Office of Child Support Enforcement
FY 2004 Annual Report to Congress
April 2007
Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families
Office of Child Support Enforcement
Table of Contents
Foreword by Secretary Leavitt
Background
Introduction
Automation
Training and Technical Assistance
Program Improvements
Focusing on Results
National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan
Project Save Our Children (PSOC)
Tribal Program
International Program
Charts and Graphs
List of Charts
Figures 1-18
Nationwide and State Box Scores
Summary Tables
List of Tables
Tables 1 - 80
Glossary
Foreword
I am pleased to offer this Twenty-Fifth Annual Report to the
Congress on the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program. The
report highlights the operation and accomplishments of the program
for FY 2004.
The Child Support Enforcement Program continues to make progress
toward making child support payments a reliable source of income
for families and children. Stronger enforcement tools such as
the Federal Parent Locator Service, streamlined paternity
establishment, uniform interstate child support enforcement,
computerized statewide collections, and tougher penalties for
nonpayment continue to play leading roles in making this progress
possible.
In FY 2004, the Child Support Enforcement Program collected and
distributed almost $22 billion to families and children. We
are proud of this noteworthy achievement. Although we are
pleased with the progress and accomplishments that the Child
Support Enforcement Program has made in the past, we look forward
to even greater progress in the future. Accordingly, we have
renewed our commitment to dependent children in the child support
caseload and resolve to further strengthen our effectiveness in
holding their parents more accountable for their financial,
medical, and emotional support. We look forward to our
continued partnership with States and with our other partners who
share the mutual goal of improving the well-being of children.
Michael O. Leavitt
Background
The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) is part of the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The mission
of ACF is to promote the economic and social well-being of
families, children, individuals, and communities.
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program, under title IV-D of
the Social Security Act, is a Federal/State/tribal/local
partnership. The purpose of the CSE program is to ensure that
assistance in obtaining support, including financial support of
both parents and medical support, is available to children by
locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity and support
obligations, monitoring and enforcing obligations, and collecting
and distributing child support. The program functions in all
States and territories, through the State/county Social Services
Department, Attorney General’s Office, or Department of
Revenue. Most States work with prosecuting attorneys, other
law enforcement agencies, and officials of family or domestic
relations courts to carry out the program at the local level.
Several Native American tribes operate federally funded child
support programs in the context of their cultures and
traditions.
Child support services are available to any custodial or
noncustodial parent or any other person with custody of a child who
has a parent living outside the home. Services are available
automatically for families receiving assistance under the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the Medicaid program,
and the Foster Care program. Other families seeking
government child support services can apply through their
State/local or tribal agency running the program. For these
families, there is an application fee.
Child support collected on behalf of families receiving TANF is
used to reimburse the State and Federal governments for TANF
payments made to the families. Child support payments over
the amount needed to repay the government for public assistance
payments are sent to TANF families. Child support payments
that are collected on behalf of families never on TANF are sent to
the families.
The child support program mission has remained the same since
its inception—locate noncustodial parents, establish
paternities, and establish and enforce support obligations by
obtaining support from the noncustodial parent. However, the
program has shifted its focus from reimbursing the
government’s welfare program to helping families become
self-sufficient.
Introduction
In Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004, the Child Support Program
continued to demonstrate a firm commitment to the financial and
emotional well-being of dependent children through strong
enforcement of the financial obligations owed by their absent
parents. Child support payments collected and distributed during
this period totaled $21.9 billion, which represents a 3.2 percent
increase over the FY 2003 collection amount of $21.2 billion.
In addition, in FY 2004, 1.6 million paternities were
established or acknowledged, and 1.2 million new child support
orders were established. The child support caseload showed a
slight decline over the previous fiscal year’s caseload.
Overall, considerable progress was made in FY 2004 to ensure
that paternity and support orders are established for children in
the Child Support caseload and that these children receive support
from both parents. The following report provides further details of
the many activities and accomplishments which underlie this
progress.
Automation
Automation is critical to the operation and success of the Child
Support Enforcement Program. States would not have the means
to locate noncustodial parents who are delinquent in child support
payments or to make collections if it were not for a comprehensive,
reliable, flexible, and secure automated system.
At the Federal level, the Office of Child Support Enforcement
was charged with the responsibility of developing the initial
Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS). Today, the expanded
FPLS includes several mission-critical systems supporting OCSE
business processes and one State-to-State communications
network. The specific FPLS systems that support OCSE in
achieving its goals are the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH),
Federal Case Registry (FCR), Intergovernmental Referral Guide
(IRG), Child Support Enforcement Network (CSENet), and Federal
Offset System.
The FPLS systems have been aligned with four child
support-specific functions:
Location/Data Sharing. This involves collecting
location, income, and asset information from Federal and State data
sources and sharing those data with State CSE agencies.
States then use this information for establishing paternities and
orders and collecting child support. This information is also
used by authorized Federal agencies for reducing erroneous payments
and overall program costs.
Collection and Enforcement. This involves
initiating enforcement activities at the Federal level on behalf of
State CSE agencies. Records in the FPLS Offset File
pertaining to delinquent child support obligors are compared
against three key sources to collect past-due child support: (1)
records maintained by the IRS Financial Management System (FMS) to
identify and offset Federal tax refunds and payments to collect
past-due support; (2) records held by multi-state financial
institutions to identify and permit State Child Support Enforcement
agencies to seize accounts to collect past-due support; and (3) in
the case of obligors owing more than $5,000 in past-due child
support, records maintained by the Department of State to prevent
issuance of a passport to those obligors.
Communication. The FPLS facilitates the electronic
communication of information pertaining to interstate child support
data and case processing procedures between State CSE
agencies. This enables the electronic exchange of data
between State CSE agencies and other stakeholders.
Research. This involves providing data to
authorized Federal and State governmental researchers to assist in
the study of measuring and/or improving child support and public
benefit programs.
All of these systems enable the child support program to operate
more efficiently by providing centralized interfaces and
standardized data exchange methods rather than duplicating the
functions in each individual State. The Social Security
Administration (SSA) provides the operating environment for the
Federal Case Registry (FCR), National Directory of New Hires
(NDNH), and the Federal Offset System (FOS) in accordance with an
interagency agreement. OCSE also utilizes SSA’s
communications network (SSANet) to facilitate Federal-to-State and
Federal-to-Federal agency communications. Additional
information on these applications is accessible at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/newhire/.
How Automation Helps Improve the Program
Fiscal Year 2004 marked the year OCSE concentrated on conducting
system certification reviews, as States and territories implemented
enhancements to their statewide child support systems to take
advantage of the provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). OCSE’s efforts
resulted in the certification of 28 States in FY 2004, in addition
to the 22 States certified in previous years, as being compliant
with PRWORA automation requirements. This brings the total
number of States and territories certified as meeting PRWORA
automation requirements to 50.
Since the majority of States and territories have operational
CSE systems, OCSE sponsored a two-day training meeting in Chicago,
Illinois in August 2004 to explain the pros and cons of closing
their Information Technology (IT) project. States that can
demonstrate that their system has proven to be cost-beneficial can
close their IT project and therefore stop providing annual
documentation and contracts to OCSE for prior approval.
However, if the State anticipates additional enhancements to their
CSE system, then they can use the earlier automation cost benefits
to justify those new enhancement costs. The training meeting
also covered how to provide documentation that their automation
benefits exceeded the costs of their automated system, how to
pursue enhancements to their statewide systems, and other
issues.
In 2004, OCSE assumed the lead among other Federal agencies in
the proposed update and revision of the regulations related to
State IT plans and procurement approvals. OCSE funded a
Federal/State workgroup with representations from Food Stamps,
Medicaid, TANF, and Child Welfare programs, as well as the CSE
program. Following the recommendations from the State
workgroup members, OCSE took the lead in developing a Cost
Allocation Methodology Toolkit to assist States that are developing
integrated systems, especially those States initiating State
enterprise architecture projects.
OCSE is continuing to encourage States to increase the level of
automation. In 2004, OCSE began development of guidance on
how to automate the child support order review and adjustment
process more fully by improving and increasing automated
functionality. Also, in FY 2004, OCSE continued to encourage
the collection and dissemination of best practices in automation
through Section 1115 of the Social Security Act and Special
Improvement Project (SIP) grants.
Outcomes Attributed to the FPLS
The FPLS plays a crucial role in helping the Administration for
Children and Families’ Office of Child Support Enforcement to
fulfill its mission in assisting States to secure the financial
support upon which millions of our nation’s children depend.
The FPLS is not simply used to support Federal and State child
support enforcement—it enables OCSE and State CSE agencies to
locate parents who have financial obligations and to quickly
collect and move money to children who depend on that parental
financial support for food, shelter, education, medical care, and
other needs. Without technology, the program would not be
able to accomplish its mission and provide its services.
In addition, the FPLS data are used across Federal and State
agencies to reduce erroneous payments and overall program costs in
Public Assistance and Benefit Programs. These data-sharing
initiatives reduce redundant investments in Federal Information
Technology resources and provide a single source of data for
multiple purposes. This also significantly reduces the burden
on private and public data providers by eliminating the cost and
resources involved in the requirement for multiple submissions.
Since its inception, the FPLS has been a highly useful and
effective tool for State and Federal partners. The following
provides the benefits realized by the State and Federal partners
from accessing the FPLS data processed or maintained by these
applications.
Data in the NDNH are automatically compared
on a daily basis to data in the FCR to locate putative fathers and
noncustodial parents involved in child support cases.
Successful matches are returned to the States so they can establish
paternity and child support obligations and issue
income-withholding orders (IWOs). Each year, the FPLS returns
employment data to the States on approximately 4.5 million
noncustodial parents and putative fathers (PFs).
To quantify the effectiveness of these tools and States’
use of them to collect interstate child support, OCSE’s
Economics Analysis team conducted studies used a random sample of
noncustodial parents’ matches resulting from new hire
information submitted to the NDNH that were returned to the studied
States in FY 2000-FY 2003. The results of each study were
reported to each individual State, and compiled to project national
numbers. The study found that:
- 35 percent of the sample NDNH new hire matches that had child
support orders in place resulted in the issuance of an IWO directly
from a State CSE agency to an employer;
- 42 percent of those IWOs resulted in a collection directly
attributable to the NDNH-FCR new hire match; and
- The median monthly child support payment in these cases was
$234.
It is estimated that over $109 million is collected annually in
these thirteen States due to these matches. By projecting
these results nationally, an estimated $400 million in child
support would be collected annually.
The methodology for estimating collections attributable to NDNH
data can be found in A Guidebook for a Common Methodology for
Determining NDNH-Attributable Child Support Collections on the
ACF website at:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/guides/ndnh_guide.html.
- During tax year 2004, a total of 6.9 million
child support cases, with arrearages of $75.7 billion, were
certified for Federal tax and administrative offset.
Administrative offset payments would be any payments eligible for
offset under the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) that are
not Federal income tax refunds. The Federal Offset Program
collected almost $1.5 billion in delinquent child support by
offsetting tax refunds and other administrative payments to
delinquent child support obligors. Of this total, approximately 47
percent was targeted for reimbursement of TANF payments; the
remaining 53 percent was collected for non-public assistance child
support debt.
- The State Department denies over 60 passports
per day through the Passport Denial Program, resulting in $12.5
million in lump sum payments during FY 2004. Since the
inception of the program in 1998, cumulative collections exceed
$41.1 million.
- During FY 2004, account matches for over 1
million obligors identified through the Multistate Financial
Institution Data Match (MSFDM) were returned to the States each
quarter. States reported $104 million in collections as a result of
these matches. Since the program began in 1999, cumulative
collections total approximately $272.4 million.
- Over 7.9 million interstate transactions to
facilitate communication among State child support enforcement
agencies occurred in FY 2004 through the CSENet.
In addition to supporting the Child Support Enforcement Program
mission, the FPLS has also generated savings for other Federal
agencies by providing them with data, as authorized by statute, to
help them prevent and recoup erroneous payments in public
assistance and benefits programs. Through these matches, the
FPLS has greatly facilitated OCSE’s support of and
contributions to the President’s Management Agenda, with a
specific concentration on the Improved Financial Performance
Initiative. In addition, these matches have facilitated
agency compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act of
2002 and agencies’ preparations of their Performance and
Accountability Reports. FPLS data have been used in
intragovernmental and intergovernmental data-sharing initiatives,
resulting in savings totaling over $3 billion, as follows:
Higher Education Loans and Grants – More than
$2.77 billion was collected in FY 2004 by the Department of
Education from student loan defaulters, based upon matches against
data maintained in the NDNH (based on information reported to OCSE
by the Department of Education).
- Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) – $713 million in tax
refunds were frozen by the IRS on the basis of combined data from
the FCR and SSA and analysis of EITC claims of 269,000 taxpayers
for Tax Year 2004 (based on information reported to OCSE by
IRS’s EITC Department).
- Supplemental Security Income – Approximately $371 million
was collected in recovery of overpayments and prevention of future
overpayments in FY 2004 (based on a cost/benefit analysis conducted
by SSA).
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families – In FY
2004, a pilot project overseen by OCSE and the Office of Family
Assistance compared data in the NDNH with TANF data maintained by
the District of Columbia’s (DC) Income Maintenance
Administration. According to a report by the DC Income
Maintenance Administration, the pilot resulted in the
identification of 6,681 TANF recipients who were employed, yet
failed to report earnings as a condition of TANF eligibility.
Independent verification of the results of the data comparison
(conducted by the TANF office) resulted in case actions generating
annualized savings of over $9.8 million.
Expanding Electronic Government
OCSE recognizes that information technology is critical to the
mission of the CSE program. To that end, OCSE has identified
numerous areas in which program efficiencies and capabilities may
be enhanced through the expanded use of electronics, including
streamlining government-to-government, government-to-business, and
government-to-citizen communications. These initiatives are
outlined below:
Government-to-Government. The FPLS
streamlines government-to-government communication in the
following ways:
Electronic Transmission of Child Support through the E-Payroll
Initiative. OCSE participates in the standardization and
consolidation of the Federal civilian payroll services to promote
the electronic transmission of child support payments owed by
Federal employees from the payroll center to State CSE
programs.
Identification of Health Coverage for Children. OCSE
conducted a pilot match to identify actual and potential coverage
for children receiving child support services and to determine
whether a State CSE agency should electronically transmit a
National Medical Support Notice (NMSN) to the Department of Defense
(DoD) via OCSENet. This match was between more than 2 million
FCR records related to child support cases from Ohio and New York
and the Defense Department’s records on medical coverage for
military dependents. It is estimated that these matches save
States $1.00 to $10.00 per NMSN.
Query Interstate Cases for Kids (QUICK) Electronic Access to
Child Support Payment Data. OCSE, State CSE programs, and
other stakeholders are collaborating on a pilot project designed to
efficiently provide authorized child support personnel in one State
with real-time access to financial and case information in another
State for purposes of processing cases and providing customer
service to parents receiving child support services.
Electronic Reporting of New Hires and Wage Data by Federal
Agencies. Federal law requires Federal employers to
report newly hired employees and quarterly wages of their employees
to the NDNH. The FPLS provides employers with an electronic
option to comply with the reporting requirement.
Government-to-Business. The FPLS streamlines
government-to-business communication in the following
ways:
Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT)/Electronic Data Interchange
(EDI). EFT/EDI is the primary method for sending payments
electronically through the banking system. During 2004, OCSE
continued to assist the States in increasing the number of
employers that send child support payments electronically to the
State Disbursement Units (SDUs). OCSE also assisted States in
converting their own interstate payments to electronic
payments. During 2004, OCSE continued working with national
employer organizations (like the American Payroll Association),
Federal agencies (including large Federal payroll service providers
like the General Services Administration, the National Finance
Center, the National Business Center, and the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service), and State CSE agencies to increase the number
of employers sending child support payments electronically to the
State disbursement units (SDUs). By the end of 2004,
e-payments for child support increased to about 25 percent of total
payments. All States except South Carolina now accept child support
payments electronically.
OCSE’s outreach in 2004 included monthly teleconferences,
presentations to developers of payroll software, information
dissemination, training, and technical assistance to large
employers (through presentations at conferences of the American
Payroll Association) and major private and Federal payroll service
providers. Some additional results of these promotional
activities include:
All large private payroll service providers are sending
child support payments electronically.
Ninety-five percent of Federal agency payroll processors
are remitting child support payments electronically.
Most States are now sending their interstate payments
electronically.
About 20 States/counties have implemented web-based
payment services for employers and/or noncustodial parents as an
alternate payment option to EFT/EDI.
Most States have implemented electronic disbursement of
child support to custodial parents through the use of direct
deposit for those with bank accounts or debit cards for those
without bank accounts.
E-Income Withholding by Employers. OCSE, States,
and employers, including the United States Postal Service (USPS),
piloted a program to reduce the burden on employers, eliminate
paper forms, and promote EFT/EDI. This program enables a
State CSE agency to electronically communicate to an employer
standardized data that currently includes a notice to withhold
child support from an employee’s income and enables the
employer to electronically acknowledge receipt of the data.
Electronic Registration for Multistate Employers.
The FPLS allows an employer conducting business in more than
one State to comply with Federal law by registering with the FPLS
electronically and designating a single State to which the employer
will report data on “newly-hired” employees. This
electronic option provides employers with a one-stop point of
service and eliminates the need to collect the same information
multiple times.
Government-to-Citizens. The FPLS
streamlined government-to-citizen communication by
implementing a redesign of the FPLS section of the OCSE website to
make it easier for parents and other individuals to access
information about the child support program.
Federal Oversight and Funding of State Automation
Programs
ACF supported the development of automated information systems
for CSE Programs since 1981 by providing enhanced (up to 90%)
Federal Financial Participation (FFP). This support provided States
with the financial resources to develop and acquire cost-effective
automated systems to meet the requirements of law. Despite
the availability of FFP, State development and implementation of
compliant child support enforcement systems was slow. To
stimulate development, Congress passed the Family Support Act of
1988 mandating the implementation of automated CSE systems in every
State, requiring that such systems be fully operational no later
than October 1, 1995 and rescinding FFP for systems development and
equipment costs effective September 30, 1995.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act (PRWORA) of 1996 reinstated FFP at a 90 percent rate, with
limits, retroactive to October 1, 1995 and through September 1,
1997 to enable States to complete the development and
implementation of a child support system that meets the
requirements of the Family Support Act.
PRWORA also provided FFP at an enhanced rate of 80 percent
(capped at $400 million total share), for systems development and
implementation costs related to the automation requirements of
PRWORA, and established a deadline of October 1, 2000. This
enhanced funding authority expired on October 1, 2001. States not
compliant by the statutory deadline faced either State plan
disapproval or an alternative systems penalty that increased every
year they were out of compliance.
During FY 2004, OCSE conducted system certification reviews, as
States and territories implemented enhancements to their statewide
CSE systems to take advantage of the provisions of PRWORA.
These efforts resulted in the certification of 28 States in FY
2004, in addition to the 22 States certified in previous years, as
being compliant with PRWORA automation requirements. This
brings the total number of certified States and territories to
50.
Training and Technical Assistance
Overview
OCSE works in partnership with the Federal/State Training and
Technical Assistance Work Groups, ACF regional offices, other OCSE
components, and national organizations to provide training and
technical assistance to the child support community. In FY
2004, technical assistance and training were provided in a variety
of key operational areas listed below:
Collaboration
Collaborative Initiatives – IV-D and Courts
Following the May 2003 Second National Symposium on Children,
Courts, and the Federal Child Support Enforcement Program (with the
goal of improving collaboration between child support agencies and
the courts and judiciary), the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ)
and Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) issued
resolutions identifying three collaboration priorities and
strategies for each priority area: (1) uncollectible arrears, (2)
default orders, and (3) interstate case processing.
In early 2004, OCSE formed the National Judicial/CSE Task Force
to take the next steps. The task force is comprised of 35
core members and represents a wide cross section of national
court/judicial organizations, trial and appellate judges,
State/tribal child support agencies, and OCSE. Its members
come from 22 States. It has been at the forefront for many
important and ongoing initiatives between the IV–D and
court/judicial communities. It currently operates under six
subcommittees: arrears management/order modification,
inter-jurisdictional case processing/electronic data exchange,
education/cross training for all stakeholders, collaborative
planning; problem solving courts, and reducing default orders.
Collaborative Initiatives Between Child Support, TANF, and
Workforce Investment
A goal of OCSE is to encourage child support agencies and courts
to refer unemployed or underemployed noncustodial parents to
One-Stop Centers under the Workforce Investment Act and other
workforce investment operations to improve their ability to support
themselves and their families.
OCSE has worked with the Department of Labor’s Employment
Training Administration for the past several years to develop
awareness and encourage collaboration between child support
enforcement and workforce investment agencies at the Federal,
State, and local levels.
In addition, OCSE, along with the Department of Labor and the
Administration for Children and Families Office of Family
Assistance, developed a seminar curriculum on improving program
outcomes through interagency collaboration. The seminar,
designed for State and local office and regional managers from
Child Support, TANF, and workforce investment, demonstrates the
advantages of working together to achieve program goals to help
client families. One of the goals of this initiative is to
increase the referral of noncustodial parents to workforce offices
by both child support and TANF.
In FY 2004, OCSE delivered training to 6 States (Delaware,
Colorado, Washington, North Dakota, Arizona, and
Pennsylvania). At the end of each seminar, the group produced
an action plan to be carried out.
Here are some highlights of actions following the training:
In North Dakota, one of the most significant training
benefits was that State CSE staff learned a great deal about the
array of services available through the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA) Programs. Another significant benefit was that local
CSE staff were able to meet and discuss issues with Job Service
staff from their geographical area. After diagramming the
programs' operations and points of intersection, it was determined
that the biggest collaboration needs were between the CSE Program
and the JOB Service Program. The primary area identified for
collaboration between the two programs related to noncustodial
parent work activities. The existing collaboration between
CSE and TANF, and between TANF and JOB Service, was already fairly
strong; thus, issues surrounding those interactions tended to be
more detailed and process-oriented, rather than systemic.
North Dakota proceeded with implementation of a pilot project
entitled “Parental Employment Pilot,” which addresses
work activity among noncustodial parents. That project
involves collaboration of all three programs. North Dakota
also developed and obtained funding for the Parental Employment
Pilot Project. The program is now in full operation. An
individual has been hired to provide case management for
noncustodial parents who are having difficulty meeting their child
support obligations. Referrals to the program come from Child
Support offices or judges that have jurisdiction in this
area. Several job placements have taken place as a result of
these referrals.
As a result of the Collaboration Meeting, TANF program
administrators met with Child Support officials and they continue
to meet regularly with JOBS workers. A change in eligibility
requirements for TANF, called "Up Front Eligibility" has resulted
in increased communication and collaboration between TANF workers
and the other two entities. Clients applying for TANF are now
required to provide information on the noncustodial parent to child
support and begin cooperating with JOBS before eligibility for TANF
is determined. North Dakota also has a mental health
professional available to TANF recipients.
Washington State decided, at the collaboration
seminar in August, to convene an interagency workgroup to address
improving child support collections for TANF families. The group
was sponsored by the Director of the Community Services Division
and the Director of the Division of Child Support. The Steering
Committee consisted of several Community Services Division Regional
Administrators, Division of Child Support District Managers, and
staff from the Information and Technology Division. The State
is working on cross-training and identification of problem areas to
improve data collection and retrieval.
Collaborative Efforts between Regions II & III
HHS Regional Child Support offices in New York (Region II) and
Philadelphia (Region III) collaborated in a series of Bi-Regional
Interstate Meetingsin March 2004. These meetings allowed
larger jurisdictions in these regions an opportunity to discuss
ways of improving the processing of interstate cases. As a
result, State contact directories were sent to meeting participants
to facilitate their efforts in communicating with each other.
Additionally, several bi-regional conference calls took place to
discuss and provide some resolution to specific issues within the
interstate program. Areas of discussion included how to
eliminate barriers to interstate collections, why order
establishment ishigher on interstate cases than on intrastate
cases,and what can be done to improve service of process.
Region II sponsored the fourth round in a series of urban
meetings in collaboration with Region III in June 2004. The
goals of these meetings were to discuss issues involving mass
processing of cases in large urban jurisdictions and to improve
services to clients in these areas. As a result of these
meetings, staff from New Jersey and several other States visited
the Philadelphia Domestic Relations Division to observe child
support unit functions for possible replication in their
jurisdictions. Participants were specifically interested in
seeing the legal process and Philadelphia’s systems,
including paternity testing procedures, paternity establishment,
enforcement, service of process, case management, Uniform
Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) registration procedures,
outreach, and arrears processes and projects.
New Training Curricula
A new trainer guide, entitled “Working with the Military
on Child Support Matters,” was initially produced in late
2003. This guide underwent substantial revisions necessitated
by the passage of the Service Members Civil Relief Act in FY 2004.
The curriculum was successfully presented as a pilot to child
support trainers and military executives and then as a field trial
for CSE caseworkers. This comprehensive guide contains a two-day
course curriculum targeted for CSE workers who process cases
involving military members.
14th National Training Conference
As the Child Support Enforcement program grows and builds on its
past accomplishments, its future direction promises exciting
opportunities for the CSE community. The 14th National Child
Support Enforcement Training Conference, held in
Arlington,Virginia, in September 2004, was the forum for
“Scaling New Heights in Child Support.” While the
main topic of this conference was the National Child Support
Enforcement Strategic Plan, other topics included:
- re-evaluating the structure and operations of
automation systems;
- promoting early intervention practices;
- final rules for the Tribal Child Support
Enforcement program;
- innovative approaches to improve performance
on child support enforcement processes; and
- lessons learned in child support healthy
marriage projects.
Urban and Rural Jurisdictions Academies
Meetings, referred to as Urban Academies, began in FY 2002 and
continued through FY 2004. The focus of these meetings was on
exchanging information on performance-related issues and practices
common to child support enforcement agencies in large
jurisdictions.
“Reunion” calls, or audio conferences, with Academy
participants and subject matter experts were held on topics
identified for follow-up, including service of process, effective
enforcement techniques, and mass case processing.
OCSE and regional staff also held audio conferences with rural
counties. Approximately 25 rural counties participated in a
total of six audio conferences.
The OCSE Region III office in Philadelphia organized conference
calls with the rural county offices (Domestic Relations Sections)
and the Bureau of Child Support Enforcement in Pennsylvania.
These interactive calls covered many topics affecting rural child
support offices, including:
- trends in local offices (customer service, local budgets,
etc.);
- distinguishing characteristics of high performing offices;
and
- job loss and how rural economic trends affect child
support orders and collections
These calls were replicated with several local rural offices
throughout the nation.
OCSE IV-A/IV-D Academy for Urban Centers
On June 14-15, 2004, OCSE sponsored a IV-A/IV-D Collaboration
Academy for several urban sites with large caseloads. The purpose
of this meeting was to improve TANF and child support
collaboration. The four jurisdictions were: Houston/Harris County,
TX, Los Angeles County, CA, New York City, NY, and Philadelphia,
PA. OCSE asked these urban areas to develop action plans and
special initiatives to improve collaboration efforts and share them
with other agencies. A couple of examples are:
- Los Angeles held an urban summit with over 400 staff
and developed specific office action plans to implement summit
recommendations; and
- Philadelphia provided training to TANF staff to improve data
exchange and successfully piloted several IV-A/IV-D co-location
offices.
Program improvements
Undistributed Collections
The CSE Program has maintained its commitment to ensuring that
child support is a reliable source of income for families. In
this regard, ensuring that money collected on behalf of children is
actually distributed to them continues to be a national
priority.
In FY 2004, about 97 percent of the $21.9 billion collected was
distributed to families as required and about $657 million remained
undistributed.
In FY 2004, a Federal workgroup developed a “UDC
Monitoring Guide” to systematically monitor undistributed
collections on a nationwide basis. This monitoring guide
enables Federal OCSE staff to identify States with high levels of
undistributed collections and to offer appropriate consultation and
technical assistance when needed.
Understanding the Child Support Debt
As of September 30, 2004, States reported that the total amount
of unpaid child support debt that has accumulated since the program
began in 1975 is $102 billion. While the $102 billion in
arrears is often compared to the annual distributed collections, it
is important to note that arrears include all overdue child support
currently owed, regardless of the year in which it first came
due. In the past 30 years, the child support enforcement
program has collected and distributed $239 billion in child
support. (The amount of debt reported by the States is slightly
overstated because in interstate cases both States that are
involved can report the arrears.)
A top priority for the OCSE program is to gain a greater
understanding of child support debt. With more knowledge
about the composition of unpaid child support debt, the
program should be able to design and implement more effective
strategies to collect arrears from those who have the ability to
pay and develop more appropriate policies for low-income parents
who are unable to pay.
The Office of Child Support Enforcement and the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation contracted with the Urban
Institute to conduct a “Child Support Debt Analysis
Study” for nine large States. The purpose of this study
is to identify the composition of child support debt, the causes
for its growth, and steps to curb future arrears growth.
Preliminary results from this study show that most arrears are
highly concentrated among a relatively small number of noncustodial
parents and most arrears are held by those with no or low reported
wages. The research suggests that some of the arrears’
growth results from orders that are too high relative to the
noncustodial parent’s reported income. Many orders
could benefit from more timely review and adjustment.
Another factor the research found to be contributing to arrears
growth is assessment of interest. About one-third of the
States assess interest routinely; another third assess interest on
an intermittent basis; and the remaining third do not charge
interest on arrears. Early results also show that most
arrears are owed by debtors who owe large amounts of arrears, and
charging interest concentrates arrears among this group even
further. For example, in States that charge interest
routinely, debtors who owed over $40,000 in arrears owe over half
of the arrears in those States. In States that do not charge
interest, the debtors who owed over $40,000 owed less than 30
percent of the total arrears in those States.
Some other factors that contribute to arrears are:
- default orders and imputed income;
- orders that are not modified when
circumstances change;
- retroactive support; and
- incomplete enforcement.
Individual States are also studying their debt and experimenting
with ways to better manage arrears. Such efforts include
adopting new procedures, setting more appropriate orders for
low-income parents, and/or expanding resources to enhance
collection capabilities.
In FY 2004, OCSE developed the FY 2005-2009 National Child
Support Enforcement Strategic Plan. One of the guiding
principles of the Strategic Plan is to take prompt, proactive steps
to ensure that appropriate levels of child support are paid on time
and consistently to prevent the accrual of unpaid child
support. Until recently, child support has followed a
business model predicated on enforcement, as the name “child
support enforcement” implies. That is, the system
intervened only after substantial debt accumulated, and often too
late for collection to be successful. Appropriately applied,
severe enforcement remedies have their place, but this new
principle will help to build a culture of compliance, in which
parents support their children voluntarily and reliably.
Early intervention to prevent the unnecessary build-up of
arrears benefits both families and States in numerous ways, from
improving collection rates to keeping noncustodial parents from
running underground to avoid overwhelming and largely uncollectible
arrears. So, the Plan provides for proactive efforts
to:
- modify orders to ensure that obligations stay
consistent with ability to pay;
- contact noncustodial parents soon after a
scheduled payment is missed;
- update child support guidelines to recognize
modern family dynamics such as shared custody, incomes of custodial
parties;
- use automation to detect noncompliance as
early as possible; and
- require reliable payment of current support,
even if it means compromising uncollectible arrears to bring the
noncustodial parent back into the fold.
Medical Support
The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA)
mandated the establishment of the Medical Child Support Working
Group (MCSWG) to identify impediments to the effective enforcement
of medical support. The MCSWG report (June 2000) contained
recommendations for improving medical support enforcement and
access to health care coverage for children receiving IV-D
services.
The CSPIA also mandated establishment of the Medical Support
Incentive Workgroup (MSIW) to develop a performance measure of the
effectiveness of States in establishing and enforcing medical
support obligations. In response to the recommendations of
the MCSWG and the MSIW, OCSE has continued to work with State
partners and stakeholders in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services and the Department of Labor in developing legislative
proposals. OCSE has also continued its consultation with
State partners in developing regulatory revisions to improve the
establishment and enforcement of medical support, including the
issues of availability and affordability of employer-sponsored
coverage.
Additionally, CSPIA mandated the development of the National
Medical Support Notice (NMSN) to improve the administration of
medical support obligations. The NMSN regulation was
promulgated December 27, 2000. As of October 1, 2004, almost
all States had enacted laws to require the use of the NMSN in cases
where the obligated parent has medical support provisions in the
child support order and may be able to provide health care coverage
through employer-provided insurance. The remaining States are
seeking legislation or are in the process of
implementing/automating the NMSN.
The Employer Outreach team, a component in the Federal OCSE,
continues to provide extensive technical assistance to employers on
the NMSN through articles in publications, presentations at
conferences and teleconferences, and explanatory material on its
website. For example, the NMSN matrix informs employers of each
State’s implementation date for the NMSN, the State’s
priority between child support and medical support, and the
State’s contact person for additional information. In
addition, the OCSE website has a downloadable version of the NMSN
for use by State workers. The Employer Outreach team
continues to assist States with individual requests.
OCSE issued guidance regarding medical support enforcement and
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA). This guidance responds to issues from States,
employers, and health insurance plan administrators about the HIPAA
privacy provisions.
In response to MCSWG recommendations, OCSE and other Department
of Health and Human Services (DHHS) components sponsored research
projects to improve establishment and enforcement of appropriate
medical support obligations: (1) The Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), in consultation with OCSE,
sponsored research addressing health care coverage among child
support-eligible children; (2) ASPE also sponsored research
addressing State practices in medical child support cross-program
coordination with Medicaid and State Children’s Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP); and (3) OCSE sponsored Special
Improvement Project grants to assist States in the enforcement of
the custodial parent’s health insurance coverage, to decrease
Medicaid and SCHIP funds spent on children’s medical
coverage, and to increase the number of cases where premium costs
are shared in a balanced manner between parents. OCSE has also
included medical support as one of the five priority areas for
research demonstration activities to add to the knowledge ad to
promote the objectives of the child support enforcement
program.
The OCSE Strategic Plan for 2005-2009, developed in 2004,
includes the establishment and enforcement of medical support as a
stand-alone goal. OCSE acknowledges that the provision of medical
coverage by the custodial parent (or step-parent) may be a better
option for many children. In addition, the program recognizes its
role in assisting States to control their Medicaid expenditures by
placing the financial responsibility for health care on the family,
not the taxpayer, to the greatest extent possible. The OCSE
Strategic Plan includes indicators for both the establishment and
enforcement of medical support, as well as the percentage of IV-D
children with health care coverage from any source and the Medicaid
cost savings attributable to OCSE medical support efforts.
OCSE provided demonstration grant funding to the State of
Georgia to develop and implement a model to expand private health
insurance coverage through use of volume purchasing arrangements
with private health plans. This would be the court-ordered option
if neither the custodial parent nor the noncustodial parent has
employer-sponsored insurance.
The child support enforcement community recognizes that it has a
unique role to play in increasing the extent to which children
receive health coverage. OCSE is planning regional medical
support meetings to bring State directors from Medicaid, State
Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), child welfare
(IV-E), and child support enforcement (IV-D) to collaborate on ways
to increase medical support for children and Medicaid cost savings
through child support enforcement.
Grants to States and Other Organizations
Section 1115 Demonstration Grants
Section 1115(a) of the Social Security Act provides OCSE with
authority to fund demonstration grants. Only State Title IV-D
agencies, or the State umbrella agencies of which they are a part,
can receive the grants. The agencies can contract with other
agencies, universities, or private consultants to join in these
efforts. States must apply for these funds in response to a
grant announcement of the availability of funds.
In FY 2004, OCSE awarded the following 15 new Section 1115
grants:
Ohio was awarded $50,000 to test the hypothesis that more
information provided to noncustodial parents at first contact will
result in more paternity and order establishment and more
collections. The State proposes to employ "navigators" at the
agency and at the court to provide this information and to refer
noncustodial parents to counseling, employment, legal, or other
community services.
Texas was awarded $125,000 to test (in Harris County)
whether referral to Access and Visitation Enforcement services will
result in regular child support payments. Nonpaying cases
with minor-aged children of ten or younger with no domestic
violence or serious substance abuse issues will be selected for the
study to determine if enhanced Access and Visitation services will
result in more regular payments. Selected parents will
receive a free consultation with an attorney followed by mediation
services. Parents in this high-level treatment group will also have
educational programming available to them on subjects of
co-parenting and relationship building.
Georgia, with a grant of $125,000, proposes to set up a
controlled test of services provided under Georgia’s
federally-funded Access and Visitation program. Services
provided to the experimental group will be a mix of case intake and
assessment, counseling or individual parent education, development
of parenting plans, mediations, and supervised visitation and
neutral exchanges.
Florida was awarded $124,144 to establish collaboration
between its 11th Judicial Circuit Court system and the
Child Support program to create a new Family Division Section
within the court system to address access and visitation issues and
to develop a simplified hearing process for child support cases.
Two hypotheses will be tested. The first is that the associated
hearing process and increased services will increase non-custodial
parent involvement with their children. The second is that
increased access and visitation will increase compliance with child
support orders.
Colorado, with a grant of $125,000, proposes to
demonstrate the effect of providing access and visitation services
to parties with child support cases on collections. The State
will place a child access specialist in each of three county child
support offices to screen parties to determine the scope of their
access and visitation issues, assess what services would most
effectively address the issues, link the parties to services in the
community, and provide some direct services. The key issue to
be determined is whether a State can associate increased
collections and access of noncustodial parents to their children
through the services of such a full-time specialist.
Florida, with a grant of $99,853, will test the use of
video-communications and electronic signatures to eliminate the
need for clients to go physically from the IV-A office to the IV-D
office and vice versa, at the intake phase. The interviews
will be used by child support staff to gather child support
information immediately from public assistance applicants who are
uncooperative. The video-communications will enable
applicants and TANF staff in Pensacola to be interviewed by child
support staff located in the central office (Tallahassee).
The project goals coincide with performance measures listed in the
project announcement: improve paternity establishment,
improve the rate of order establishment, and increase child support
collections. Other goals include increasing the completeness
of application information, streamlining the procedures, increasing
client knowledge, reducing time to locate noncustodial parents,
improving customer satisfaction, and improving the obligation
rate.
Massachusetts was awarded $100,000 to establish a
collaboration between its child support and TANF agencies to
improve the information gathered from TANF applicants about
custodial parents and noncustodial parents. Currently, the
IV-A interviewers spend 15 minutes or less on child support
materials during the intake interview that lasts an hour and a half
to two hours. In this project, the child support information
will be scripted and presented first in the interview by the child
support worker in half of the cases and by the TANF worker in the
other half. The procedures will be targeted on cases close to
self-sufficiency and/or nearing the end of their benefits period to
heighten the possibility of generating child support. The
hypothesis is that there will be increases in paternity and order
establishment and a reduction in the time to establish paternity
and support orders.
The District of Columbia was awarded $86,574 to improve
TANF referrals to the IV-D Program through co-locating of TANF and
CSE workers. In this project, DC will set up one or more
cubicles in the Anacostia office, with staff from both programs
sitting side-by-side with monitors on the same desk. Five
hundred clients will be randomly assigned to the treatment group
with a joint intake and 500 to the control group (with the current
TANF intake process). The joint location ensures that the
same, correct, and complete information is entered into the
databases for both programs.
Nebraska, with a grant of $72,466, will use innovative
telecommunication strategies to increase collections. The
State has a prize-winning phone system for customer service
contact, which has been used primarily by custodial parents.
The system will be extended to noncustodial parents throughout the
State. The State seeks to reach half the noncustodial parents
with new court orders. Two experienced call center staff will
make targeted outbound calls to identify new noncustodial parents
when they first become delinquent in their payments and interact
with them early in the child support process in order to build
long-term relationships.
Iowa was awarded $29,000 to improve collections and
regular payments from noncustodial parents by assigning caseloads
stratified by likely cooperation. Iowa seeks to shape a
trusting relationship with child support program customers,
particularly noncustodial parents, to encourage them to engage in
the support establishment process and in problem solving if they
encounter difficulty in making their support payments.
Advanced statewide training will be provided to enhance child
support specialists’ ability to initiate personal contacts in
a manner that succeeds in gaining noncustodial involvement in
support establishment and encouraging their compliance with support
orders.
Tennessee, with a grant of $62,300, will apply the
Australian system of monitoring and using early intervention to
improve collections and avoid arrears. Tennessee will
stratify cases based upon an assessment completed at the time that
the child support order is established and identify financial and
other parental characteristics that may be predictive of the
likelihood of compliance. The case stratification will also be used
to identify what interventions may be appropriate for the case,
such as more frequent personal contact with NCPs, prompt
modification of orders if necessary, and additional reminders to
NCPs (including monthly reminders by mail or telephone). Case
stratification will enable the child support agency to better
identify NCPs who are in need of services to address employment and
parenting issues. An additional component of the proposed
project will be to identify cases with unmarried parents who may
benefit from marriage in order to refer them to marriage assistance
programs.
Delaware was awarded $50,000 to test procedures to meet
paternity establishment standards. Delaware will develop
mechanisms to assure that data entries are reliable and complete;
it also will provide training to staff to more accurately capture
paternity-related information in its system. Other steps that
the State will take include increasing the presence and extent of
materials at hospitals and other medical centers, using educational
liaisons to increase the knowledge of incarcerated noncustodial
parents, and holding paternity establishment seminars to encourage
parents to establish the paternity of their children. The
demonstration also seeks to expand its community outreach efforts
regarding establishing paternity for children born outside of
marriage.
Minnesota, with a grant of $43,000, will demonstrate
innovative voluntary paternity establishment practices. The
proposal emphasizes that a crucial first step is to identify the
barriers that impede voluntary acknowledgement. A key concern
is the low paternity acknowledgement rate at one hospital that
serves a substantial number of the neediest population. The
innovative approach includes the development of alternate locations
for paternity establishment, training hospital staff to overcome
paternity establishment barriers with an emphasis on culturally
sensitive paternity establishment, and recommendations for
including marriage promotion activities as part of voluntary
paternity establishment efforts.
Georgia was awarded $43,000 to design and implement a
model to expand health insurance options for parents through the
use of volume purchasing arrangements with private health
plans. The goal of this project is to increase the number of
children in IV-D cases with health care coverage.
West Virginia, with a grant of $43,000, proposes to
develop a 10-12 minute video and brochures to provide information
about child support to incarcerated parents. Trained prison
staff will show the video to inmates before release. The State has
2,643 inmates in 10 jails, 1,036 of whom have child support
obligations. About 80 percent of inmates are released each
year. The executive director of the regional jail authority
will select inmates who will appear in the video. Anticipated
benefits of the project include more realistic orders, improved
collections, a better collection to/order ratio for the State,
reduced contempt petitions for nonpayment, and better compliance
with support orders by released inmates.
Special Improvement Project Grants
The purpose of the Special Improvement Project (SIP) grant
program is to provide funding for projects that further the
national child support mission and goals and help improve program
performance. Under the authority of section 452(j) of the
Social Security Act, SIP grants provide Federal funds for research
and demonstration programs and special projects of regional or
national significance relating to the operation of State child
support enforcement programs. Eligible applicants include
State and local public agencies, non-profit agencies (including
faith-based organizations), and tribal organizations.
In FY 2004, OCSE awarded the following 12 SIP grants:
The Michigan Supreme Court received $100,000 to
collaborate with the Office of Child Support, local courts, the
Detroit College of Law, and other agencies to test the value of
video and teleconferencing in granting the prison population access
to child support proceedings. It is hoped that these
collaborators will help incarcerated parents to avoid the build-up
of past-due support.
The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny Co., Pennsylvania,
received $99,978 to test the effectiveness of allowing nonresident
parents to appear at interstate hearings through video and
teleconferencing.
The Center for Policy Research received $99,926 to
conduct an assessment of early case intervention techniques in five
States (Oregon, Wisconsin, Texas, Colorado, and Massachusetts).
The Connecticut Judicial Branch received $100,000 to use
a comprehensive client outreach approach, both personal and
automated, that seeks to increase collections and customer
satisfaction.
The Louisiana Family Council received $100,000 to
collaborate with Support Enforcement, Orleans Family Court,
community organizations, and other agencies to combine programs for
diverse populations into service delivery strategies focusing on
client barriers. The project aims to educate judges and support
staff to culturally responsive approaches to child support,
identify barriers to effective service delivery (and develop ways
to reduce/eliminate them), and educate clients and the public.
The Urban Institute received $100,000 to develop
high-quality online child support information for ethnically and
culturally diverse populations. The project examines research
on the opportunities and barriers that ethnic and culturally
diverse populations face in the Nation’s child support
enforcement program, identifies available high-quality information,
and conducts focus groups in two communities (Washington, D.C. and
Portland, Oregon) in order to develop information on child support
that would be more responsive to these populations.
Iowa received $100,000 for a project in which State and
local child support staff will teach the general public and
community-based and faith-based service providers about the impact
of marriage and single-parent child-rearing on children. The child
support staff will sponsor contests, provide classes, participate
in young men’s groups, and use public service announcements
to educate young parents about ways to meet their responsibilities
for their children.
Tennessee received $100,000 for a project in Shelby
County to educate unwed parents on parental responsibility, to
promote healthy marriage, and to obtain voluntary acknowledgements
of paternity. The project will provide marriage and child support
information in social service and clinical settings.
The Circuit Court of Baltimore County received $150,815
to increase employment opportunities for parents who owe support by
combining court oversight with case management and links to
employment and training.
San Francisco Child Support Services received $200,000
for developing ways to reduce the number of default support orders
and the number of cases in which imputed income is used to
establish orders. The project will address educational, cultural,
and economic barriers to parental involvement. The goals of
this project are to reduce default rates and arrearages and to
increase payment rates.
Vermont received $100,000 to improve the automated data
exchange between child support, Medicaid, and employers to increase
access to private and public health insurance options available to
the family. The project seeks to increase the frequency of
medical support in orders, compliance with orders, and children
enrolled in insurance plans. The project also seeks to
thereby reduce Medicaid costs.
Texas received $100,000 to determine the
cost-effectiveness of identifying parental interests in pensions
and retirement plans and encumbering and seizing them to increase
support collections.
Access and Visitation Grants
Program goals for the “Grants to States for Access and
Visitation” program, as set in statute, are to:
- enable States to establish and administer programs and
- support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to
and visitation of their children.
Services include, but are not limited to:
- mediation (mandatory and voluntary);
- counseling;
- education (e.g., parent education);
- development of parenting plans;
- visitation enforcement (monitored or supervised
visitation);
- neutral drop-off/pick-up; and
- development of guidelines for visitation and alternative
custody arrangements.
Since FY 1996, funding for access and visitation has remained a
constant $10 million per year. However, grants to individual
States may change based on the funding formula that
is set in statute. There is a minimum annual grant
award. States with small populations
are guaranteed a base grant amount of $100,000, and those States
with large populations are awarded a larger grant amount based on
the prescribed funding formula. States are required by law to
provide a minimum of 10 percent of the total program costs.
Federal law requires States to monitor, evaluate, and report on
services funded through access and visitation. This
requirement is satisfied through the annual submission of the
“State Child Access Program Survey,” which
includes:
- State agency contact information;
- services funded;
- provider agency contact information;
- number of parents served;
- socio-economic and demographic information on families served;
and
- outcome data (i.e., actual increase in noncustodial parenting
time with children).
A record number of parents (nearly 71,000) received access and
visitation services in fiscal year 2004 (see Chart A).
Slightly more mothers (35,217) than fathers (32,906) were served
and nearly 2,262 grandparents and legal guardians-who had primary
custodial responsibility of children-were beneficiaries of these
services as well. It is anticipated that roughly 80,000
children were positively affected by their parents’
participation in access and visitation programs during this time
period.
Approximately 40 percent of the total number of parents who
received access and visitation services in FY 2004 were
unmarried. In addition, divorced parents constituted 28
percent of the total number of parents served; 19 percent of
parents were legally separated; and 13 percent reported they were
still married to each other. Out of the 32,906 fathers
served, States report that 18,323 noncustodial parents were able to
obtain increased parenting time with their children. The
majority of parents served have annual incomes of less than
$20,000.
On average, States continue to fund a range of access and
visitation services although parent education, mediation, and
supervised visitation ranked among the most popular
programs. For additional information on this grant
program, see Preliminary Data: Child Access and Visitation
Grants – State Profiles (FY 2004). This report can be
accessed on OCSE’s website: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse.
*This chart is based on data reported by 53 states and
territories for FY 2004. Data were collected on grandparents
and legal guardians during fiscal years 2003 - 2004.
Healthy Marriages Initiative Waivers
The Secretary approved the following Section 1115 waivers in FY
2004, allowing States and approved sites to provide healthy
marriage education integrated with Child Support Enforcement.
These services to parents are intended to strengthen relationships
and foster marriage when appropriate. This education is to be
voluntary and gender neutral; domestic violence protocols are
required. Federal funds of 66% must be matched by 34% State
and local non-child support funds.
- Michigan was funded at $1,000,000 to provide healthy marriage
education to parents recruited through 10 faith-based community
organizations in low-income areas and other sources.
- Minnesota was funded at $989,999 to provide healthy marriage
mentoring from minority married couples to young low-income unwed
parent couples located through hospital pre-natal and post-natal
programs and in-hospital paternity programs.
- Louisiana was funded at $924,000 to provide healthy marriage
education programs integrated with child support information to
young unwed low-income parents around the time of the birth of the
child.
- Illinois was funded at $925,650 to give marriage and child
support education to young unwed parent couples at local Women,
Infants and Children (WIC) centers and those recruited by
hospital-related pre- and post-natal programs.
Technology Transfers
The Technology Transfer (TT) Program usually enables a State or
local CSE agency to cover expenses associated with traveling to
another jurisdiction to learn the details of a transferable
practice. Some transfers may occur in meetings where issues
are discussed and solutions developed. Funds may also be used
to write up findings and follow up and report on the implementation
of practices. It is anticipated that as a result of the TT
there will be improved performance in States that adapt successful
practices from other jurisdictions and there will be resolution of
cross-State issues.
In Missouri, a one-day meeting was conducted in August 2004 at
the Western Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center in St.
Joseph by staff from the Missouri Department of Corrections and
Region VII for these staff members to share Child
Support/Corrections demonstration information with the State of
Kansas. Attendees included staff from the Department of
Corrections, staff of State and Federal child support offices, and
representatives from other partner agencies. Attendees shared
information on services to offender noncustodial parents that led
to interaction with their children, increased payment of child
support, and reduced recidivism for released parents.
Missouri and Kansas agreed to meet regularly to develop a concept
for a bi-state project in a border city that would assist fathers
in obtaining employment, paying their child support, and connecting
with their children after they have been released.
Staff from OCSE and from the Missouri Department of Corrections
and Missouri Family Support Division gave the presentation at the
American Correctional Association’s 134th Congress
of Correction in Chicago, Illinois in August 2004. The
presentation provided an opportunity to showcase projects funded by
OCSE. Missouri had a grant funded by OCSE to promote
successful collaborations between State child support and
corrections agencies and community/faith-based agencies in
addressing the needs of incarcerated fathers and their
children. The workshop at the Congress, entitled
“Successful Re-Integration” highlighted Fathers for
Life, a demonstration program in two Missouri prisons.
Administrators and social service workers benefited by
learning from a panel of practitioners and policy makers how they
can better assist inmates to lessen child support challenges at the
time of re-integration. Practitioners learned to navigate the
child support system to ensure that child support obligations do
not interfere with an inmate’s ability to re-establish
relationships with their children and families.
OCSE provided funds for staff from the Los Angeles County Child
Support and TANF managers to participate in the IV-A/IV-D Academy
in Washington, DC in September 2004. At the Academy, the Los
Angeles County Child Support staff developed an action plan for
improving services to families and communication between the two
programs. Following the Academy, OCSE provided financial
assistance for a joint Child Support Services Department (CSSD) and
Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) “Blue Ribbon
Summit,” which brought together approximately 400 managers
and staff from the County child support and TANF programs to
brainstorm ideas on how to increase child support collections and
income for families.
Four issues identified for further action were:
- expand child support data collection through
TANF Home Program Redetermination Process;
- target cases approaching TANF time limits and
cases with less than $100 TANF grants for child support collection;
- recognize district/division offices with
increased child support collections; and
- provide joint on-going training for both
County departments.
Following the summit, staff have been working together to
develop and implement new processes/procedures that will result in
improved services to customers and increased child support
collections.
New Jersey received funds for three staff members to meet with
the Michigan program and systems staff to review and discuss
aspects of the Michigan Child Support Enforcement (Automated)
System (MICSES) in September 2004. The trip allowed New
Jersey workers an opportunity to see a system similar to the one
they would be building for their own State prior to their
evaluation of bids on it. Michigan is now on its first year
of implementing the MICSES system and has identified key
fundamental issues with the system which affect case structure,
including areas of case definition, document generation, archiving,
member merge, and solutions, so that these could be taken into
consideration by the project leadership in New Jersey. The plan
during the visit was to look at the leadership structure that
Michigan has put into effect to handle project management problems
of this nature and magnitude across the complex structure in which
the program operates. Since Michigan is significantly similar
to New Jersey in structure, New Jersey wanted to build something
similar right from the beginning in order to successfully meet the
timeline for re-engineering and assure a quality project
outcome.
Focusing on Results
The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) program’s
effectiveness is measured through the use of specific performance
indicators. Performance indicators were selected that further
the goals of the child support program to see that:
- all children have parentage established;
- all children in IV-D cases have financial and medical support
orders;
- all children in IV-D cases receive financial and
medical support from parents, as ordered; and
- the IV-D program will be efficient and responsive in its
operations.
Performance-Based Incentives and Penalties
Since 1975, the Federal government has paid incentives to State
child support enforcement programs to encourage improved child
support collections through efficient establishment and enforcement
techniques. These incentive payments are a key source of
funding for State programs. The method for calculating
payments changed with the adoption of the Child Support Performance
and Incentive Act (CSPIA) in 1998. An Incentive Funding
Workgroup composed of State and Federal partners made
recommendations to the Secretary to develop this system. Four
key elements of the performance-based incentive system include:
- incentive payments based on performance in
the five measures: paternity establishment, order establishment,
collections on current support due, cases paying toward arrears,
and cost-effectiveness;
- reliable and complete data (determined by
annual data reliability audits and reviews);
- a capped incentive pool from which States are
paid; and
- incentives that must be reinvested into State
child support programs.
In FY 2004, 47 States received an incentive for all five
measures and seven States received an incentive for four
measures. This is a marked improvement over FY 2003 results
that show 43 States received an incentive for all five measures,
eight States for four measures, and three States for three
measures.
The child support enforcement performance-based penalty system
provides that a financial penalty be assessed when data submitted
for calculating State performance is found to be incomplete or
unreliable. Penalties may also be assessed when the
calculated level of performance for any of the three penalty
measures (paternity establishment, support order establishment, or
current collections) fails to achieve a specified level or when
States are not in compliance with certain child support
requirements. There is an automatic corrective action year if
performance measures are not achieved. The corrective action
year is the immediately succeeding fiscal year following the year
of the deficiency. If the State’s data are determined
complete and reliable and the related performance is adequate for
the corrective action year, the penalty is not imposed.
If the corrective action was unsuccessful, the financial penalty
is a reduction to the State’s Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) block grant. The penalty amount is calculated
as one to two percent of the adjusted State Family Assistance Grant
(SFAG) for the TANF program for the first year of the
deficiency. The penalty amount increases each year, up to
five percent, for each consecutive year the State’s data are
found to be incomplete, unreliable, or the State’s
performance on a penalty measure fails to attain the specified
level of performance. In 2004, nine States received a penalty
after the FY 2003 corrective action year for the FY 2002
performance period. Six States filed appeals to the
Department Appeals Board.
Audits and Data Reliability
The OCSE Office of Audit performs Data Reliability Audits (DRAs)
to evaluate the completeness, accuracy, security, and reliability
of data reported and produced by State reporting systems. The
DRAs help ensure that incentives under the Child Support
Performance and Incentives Act of 1998 are earned and paid only on
the basis of verifiable data and that the incentive payments system
is fair and equitable.
Beginning with the FY 2003 audit period, OCSE identified 12
States as not needing a DRA, primarily because they demonstrated
the ability to consistently report reliable data over a period of
at least two years and passed all performance standards.
States that were excused from an audit were still required to
provide audit trails to support the data being reported for
incentive purposes, as well as a management assertion that the
system used to report the data had not undergone significant change
since the last audit. These requirements were necessary to help
ensure and protect the integrity and reliability of the data and
the incentive payment system. The audit staff performed a limited
Data Reliability Review (DRR), primarily to ensure that the audit
trails matched the data being reported. A State that was
initially determined exempt from a DRA could be subject to the DRA
in the same year as the DRR if the DRR disclosed serious problems
between the audit trails and the data or if there was some other
irregularity about the data being reported such as a sudden, major
change that could not be explained. For FY 2004, 15
DRR’s were performed. The goal is to reach a point at
which all States are on a three-year annual cycle. This three-year
cycle will free up audit resources for other important
responsibilities mandated by law (such as administrative cost
audits).
Fiscal year 2004 was the fifth year that OCSE calculated and
paid incentives to States for meeting performance standards in five
performance measure areas. DRAs for FY 2004 showed continued
improvement over FY 2003 results. Fifty States and
jurisdictions passed the DRA/DRR for FY 2004, compared with 48 in
the previous year. For the second year in a row, the lines
for reporting paternity information on the OCSE-157 Report* were
the only lines in error. In FY 2004, only four States, as
compared to six States in FY 2003, did not meet the data
reliability standard for the paternity measure. All States
passed the DRA for cost-effectiveness in FYs 2002, 2003, and
2004.
Cost Audits
OCSE is required by statute to evaluate the adequacy of the
financial management of a State’s program.
Specifically, the OCSE Office of Audit is mandated to perform
reviews of expenditures claimed by States for Federal
reimbursement. The primary objectives of a cost audit are to
determine whether costs claimed by the State for Federal
reimbursement are allowable, allocable, and reasonable to the child
support program and to ensure that States bear their fair share of
child support costs. Financial audits are performed after the
DRAs are complete to the extent that time and resources are
available before beginning the next fiscal year’s DRAs.
Audit findings from cost audits performed or reported in FY 2004
included, among other things, unallowable non IV-D costs claimed
for reimbursement and the receipt of program income not used to
offset expenditures as required.
* The form States use to report statistical information to the
Federal government.
Self-Assessment
Each State must conduct an annual review of its child support
enforcement program using the compliance criteria and sampling
methods required under section 454(15)(A) of the Social Security
Act. Each year States must assess their IV-D program
performance, and submit a report of their findings. The
criteria and efficiency rates States use to assess their program
performance are: case closure (90%), establish paternity and
support (75%), enforce support orders (75%), collect and distribute
support (75%), secure and enforce medical support (75%), review and
adjust support orders (75%), interstate services (75%), and
expedited processes for six months (75%) and twelve months
(90%). The Federal role in self-assessment is to periodically
analyze the reports, provide technical assistance, and identify
best practices.
States continue to use the CSE program self-assessment process
as a management tool to evaluate and improve CSE program
performance and submit annual reports of such assessments to OCSE
central and regional offices. In addition to reporting the
status and accomplishments of the respective States’ CSE
Program, including “best practices,” the annual reports
also identify program deficiencies and corresponding corrective
actions taken or planned. Based on review and evaluations of
these annual State self-assessment reports, OCSE staff makes
appropriate recommendations, offer technical assistance, and
identify “best practices” which can be shared with
other States. Nationally, all States passed the
self-assessment criteria for FY 2004.
State Plans
As a condition of receiving Federal funding (Federal Financial
Participation, referred to as FFP), State IV-D agencies must submit
approvable State Plans describing the nature and scope of their
program. The State Plan consists of preprinted pages and
related attachments and contains all the information necessary for
OCSE to determine whether it can be approved. The authority
to approve State Plans is delegated to the OCSE regional offices,
but the Commissioner of OCSE retains the authority for determining
that a State IV-D Plan is not approvable.
In FY 2004, two States (South Carolina and California) received
notices of intent to disapprove their IV-D State Plans for failure
to have in effect and in operation automated child support
enforcement systems that met all Federal requirements under PRWORA.
Both States received notices of intent to disapprove their IV-D
State Plans for failure to implement the requirement to collect
social security numbers on driver’s license applications.
During the year, these States made considerable progress
implementing the required procedures.
National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan FY
2005-2009
In September 2004, the Office of Child Support Enforcement
unveiled the National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan for
2005-2009 (the Plan). The Plan updates the Strategic Plan
from fiscal years 2000-2004, reflecting changes in the child
support enforcement program over the last five years. The
Plan is the product of an enormously effective collaboration with
the Child Support Enforcement community, including Federal, State,
Tribal, and local level child support enforcement
professionals. This Plan is used to ensure that all CSE
programs are stressing the same program goals and objectives.
The revised Plan’s mission, vision, guiding principles,
goals, objectives, and indicators are intended to bring child
support professionals everywhere, and all others who collaborate
with the IV-D program, an understanding of how the work they do
directly affects the outcomes in the program. The plan also is
designed as a practical management tool for setting work priorities
and focusing resources. Like its predecessors, this Plan
provides a direction for the course of the program over the next
five years. In addition, it gives parents and taxpayers a
tool for holding the program accountable for progress.
A few of the highlights that distinguish this Plan from previous
Plans:
- Families first. Child support should be
a reliable source of income for families. Families
receive 90 percent of total support collections. Our
priorities include reducing the amount of support collected but not
distributed. Success is not just getting any collection, but
getting regular, timely payments to families.
- Meaningful medical support for
children. Medical support is now a separate goal with
new indicators.
- Preventing the build-up of unpaid support
(arrearages) through early intervention rather than traditional
debt threshold-based enforcement. This includes new
proactive efforts to modify orders to ensure that obligations stay
consistent with the ability to pay and using automation to detect
non-compliance as early as possible.
- Increased accountability of the Child Support
Enforcement Program. The Child Support Enforcement Program
has a long tradition of setting high standards and of holding
itself accountable for achieving meaningful results. In the
Plan, OCSE commits to measure performance through the use of over a
dozen new or revised performance indicators.
OCSE presented the Plan at national and regional Child Support
Enforcement conferences and meetings with other Federal and State
agencies. OCSE also participated in a one-day session on
Strategic Planning for the Leadership Development Program within
the Office of the Inspector General, HHS.
Project Save Our Children
Project Save Our Children (PSOC) is a criminal child support
enforcement initiative that targets chronically delinquent parents
who willfully fail to take responsibility for their children and
owe large sums of past due child support ($20,000 and over).
Due to the parent’s excessive delinquency in providing
child support payments, criminal charges may have been pending or
ruled upon.
PSOC’s goal is to increase child support collections
through the identification, investigation, and, when warranted,
prosecution of flagrant, delinquent child support offenders.
The total ordered amount of restitution related to Federal
investigations were $5.4 million. The amount of restitution
actually collected was $2.6 million in FY 2004.
By prosecuting parents who will not provide support, a pointed
message of responsibility is sent that may help to give their
children a better chance in life.
Since the project’s creation in 1998, PSOC has
investigated over 9,000 cases and is responsible for over 1,000
Federal and State arrests and over 800 Federal and State
convictions and adjudications. PSOC’s activities
resulting from these investigations have increased OCSE’s
ability to collect arrearages.
During FY 2004, PSOC activities included:
- the implementation of the Child Support Enforcement
Tracking System 5 (CSETS 5), a redeveloped system that is available
at all screening sites used to track cases, including restitution
payments;
- a random PSOC screening site that passed the IRS audit, in
which audit guidelines were developed, approved, and will be used
by all screening sites;
- web-based training on law enforcement data systems required for
all Investigative Analysts;
- two published articles on the results of the 2003 Round Up
discussing what happens after the arrest of the non-paying parents;
and
- an international case (referred by Maryland IV-D
offices) that proved the ability of the PSOC Task Force to
coordinate with various entities for a successful outcome. (The
program worked with MD IV-D offices, Mid-Atlantic PSOC, Office of
the Inspector General, Department of Justice, Department of State,
and the US Embassy in Spain, as well as various courts and law
enforcement offices in Spain.)
Tribal Program
States historically have been charged with providing child
support services to tribal recipients, as they comprise part of the
State caseload. In 1996, The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act allowed the Office of Child Support
Enforcement to directly fund tribal child support enforcement
programs. Currently, the Department of Health and Human
Services provides funding to nine tribes to operate a comprehensive
child support enforcement program. The nine tribes are:
- Chickasaw Nation
- Navajo Nation
- Puyallup Tribe
- Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe
- Lac du Flambeau Tribe
- Menominee Tribe
- Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
- Lummi Nation
- Forest County Potawatomi Community
In FY 2004, these tribes participated in national child support
meetings and conferences which included the following: the
Tribal Child Support Final Rule Roll-Out, the Tribal/State
Cooperation Workgroup, the Tribal CSE System Workgroup, the
National Indian Child Welfare Association Directors Training
Conference, the Central Office/ACF Regional Office Conference, and
the Electronic Income Withholding Notice Workgroup. On-site
technical assistance was provided to the Lac du Flambeau Band of
Chippewa Indians and the Navajo Nation.
The final rule on the Tribal Child Support Enforcement programs
was published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2004 (69 FR
16638). The rule sets forth the requirements and related
provisions and provides guidance to tribes and tribal organizations
on how to apply for funding and, upon approval, receive direct
funding for the operation of Tribal IV-D programs. To receive
funding, tribes must meet the following objectives:
- establishment of paternities and support orders;
- modification and enforcement of support orders;
- collection and distribution of support; and
- location of noncustodial parents.
OCSE conducted a series of meetings and conferences across the
nation in the summer of 2004. The meetings provided an
overview of the regulation, including the start-up process, funding
process, and reporting requirements. Meetings and conferences
were held in Seattle, WA; Prior Lake, MN; Albuquerque, NM; Palm
Springs, CA; and Washington, DC.
International Program
During FY 2004, foreign reciprocating country (FRC) agreements
became effective between the United States and the Canadian
provinces/territories of New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, and
Nunavut, and the nation of Switzerland. During FY 2004, the
U.S. also declared Costa Rica to be reciprocating, pending
notification of fulfillment of legal requirements from the
government of Costa Rica.
In June 2004, the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of State (DOS), and State child support agency officials
attended the Hague Conference on Private International Law and
participated in meetings of the Special Commission on Family
Maintenance, which is working to develop a new multilateral
convention for child support enforcement. While the U.S. has
not been a signatory to previous conventions, U.S. participation in
the current Special Commission offers the possibility that a new
multilateral instrument might provide more children with the
benefits of an expanded international system of cooperation.
As part of OCSE’s efforts in support of the Hague Special
Commission, the U.S. has taken a leadership role in organizing and
coordinating the Administrative Cooperation Working Group
(ACWG). The stated goals of the ACWG, which was begun in
2003, are to improve administrative cooperation among participating
countries and to develop possible recommendations on administrative
cooperation for Hague Special Commission meetings. During
2004, the ACWG and its three subcommittees (Standard Forms and
Procedures, Timelines for Case Processing, and Country Profiles)
met and prepared reports for the June 2004 Special
Commission. The Special Commission made the ACWG a formal
committee with responsibility to recommend appropriate
post-convention implementation of the new Convention.
The formalization of the ACWG is a significant accomplishment
and responsibility for the U.S. and other countries that
participate in the workgroup. The U.S. child support system
serves as the model for performance-based measurement and
monitoring of child support efforts.
In September 2004 in Puerto Rico, OCSE and the Department of
State organized a Caribbean negotiation to develop a model
bi-lateral child support reciprocity agreement with
English-speaking Caribbean nations. After this conference, a
meeting was held to plan a pilot project between Puerto Rico and
the Dominican Republic to advance international child support
efforts between those two jurisdictions.
In support of State caseworkers during 2004, OCSE issued
guidance on processing cases with FRCs, improved international
child support internet resources, international payments, and
procedures for FRC access to the Federal Parent Locator
Service.
Charts and Graphs
List of Charts
Cases
Figure 1 Total Caseload for Five Fiscal Years
Figure 2 IV-D Cases With and Without Orders Established for Five Fiscal Years
Figure 3 Number of IV-D Cases for Which a Collection Was Made for Five Fiscal Years
Paternities Acknowledged and Orders Established
Figure 4 IV-D and Statewide Paternities Acknowledged for Five Fiscal Years
Figure 5 Number of Support Orders Established and Percent Change for Five Fiscal Years
Collections
Figure 6 Total Distributed Collections by Current, Former, Never Assistance, and Medicaid, FY 2004
Figure 7 Total Collections by Method of Collections, FY 2004
Figure 8 Total Distributed Collections by TANF/Foster Care and Non-TANF Collections for Five Fiscal Years
Figure 9 Current Collections Due and Distributed, FY 2004
Figure 10 Cases Paying Toward an Arrears, FY 2004
Figure 11 Interstate Collections for Five Fiscal Years
Interstate
Figure 12 Interstate Cases - Cases Sent to and Received from Another State for Five Fiscal Years
Expenditures
Figure 13 Total Expenditures for Five Fiscal Years
Figure 14 Total ADP Expenditures for Five Fiscal Years
Number of Children
Figure 15 Number of Children in the IV-D Program for Five Fiscal Years
Federal Parent Locator Services
Figure 16 Number of Unique Persons in the Federal Case Registry (FCR) for Five Fiscal Years
Figure 17 Federal Offset Collections for Five Processing Years (PY)
Figure 18 IV-D Tribal Program, FY 2004
Summary Tables
List of Tables
Tables 1-80
Program Overview
Table 1 Financial Overview, FY 2003 and FY 2004
Table 2 Statistical Overview, FY 2003 and FY 2004
Program Collections
Table 3 Total Distributed Collections for Five Fiscal Years
Table 4 Distributed Current Assistance Collections for Five Fiscal
Years
Table 5 Distributed Former Assistance Collections for Five Fiscal Years
Table 6 Distributed Never Assistance Collections for Five Fiscal Years
Table 7 Distributed TANF/Foster Care Collections for Five Fiscal Years
Table 8 Distributed TANF Collections for Five Fiscal Years
Table 9 Distributed Foster Care Collections for Five Fiscal Years
Table 10 Distributed Non-TANF Collections for Five Fiscal Years
Federal and State Share of Collections
Table 11 Federal Share of TANF/Foster Care Collections for Five Fiscal Years
Table 12 State Share of TANF/Foster Care Collections for Five Fiscal Years
Undistributed Collections
Table 13 Gross Undistributed Collections for Five Fiscal Years
Table 14 Net Undistributed Collections for Five Fiscal Years
Table 15 Percent of Undistributed Collections, FY 2004
Other Collections
Table 16 Collections Forwarded to Non-IV-D Cases for Five Fiscal Years
Table 17 Total Wage Withholding for Five Fiscal Years
Table 18 Total Collections Made by Method of Collection, FY 2004
Payments to Families
Table 19 Payments to Families for Five Fiscal Years
Table 20 TANF/Foster Care Payments to Families for Five Fiscal Years
Interstate Activity
Table 21 Interstate Collections Forwarded to Other States for Five Fiscal Years
Table 22 Interstate Cases Sent to Another State for Five Fiscal Years
Table 23 Interstate Cases Received from Another State for Five Fiscal Years
Cost-Effectiveness
Table 24 Cost-Effectiveness Ratio for Five Fiscal Years
Incentives
Table 25 Incentive Payment Estimates for Five Fiscal Years
Table 26 Incentive Payment Actuals for Five Fiscal Years
Medical Support
Table 27 Medical Support Payments to Families for Five Fiscal Years
Table 28 Percent of Health Insurance Provided as Ordered for Two Fiscal Years
Table 29 Percent of Cases with Orders in Which Medical Support is Ordered for Two Fiscal Years
Program Expenditures
Table 30 Administrative Expenditures for Five Fiscal Years
Table 31 Federal Share of Administrative Expenditures for Five Fiscal Years
Table 32 State Share of Administrative Expenditures for Five Fiscal Years
Table 33 Non-IV-D Costs for Five Fiscal Years
Functional Costs
Table 34 ADP Expenditures for Five Fiscal Years
Table 35 Expenditures for Laboratory Tests for Paternity Establishment for Five Fiscal Years
Fees
Table 36 Fees and Costs Recovered, FY 2004
Table 37 Fees Retained by Other States for Five Fiscal Years
Program Savings/Costs
Table 38 Total Program Costs for Five Fiscal Years
Table 39 State Share of Program Savings or Costs for Five Fiscal Years
Table 40 Federal Share of Program Costs for Five Fiscal Years
Cases and Caseloads
Table 41 Cases with No Jurisdiction for Five Fiscal Years
Table 42 Cases Open at the End of the Fiscal Year for Five Fiscal Years
Table 43 Total Caseload for Five Fiscal Years
Table 44 Total Caseload by Current Assistance for Five Fiscal Years
Table 45 Total Caseload by Former Assistance for Five Fiscal Years
Table 46 Total Caseload by Never Assistance for Five Fiscal Years
Orders Established
Table 47 Total Cases with Orders Established for Five Fiscal Years
Table 48 Cases with Orders Established by Current, Former, and Never Assistance, FY 2004
Paternities
Table 49 Total Number of Paternities Established or Acknowledged for Five Fiscal Years
Table 50 Out-Of-Wedlock Births and Paternity Establishment, FY 2003 and 2004
Services Provided
Table 51 IV-A Cases Closed Where a Child Support Payment Was Received for Five Fiscal Years
Table 52 Number of Support Orders Established During the Fiscal Year for Five Fiscal Years
Table 53 Number of CSE Cases in Which a Collection Was Made on an Obligation for Five Fiscal Years
Table 54 Cases Sent to Another State for Five Fiscal Years
Table 55 Cases Received from Another State for Five Fiscal Years
Services Required
Table 56 Cases Requiring Services to Establish an Order for Five Fiscal Years
Table 57 Children Requiring Paternity Determination Services for Five Fiscal Years
Staff
Table 58 Full-Time Equivalent Staff by State and Local Government, Cooperation-Agreements, and Privatized Offices, FY 2003 and FY 2004
Table 59 Total Full-Time Equivalent Staff for Five Fiscal Years
Table 60 Costs and Staff Associated with the Central Office of Child Support Enforcement for Five Fiscal Years
Current Support
Table 61 Amount of Current Support Due for Five Fiscal Years
Table 62 Amount of Support Distributed as Current Support for Five Fiscal Years
Arrears
Table 63 Total Amount of Arrearages Due for Five Fiscal Years
Table 64 Total Amount of Support Distributed as Arrears for Five Fiscal Years
Table 65 Certified Federal Offset Caseload and Arrearage Totals, FY 2004
Table 66 Cases with Arrears Due for Five Fiscal Years
Table 67 Cases Paying Towards Arrears for Five Fiscal Years
Non-Cooperation and Good Cause
Table 68 Cases with Determination of Non-Cooperation for Five Fiscal Years
Table 69 Cases with Good Cause Determinations for Five Fiscal Years
Children
Table 70 Children with Paternity Resolved for Five Fiscal Years
Table 71 Total Number of Children for Five Fiscal Years
Federal Parent Locator Service
Table 72 Tax Offset and Administrative Offset Programs (TANF and Non-TANF Combined), Processing Year 2004
Table 73 Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS), FY 2004
Table 74 Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS), Processing Year 2004
Table 75 Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) National Directory of New Hires (NDNH), FY 2004
Table 76 Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) Number of Cases in the Federal Case Registry (FCR), FY 2004
Table 77 Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) Number of Unique Persons in the Federal Case Registry (FCR) by Participant Type, FY 2004
Table 78 Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) Number of Unique Persons in the Federal Case Registry (FCR) Matched by Data Type, FY 2004
Table 79 Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) Net Collections – Federal Offset Program, Processing Year 2004
Table 80 Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) Number of Offsets – Federal Offset Program, Processing Year 2004
Glossary
Financial and Statistical Terms
Program Collections
Table 3 - Total Distributed Collections (Form OCSE-34A,
line 8E; beginning in FY 2004, line 8G)
Total amount of collections distributed during the year on
behalf of both TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and
Non-TANF families. Total collections are calculated as the
sums of Current IV-A Assistance, Current IV-E Assistance, Former
Assistance, and Never Assistance.
Table 7 - Distributed TANF/Foster Care Collections (Form
OCSE-34A, line 8(A+B) + line 7aC; beginning in FY 2004, line 8
(A+B) + line 7a (C+D))
The portion of total collections received on behalf of families
receiving assistance under the TANF program plus children placed in
foster care facilities. These collections are divided between
the State and Federal governments to reimburse their respective
shares of either Title IV-A assistance payments or Title IV-E
Foster Care maintenance payments.
Table 10 - Distributed Non-TANF Collections (Form
OCSE-34A, lines 7bC + 7cC + 8D; beginning in FY 2004, lines 7b
(C+D) + 7c (C+D) + 8 (E+F))
The portion of total collections received on behalf of families
not receiving assistance under the TANF/Foster Care programs and
distributed to those families during the year.
Federal and State Share of Collections
Table 11 - Federal Share of TANF/Foster Care Collections
(Form OCSE-34A, line 12a + 10B; beginning in FY 2004, lines
10aG + 10bG 4th quarter)
The portion of child support collections used to reimburse the
Federal government for its share of past assistance payments under
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act or Foster Care maintenance
payments, before the payment of incentive payments.
Table 12 - State Share of TANF/Foster Care Collections
(Form OCSE-34A, line 7aE - line 10E; beginning in FY 2004, lines
7aG - (line 10aG + 10bG 4th quarter))
Collections that will be divided between the State and Federal
governments to reimburse their respective shares of either Title
IV-A assistance payments or Title IV-E Foster Care maintenance
payments.
Undistributed Collections
Table 14 - Net Undistributed Collections (Form OCSE-34A,
line 9bE - 4th quarter; beginning in FY 2004, line 9bG -
4th quarter)
The amount of collections that remains available for
distribution in a future quarter.
Table 16 - Collections Forwarded to Non-IV-D Cases (Form
OCSE-34A, line 4E; beginning in FY 2004, line 4G)
Those collections received through income withholding and
processed through the State Disbursement Unit on behalf of Non-IV-D
cases that were forwarded to the custodial parent during the
quarter.
Payments to Families
Table 19 - Payments to Families (Form OCSE-34A, line 7cE;
beginning in FY 2004, line 7cG)
The collections that are distributed either to the family or to
the foster care agency to be used on the child’s behalf.
Table 20 - TANF/Foster Care Payments to Families (Form
OCSE-34A, line 7c(A+B))
The total amount of collections that are distributed either to
the family or to the foster care agency to be used on the
child’s behalf.
Interstate Activity
Table 21 - Interstate - Collections Forwarded to Other
States (Form OCSE-34A, line 5E; beginning in FY 2004, line
5G)
Amounts received in response to a request for assistance from
another State and forwarded during the quarter to that State for
distribution, including interstate case and Administrative
Enforcement in Interstate (AEI) collections.
Cost-Effectiveness
Table 24 - Cost Effectiveness Ratio (Form OCSE-34A, lines
5+8+13 divided by OCSE-396A, line 9(A+C) minus 1b(A+C))
The total of collections forwarded to other States, plus total
collections distributed, plus fees retained by other States,
divided by total current quarter claims and total prior quarter
adjustments minus Non IV-D cost.
Incentives
Tables 25 and 26 - Incentive Payment Estimates and
Actuals (Form OCSE-34A, line 11E; beginning in FY 2004, line
11G)
The amount of money States earn for running an efficient child
support program. This amount is estimated prior to the start
of the fiscal year and is reported by the State on a quarterly
basis. Actual incentive amounts are computed after the end of
the fiscal year and appropriate adjustments are made in State grant
awards.
Medical Support
Table 27 - Medical Support Payments to Families (Form
OCSE-34A, line 7bE; beginning in FY 2004, line 7bG)
The portion of any collection that corresponds to any amount
specifically designated in a support order for medical
support. To the extent that medical support has been assigned
to the State, medical support collections should be forwarded to
the Medicaid agency for distribution in accordance with current
regulations. Otherwise, the amount should be forwarded to the
family.
Program Expenditures
Table 30 - Administrative Expenditures (Form OCSE-396A,
line 9(A+C))
Total amount of expenditures eligible for Federal funding that
is claimed by the State during the year for the administration of
the Child Support Enforcement program. Including all amounts
claimed during the year, whether expended during the current or a
previous fiscal year. The amounts being reported have been
reduced by the amount of program income (fees and costs recovered
in excess of fees and interest earned and other program income)
received by the States.
Table 31 - Federal Share of Administrative Expenditures
(Form OCSE-396A, line 9(B+D))
Net Federal Share of current quarter claims plus prior quarter
adjustments.
Table 32 - State Share of Administrative Expenditures
(Form OCSE-396A, line 16(B+D) - line 11B)
Total share of current quarter claims plus prior quarter
adjustments minus Federal share of current quarter claims plus
Federal share of prior quarter adjustments.
Table 33 - Non-IV-D Costs (Form OCSE-396A, line
1b(A+C))
The amount of administrative expenditures attributable to the
collecting, entering, maintaining, and processing information
relative to Non-IV-D child support cases in the State Case Registry
and to the processing of Non-IV-D child support collections through
the State Disbursement Unit. Non-IV-D cases are those for
which there is no assignment of support rights to the State or
where the State has not received an application for Title IV-D
services.
Functional Costs
Table 34 - ADP Expenditures (Form OCSE-396A, lines 4, 5,
and 6)
Expenditures made in accordance with the terms of an approved
ADP for the planning, design, development, implementation,
enhancement, or operation of an automated Statewide Child Support
Enforcement System (CSES).
Table 35 - Expenditures for Laboratory Tests for Paternity
Establishment (Form OCSE-396A, line 8(A+C))
The amount expended for laboratory costs associated with the
process of determining paternity. This amount is the
“net” amount of expenditures, reduced by any fees
collected by the State to recoup the cost of these services.
Program Savings/Costs
Table 38 - Total Program Costs (Form OCSE-34A, line 7a -
OCSE-396A, line 9(A+C))
Collections that will be divided between the State and Federal
governments to reimburse their respective shares of either Title
IV-A assistance payments or Title IV-E Foster Care maintenance
payments minus total amount of current quarter administrative
expenditure and prior quarter adjustment of administrative
expenditure.
Cases and Caseloads
Table 41 - Cases with No Jurisdiction (Form OCSE-157,
line 3)
The number of open cases on the last day of the fiscal year over
which the State has no jurisdiction.
Table 43 - Total Caseload (Form OCSE-157, lines 1 and
3)
The number of IV‑D cases open on the last day of the
fiscal year, including the number of open cases at the end of the
fiscal year as a result of requests for assistance received from
other States.
Orders Established
Table 47 - Total Cases with Orders Established (Form
OCSE-157, line 2)
The number of IV‑D cases open on the last day of the
fiscal year that have support orders established. Included
are cases with orders entered prior to the case becoming a
IV‑D case, as well as cases with orders established by the
IV‑D agency. Judgments for arrears, regardless of
whether there is a payment schedule or an order for ongoing support
are also included. Also included are all interstate
cases-both cases sent to and received from other States.
Paternities
Table 49 - Total Number of Paternities Established or
Acknowledged (Form OCSE-157, lines 10a and 16(b+c+d))
The number of children born out of wedlock in the reporting
State for whom paternity has been acknowledged during the fiscal
year. Included are children with paternity acknowledged
through the State’s voluntary in‑hospital
acknowledgment program and other acknowledgment processes.
Also reported is the number of children in cases in the IV‑D
caseload for whom paternity was established or acknowledged during
the fiscal year.
Table 50 - Paternity Establishment (Form OCSE-157, lines
5, 6, 8 and 9)
The number of children in the IV-D caseload in cases open at the
end of the fiscal year who were born out of wedlock. Also the
number of children born out of wedlock in the IV-D caseload in
cases open at the end of the fiscal year who have paternity
established or acknowledged.
The total number of children who were born out of wedlock in the
State during the fiscal year. Also included is the number of
minor children who were born out of wedlock in the State for whom
paternity has been established or acknowledged during the fiscal
year.
Services Provided
Table 51 - IV-A Cases Closed Where a Child Support Payment
was Received (Form OCSE-157, line 14)
Includes all cases terminated from TANF during the fiscal year
in which there was any child support collection in the month of
termination.
Table 52 - Number of Support Orders Established During the
Fiscal Year (Form OCSE-157, line 17)
The number of cases in which support orders were established by
the IV‑D agency during the fiscal year. Includes
support orders established for medical support or health
insurance.
Table 53 - Number of CSE Cases in Which a Collection was Made
on an Obligation (Form OCSE-157, line 18)
The number of cases for which one or more collections were made
during the fiscal year. Included are cases where no support
order is established but a voluntary payment was made.
Table 54 - Cases Sent to Another State (Form OCSE-157,
line 19)
The number of interstate cases the reporting State sent to other
States during the fiscal year. Includes cases submitted for
location, establishment of paternity or support order, enforcement
of support, or any other IV‑D activity.
Table 55 - Cases Received from Another State (Form
OCSE-157, line 20)
The number of interstate cases received from another State
during the fiscal year.
Services Required
Table 56 - Cases Requiring Services to Establish an Order
(Form OCSE-157, line 12(b+c+d))
Total number of IV‑D cases open at the end of the fiscal
year that need services to establish a support order
Table 57 - Children Requiring Paternity Determination
Services (Form OCSE-157, line 13)
The number of children in cases that are open at the end of the
fiscal year who required paternity establishment. This
includes all children whose paternity has not been established and
children in the process of having paternity established. If
there is more than one putative father for a child, this child is
only counted once.
Staff
Table 58 - Full-Time Equivalent Staff by State and Local,
Cooperative Agreements and Privatized Offices (Form OCSE-157,
lines 30, 31 and 32)
The total number of FTE staff employed by the State and local
IV‑D agencies.
The total number of FTE staff employed by an agency (public or
private) working under a cooperative agreement with the IV‑D
agency.
The total number of FTE staff employed by privatized IV‑D
agencies.
Current Support
Table 61 - Amount of Current Support Due (Form OCSE-157,
line 24)
The total amount of current support by current, former, and
never assistance for the fiscal year for all IV-D cases.
Includes total voluntary collections.
Table 62 - Amount of Support Distributed as Current
Support (Form OCSE-157, line 25)
The total amount of support distributed as current support
during the fiscal year for all IV-D cases. Voluntary payments
are considered current support and should be included even though
there is no order to require payment.
Arrears
Table 63 - Total Amount of Arrearages Due (Form OCSE-157,
line 26)
The total amount of arrears due and unpaid as of the end of the
fiscal year for all fiscal years, including the fiscal year covered
by the report. Interest and penalties on arrearages may be
included.
Table 64 - Total Amount of Support Distributed as Arrears
(Form OCSE-157, line 27)
The total amount of support distributed this fiscal year as
arrearages. This amount includes judgments ordered and paid
this fiscal year for prior year support.
Tables 66 and 67 - Cases with Arrears Due and Paying Towards
Arrears (Form OCSE-157, lines 28 and 29)
The number of cases with arrears due during the fiscal year,
including cases closed during the fiscal year with arrearages.
The number of cases in which there was at least one payment
toward arrears during the fiscal year and the total number of IV‑D cases
in which payments of past‑due child support were received during
the fiscal year. Part or all of the payments were distributed
to the family to which the past‑due child support was
owed.
Non-Cooperation and Good Cause
Table 68 - Cases with Determination of Non-Cooperation
(Form OCSE-157, line 38)
The number of IV‑D TANF cases open at the end of the
fiscal year in which a determination was made that the custodial
parent refused to cooperate with State agencies in identifying and
locating the non-custodial parent.
Table 69 - Cases with Good Cause Determinations (Form
OCSE-157, line 39)
The number of cases open during the fiscal year in which it was
determined by the State that the custodial parent has a good cause
for refusing to cooperate with State agencies in identifying and
locating the non-custodial parent.
Children
Table 70 - Children with Paternity Resolved (Form
OCSE-157, line 7)
The number of children in the IV‑D caseload open at the
end of the fiscal year with paternity resolved. Include all
children born within a marriage, legitimized by marriage or
adoption, and children with paternity established or
acknowledged.
Table 71 - Total Number of Children (Form OCSE 157, line
4)
The number of children in the IV‑D caseload in cases open
at the end of the fiscal year. This includes those children
who are under age 18.