17,5
0318
,239
18,0
5620
,492
30,1
9734
,434
42,7
4836
,474
41,2
92No
rth C
arol
ina
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...6,
592
9,91
611
,663
14,5
0418
,186
19,3
0821
,371
25,4
2929
,581
North
Dak
ota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
293
1,13
482
078
493
51,
446
1,38
690
61,
427
Ohio
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.4,
808
9,13
311
,637
15,8
2320
,857
23,6
7228
,151
32,7
8534
,962
Okla
hom
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.43
512
1,36
12,
710
4,93
92,
721
2,76
44,
525
5,31
2Or
egon
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
521
1,90
23,
131
4,08
13,
836
4,94
25,
830
5,15
95,
740
Penn
sylv
ania
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
4,45
015
,277
18,9
2120
,231
23,0
6324
,239
23,2
4627
,642
29,5
92Pu
erto
Ric
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
226
144
216
264
198
206
204
11Rh
ode
Isla
nd...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..34
760
167
386
876
41,
425
2,00
13,
971
5,48
9So
uth
Caro
lina
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..1,
378
3,99
45,
243
5,27
36,
066
6,99
68,
331
8,03
88,
925
Sout
h Da
kota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
6055
250
450
968
791
61,
333
1,16
01,
030
Tenn
esse
e...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.5,
003
7,66
69,
647
8,97
610
,309
10,9
0211
,463
14,3
5811
,524
Texa
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..20
268
46,
465
12,6
2319
,627
24,8
9030
,002
38,5
1643
,272
Utah
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.48
71,
292
1,80
12,
087
2,48
42,
957
3,49
64,
287
4,05
8Ve
rmon
t...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
441,
091
468
533
438
800
1,06
594
986
3Vi
rgin
Isla
nds
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
423
527
016
021
534
449
248
534
Virg
inia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..1,
452
2,66
78,
471
13,6
4715
,971
18,0
3821
,506
26,1
7418
,952
Was
hing
ton
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..65
64,
066
5,76
26,
985
8,60
110
,540
12,5
3913
,608
16,9
63W
est
Virg
inia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
156
288
820
997
1,32
42,
373
2,79
07,
077
4,21
9W
isco
nsin
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
4,80
38,
750
8,69
510
,808
12,9
3115
,435
17,6
7820
,982
21,6
89W
yom
ing
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
4410
534
061
837
03,
493
3,67
04,
829
1,30
5
Tota
l...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..13
7,64
526
9,16
133
9,24
339
3,30
447
2,10
551
5,85
755
3,13
566
0,83
471
6,82
1
NA—
Not
avai
labl
e.
Sour
ce:
Offic
e of
Chi
ld S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, U.
S. D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
uman
Ser
vice
s.
650
TABL
E 8–
22.—
OUT-
OF-W
EDLO
CK B
IRTH
S AN
D CH
ILD
SUPP
ORT
PATE
RNIT
IES
ESTA
BLIS
HED
BY S
TATE
, SEL
ECTE
D FI
SCAL
YEA
RS 1
987–
94
Stat
eBi
rths
to u
nmar
ried
wom
enPa
tern
ities
/birt
hs (
perc
ent)
1987
1989
1990
1991
1993
1994
1987
1989
1990
1991
1993
1994
Alab
ama
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
15,9
5518
,640
19,1
3120
,000
20,6
8021
,003
43.9
42.1
34.1
33.0
552
.140
.47
Alas
ka...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
2,56
42,
869
3,11
33,
148
3,10
13,
125
14.2
27.8
24.6
21.3
34.5
48.1
9Ar
izona
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
17,2
2720
,708
22,5
3223
,899
26,1
5127
,162
5.9
6.4
5.5
11.1
919
.233
.18
Arka
nsas
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...8,
498
9,94
410
,713
10,6
0110
,878
11,3
1062
.744
.829
.844
.360
.565
.31
Calif
orni
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
136,
785
171,
189
193,
559
204,
229
206,
376
202,
803
20.9
20.6
21.2
27.8
37.4
45.1
1Co
lora
do...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.10
,171
10,7
8711
,374
12,6
8413
,373
13,5
1012
.718
.016
.422
.739
.341
.56
Conn
ectic
ut...
......
......
......
......
......
......
..11
,045
13,0
0513
,330
13,5
8113
,919
13,9
1435
.429
.933
.839
.138
.640
.28
Dela
ware
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...2,
742
3,12
53,
222
3,55
93,
577
3,61
468
.152
.524
.920
.553
.875
.90
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
......
......
......
......
...6,
094
7,58
07,
692
7,80
67,
211
6,83
116
.827
.436
.349
.940
.036
.39
Flor
ida
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.48
,200
58,3
0563
,169
64,1
0167
,431
68,1
2725
.223
.030
.927
.916
.118
.57
Geor
gia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
28,6
4734
,926
36,9
7938
,116
39,5
7539
,429
49.3
52.1
66.6
73.5
74.1
62.9
5Ha
waii
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.3,
968
4,60
95,
088
5,19
55,
328
5,53
326
.728
.136
.232
.232
.837
.39
Idah
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
2,07
32,
561
2,73
82,
924
3,26
83,
273
18.5
43.0
47.8
53.0
46.2
54.1
7Ill
inoi
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
50,6
7758
,867
62,1
4863
,225
65,1
3064
,933
41.1
50.8
41.0
33.5
29.2
37.6
3In
dian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...17
,260
19,8
9822
,562
24,2
9425
,844
26,0
4420
.724
.823
.525
.919
.215
.06
Iowa
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
6,14
77,
575
8,28
28,
657
9,29
79,
211
27.1
26.1
36.8
22.0
53.3
56.0
3Ka
nsas
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
6,63
37,
577
8,39
78,
746
9,69
69,
709
16.9
27.7
43.4
35.7
45.8
89.2
0Ke
ntuc
ky...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.10
,658
12,0
4812
,829
13,7
9614
,401
14,6
4636
.437
.347
.549
.455
.451
.12
Loui
sian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
23,5
9425
,692
26,6
0127
,694
29,1
7928
,918
12.4
17.3
20.8
40.0
45.5
42.4
2M
aine
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..3,
338
3,80
63,
931
4,18
04,
061
4,06
728
.542
.335
.132
.933
.741
.14
Mar
yland
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...22
,866
22,6
0723
,789
24,2
9224
,335
24,9
4329
.244
.231
.749
.741
.142
.46
Mas
sach
uset
ts...
......
......
......
......
......
...17
,616
21,7
9822
,886
22,8
7322
,380
22,2
9139
.928
.427
.725
.123
.940
.96
Mic
higa
n...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
28,7
2436
,441
40,2
8940
,941
36,3
2648
,339
63.6
63.5
63.5
68.3
77.3
55.5
7M
inne
sota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..11
,114
13,1
4214
,192
14,9
8415
,099
15,4
3034
.746
.439
.951
.424
.847
.23
Mis
siss
ippi
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
14,4
9916
,958
17,6
2718
,317
18,7
1819
,067
12.6
46.8
60.9
65.2
45.9
51.9
2M
isso
uri.
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
17,8
2321
,123
22,6
4323
,736
24,3
5323
,913
80.3
52.8
71.7
92.6
99.8
96.0
9
651
Mon
tana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
2,37
92,
539
2,75
72,
898
3,10
42,
822
7.5
15.3
15.6
23.4
13.3
25.2
7Ne
bras
ka...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
4,00
64,
662
5,05
65,
181
5,44
95,
739
17.7
16.3
17.5
24.7
38.2
41.5
1Ne
vada
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
2,74
04,
607
5,48
07,
016
7,61
48,
359
19.4
18.4
14.4
18.9
21.0
15.6
1Ne
w Ha
mps
hire
......
......
......
......
......
.....
2,51
12,
797
2,96
72,
996
3,17
93,
338
7.8
18.5
20.7
21.5
19.0
21.9
3Ne
w Je
rsey
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.26
,647
29,3
6429
,756
31,9
7231
,949
33,0
4352
.345
.644
.941
.123
.327
.80
New
Mex
ico
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
8,06
79,
447
9,70
410
,445
11,5
2611
,496
5.1
16.6
20.5
15.3
21.6
25.6
6Ne
w Yo
rk...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
80,9
3992
,996
98,1
1099
,738
105,
101
104,
732
22.5
19.4
20.9
30.3
41.1
36.5
5No
rth C
arol
ina
......
......
......
......
......
......
.23
,262
28,3
1530
,718
32,3
4032
,586
32,3
2142
.641
.247
.256
.265
.670
.24
North
Dak
ota
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
429
1,61
51,
699
1,95
21,
999
1,97
179
.450
.846
.147
.969
.370
.47
Ohio
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
39,2
3745
,921
48,2
8950
,826
52,3
8551
,363
23.3
19.7
25.3
32.8
55.6
63.4
1Ok
laho
ma
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..9,
892
11,2
5811
,998
12,9
7313
,441
13,6
165.
212
.122
.638
.120
.626
.53
Oreg
on...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
8,67
210
,436
11,0
4111
,324
11,7
3012
,012
21.9
30.0
37.0
33.9
49.7
48.5
2Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
41,1
4347
,093
49,2
5851
,360
51,7
8351
,518
37.1
40.2
41.1
44.9
44.9
44.1
7Rh
ode
Isla
nd...
......
......
......
......
......
......
3,06
43,
684
3,99
74,
073
4,43
64,
327
19.6
18.3
21.7
18.8
45.1
61.4
5So
uth
Caro
lina
......
......
......
......
......
......
15,3
3318
,116
19,1
4820
,000
19,3
5919
,172
26.1
28.9
27.5
30.3
43.0
40.3
5So
uth
Dako
ta...
......
......
......
......
......
.....
2,22
52,
415
2,51
52,
720
2,96
82,
914
24.8
20.9
20.2
25.3
44.9
45.9
2Te
nnes
see
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..17
,897
21,2
8122
,662
24,0
2624
,556
24,4
8042
.845
.339
.642
.946
.759
.21
Texa
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
57,4
6460
,303
55,4
3556
,528
54,6
7092
,721
1.2
10.7
22.8
34.7
54.9
35.8
8Ut
ah...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.3,
929
4,50
44,
910
5,19
65,
744
6,00
532
.940
.042
.547
.860
.967
.13
Verm
ont
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
1,45
91,
685
1,66
61,
811
1,80
51,
864
74.8
27.8
32.0
24.2
59.0
43.7
8Vi
rgin
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...20
,562
24,4
1025
,874
27,1
2527
,532
27,7
601.
334
.752
.758
.978
.179
.57
Was
hing
ton
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
14,6
2917
,638
18,7
4619
,861
20,6
7020
,090
27.8
32.7
37.3
43.3
60.7
66.7
0W
est
Virg
inia
......
......
......
......
......
......
...4,
722
5,21
25,
743
6,04
06,
328
6,45
46.
115
.717
.421
.944
.130
.68
Wis
cons
in...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
14,6
9816
,815
17,6
5618
,235
18,8
8218
,565
59.5
51.7
61.2
70.9
93.6
92.5
1W
yom
ing
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
1,18
91,
276
1,38
31,
546
1,68
91,
765
8.8
26.7
44.7
23.9
217.
359
.43
U.S.
tot
al...
......
......
......
......
....
933,
013
1,09
4,16
91,
165,
384
1,21
3,76
91,
240,
172
1,28
9,59
228
.831
.033
.738
.844
.645
.78
Sour
ces:
Offi
ce o
f Ch
ild S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, U.
S. D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
uman
Ser
vice
s, a
nd N
atio
nal
Cent
er f
or H
ealth
Sta
tistic
s (1
995
and
prev
ious
yea
rs).
652
TABL
E 8–
23.—
STAT
E SH
ARE
OF P
ROGR
AM S
AVIN
GS B
Y ST
ATE,
FIS
CAL
YEAR
S 19
89–9
6
[In t
hous
ands
of
dolla
rs]
Stat
e19
8919
9019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
96
Alab
ama
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...$3
80¥
$518
¥$1
,982
¥$3
,053
¥$2
,529
¥$6
,319
¥$8
,672
¥$6
,250
Alas
ka...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...2,
264
2,46
92,
982
3,43
13,
797
4,27
84,
201
5,09
1Ar
izona
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
¥1,
219
¥2,
899
¥3,
125
¥3,
320
¥4,
242
¥4,
761
¥6,
804
¥5,
252
Arka
nsas
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..1,
574
1,01
31,
830
1,00
953
0¥
283
¥13
5¥
2,59
5Ca
lifor
nia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.79
,779
76,5
5288
,584
98,4
6510
1,40
611
5,53
911
0,77
413
9,41
6Co
lora
do...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
4,55
24,
991
5,95
45,
661
6,06
47,
107
7,49
07,
237
Conn
ectic
ut...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.11
,330
7,31
010
,332
11,7
1113
,396
12,5
235,
671
6,77
0De
lawa
re...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
797
812
923
902
455
312
¥64
443
5Di
stric
t of
Col
umbi
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
¥3,
145
¥89
¥57
414
475
7¥
272
¥58
5¥
390
Flor
ida
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
5,60
12,
932
7,17
911
,482
14,3
6814
,863
11,7
971,
471
Geor
gia
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
2,86
11,
299
3,93
07,
937
12,8
5613
,099
10,8
0110
,379
Guam
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.¥
87¥
227
¥29
3¥
450
¥30
5¥
375
¥91
9¥
591
Hawa
ii...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
648
1,62
21,
502
1,65
51,
873
1,61
853
9¥
670
Idah
o...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
1,02
989
575
195
592
272
066
5¥
1,31
7Ill
inoi
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...10
,935
5,15
95,
785
9,76
73,
716
3,71
13,
965
4,30
4In
dian
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..14
,027
11,7
3116
,134
20,3
5920
,257
22,1
3118
,262
18,4
75Io
wa...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
11,7
6711
,631
10,8
4011
,765
11,0
0012
,048
12,5
609,
599
Kans
as...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..1,
170
2,22
93,
694
4,04
13,
711
3,14
2¥
3,22
28,
701
Kent
ucky
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...20
720
7¥
475
1,95
83,
467
5,10
43,
696
1,44
9Lo
uisi
ana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.69
615
0¥
1,04
9¥
1,84
5¥
1,24
1¥
1,27
0¥
2,09
8¥
1,25
1M
aine
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.5,
236
4,22
93,
852
3,89
05,
877
5,50
96,
359
9,59
0M
aryla
nd...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
6,86
08,
631
6,12
010
,366
12,0
378,
926
4,81
93,
844
Mas
sach
uset
ts...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..23
,373
23,3
9121
,789
25,9
1729
,957
22,6
7025
,468
20,7
82M
ichi
gan
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..57
,413
54,0
8858
,032
53,1
0752
,078
53,2
1649
,500
30,8
37M
inne
sota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
13,9
6912
,083
11,4
6812
,377
12,2
7411
,880
11,9
509,
009
Mis
siss
ippi
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
¥23
2¥
2,98
7¥
2,54
9¥
1,24
3¥
1,06
5¥
2,84
3¥
3,33
6¥
2,59
9
653
Mis
sour
i...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
8,04
69,
002
7,84
611
,772
10,3
0310
,566
7,69
58,
598
Mon
tana
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
093
769
454
532
618
37,8
6837
,431
¥85
0Ne
bras
ka...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
¥25
2¥
572
¥58
2¥
2,09
3¥
1,05
4¥
574
¥1,
270
¥4,
617
Neva
da...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..¥
32¥
417
¥33
460
8¥
172
604
¥90
2¥
1,77
4Ne
w Ha
mps
hire
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
362
185
271
826
443
1,16
51,
157
1,01
0Ne
w Je
rsey
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
15,0
816,
836
9,10
013
,551
11,8
7613
,809
24,5
7114
,092
New
Mex
ico
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
305
¥14
8¥
361
¥22
41,
278
456
¥1,
083
¥1,
917
New
York
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..24
,201
22,8
6530
,313
41,0
9141
,790
46,0
3643
,880
45,6
73No
rth C
arol
ina
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
5,85
73,
598
4,25
76,
343
6,96
28,
504
2,85
31,
898
North
Dak
ota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..95
51,
074
1,23
197
398
988
878
844
1Oh
io...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.21
,558
12,0
406,
054
445
3,45
36,
800
5,76
14,
422
Okla
hom
a...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
705
6938
01,
110
2,45
72,
412
2,24
13,
205
Oreg
on...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...3,
703
2,65
83,
358
4,86
35,
935
8,02
95,
548
6,20
0Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
22,0
1819
,846
21,2
2627
,102
29,2
3433
,738
30,9
7127
,231
Puer
to R
ico
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
¥1,
075
¥3,
121
¥2,
165
¥2,
008
¥2,
171
¥3,
073
¥5,
161
¥8,
179
Rhod
e Is
land
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..2,
999
3,43
93,
940
4,37
55,
427
5,46
66,
142
7,01
3So
uth
Caro
lina
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
490
¥1,
639
9143
71,
309
1,04
919
1¥
1,15
9So
uth
Dako
ta...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
969
1,25
482
067
21,
048
967
1,33
81,
629
Tenn
esse
e...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...1,
278
3,43
25,
989
1,57
85,
915
5,40
87,
519
2,34
0Te
xas
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..2,
163
¥4,
832
¥4,
774
¥6,
111
13,9
69¥
12,3
35¥
6,21
2¥
1,27
4Ut
ah...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1,36
21,
111
892
980
343
181
¥1,
526
¥1,
326
Verm
ont
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
1,44
01,
957
1,91
81,
621
2,06
61,
175
1,74
11,
602
Virg
in Is
land
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...¥
223
¥18
4¥
459
¥22
7¥
256
¥30
5¥
885
¥65
6Vi
rgin
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.2,
567
¥1,
113
4,29
24,
324
6,34
75,
109
7,34
84,
889
Was
hing
ton
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
15,3
8614
,053
22,0
3819
,695
24,8
7529
,978
25,8
6926
,794
Wes
t Vi
rgin
ia...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
¥59
¥1,
214
¥72
2¥
1,04
716
¥2,
038
¥2,
484
¥2,
494
Wis
cons
in...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
21,3
0618
,451
16,7
4015
,553
15,3
8615
,757
12,6
958,
280
Wyo
min
g...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
574
363
340
589
226
159
86¥
200
U.S.
tot
al...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...40
3,40
033
8,46
938
4,69
143
3,31
746
2,09
248
2,24
343
1,01
340
7,31
4
Note
.—Nu
mbe
rs m
ay n
ot s
um t
o to
tal
due
to r
ound
ing.
Sour
ce:
Offic
e of
Chi
ld S
uppo
rt En
forc
emen
t, U.
S. D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
uman
Ser
vice
s.
654
TABLE 8–24.—STATES USING THE INCOME SHARES AND PERCENTAGE OF INCOMEAPPROACHES TO ESTABLISHING CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES
Income shares
AlabamaArizonaCaliforniaColoradoFloridaIdahoIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisiana
MaineMarylandMichiganMissouriMontanaNebraskaNew JerseyNew MexicoNorth CarolinaOhio
OklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaUtahVermontVirginiaWashington
Percentage of income
AlaskaArkansasConnecticutIllinoisMinnesota
New HampshireNorth DakotaTennesseeTexasWyoming
GeorgiaMississippiNevadaNew YorkWisconsin
Source: Garfinkel, McLanahan, & Robins (1994).
REFERENCES
Bumpass, L. (1984). Children and marital disruption: A replicationand update. Demography, 21, pp. 71–82.
Cooper, P., & Johnson, A. (1993, April). Employment-related healthinsurance in 1987 (AMCPR Pub. No. 93–0044). Rockville, MD:Public Health Service.
Federal Register. (1992, December 28). Regulations for updatingchild support orders. 57(249).
Garfinkel, I., McLanahan, S., & Robins, P.K. (1994). Child supportand child well-being, pp. 98–99. Washington, DC: Urban Insti-tute Press.
Garfinkel, I., Melli, M.S., & Robertson, J.G. (1994, Spring). Childsupport orders: A perspective on reform. In R.E. Behrman(Ed.), The future of children: Children and divorce, 4(1), pp.88–93. Los Altos, California: David and Lucille Packard Foun-dation.
Georgeson, L.M. (1989, May). DNA in paternity cases. Paper pre-pared for American Bar Association Third National Child Sup-port Conference, Arlington, VA.
Gordon, A.R. (1994). Implementation of the income withholdingand medical support provisions of the 1984 child support en-forcement amendments (pp. 86–87). In I. Garfinkel, S.McLanahan, & P. Robins (Eds.), Child support and child well-being. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
655
Hill, M.S. (1988, May). The role of economic resources and dual-family status in child support payments. Ann Arbor, MI: Insti-tute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Malone, T.P. (1989, May). Modification lives: Guidelines don’t meanan end to changing circumstances. Paper prepared for Amer-ican Bar Association Third National Child Support Conference,Washington, DC.
McKillop, L.T. (1981). Benefits of establishing paternity. Washing-ton, DC: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Department ofHealth and Human Services.
National Center for Health Statistics. (1995, September). Advancereport of final natality statistics: 1993. Monthly Vital StatisticsReport, 44 (3, Supplement).
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. (1985). Paternity establishment (2d ed.).Washington, DC: Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. (1986). Employer fees for wage withhold-ing. Child Support Report, 8(10), p. 7.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. (1987, September). Development of guide-lines for child support orders: Advisory panel recommendationsand final report. Washington, DC: Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. (1990). Paternity establishment (3d ed.).Washington, DC: Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. (1991, June). Child support enforcementin the military. Washington, DC: Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. (1992). Uniform Interstate Family Sup-port Act proposed to replace URESA. Child Support Report, 14(8), pp. 4–5.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. (1996 and various years). Annual Reportto Congress (21 annual reports for the years 1976–96). Wash-ington, DC: Author.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. (1995a). Fiscal year I–Census report:Single parent growth rate stabilizes. Child Support Report, 17(11), p. 5.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. (1995b). President Clinton signs execu-tive order: Federal agencies to facilitate support order estab-lishment and enforcement. Child Support Report, 17(3), pp. 1–2.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. (1995c). DOD consolidates garnishmentoperation. Child Support Report, 17 (3), p. 3.
Pirog, M.A., Klotz, M., & Buyers, K.V. (1997). Interstate compari-sons of child support awards using State guidelines, 1997.Bloomington, IN: Institute for Family and Social Responsibil-ity, Indiana University.
656
Shulman, G.A. (1994). Qualified medical child support order hand-book. New York: Wiley Law Publications.
Sorensen, E. (1994, January). Noncustodial fathers: Can they affordto pay more child support? Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Sorensen, E. (1995, April). The benefits of increased child supportenforcement (Welfare Reform Briefs, No. 2). Washington, DC:Urban Institute.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1981). Child support and alimony:1978. Current Population Reports, Series P–60–112. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1983). Child support and alimony:1981. Current Population Reports, Series P–60–124. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1985). Child support and alimony:1983. Current Population Reports, Series P–60–141. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1987). Child support and alimony:1985. Current Population Reports, Series P–60–152. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990). Child support and alimony:1987. Current Population Reports, Series P–60–167. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1991). Child support and alimony:1989. Current Population Reports, Series P–60–173. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1994). Household and family charac-teristics: March 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1995). Child support for custodialmothers and fathers: 1991. Current Population Reports, SeriesP60–187. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1997). Child support for custodialmothers and fathers: 1993. Current Population Reports. (ad-vance copy of preliminary data furnished to the CongressionalResearch Service.)
U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support. (1992). Supportingour children: A blueprint for reform. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1987). Child support: Need to im-prove efforts to identify fathers and obtain support orders(GAO/HRD–87–37). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1992a). Interstate child support:Wage withholding not fulfilling expectations (GAO/HRD–92–65BR). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1992b). Child support enforce-ment—timely action needed to correct system development prob-lems (GAO/IMTEC–92–46). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. House of Representatives. (1983). Child support enforcementamendments of 1983 (House Report No. 98–527). Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Weaver, R.L., & Williams, R.G. (1989, May). Problems withURESA: Interstate child support enforcement isn’t working butcould. Paper prepared for American Bar Association Third Na-tional Child Support Conference, Washington, DC.
657
Williams, R.G. (1994). Implementation of the child support provi-sions of the Family Support Act: Child support guidelines, up-dating of awards, and routine income withholding (pp. 93–132).In I. Garfinkel, S. McLanahan, & P. Robins (Eds.), Child sup-port and child well-being. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
