Detailed Information on the
Office of Child Support Enforcement Assessment

Developing early intervention strategies to prevent and improve collection of unpaid or overdue child support. About 66% of people who owe debt report less than $10,000 in income. Milestone: Monitor and disseminate findings when appropriate from demonstration grants for two or three years duration on early intervention to prevent arrears and improve collections.

Developing medical support enforcement proposals. Milestone: Provide technical assistance to regions and states at various meetings regarding medical support.

Developing two new indicators to measure the extent to which medical support is not only ordered but also provided in child support cases. Milestone: Share draft recommendations with State IV-D Directors and respond to top questions and issues.

Identify strategies to increase collections of current child support and reduce/prevent arrears. Milestone: Develop and disseminate Project to Avoid Increasing Delinquencies (PAID) articles and best practices.

Funding grants to improve child support through collaborations with other programs. Milestone: Organize workshop or publish article featuring collaboration grant(s).

Developing medical support enforcement proposals. Milestone: Review and respond to public comments.

Developing two new indicators to measure the extent to which medical support is not only ordered but also provided in child support cases. Milestone: States submit medical support performance measures for FY 2006.

Funding grants to help non-custodial parents with employment and support services in the Access and Visitation Program. Milestone: Monitor and disseminate findings when appropriate for existing demonstration grants that help noncustodial parents with employment and access and visitation.

Implementing the provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act. Examples include new child support enforcement tools, revised medical support requirements, new distribution policies, and a new user fee. Milestone: Publish proposed regulations.

Developing medical support enforcement proposals. Milestone: Receive and review comments from the Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget (OLAB).

Developing two new indicators to measure the extent to which medical support is not only ordered but also provided in child support cases. Milestone: Conduct data reliability audits regarding states' ability to report medical support performance measures.

Implementing the provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act. Examples include new child support enforcement tools, revised medical support requirements, new distribution policies, and a new user fee. Milestone: Review and respond to public comments and send draft final regulations to the Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget (OLAB).

Developing two new indicators to measure the extent to which medical support is not only ordered but also provided in child support cases. Milestone: Publish state-reported medical support performance data.

Implementing the provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act. Examples include new child support enforcement tools, revised medical support requirements, new distribution policies, and a new user fee. Milestone: Develop a distribution training curriculum and deliver the training through three two-day sessions.

Developing two new indicators to measure the extent to which medical support is not only ordered but also provided in child support cases. Milestone: Reconvene Medical Support Incentive Workgroup to make determination about funding and complete draft recommendations.

Measure: Maintain the paternity establishment percentage among children born out-of-wedlock.

Explanation:This measure directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing paternities established during the fiscal year with the number of non-marital birth during the preceding fiscal year.

Measure: Increase the percentage of IV-D (child support) cases having support orders.

Explanation:This measure indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing the number of IV-D (child support) cases with support orders established, which are required to collect child support, with the total number of IV-D cases.

Measure: Maintain the IV-D (child support) collection rate for current support.

Explanation:This measure is a proxy for regular and timely payment of support and directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing total dollars collected for current support in IV-D cases with total dollars owed for current support in IV-D cases.

Measure: Maintain the percentage of paying cases among IV-D (child support) arrearage cases.

Explanation:This measure compares the total number of IV-D cases paying any amoung toward arrears to the total number of IV-D cases with arrears due.

Measure: Increase the cost-effectiveness ratio (total dollars collected per $1 of expenditures).

Explanation:This measure calculates efficiency by comparing total IV-D (child support) dollars collected by States with total IV-D dollars expended by States for administrative purposes; this is the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act (CSPIA) cost-effectiveness ratio (CER).

Measure: Increase annual child support distributed collections up to $26 billion by FY 2008 and up to $33 billion by FY 2013

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Clear purpose and unambiguous mission specified in Social Security Act: funds appropriated for specific purposes of establishing paternity, locating non-custodial parents, obtaining child and spousal support, and assuring that such assistance is available to all children for whom it is requested. Same purposes echoed in HHS and OCSE strategic plans. Statute also authorizes research and grants for clearly related services to parents, including access & visitation programs.

Evidence: Section(s): 451, 452(j), 458(f), 466; 469B,& 1115 of the Social Security Act (The Act); HHS Strategic Plan, section 7.2; OCSE Strategic Plans issued 1995, 1996, 2000.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: In 1999, 21.7 million children had parents who lived in households other than theirs; more than 26% of children in these households live in poverty. Child Support Enforcement serves about 18 million of these children, offering a solution to ensure that both parents contribute to a child's well-being. Child Support Enforcement is designed to help low-income and vulnerable families with children become self-sufficient by obtaining support from the children's non-custodial parents.

Evidence: US Census Bureau statistics show that 22 million children have an absent parent; Census shows that income was higher and poverty lower for families that received all of the child support due them; An Urban Institute study (2002) concluded that as a result of welfare reform, single mothers' reliance on private sources of income, including child support, has grown and will continue to do so.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Child Support Enforcement program neither duplicates nor competes with other federal or non-federal programs. It serves populations un-served by other programs and takes cases that private firms and attorneys often do not handle or only handle for a sizeable fee. The program is designed to take into account the inter-state nature of much of the work by ensuring certain consistencies, while permitting states to customize appropriate aspects of the work (e.g., payment guidelines).

Evidence: Section 451 of the Social Security Act (The Act); United States General Accounting Office. March 2002. 'Child Support Enforcement: Clear Guidance Would Help Ensure Proper Access to Information and Use of Wage Withholding by Private Firms.' GAO-02-349.; IRS Full Collections Study, 1993.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The IV-D program is logically designed as a federal/state partnership. Expenditures are shared based on the Federal Financial Participation rates specified in the Act. Funds are targeted to specific purposes and activities in the Act. Because of interstate issues, a federally led system is necessary. No strong evidence suggests that another system would work better than the current design.

Evidence: GAO/HHS-00-48 "Improving State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated Federal Effort", 2000; Section 454(16)(24) Social Security Act; FY2002 OCSE Annual Statistical Report, Tables 1,2,12; FY2004 A19's; IRS Full Collections Study, see Section 1, Question 3; "Welfare Reform Information Technology" 2000; Lewin Group Study. "Child Support Reforms in the United Kingdom and the United States" by Anne Miller, Office of Child Support Enforcement.

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: OCSE federal grants help leverage contributions at state and local levels and do not subsidize state or local government activities that would have occurred without the Federal program. Federal funds are targeted so that services will reach intended beneficiaries; collection outcomes are weighted so that states have incentive to work more difficult cases for low-income public assistance and former public assistance cases, not just potentially high-collection child support cases. There is evidence that this is effective, with collection rates increasing at a faster rate for low-income cases. Private attorneys and collection agencies do not generally serve this needier population.

Evidence: CA Closeout Audit; OCSE Certification Guide; Alternative Systems Penalty Chart. 'Child Support Enforcement: Clear Guidance Would Help Ensure Proper Access to Information and Use of Wage Withholding by Private Firms.' GAO-02-349. Program Trends, FY1999 and FY2001.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program has two long-term performance measures: (1) To increase annual child support distributed collections to $30 billion by FY2008, and to $40 billion by FY2013; [Baseline: $15.9 billion, 1999] (2) To increase cost-effectiveness ratio to $4.63 by FY2008, and to $5.00 by FY2013.[Baseline: $3.94, 1999] The cost-effectiveness measure represents dollars of child support collected and distributed for every dollar expended by Federal and state government to run the program; it is a straightforward measure, but it is subtle enough so that a state can get credit for collections on behalf of a resident of another state. Both the cost-effectiveness ratio and the amount of child support distributed in IV-D cases are indicators identified in the "Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan with Outcome Measures for FY2000-2004."

Evidence: FY2004 President's Budget projects OCSE's total distributed collections to increase to $39.509 billion by FY2013. OCSE's 5 year strategic plan projected cost-effectiveness to increase to $4.35 by FY2004.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: OCSE projects doubling of distributed child support collections from FY2002 amount of $20 billion to FY2013 amount of $40 billion, despite diminishing state fiscal resources available and decreasing caseload that leaves harder-to-serve cases remaining. OCSE expects significant rise in cost-effectiveness, despite recent flat or slightly increasing cost-effectiveness rate in recent past, while states were investing substantial funds in building automation systems. The CSPIA, Child Support Enforcement Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, identifies the cost-effectiveness ratio as one of the five measures against which states will be evaluated, in determination of the amount of incentives they will earn for operating an effective child support program. This legislation itself gives the formula for the ratio and sets a level at which states must perform in order to receive an incentive payment for the measure.

Evidence: Table 3: CSPIA Cost-Effectiveness Ratio; Table 4: FY2004 President's Budget Impacts of Child Support Enforcement Legislative Proposals.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures?

Explanation: OCSE has annual goals that demonstrate specific kinds of progress toward long-term goals: (a) Increase from the FY1999 baseling the paternity establishment percentage (PEP) among children born out of wedlock. (b) Increase from the FY 1999 baseline the percentage of IV-D cases having support orders. (c) Increase from the FY 1999 baseline the IV-D collection rate for current support. (d) Increase from the FY1999 baseline the percentage of cases with payments received on arrears (unpaid child support debt). (e) Increase from the FY1999 baseline the cost-effectiveness ratio (total dollars collected per $1 expenditure).

Evidence: Report 1: "Child Support Performance Measures and County Characteristics" in "Examining Child Support Arrears in California: The Collectibility Study" Dr. Elaine Sorensen, Urban Institute, March, 2003; GPRA goals, objectives, targets.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures?

Explanation: OCSE has baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures. Its targets specify upward collection demands despite decreasing caseloads, constraints on state resources appropriated for the programs, and an increasing proportion of more difficult-to-work cases. For example, current analysis demonstrates that 2/3 of arrears (unpaid child support debt) is owed by non-custodial parents who reported earnings of less than $10,000 in the prior year. As a result of enhanced enforcement tools, OCSE reviewed the targets for the GPRA goals, and increased the targets for the percent of paying cases among IV-D arrearage cases to 61 percent in FY03 and 62 percent in FY04.

Evidence: GPRA goals, objectives, targets. See Section II, Question 3. Table 9: Total Certified Arrearage Amount by Income of Debtor Table 10: Total Certified Arrearage Amount By Percent of Total Arrears Owed by Debtors in Various Income Groups

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: OCSE partners who operate the program include state, local and tribal child support enforcement agencies, courts, law enforcement agencies, and other entities operating under cooperative agreements with IV-D agencies. The program includes an incentive funding system and five incentive measures developed through collaboration with all states that mirror long-term and annual program targets.

Evidence: CSE Strategic Plan with Outcome Measures FY2000-2004; DCL-00-76; Sections 452(g) and 458 of the Act; Section 452(a)(4)(C)(I-iii) of Part D of Title IV-D of the Act; 45 CFR 305.32(f); and 305.60. GPRA documentation: Implementation of GPRA at OCSE, February, 1996; Strategic Plan Review Workgroup, 1999; Memorandum on Strategic Plan Review Workgroup, 1999. New Reporting Instrument, DC-98-65. The Appendix to the Child Support Enforcement FY 2002, Preliminary Data Report shows the CSPIA Incentive Measure Formulas

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Independent evaluations have been an integral part of the OCSE process since FY1994. HHS Office of Inspector General has evaluated the program more than 50 times since 1987; GAO has conducted many evaluations, and the Urban Institute, Center for Law and Social Policy, Lewin Group, are some of the noted independent research and policy analysis firms that have evaluated specific aspects of the child support program. In addition, many major research universities in the U.S. have performed research on the program.

Evidence: The Office of Inspector General evaluated the effectiveness of Access & Visitation, and concluded in 2002 that 61% of noncustodial parents increased the percent of current child support they paid after participating in the program; OCSE responded by proposing to increase funding for the Access & Visitation program, more than doubling it over 5 years. In 2002, the U.S. General Accounting Office found that employers were confused by wage withholding orders sent by private collections agencies; OCSE responded by revising the wage-withholding order format to clarify the relationship between the wage-withholding notice and its underlying court order.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The OCSE legislative proposals are clearly aimed at making progress on long-term and annual goals and are frequently aimed at removing obstacles to these goals that have been reported by state partners. For example, the FY2004 budget proposals include new legislative authority to seize funds from bank accounts of delinquent child support obligors in direct response to state difficulties making such seizures in interstate cases. The proposal will directly affect performance on two outcome measures, in particular: collections on arrears and cost-effectiveness. Documentation of the projected outcomes can be tracked through budget documents from initial proposals to Administration budget presentations to Congressional Justifications.

Evidence: Child Support Proposals in FY2004 Budget; Congressional Justifications in FY2004 Budget; A-19's FY2004 Budget.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: OCSE has twice updated its Strategic Plan and will do so again during FY2004 for 2005-2009. OCSE volunteered for the PART assessment during 2003 in order to use it as a baseline for this Strategic Plan update. Also, during 2003, OCSE has contracted for a major analysis of the Federal Parent Locator Service to plan the second generation of its major automation system, updating technological, personnel and organizational structure. OCSE uses state self-assessments and other tools to systematically detect important data that were not foreseen in its strategic plan and to adjust management priorities (e.g., investments to deal with large amounts of undistributed collections and regulatory proposals to deal with outdated definitions of acceptable costs for medical insurance coverage in child support orders).

Evidence: Statement of Work for the Planning Contract; Planning Timeline, April 25, 2003;FPLS Technical Assistance Guide (TAG) Release 3.0, Chapter 7;DCL-01-44 National Technical Assistance and Training Needs;Federal Register May 30, 2002 SIP grant announcement; DCL 01-32 1115 grant announcement; DCL -02-07 Alaska's Electronic Modification of Orders (ELMO); Statement of Work for the Interstate Case Reconciliation Project;DCL-02-32 'Interstate Caseload Reconciliation Project'.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: OCSE collects annual child support performance data from the states and audits the data each year for completeness, accuracy, and reliability. Data are used in various ways to manage the program and improve performance. OCSE uses the data to hold states accountable for meeting specific performance standards. Since 2000, over $800 million have been awarded in incentives to states for meeting data reliability and performance standards, and 26 states have been precluded for at least one year from earning incentives because of their failure to meet data reliability and performance standards. The authorizing statute also specifies a multi-year timetable for penalizing states who do not correct data reliability and performance problems over time. OCSE also set specific performance and cost-effectiveness standards for states' automation projects, preventing and/or recovering Federal reimbursement for ineffective projects and requiring specific cost-effectiveness and break-even standards. Performance and data reliability are clearly improving as a result of the fiscal incentives.

Evidence: GAO-02-349, March 2002; Current and proposed OCSE-34A forms and the Wage Withholding Form; 'Just Use It' Matrix.; 'Automated Income Withholding' Matrix; ?? Sec. 1115-- http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/dcl-02-15.htm; SIP http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/news/sipp.htm;FIDMhttp://ocse.acf.hhs.gov/necsrspub/training/fidm/index.html; OCSE summary of PRWORA Certification Review Findings (v1.6 March 23, 2001); Sections 409, 452, 454, 458 of the Social Security Act; Current and proposed; UDC Task Order; SIP Grant; Site Reviews; 45 CFR 305.35, 305.60, 308.0-.308.3.

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Data Reliability Audits (DRA's) are performed annually to determine if the incentive measurement data submitted by states are accurate, complete, and reliable. Program partners are also held accountable through the performance and penalty systems. Accountability is also achieved through administrative costs audits. In fiscal year 1998, the OCSE Office of Audit conducted 23 administrative cost audits with recommended disallowances, costs questioned, and cost adjustments in the amount of $59,228,937. OCSE holds States accountable for failure to implement automation to support the program through penalties.

Evidence: Section 452(a)(4)(C)(I-iii) of Part D of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act; 45 CFR 305.32(f); and 305.60; ACF Performance Plan; Dr. Wade Horn's Performance Plan; Commissioner Heller's Performance Plan; CA Closeout Audit - Jan 4, 2001.

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Grant awards are issued quarterly to each state, based on an estimate of need submitted by the IV-D agency. At the end of each quarter, each state submits an expenditure report (Form OCSE-396A), detailing the amount of federal funds expended during the quarter. If the state over-estimated its needs, the excess un-obligated funds are recouped through a reduction in the next award; if the state underestimated its needs, additional federal funds are added to the next award. The way that child support funds are expended prevents the possibility of lapsing unobligated funds; nor is there any incentive to waste money by quickly committing it at the end of the fiscal year. The detailed audit program already described, as well as statutory prohibitions against using Federal funds for local court and other costs, ensure that funds are spent for intended purposes.

Evidence: OCSE Form 396A; Alabama Systems Report

Does the program have procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, approporaite incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program has a specific cost-effectiveness measure that specifies nationally, and for each state, the amount of child support collected for each dollar of administrative program cost. States can get "credit" for support collected for out-of-state residents. State automation projects are also assessed for cost-effectiveness, with specific break-even requirements that must be met to receive Federal financial reimbursement. (The majority of states have reached break-even point ahead of schedule.) States' implementation of competitive procurement procedures is reviewed by OCSE, and the OCSE organization has made frequent and cost-effective use of contractors for administrative staffing, automation planning - development - maintenance, research and planning, and training and work group implementation.

Evidence: OCSE has developed a second Cost-Benefit Analysis model, known as the Revenue Stream model, to measure cost effectiveness for statewide child support enforcement systems based on tangible collection and expenditures data. This CBA model utilizes the actual benefits derived from using annual caseload, collections and costs from administrative expenses and APD expenditures as reported by States. The Revenue Stream Model calculator requires states to input baseline data on the projected growth rate for caseload, collections, administration and Advanced Planning Document expenditures, by averaging the growth rate for the three years prior to implementing the automation. The revenue stream program spreadsheet then projects what the normal growth in these categories would be for next 11 years.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: OCSE has aligned itself with agencies sharing common business needs. These include the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the State Department, and the Internal Revenue Service. OCSE established a close relationship with SSA, recognizing that the two agencies had common business interests crossing departmental boundaries. More specifically, OCSE uses SSA's National Computer Center to house the FPLS. FPLS data have been used in intra-governmental and intergovernmental data sharing initiatives, resulting in savings totaling over $1.4 billion in one year, namely FY2002. Over the past few years OCSE has been the recipient of several awards that acknowledge the quality and effectiveness of this collaboration and coordination. These awards were the result of evaluations that considered the program's impact, effectiveness and other measures of performance. OCSE and Office of Family Assistance have been collaborating and allocating resources, enabling the Child Support Program to better help TANF clients achieve self-sufficiency through approaches focused on technical assistance & program results.

Evidence: Regulation 45 CFR 303.70(e)(3); FY2003 Data Access Fees Summary Sheet; Financial Management System Document;Data sharing statutory provision(s) SSA: 42 U.S.C. 653, (j) (4); DoED 42 U.S.C. 653, (j) (6); 42 U.S.C. 653 (h) (3); tax offset: 42 U.S.C. 664; GAO states the NDNH is 'an example of an information source that many program administrators cite as being beneficial' in making more timely and accurate eligibility determinations. 'Benefit and Loan Programs: Improved Data Sharing Could Enhance Program Integrity', GAO/HEHS-00-110, Sept 2000. GAO-sponsored symposium on data-sharing opportunities among federal & state agencies. 'The Challenge of Data Sharing: Results of a GAO-Sponsored Symposium on Benefit and Loan Programs', GAO-01-67, Oct 2000. Excellence.Gov Award ' CIO Council & Industry Advisory Council; E-Gov 2003 Gov Solutions Center Award Nomination ' Pioneer Award.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: A Data Reliability Audit (DRA) has been performed in all 54 states and territories each year since 1999. In FY1998, OCSE's Office of Audit conducted 23 administrative cost audits with recommended dis-allowances, costs questioned, and cost adjustments in the amount of $59,228,937. In 2002, OCSE revamped and implemented an integrated electronic model based in Microsoft Excel that facilitated dynamic tracking on both S&E and program funds and the ability to verify that budget and actual obligations fell within statutory limits. The system can be updated as financial actions are executed to maintain an accurate, detailed status report, available within minutes. Use of this system reveals potential errors before they occur, significantly improving the efficiency of OCSE administration of S&E and program funds. ACF's regional staff scrutinize quarterly financial reports and respond aggressively to any anomalies or significant changes (e.g. recent responses to large changes in undistributed collections). Clifton Gunderson LLC's ACF FY2002 audit was clear of material weakensses.

Evidence: Table 5: Net Undistributed Collections - 4th Quarter, FY2002 Percent Change from 4th Quarter FY2001; Draft-GAO June, 2002, Exit Conference, Department of Health & Human Services: 310423. DHHS, ACF Financial Statements, September 30, 2002 and 2001; ACF Independent Auditors Report 2001 and 2002, Clifton Gunderson, LLC.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Upon review of its performance, OCSE recognized the need to develop a medical support performance measure in the FY 2005 strategic plan. Currently, we are expanding our efforts with Medicaid and State Health Insurance Agencies (SCHIP). We convened a national Judicial Symposium to bring together for the first time representatives of Medicaid, SCHIP, IV-D agencies, State Chief Justices & Court Administrators. In addition, OCSE is revising the CSE Program Quarterly Report of Collections (OCSE 34A) to separate undistributed collections into two categories: 1) payments that are properly held and will go out on time to known addresses and 2) collections that cannot be distributed without more research.

Evidence: Current and proposed OCSE-34A forms, propsed supplement OCSE34A; Table 6, Joint payee analysis with UDC. Preface to the OCSE FY2002 Preliminary Data Report.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Child support audits are mandated by Section 452(a)(4)(C)(I-iii) of Part D of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. 45 CFR 305.60 establishes these requirements in regulation. The mandate is to perform data reliability, financial management, and other audits as deemed necessary by the Secretary, HHS. All audits are conducted in accordance with audit standards (GAO Yellow Book) promulgated by the Comptroller General of the United States. The principal audit performed pursuant to these requirements at this time is the Data Reliability Audit (DRA). A DRA has been performed in all 54 states and territories each year since 1999.

Evidence: Notice of Intent to disapprove state plan for failure to meet automation requirements - 18 States sent NOI for FSA. 9 States sent NOI for PRWORA automation deficiencies; Alternative Systems Penalties - 10 states had Alternative Systems Penalty for FSA, 4 states had Alternative Systems Penalty for PRWORA. $711,711,838 in penalties taken from 1998-2003.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: OCSE collects annual program performance & quarterly financial information from state grantees. This information is compiled and both aggregate and state level data, issued in two reports each year (one preliminary & one final). The preliminary report includes information for the current fiscal year only in the format of tables, charts, and individual state box scores. These box scores show collection, expenditure, paternity, order, caseload, staffing, and cost-effectiveness information for each state and for each region. A comparison is made with state performance on these elements from the prior fiscal year and includes final data for the fiscal year. This report contains tables that show five-year trends for program information for each state. It includes updated versions of charts and box scores. The preliminary and annual reports are mailed to IV-D directors and interested parties and are accessible on the OCSE web site. The preliminary report also includes a non-technical Preface written by the Commissioner that draws public attention to accomplishments and to problem areas.

Evidence: Child Support Enforcement, FY2001 Data Preview Report: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/datapreview/ Child Support Enforcement, FY2002 Preliminary Data Report: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2003/reports/prelim_datareport/

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals?

Explanation: Long-Term Goal I: Increase the amount of distributed collections to $40 billion by 2013. Actual Progress: $20.1 billion distributed collections in FY 2002. $13.4 billion distributed collections in FY 1997. Fifty percent increase over 5 years. Long-Term Goal II: Increase cost-effectiveness ratio to $5 by 2013. Actual Progress: Cost-effectiveness ratio of $4.13 in FY 2002. Fifteen states already have cost-effectiveness ratios exceeding $5 child support collected for every $1 in program cost, and many others are close. The national average cost-effectiveness ratio has been held down over the past few years by the states that still have not built their statewide, automated child support systems. (CA's cost per case is projected to fall from $60.51 to $25.71 per year when system is complete.) OCSE program structure enables it to deal with such impacts by penalizing states which have not achieved performance standards for systems. (CA has already paid $561million in penalties.)

Evidence: Table 7: CSPIA Cost Effectiveness Ratio; Table 8: CSPIA-States forted in ascending order based on FY2002 increase(decrease) in CSPIA ratio over FY2001. Statutory provisions: 42USC653(h)(I)(j)(2), 654(31), 664, & 666(a)(17).

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: For fiscal year 2001, the child support program has met its annual targets for four of its five measures. The paternity establishment measure was the only one not meeting the target. (Final 2002 numbers are undergoing data reliability audit and are not yet available.) The paternity establishment measure was met easily for several years, because states could take credit for paternities established for children of any age and compare the number established to the number of out-of-wedlock births for a single year. Now that the "backlog" has been handled, states are expected to establish paternities for virtually all out-of-wedlock births for any given year, without being able to take credit for many older children.

Evidence: GPRA goals, objectives and targets. See Section II, Question 3.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program performance goals each year?

Explanation: The program collects and distributes about $4 in child support for every $1 spent. The cost-effectiveness ratio of distributed collections to administrative costs was 4.13 for FY 2002. 36 of the 54 states and territories showed an increase in the cost-effectiveness ratio in FY 2002 over FY 2001. Average distributed collections per full-time equivalent staff (state & local) have increased every year for the last 5 years.

Evidence: See tables 7 and 8.FY 2001 and FY 2002 annual reports.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The child support enforcement program compares favorably to other programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Food Stamps, Medicaid, and Workforce Investment Boards. These programs provide services or support to low-income families with the goal of assisting them to become self-sufficient and off of welfare. While the child support program serves the same population of single, low-income parents as TANF, TANF does not assess comparable measures such as data reliability or family income and does not serve non-custodial parents. A GAO report on private collection agencies (PCA's) pointed out that the IV-D caseload in 2001 was 17 million cases; PCA's handled an estimated 30,000 cases; the fee structure and rules for accepting PCA cases prevent them from providing service to most low-income families. Further, PCA's only accept cases with orders already in place, whereas IV-D programs accept all cases. In May 1998, OCSE and HHS/OIG started a nation-wide criminal enforcement project known as Project Save Our Children (PSOC). Currently, PSOC accounts for $27,759,000.00 in criminal restitution.

Evidence: DCL-99-22: Project Save Our Children Task Forces: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/dcl19922.htm GAO, March 2002. "Child Support Enforcement: Clear Guidance Would Help Ensure Proper Access to Information and Use of Wage Withholding by Private Firms." GAO-02-349.

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Independent evaluations have been an integral part of the OCSE process since 1994 when OCSE was selected as a pilot GPRA site. The Institute for Research on Poverty, in a study titled, 'Child Support and Welfare Caseloads,' determined that the improvement in child support collections reduced welfare caseloads by 12 to 17 percent. The Urban Institute determined that 'As welfare reform has taken hold across the country, single mothers' reliance on private sources of income, including child support, has grown and will continue to do so. The child support enforcement program, with its expanded enforcement tools, has contributed to this trend'.Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the child support enforcement program will result in greater numbers of single-mother families being able to count on child support, thereby moving more of America's poor families toward self-sufficiency. Without these continued improvements, child support will remain a dream for many poor children.'

Evidence: Institute for Research on Poverty. December 2000. 'Child Support and Welfare Caseloads.' Garfinkel, Irwin; Huang, Chien-Chung; Waldfogel, Jane. DPNo. 1218-00. The Urban Institute. March 1999. 'Child Support Enforcement is Working Better than we Think.' Sorensen, Elaine; Ariel Halpern. United States General Accounting Office. February 2002. 'Child Support Enforcement: Most States Collect Drivers' SSN's and Use Them to Enforce Child Support.' GAO-02-239. Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services. April 2000. 'Paternity Establishment: Administrative and Judicial Methods.' OEI-06-98-00050