Summary

This testimony discusses the findings of a June 1997 report (GAO/AIMD-97-72) on automated systems being developed by the states to aid in the enforcement of child support payments. GAO found that although automation can be quite helpful in locating more noncustodial parents and increasing collections, the progress of many states in implementing automated systems has been slow. At the same time, substantial amounts of money have been spent, with the federal government funding 90 percent of state costs associated with systems development. The lack of progress can be attributed partly to a lack of leadership at the Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Child Support Enforcement and the inadequate systems approaches of some states. Specifically, the Office did not perform technical reviews commensurate with the size and complexity of this nationwide undertaking. The Office did not require states to follow a structured systems development approach, nor did it assess progress at critical decision points, thereby missing opportunities to intervene and successfully redirect systems development. As a result, development in many states has floundered even as funding continued to be approved.

GAO noted that: (1) while automation has been beneficial in locating more noncustodial parents and increasing collections, the progress of many states in implementing automated systems has been slow; (2) at the same time, a great deal of money has been spent, with the federal government funding 90 percent of state costs associated with systems development; (3) the federal contribution, through fiscal year 1996, has been about $2 billion of the total $2.6 billion spent; (4) the lack of progress can be partly attributed to the limited leadership of the Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and the inadequate systems approaches of some states; (5) OCSE did not perform technical reviews commensurate with the size and complexity of this nationwide undertaking; (6) OCSE did not require states to follow a structured systems development approach, nor did it assess progress at critical decision points, thereby missing opportunities to intervene and successfully redirect systems development; (7) as a result, development in many states has floundered, even as funding continued to be approved; and (8) the welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996 dramatically altered the nation's welfare system by requiring work in exchange for time-limited assistance.