19th OCSE Annual Report
OCSE 19th Annual Report Forward
Child Support Enforcement
Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress
For the Period Ending September 30, 1994
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Office of Child Support Enforcement
THE NINETEENTH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
The Nineteenth Annual report to Congress contains
information on the dimensions of the child support
situation in this country and on the functions of the Child
Support Enforcement program. It also includes a summary of
programs in the area of child support enforcement.
In addition, the report contains selected State-by-State
financial, statistical, and program data for Fiscal Year
1994 obtained from Federal reports completed by State Child
Support Enforcement agencies. Included in the report is a
series of graphs and tables which present selected
financial, statistical, and program data for the fiscal
years 1990-1994, as well as technical notes on the data
presented in this Report.
To obtain additional copies of this report contact:
The National Training Center
Administration for Children and Families
370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20447
Telephone: (202)-401-9383
FOREWORD
I am pleased to offer this Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress on
Child Support Enforcement, which illustrates the program's
accomplishments during the past fiscal year. Since the Clinton
Administration took office, our partnership with states has brought
about unprecedented increases in support for children. For fiscal
year 1994, states collected nearly $10 billion in child support and
established over 1 million new support orders. They also located
over 4 million noncustodial parents and established paternity for
almost 591,000 children.
While these numbers are impressive, there is still much work to do.
Millions of children still receive little or no support from their
non-custodial parents. When these parents evade their
responsibilities and fail to pay support, the result too often is
more poverty, welfare dependency, and tougher lives for children.
By making stronger child support enforcement a top priority,
President Clinton continues to fulfill his commitment to helping
children. The President has worked closely with the Congress to
ensure that the toughest child support provisions ever proposed are
included in the pending welfare reform legislation: streamlined
paternity establishment; uniform interstate child support laws;
employer reporting of new hires; computerized statewide collections;
and tough new penalties, including drivers' license revocation.
Together, these measures will increase collections, reduce federal
welfare costs, and send the strongest possible message that those who
have children must take responsibility for them.
We at the federal level look forward to continuing our partnership
with the states and all those who are working to improve the lives of
children. As the President has said, "We cannot rest until parents
across our nation begin to shoulder this responsibility. We must act
now to give our children the future they deserve."
Donna E. Shalala
iii
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
NINETEENTH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
for the Period Ending September 30, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD.............................................. . iii
I. Introduction and Overview................................ 1
INTRODUCTION............................................. 1
OVERVIEW OF FY 1994...................................... 2
THE WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT.......................... 2
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT............... 3
II. Innovative Management.................................... 6
NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION.................................. 6
RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS.............................. 7
STATE BEST PRACTICES..................................... 8
ACHIEVING AUTOMATION..................................... 10
III. Enhanced Effectiveness.................................. 11
PATERNITY REGULATIONS.................................... 11
THE FEDERAL PARENT LOCATOR SERVICE
and OTHER FEDERAL SYSTEMS......................... 12
FEDERAL AUDITS AND OVERSIGHT............................. 14
CRIMINAL NONSUPPORT INITIATIVE........................... 16
IV. Communications.......................................... 17
TRAINING................................................. 17
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE..................................... 18
INFORMATION SERVICES..................................... 19
STATE AND LOCAL OUTREACH................................. 20
FEDERAL OUTREACH INITIATIVES............................. 22
iv
APPENDICES
E. FY 1994 Action Transmittals............................. 155
F: State IV-D Agency Listing............................... 156
H. Federal Legislative History of Child Support Enforcement 173
19th Annual Report Chapter 1
I. Introduction and Overview
INTRODUCTION
The Child Support Enforcement program began when Congress
enacted title IV-D of the Social Security Act in 1975 for the purpose
of establishing and enforcing the support obligations owed by
noncustodial parents to their children. The Child Support
Enforcement program is a joint undertaking involving Federal, State
and local cooperative efforts.
The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) within the
Administration for Children and Families of the Department of Health
and Human Services is the Federal agency that oversees administration
of the program. The Federal government sets program standards and
policy, evaluates States' performance in conducting their programs,
and offers technical assistance and training to States. It also
conducts audits of State program activities, and operates the Federal
Parent Locator Service, National Training Center and National
Reference Center. The Federal government pays the predominant share
of the cost of funding the program. OCSE acts as the agent of the
Internal Revenue Service in facilitating collection of overdue
support from Federal income tax refunds. OCSE prepares this annual
report to Congress based on States' reports of their activities.
State governments work directly with families through State
Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies and/or their local
counterparts. These agencies work closely with officials of family
or domestic relations courts or officials of administrative processes
to establish paternity, establish support orders, collect support and
distribute amounts collected. They also work with prosecuting
attorneys and other law enforcement agencies to establish and enforce
support orders. Each State CSE agency operates under a State plan
approved by OCSE. State governments and, in some States, county
governments participate in funding the program.
The Child Support Enforcement program directly serves a variety
of families. The program serves families receiving assistance under
the title IV-A Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
program; families receiving assistance under the title IV-E Foster
Care program; families receiving assistance under the title XIX
Medicaid program; families who formerly received assistance under the
above programs; and any other families who apply for services.
Much of the child support collected for families in the AFDC and
title IV-E Foster Care programs is used to repay assistance that the
families receive under those programs. Federal law requires
applicants for and recipients of AFDC to assign their support rights
to the State in order to receive AFDC. The AFDC families receive up
to the first $50 of any current child support collected each month,
as well as any current support collected that is above the amount of
assistance received.
For some families, the child support payments are enough to
enable them to leave the AFDC rolls. Child support collected for
families who are not receiving government assistance goes directly to
those families to help them remain self-sufficient.
OVERVIEW OF FY 1994
During fiscal year 1994, State CSE agencies were able to:
* Establish paternity for 590,819 children;
* Establish 1,023,292 support orders;
* Locate 4,104,349 parents or their employers, income or
assets; and
* Collect $9,868,940,000 in child support.
This report is organized to focus on the constructive steps
taken in FY 1994 to better serve children. The CSE program
concentrated major efforts in FY 1994 on innovative management, on
enhancing program effectiveness, and on improving communications
with our State partners as well as the stakeholders in the system and
the general public.
Two ongoing efforts begun in FY 1994 are particularly promising
to the CSE program. First, President Clinton's welfare reform
proposal (The Work and Responsibility Act) featured legislative
provisions that would strengthen child support enforcement. Second,
OCSE in partnership with State and local child support agencies was
designated by the Federal Office of Management and Budget as a pilot
project under the Government Performance and Results Act.
THE WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT
In FY 1994, the Administration proposed replacing the existing
welfare system with a system that allows people to help themselves
and reinforces fundamental family values. This proposal, The Work
and Responsibility Act, envisions a system that rewards work over
welfare and signals that people should not have children until they
are ready to support them and that both parents must take
responsibility for supporting their children.
The Administration's welfare reform proposal is a simple compact
that gives people more opportunity in return for more responsibility.
It gives people access to the skills they need and expects work in
return. Work is the best social program this country has ever
devised: it gives hope and structure as well as dignity and meaning
to our daily lives.
The Work and Responsibility Act features child support
enforcement provisions aimed at establishing child support awards in
every case, ensuring fair award levels, collecting the amounts owed,
and augmenting the responsibilities of and the employment
opportunities for noncustodial parents.
The Child Support Enforcement Provisions
The Administration's proposal, introduced in Congress on June
21, 1994, would establish child support awards in every case
primarily by streamlining the paternity establishment process, and by
establishing paternity outreach programs. States would also be
offered new performance based incentives for all paternities
established and voluntary acknowledgement procedures would be
expanded and simplified.
The Administration's proposal would ensure fair child support
award levels primarily by requiring universal and periodic updating
of awards to reflect the current ability of the noncustodial parent
to pay support. The rules governing the distribution of child
support payments would be amended to strengthen families and a
national commission would be established to examine the idea of
national guidelines for setting child support awards.
The Administration's proposal would enhance collection of child
support primarily by creating central registries of support orders,
centralized collection and disbursements at the State level, and
tougher enforcement tools. A Federal Child Support Case Registry and
a National New Hire Directory would be established to improve
location of responsible parents and increase collections, especially
in interstate cases. States would have the power to revoke
professional and drivers' licenses.
Finally, the Administration's proposal would augment the
responsibilities and opportunities for noncustodial parents by
providing training, work readiness and work opportunities for
non-custodial parents, by providing grants to States for access and
visitation programs for noncustodial parents, and by funding new
demonstration projects which would promote parenting skills.
While the 103rd Congress did not complete action on the Work and
Responsibility Act, the Administration's major child support
enforcement proposals have been included in the welfare reform
measures under consideration by the 104th Congress.
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), enacted
August 3, 1993, reforms the way Federal agencies do business. The
law requires Federal program managers to develop strategic plans, to
set measurable goals tied to program outcomes, and to systematically
and publicly report on their progress. The Act is intended to
improve the effectiveness of Federal programs by promoting a new
focus on results, service quality, and public satisfaction. OCSE in
partnership with State and local child support agencies was
designated in FY 1994 by the Office of Management and Budget as a
GPRA pilot project for two years.
The GPRA Partnership
The child support enforcement system is built on a series of
partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments as well as
on relationships with employers, courts, and other social service
agencies. Under the GPRA pilot project, Federal, State and local
child support enforcement (IV-D) functions remain the same, but GPRA
refocuses and restructures these efforts toward achieving specific
and measurable program results.
GPRA activities, conducted in OCSE central and regional offices
and in State and local IV-D offices, fall into three categories:
strategic planning, performance planning and reporting, and special
demonstrations. Federal staff, State IV-D directors, and advocacy
organizations have worked together to develop a national strategic
plan that communicates the mission, future vision and goals and
objectives of the CSE program. Federal and state partners have begun
work on developing performance indicators that will measure our
success in achieving each of the strategic plan goals and objectives.
Strategic Planning
Working closely with its State partners, OCSE started to
implement GPRA in FY 1994 by jointly developing a national five-year
strategic plan, including goals and performance measures. A draft
strategic plan was circulated widely in the child support enforcement
community. Commenters included Federal executive and line staff in
Washington and in the ten Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) Regional Offices, State IV-D directors and staff, and advocacy
organizations.
During the summer and early fall of 1994 about 25 State IV-D
directors met face-to-face and via telephone and video facilities in
the regional offices to explore strategic planning and performance
measurement in their States. The discussion emphasized the
importance of building consensus in goal-setting, making strategic
planning an on-going process, and ensuring that Federal and State
goals are aligned.
Another area deemed essential for GPRA is the building of
coalitions at all governmental levels to promote improvements in the
child support enforcement system. This process emphasizes, in
particular, strengthening the partnerships between State IV-D
agencies and the child support enforcement staff in the Federal
regional offices.
Since that meeting in late 1994, Federal staff and State IV-D
directors have forged a consensus on the mission, vision and
strategic plan goals and objectives for the CSE program. The
partnership has moved forward to form a representative workgroup
which has developed draft performance indicators.
Performance Planning and Reporting
As a GPRA pilot, OCSE must conduct performance planning for FY
1995 and 1996. Starting with a basic performance plan for FY 1995,
OCSE's two indicators of successful program results nationwide are
the total number of paternities established and total child support
dollars collected. These measures are uniformly considered to be
among those indicative of program performance and data for these
indicators are collected by all States.
In FY 1995, these basic and universal measures will be expanded
upon. A set of performance measures that reflects all the goals and
objectives of the strategic plan will be developed by State and
Federal partners. Once these measures have gained consensus, they
will become the basis for appropriate revision of data reporting
systems. Eventually, performance plans and reports on program
results will incorporate all the measures in order to tell the full
story of the CSE program's annual performance.
Special Demonstrations
In FY 1994, OCSE began work in voluntary partnership with State
and local child support enforcement programs across the nation to
demonstrate the GPRA principles. These demonstrations, which will
help lay the groundwork for durable reforms, will test a wide range
of potential improvements in CSE programs. Some of these new
projects will operate in a single county, many are statewide in
scope, and a few are being conducted on a regional basis.
OCSE 19th Annual Report Chapter 2
II. Innovative Management
In FY 1994, innovative management practices strengthened the
child support enforcement system. New laws to improve the child
support enforcement system were enacted. New Model Office
demonstrations were funded in two States. A new edition of the
"Compendium of State Best Practices" was published. OCSE also
furnished training and technical assistance to help States develop
comprehensive, automated, statewide child support enforcement
systems.
NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION
In FY 1994, new laws directly affecting child support
enforcement were enacted. Among other things, these new laws
facilitate enforcement, close bankruptcy loopholes, and utilize
credit reporting to strengthen the child support system. These most
recent changes in the law also reflect past and present research and
demonstration efforts of the CSE system.
The Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (P.L.
103-383) requires each State to enforce, according to its terms, a
child support order by a court (or administrative authority) of
another State, with conditions and specifications for resolving
issues of jurisdiction for modifying orders.
The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-394) protects child
support obligations from being discharged in bankruptcy. Among many
other provisions, the new law includes child support as an exception
to automatic stays, for judicial liens, and to discharge debts in
bankruptcy. It also provides protection against trustee avoidance,
facilitates access to bankruptcy proceedings, and assigns child
support a priority in collecting claims from debtors.
The Small Business Administration Reauthorization and Amendments
Act (P.L. 103-403) requires that recipients of SBA financial
assistance not be more than 60 days delinquent in paying child
support.
The Social Security Amendments of 1994 (P.L. 103-432) requires
State IV-D agencies to periodically report parents who are at least
two months delinquent in paying child support to credit bureaus,
modifies the formula under the Paternity Establishment Percentage
used to determine the States' substantial compliance, and requires
DHHS to provide free access for the Justice Department to the Federal
Parent Locator Service in cases involving the unlawful taking or
restraint of a child and/or the making or enforcing of a child
custody determination.
These new laws, in short, help to provide the teeth the OCSE
system needs to pursue some of the most challenging cases.
RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS
In FY 1994, OCSE sponsored a wide range of research and
demonstration projects authorized under sections 1110 and 1115 of the
Social Security Act. These grants and contracts range from
evaluations of existing child support guidelines in ten States to a
supplement to the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, which
was designed to provide a better measure of the receipt of child
support payments.
One major project started in FY 1994 was the evaluation of child
support award guidelines. This project will study the ongoing
applications of guidelines in ten or more States to assess both their
use and deviations from the guidelines in setting the amount of child
support awards. The guideline review reports prepared by the States
since 1988 will be summarized and assessed. Finally, the impact of
guidelines on order amounts will be analyzed based on the latest data
from the periodic Child Support Supplement to the Current Population
Survey.
In FY 1994, OCSE also sponsored demonstration projects on
paternity establishment in Arkansas, Colorado, and New York; projects
on staffing in Virginia and on new hire reporting in Alaska; and
projects on training in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and
Vermont. OCSE, moreover, has sponsored projects on child access and
visitation in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, and
Massachusetts to test various methods of providing visitation and
access to children for noncustodial parents.
In FY 1994, OCSE funded two Model Office projects under
cooperative agreements with the States of Maine and Colorado. The
Model Office projects are designed to establish a controlled
environment in which management of the child support enforcement
process can be maintained at a high quality level. With the
management variable controlled, OCSE and the States will be better
able to assess the full potential of current policies, to establish
benchmarks for measuring future program performance, and to evaluate
innovative alternatives to current practices.
Colorado's Model Offices
The goals of the Colorado model office are to eliminate
boundaries between the Federal, State and local levels of the
program, to examine redistributions of functions within the existing
program, and to recognize greater roles for Federal and regional
offices in an improved interactive partnership.
Colorado will assess the knowledge of office staff, changes in
techniques of case management, adjustments to facilities, and the
adequacy of current equipment configurations, with the emphasis on
better services to clients out of local offices. To identify more
effective parent locator services, Colorado will contract out the
high volume matching of automated data bases to a private agency on a
fee-for-finds-only basis.
Colorado will also test innovative ways to assert long-arm
jurisdiction, to improve the information gathered through joint
interviews of clients with other social service agencies, to improve
service of process, to increase the use of direct income withholding,
and to develop automated data exchanges with other States. They will
encourage the establishment of paternity within one year of birth
through developing connections with community agencies by offering
immediate genetic testing.
Maine's Model Offices
Maine's vision of a model office is where all of their line,
support, and management staff are doing nothing but enforcement. The
Maine proposal is grounded in the belief that productivity is a
function of the attention paid to the enforcement team, the
technology at the disposal of that team, and the processes by which
the team and technology operate. There are two Maine test sites:
Bangor and Biddeford.
The operational objectives of the Maine demonstration feature
establishing new Case Management Teams with new job descriptions,
pilot training, and reallocations of functions, such as
decentralizing client intake and centralizing data entry. Based on
past surveys of client and case worker dissatisfactions, new forms
and procedures will be developed that seek to establish partnerships
with clients.
The Maine project plan proposes outcome-based performance
indicators for measuring their achievements. The key indicators
include increases in the number of paying cases, in the number of
obligated cases, in the number of paternities acknowledged, in the
number of long-arm actions, and in the proportion of arrearages
collected from the pool of uncollected payments.
STATE BEST PRACTICES
In FY 1994, OCSE published a second edition of the "Compendium
of State Best Practices" to facilitate the sharing of ideas on
program functions, techniques and management which particular States
and practitioners view as effective or innovative. A sample of the
best State practices follows.
In Connecticut, paralegals interview the mothers of children
born out of wedlock when they come into the office for their AFDC
intake interview, rather than requiring them to come back to the
office after AFDC is granted. The procedure helps reduce the number
of interview no-shows and improves the amount and quality of
information provided by the mother.
In Florida, training materials are developed by the State with
input from district trainers and revised based on field-tests.
Trainers are encouraged to use case work, case scenarios, activities,
discussion groups, and a wide variety of training aids such as
posters, videos, overheads, and interactive flip charts which are
more effective than lecture presentations. Blending the
train-the-trainer approach with the availability of State office
trainers, who can be sent into the field as needed, has proven to be
a winning combination.
In Indiana, obligors can make child support payments using a
credit card. Despite past difficulties, technological advances have
made it easier for agencies and debtors to use credit cards. Judges
target obligors with good credit histories which results in greater
potential for collections. For the debtor parents, using the credit
card offers a solution when they are confronted with the possibility
of jail and the probability of property seizure for nonsupport.
The State of Kentucky has successfully made use of credit
reporting agencies. All cases referred to the Internal Revenue
Service for income tax refund offset are certified for the credit
reporting agencies and this has resulted in many noncustodial parents
paying child support in order to maintain good credit and has helped
to collect over $627,000 during a 2« year period.
In Massachusetts, all orders for child support must be made
payable by wage assignment and the IV-D agency is empowered to
execute wage assignments to bring cases into compliance. The
Department of Revenue's Child Support Enforcement Division has
pioneered a system of mass enforcement of IV-D cases which utilizes
computer technology to collect child support.
The Minnesota legislature took steps to improve access by the
IV-D agency to information from employers, public utilities,
insurance companies, and financial institutions and, thereby, made it
easier to obtain asset information about non-paying parents.
Information which may be released is limited to residence, home and
work telephones, source of income, employer, place of employment and
social security number.
In New Jersey, liens are automatically placed against any real
or personal property and assets of the delinquent obligor to secure
child support arrears beginning on the date the payment is due and
unpaid, and thus become a judgment by operation of law. If an
obligor is unable to pay the full amount of the arrears, the
custodial parent (and the State in AFDC cases) has the option of
accepting partial payment and releasing the lien on the specific
property being sold or refinanced. However, any unpaid amount would
remain due and owing and serve as a lien against any additional real
property the obligor may own.
South Dakota implemented legislation allowing the IV-D agency to
block the renewal of a driver's or professional license issued by the
State to a noncustodial parent owing a child support arrearage of
$1,000 or more. The individual must make arrangement with the IV-D
agency to repay the arrearage, which is reduced to a written
stipulation and conforming court order and filed with the court to
ensure continued compliance. The State believes this will increase
collections from self-employed persons who are not subject to wage
withholding.
The Texas IV-D agency has worked to provide a menu of options to
employers and county payment offices to utilize when forwarding child
support payments. For one example, Texans may now use electronic
fund transfers which enhance the State's ability to get child support
payments to the families in an expeditious manner.
For many State IV-D programs, developing and implementing an
automated statewide child support enforcement system has provided a
concentrated focus for the child support program. The cooperative
efforts of OCSE and the States in this area may well represent the
cutting edge of innovative management in FY 1994.
ACHIEVING AUTOMATION
The Family Support Act of 1988 mandated that all States
implement a statewide, comprehensive automated child support
enforcement system which meets OCSE certification requirements by
October 1, 1995. The benefits of automation include streamlining the
process, eliminating burdensome paperwork, and improving States'
ability to track and collect child support payments. As of September
30, 1994, 48 States and jurisdictions had completed the planning
phase of their projects, 32 States were in the development phase, and
2 States were engaged in implementation.
In FY 1994, OCSE developed and distributed the Automated Systems
for Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for States which specifies the
requirements that comprehensive, automated, statewide child support
enforcement systems must fulfill for Federal certification. Working
with State IV-D Directors, OCSE circulated a questionnaire that
incorporated changes in the certification requirements suggested by
the States. States have used the questionnaire as a self-assessment
tool and in preparing for on-site reviews. OCSE is responding to the
States' questions regarding certification, compiling the questions
and responses, and distributing them to all States.
As States implement statewide automated CSE systems and
participate in certification reviews, OCSE is sharing the results of
these reviews with other interested States. In FY 1994, a
certification workshop for States which adopted automated systems
similar to the Virginia CSE system was held following the Virginia
certification review. A similar workshop was held for States which
transferred a variation of the West Virginia CSE system following
that State's certification review.
In the future, these automated systems will provide the CSE
system with reliable and flexible reenforcement for many of the other
innovations initiated in FY 1994. Building on the foundation
provided by the best practices of the States, these comprehensive,
statewide automated systems will enable States to follow through on
their most promising ground-breaking efforts.
OCSE 19th Annual Report Chapter 3
III. Enhanced Effectiveness
In FY 1994, important steps ranging from the creation of
in-hospital paternity establishment programs to pursuit of Federal
criminal prosecutions in child support cases were taken to enhance
the overall effectiveness of the CSE process. Other steps were also
taken to facilitate enforcement in interstate cases and to better use
automated data systems to enforce child support obligations.
PATERNITY REGULATIONS
In 1994, OCSE drafted a final rule to implement the new
paternity establishment requirements mandated by the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA '93). After the publication of
proposed rules regarding the paternity establishment provisions, OCSE
received over 100 written comments from representatives of State and
local IV-D agencies, national organizations, advocacy groups, and
private citizens. The final rule reflects and responds to these
comments.
The paternity regulation requires a State to have a simple civil
process for the voluntary acknowledgement of paternity that creates a
rebuttable or conclusive presumption of paternity which is admissible
as evidence of paternity. A rebuttable presumption shifts the burden
of proof to the father if he later contests the paternity; a
conclusive presumption of paternity has the same legal effect as a
judgment and serves as the basis for seeking a support order, without
further efforts to establish paternity.
States, in cooperation with birthing hospitals, must implement
voluntary acknowledgment programs in any hospital that has an
obstetric care unit or that provides obstetric services, and in any
birthing center associated with a hospital. With few exceptions,
these hospital-based programs must be operational statewide no later
than January 1, 1995.
For contested paternity cases, the regulation requires States to
have a variety of procedures to streamline the establishment process.
States must also have procedures requiring the entry of default
orders in paternity cases upon a showing that process was served on
the defendant and that the defendant failed to respond in accordance
with State procedures.
In interstate cases, the rule requires a State to give full
faith and credit to a determination of paternity made by any other
State, whether established through voluntary acknowledgment or
through administrative or judicial processes.
Under the new expedited process requirements, within 90 calendar
days of locating the alleged noncustodial parent, the IV-D agency
must establish an order for support or complete service of process
(or document unsuccessful attempts to serve process). The IV-D
agency must resolve 75 percent of all pending cases in 6 months and
90 percent in 12 months.
THE FEDERAL PARENT LOCATOR SERVICE
and OTHER FEDERAL SYSTEMS
The Federal government provides a computerized national network
operated by OCSE to provide States access to information on a
noncustodial parent's location, earnings, assets, and employer's
address. The key components of this network are described below.
Federal Parent Locator Service
The Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) provides Social
Security Numbers (SSNs), addresses, and employer and wage information
to State and local CSE agencies to establish and enforce child
support orders. The FPLS utilizes the most current information
available from the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security
Administration, National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), Department
of Defense (DOD), Department of Veterans Affairs, Selective Service
System (SSS), and State Employment Security Agencies.
During FY 1994, the FPLS processed approximately 4 million
requests for information from State and local CSE agencies. The
matches with DOD, SSS, and NPRC were increased to weekly instead of
biweekly. The FPLS match with the DOD was expanded to receive
additional data from OPM, the Executive Office of the President, and
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The FPLS is testing a
new automated match with SSA to identify SSNs.
FPLS/State Employment Security Agencies (SESA) Crossmatches
The FPLS obtains employer addresses and wage and unemployment
compensation data from the SESAs. This information is extremely
useful in assisting CSE agencies to process cases where the custodial
parent and children reside in one State and the noncustodial parent
lives or works in another State. The employment data are updated
quarterly by employers reporting to their State employment security
agency and the unemployment data are updated continually from State
unemployment compensation payment records. In FY 1994, approximately
2.8 million FPLS cases were submitted for crossmatching with the data
from the SESAs.
Enumeration Verification System
The Enumeration Verification System (EVS) is a multi-purpose SSN
verification system. While States may use the FPLS to identify SSNs
for noncustodial parents, the EVS verifies and corrects SSNs and
identifies multiple SSNs. The EVS is comprised of two systems. One
system provides a State with multiple SSNs for an individual legally
issued more than one SSN.
The second system provides a corrected SSN in cases where a
transposition of digits has occurred in the SSN that a State already
has for an individual. In FY 1994, 4.4 million SSNs were submitted
to EVS; over 190,000 SSNs were corrected and over 38,200 multiple
SSNs were identified.
Federal Income Tax Refund Offset
OCSE acts as an intermediary between the States and the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) in the operation of the Federal Income Tax
Refund Offset program for the collection of past-due child support.
In FY 1994, the Federal income tax refund offset resulted in
nationwide collections of over $685 million, an increase of 12.5
percent over FY 1993. A sum of $497 million was offset on behalf of
families receiving public assistance and $188 million was offset on
behalf of non-AFDC families. The IRS charged an administrative fee
of $7.28 per offset in FY 1994.
The SSN verification system (EVS) was incorporated into the
Federal Income Tax Refund Offset Program. Each year a significant
number of no-match cases fall out of the offset program because of
invalid SSNs; these SSNs were processed through EVS. In processing
year 1993, over 330,000 tax refund offset cases were submitted
through the EVS system, allowing OCSE to return over 65,000 corrected
SSNs to the participating States. Of these, 47,524 were resubmitted
in FY 1994 to the tax refund offset program, resulting in 10,421
offsets and additional tax offset collections of over $9.5 million in
past due child support.
IRS Full Collection Process
When States' attempts to recover delinquent child support have
been unsuccessful, the law provides State CSE agencies with a
collection mechanism referred to as the "full collection process."
This mechanism is used only when there is a good chance that the IRS
can make a collection and only for cases in which a child support
obligation is delinquent and the amount owed has been certified to be
at least $750.
OCSE and IRS are collaborating on a full collection pilot
project to assess ways to improve the process. In FY 1994, OCSE
working with the States submitted 698 full collection cases to the
IRS; collectively, these cases represent over $14 million in
arrearages. Twelve States are participating in the pilot project:
Arkansas, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,
New York, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. The
results of these projects will become available in late 1995 and
1996.
Project 1099
Since October 1984, OCSE has participated in Project 1099 which
provides State CSE agencies access to all of the earned and unearned
income information reported to IRS by employers and financial
institutions. The Project 1099 information is used to locate
noncustodial parents and to verify income and employment, which is
essential to establishing and enforcing child support obligations.
In addition to helping locate the additional non-wage income and
assets of regular wage earning obligors, the Project 1099 information
is also used to facilitate States' efforts to locate income and asset
sources of self-employed and non-wage earning obligors and to
facilitate States' efforts to review and modify child support orders.
In FY 1994, OCSE submitted over 3.4 million cases to the IRS
under Project 1099 and over 2.6 million cases were matched for a 76
percent match rate. This high volume of cases and high match rate
shows the enormous potential of this asset identification tool and
the reason States are encouraged to use Project 1099 information to
the maximum extent possible.
FEDERAL AUDITS AND OVERSIGHT
OCSE audits and oversight are used to enforce many Federal
requirements. Federal law specifies that a State that has been
audited and found not to be in substantial compliance with Federal
requirements is subject to a financial penalty. The penalty may be
held in abeyance for up to one year to allow a State to implement
corrective actions to remedy the program deficiency.
At the end of the corrective action period, a follow-up audit is
conducted in the areas of deficiency. If the follow-up audit shows
that the deficiency has been corrected, the penalty is rescinded. If
it is determined that the State remains out of compliance with
Federal requirements, a graduated penalty, as provided by law, is
assessed.
The penalty ranges from one to five percent of the total
payments made to the State by the Federal government for the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children program under Part IV-A of the
Social Security Act. The actual amount of the penalty depends on the
severity and the duration of the deficiency. If a State is under
penalty, a comprehensive audit is conducted annually until previously
cited deficiencies are corrected.
FY 1994 Audit Results
During FY 1994, OCSE issued final reports to 13 States based on
comprehensive audits of their programs covering various audit periods
from 1991 through 1993 and sent seven notices to States to inform
them that audits of their programs showed they were not in
substantial compliance with Federal requirements. Four States'
programs achieved substantial compliance with the Federal
requirements in FY 1994.
FY 1994 Audit Deficiencies
Ten types of deficiencies were identified among the seven States
that received notices of non-compliance. The six areas frequently
cited as deficient were medical support; expedited processes;
services to non-AFDC families; notice of collection of assigned
support; provision of services in interstate IV-D cases; and
distribution of child support collections.
Other areas of deficiency identified in one or more States were
failure to use appropriate enforcement techniques, such as State
income tax refund offset or withholding of unemployment compensation;
failure to have required guidelines for imposition of liens or
posting security, bond, or guarantee to secure payment of overdue
support; failure to locate non-custodial parents and to establish
child support orders in all appropriate cases; failure to make all
IV-D services available statewide; and failure to carry out a program
for wage or income withholding in delinquent cases.
Audit Penalties Rescinded and Imposed
During FY 1994, 15 follow-up audit reports were issued to 14
States that had been sent notices of substantial non-compliance in
prior years. Rescinding notices were sent to ten States after
substantial compliance was achieved with criteria on which they had
previously failed. The remaining four States will be evaluated to
determine if the penalty should be rescinded or imposed in FY 1995.
One State with a follow-up report issued in FY 1993 achieved
substantial compliance and received a rescinding notice in FY 1994.
During FY 1994, one comprehensive annual audit report was
issued. The decision as to whether a penalty will be imposed was
pending at the end of FY 1994. Two States with annual audit reports
issued in FY 1993 achieved substantial compliance and consequently
had penalty rescinding notices sent in FY 1994. Two States that had
follow-up reports issued in FY 1993 and failed to achieve substantial
compliance had 1 percent penalties imposed in FY 1994.
Audit Appeals Decided
If a penalty is imposed after a follow-up review, a State may
appeal the audit penalty to the HHS Departmental Appeals Board (DAB).
Payment of the penalty is delayed while the appeal is pending. The
appeals board reviews the written records which may be supplemented
by informal conferences and evidentiary hearings. In FY 1994, two
States appealed an audit penalty. The DAB upheld one of these two
penalties and one case was pending at the end of FY 1994. The
penalty disallowance collections totaled $1,253,060 in FY 1994.
New Audit Regulations
In 1994, final regulations were drafted to streamline the audit
process, to place a greater focus on outcomes, and to specify how the
OCSE audits will evaluate compliance with the requirements set forth
in the law and regulations, including requirements resulting from the
Family Support Act of 1988 and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1993.
The rule redefines substantial compliance to place a greater
focus on performance. Eliminating administrative or procedural
criteria and focusing on service-related criteria, the new rule is
intended to produce a more results-oriented audit.
CRIMINAL NONSUPPORT INITIATIVE
The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-521) made it a
Federal crime to fail to pay support for a child residing in another
State. All reasonable available remedies must have been exhausted
before prosecution is to be undertaken, because this remedy is
reserved for only the most egregious cases.
In FY 1994, the Federal government held training conferences on
the criminal nonsupport initiative at which representatives of over
half the States participated, including representatives from State
and county child support enforcement offices, Federal regional
offices, U.S. Attorneys' offices, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The Department of Justice (DoJ) and OCSE entered into
a memorandum of understanding to expand Federal criminal prosecution
for nonsupport. As part of this agreement, an attorney from DoJ has
been detailed to OCSE two days a week to assist in this effort.
Beginning in August of 1994, OCSE requested that State IV-D
agencies each submit five cases that were good candidates for
prosecution. Of the 260 cases sent in by 43 States, over 150 cases
were selected as having the highest potential for successful criminal
prosecution for nonsupport and were referred to DoJ for prosecution.
OCSE 19th Annual Report Chapter 4
IV. Communications
In FY 1994, OCSE improved communications with State partners and
stakeholders, with the public, and with a variety of advocacy groups.
In addition to training, workshops, and technical assistance, the
improved communications feature exemplary outreach efforts at the
State and local level and Federal outreach initiatives to the
military, Native American, and international communities.
TRAINING
The Fourth National Child Support Enforcement Training
Conference, held July 25 through 27, 1994, was attended by over 150
State and local CSE trainers and CSE practitioners. The conference
focused primarily on collecting child support from nontraditional
wage earners, aspects of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
(UIFSA), and the paternity establishment provisions of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The objective was to introduce
CSE trainers and practitioners to new developments.
The conference also provided opportunities for State trainers
and other staff to share information on best practices in the areas
of paternity establishment, genetic testing, and medical support
enforcement. Sessions were conducted on outreach and public
education efforts as well as forming partnerships with hospitals to
carry out in-hospital paternity establishment programs.
Implementation of OBRA '93 Conference
In April 1994, OCSE sponsored a conference on the implementation
of the child support enforcement provisions of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA '93). The conference was targeted
on those persons responsible for implementing the paternity
provisions of OBRA '93 (including in-hospital paternity
establishment) and also on those persons involved in the
policy-related medical support issues in OBRA '93. The conference,
which was attended by representatives from the Health Care Financing
Administration and the Department of Labor, provided a full
information exchange and discussion of implementation issues and
concerns.
Train-the-Trainer Workshops
OCSE conducted two train-the-trainer courses in FY 1994. The
first workshop was in April; the second was in September. Over 20
State CSE trainers from nine States attended the first session which
was held at OCSE headquarters. The second workshop was held in
Nevada and was attended by State AFDC agency trainers as well as CSE
trainers.
The training provided instruction in curriculum design,
delivery, and evaluation. The courses are instrumental because of
their multiplier effect: that is, the State trainers return to their
jurisdictions and educate other program staff, who, in turn, inform
the public through daily interaction.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
OCSE coordinated several work groups comprised of Federal and
State CSE representatives as well as other interested persons to
develop standardized products which will assist the States in
managing their child support enforcement programs more effectively.
The Income Withholding Form Work Group included representatives
from OCSE, the American Payroll Association, the American Society For
Payroll Management, and various State and local child support
practitioners. The objective for the work group is to develop a
standardized income withholding form to replace the multiplicity of
forms now used to collect child support via income withholding. The
work group drafted a form and plans to pilot test it in several
States in early 1995.
The Interstate Forms Committee--which is comprised of Federal
staff and State representatives--addressed the needs of States which
have adopted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)
legislation. The purpose of the group is to produce a training
curriculum, handbook, and a series of new forms to be used in the
processing of interstate cases. An automation subcommittee ensures
that data elements in the new forms for case processing meet State
systems criteria.
Information Exchange Reports
In FY 1994, OCSE developed a quick and effective means of
sharing the latest in enforcement practices with the States. Called
Information Exchange Reports, these reports list various elements of
establishment or enforcement practices and how the various States use
them.
In FY 1994, OCSE developed three such information exchanges.
"Paternity Profiles" was developed for assisting States in the
implementation of new paternity laws and for promoting a transfer of
early paternity establishment program practices and policy trends.
"Licensing Restrictions and Revocations" reviews the approaches
taken by 19 States in either restricting or revoking drivers,
professional or other licenses as an enforcement practice.
"Immediate Employer Reporting of New Hires" transfers
information on the development or enactment of State laws, policies,
and procedures which require employers to provide early information
on new hires to child support or other governmental agencies. This
information is especially valuable in facilitating child support
collection through wage withholding.
Technical Assistance Linkages
OCSE staff established linkages with Federal and private sector
agencies such as: The Departments of Justice and Defense; the Indian
Health Service and the National Center for Health Statistics; the
Maternal and Child Health programs; the American Hospital Association
and the Association for Vital Records and Health Statistics as well
as the Head Start Bureau within ACF. This effort involved meetings
with agency officials, dissemination of information materials,
presentations, and providing articles for their publications and
newsletters on paternity establishment, medical support enforcement,
and child support enforcement services.
INFORMATION SERVICES
The information services component of OCSE responds to inquiries
and requests for technical and program information. This component
distributes publications, Action Transmittals, and Information
Memoranda to State and county CSE agencies, Federal personnel,
members of Congress, State and county governments, and the general
public. It also responds to individual case-related correspondence
received directly from the public or transmitted by elected
officials.
In FY 1994, OCSE improved its correspondence response-time,
ensuring that each of some 2,600 letters received a specific,
informational reply whenever appropriate. OCSE developed and
implemented an inventory tracking system for its National Resource
Center, which distributed an average of 7,800 brochures, memorandums,
and publications per month to State and local CSE practitioners and
the general public.
In FY 1994, OCSE published and distributed nine issues of the
"Child Support Report", a newsletter to communicate technical and
program information to CSE workers and others on a regular basis.
With a distribution of 12,000 copies per issue, this newsletter has
long provided the CSE community with a forum for sharing successful
practices and for highlighting State and Federal initiatives.
ACF Bulletin Board
In FY 1994, OCSE instituted a new toll-free telephone number
(1-800-627-8886) for access to an electronic computer bulletin board
which contains information that may be helpful to the child support
community. The ACF Bulletin Board provides OCSE Internet addresses
to anyone who calls. Also pertinent files such as OCSE Action
Transmittals, Information Memoranda, Dear Colleague letters and files
on systems development efforts are available for States to download
via the ACF Bulletin Board.
OCSE Publications
In FY 1994, OCSE responded to some 3,745 requests for
publications and/or information material and a total of 108,778
publications were disseminated. The Annual Report to Congress is the
most widely distributed publication. Other frequently requested OCSE
publications include:
"Administrative Determination of Paternity" highlights the
experiences of five States using various approaches to create an
administrative process for paternity establishment.
"Child Support Guidelines: The Next Generation" analyzes the
financial and emotional issues surrounding child support guidelines
and presents the views of advocacy groups.
"Child Support Enforcement Resource Program Directory"
identifies persons with CSE subject matter expertise and expands the
pool of experts from which State and local CSE staff can draw in
conducting conferences, training workshops, and other technical
assistance efforts.
"Compendium of Best Practices in Child Support: Second Edition"
describes numerous innovative CSE practices in location, enforcement,
medical support, management, and outreach.
"Universal Wage Withholding for Child Support: An Employer's
Guide" provides information to employers on their role and
responsibilities for wage withholding.
STATE AND LOCAL OUTREACH
The importance of Federal, State, and local outreach efforts
cannot be over-emphasized. All program professionals recognize that
the effectiveness of the child support enforcement program is best
achieved when a non-custodial parent willingly complies with his or
her support obligation. A representative sample of recent outreach
efforts by the States follows.
Arkansas encourages teens to delay parenting until they are
emotionally and financially able to take care of a baby and informs
teens who are already parents about laws, resources and
responsibilities. "Am I Ready?" is a curriculum for use in grades 7
through 9 that focuses on teen parenting rather than teen pregnancy.
The package includes a manual for teachers with lesson plans in Math,
English, Biology, Debate, Family Life and Art. The curriculum
package also incudes a video, "Draw Your Own Conclusions," of a mock
game show played by teenagers.
Arkansas has also developed another video targeted on adult
parents, which is narrated in English or Spanish. This video starts
"Congratulations, you just had or are about to have a baby" and then
discusses paternity issues, including poverty levels of children
whose paternity has not been legally established, social security
benefits, health insurance coverage, and the father's relationship
with his child. Six couples talk about why they signed the voluntary
paternity establishment papers: why it was important to them, their
children and their extended families. The video concludes, "Fathers
who think it through accept the responsibility."
A California video "Keep Your Freedom - Keep Your Dreams"
features teenagers, 14 -17 years old, who had babies. They talk
about having to put their dreams on hold: "I thought that it would
never happen to me;" "My friends call and I can't talk because I
have to take care of the baby;" "He wants to do things with his
friends. I really need him to be here with me;" "The toughest part
is that a baby takes 100 percent of your time. You can't be a kid -
you have to grow up;" "Your dreams change. So wait. You have a
whole life ahead of you."
Illinois produces a flyer, in both English and Spanish, to
publicize a toll-free child support inquiry action line. The
toll-free line is operated by the Office of the Ombudsperson in the
Illinois Department of Public Aid and serves as a special link for
the community to programs such as child support enforcement. The
ombudsperson staff are eager to serve parents and persons with child
support concerns.
Iowa produces and posts flyers giving "cheap excuses" for not
paying child support. "They're just kids. They can't need that
much. I didn't;" "I just started a new family. I can't choose
between my old kids and my new kids;" "Why should I pay child
support? I never get to see my kids;" "After I pay my bills,
there's not enough left;" and "I can't trust my ex. My child support
payment won't go to my kids, so I don't bother."
New Mexico's new phone system, KIDS (Key Information Delivery
System), uses a computer on a toll-free, 24-hour phone line to relay
routine information to callers and messages to and from case workers.
Between 1500 and 2000 calls a day are received at CSE offices
throughout the State.
New Mexico's Responsibility, Awareness and Parenthood or RAP
program was developed to make teenagers aware of the legal and
financial consequences of pregnancy. The program emphasizes peer
group counseling with teens talking to teens.
Oklahoma has a "10 Most Wanted" list of persons who are in
extreme violation of court orders to pay child support and the media
highly publicize the list. The message to delinquent parents is
that, if they are trying to avoid making court-ordered child support
payments, the State is serious about enforcement and will use all the
tools available to find them and that criminal charges could be
brought against them.
Oklahoma also distributes a flyer that pictures a judge's gavel
striking down, with the caption, "Child Support: It's Not a Choice,
It's the Law." The flyer lists a toll-free number so that anyone who
wishes to call to get more information can do so.
Washington produces an easy-to-read brochure entitled "Facts
About the Child Support Enforcement Program" that explains how the
program works and includes a postcard that can be sent to the State
Office of Support Enforcement to request an application for services.
Another Washington brochure entitled "Employer's Guide" is aimed at
employers and explains payroll deduction, health insurance coverage,
and the new hire reporting program.
Wisconsin has two new fact sheets. One, "Percentage Standard
for Setting Child Support Amounts" provides instructions for
establishing child support payment amounts. The percentage amounts
are based on the principle that, as nearly as possible, a child
should maintain a standard of living the child would have enjoyed had
both parents been living together. Another fact sheet, "Payment of
Child Support for Substitute Care," explains that Federal law
requires the collection of child support payments from both parents
of a child who is placed in a substitute care facility such as a
foster home, a group home or a child-caring institution.
FEDERAL OUTREACH INITIATIVES
Under the leadership of Deputy Director David Gray Ross in FY
1994, OCSE has made a conscious effort to listen better. Judge Ross
visited 22 States in 1994 to participate in various conferences,
workshops and forums and encouraged a stronger dialogue with the
advocates for both noncustodial and custodial parents. In response
to the comments of some stakeholders in the system, the OCSE central
office was restructured to ensure that advocates have designated
contact persons who can provide timely responses to their inquiries.
OCSE also initiated special efforts to reach groups of parents
that have unique situations by adding specialists to the staff to
focus exclusively on improving child support enforcement performance
where cases involve either Indian Reservations or foreign
governments. New staff are also focusing on the unique problems of
cases involving members of the Armed Forces and employees of the
Federal government.
Notable progress was made in 1994 in obtaining child support for
Native American children, an area that has long been problematic.
Enforcement of support orders for Native American children has been
hampered due to a lack of reciprocity between State and tribal
courts, disputes over legal jurisdiction, and service of process
problems.
In 1994, a joint agreement was signed between the State of New
Mexico and the Navajo Nation that enables tribal members to enforce
and collect child support on behalf of Navajo children in New Mexico.
The Navajo reservation is the largest in the U.S.
OCSE 19th Annual Report Chapter 5 (w/o charts)
V. Summary of FY 1994 Program Results
The following series of charts and graphs with
accompanying descriptions highlight selected program
information for FY 1994 or show five year programmatic
trends in the CSE program.
The data from which these figures were developed are
from reports completed by individual State CSE
agencies and aggregated by OCSE for the nation.
Individual State information is available in the
State Box Scores and State Data Tables found in the
appendices.
Total IV-D Child Support Caseload
The total IV-D Child Support caseload is an average of the
quarterly case counts of all noncustodial parents who are now or may
eventually be obligated under law for the support of one or more
dependent children. Nationally, the Child Support Enforcement
program had 18.6 million cases in FY 1994, an increase of almost 9
percent over fiscal year 1993 and 45 percent since FY 1990.
Cases where families were referred to the Child Support agency
because they are receiving AFDC, title IV-E Foster Care, or Medicaid
are classified as AFDC cases; cases where the custodial parents
applied for child support enforcement services are called non-AFDC
cases. During the five-year period from 1990 to 1994, the non-AFDC
portion of the caseload increased by 69 percent, while the AFDC
portion grew by only 36 percent and the AFDC arrears-only caseload
increased by almost 17 percent. An AFDC arrears-only case is a
noncustodial parent whose child or children are former recipients of
Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the noncustodial parent
owes past due child support, and the child support arrearages are
assigned to the State.
Paternities Established
The establishment of a child's paternity is a prerequisite for
establishing an order for child support. A record 590,819 children
had their paternity established by the child support program in FY
1994. This represents an increase of almost 7 percent over the
previous year and a cumulative 50 percent increase over the last five
years.
The 7 percent increase in paternities established between fiscal
years 1993 and 1994 is somewhat smaller than the increase of 8
percent seen between fiscal years 1992 and 1993. However, these data
do not include paternities established through voluntary
"in-hospital" programs where the case is not part of the IV-D
caseload; these data are being reported beginning in FY 1995.
Support Orders Established
The legal establishment of an order to pay child support is a
prerequisite to collecting child support. In FY 1994, the Child
Support Enforcement program established over 1 million support
orders.
There was virtually no change in the number of support orders
that were established between FY 1994 and FY 1993--less than a one
percent decline. However, the percentage change between fiscal years
1992 and 1993 was an increase of almost 15 percent.
IV-D Cases With and Without Orders
States report the number of cases remaining open on the last day
of each quarter that have support orders established. Of the 18.6
million cases in the child support caseload in FY 1994, 10.4 million
cases or 56 percent had support orders.
Just over half (52 percent) of AFDC and AFDC arrears-only cases
had orders to pay child support in FY 1994, while 62 percent of
non-AFDC cases had orders.
IV-D Cases for Which a Collection Was Made
States report the number of cases in which a collection was made
during the second month of each quarter. In FY 1994 there were 3.4
million cases with a collection in the child support enforcement
program. This is an increase of 9 percent over fiscal year 1993 and
49 percent over the figure for FY 1990. Of the cases with
collections, 64 percent were non-AFDC and 36 percent were AFDC and
AFDC arrears-only cases.
Paying cases accounted for about 18 percent of the Child Support
Enforcement caseload; this figure has risen only slightly since FY
1990.
Total Collections
Total child support collections are the amounts collected by the
program and distributed during the year on behalf of families
receiving benefits from the AFDC, title IV-E foster care and Medicaid
programs and non-AFDC families who have applied for child support
services.
In FY 1994 collections reached a record high of almost $9.9
billion, an 11 percent increase over FY 1993. Non-AFDC collections
accounted for 74 percent of the total amount collected.
AFDC Collections
AFDC collections, including title IV-E Foster Care and Medicaid
collections, amounted to $2.6 billion in FY 1994. This is an
increase of 6 percent over the previous year and 46 percent since FY
1990.
In FY 1994 AFDC collections were 26 percent of total collections
compared to 29 percent of total collections in FY 1990.
Distribution of AFDC Collections
The Federal and State governments retain portions of AFDC child
support collections as reimbursement for AFDC payments to families.
States kept $893 million as their share of AFDC payment
reimbursements and received an additional $407 million in collection
incentives from the Federal share of AFDC payments. The Federal
share of the $2.6 billion collected in AFDC cases amounted to $765
million.
In FY 1994, AFDC families received over $493 million in support
collections through the Child Support Enforcement program. A total
of $367 million of this amount was paid as a result of the $50
monthly pass-through and $32 million was for medial support payments;
the remainder was passed-through because the child support paid
exceeded the amounts of the AFDC grants.
AFDC $50 Disregard Collections
Distributed to Families
The first $50 of current child support collected each month on
behalf of AFDC families is paid to the families by the IV-D agency.
The families receiving these pass-through payments benefit from the
extra income each month, which is disregarded in determining their
continued eligibility for AFDC. Prior to the creation of the
pass-through, all current support collections were retained by the
Federal and State governments to reimburse AFDC payments made to
these families.
In FY 1994, AFDC families received $367 million in pass-through
payments. This represents 14 percent of the total AFDC collections
for the year. Pass-through payment totals increased by one percent
over FY 1993 and by 28 percent for the five year period between 1990
and 1994.
Percent of AFDC Payments Recovered
The AFDC recovery rate is the percent of AFDC assistance
payments recovered through child support collections. The AFDC
recovery rate rose to a high of 12.5 percent in FY 1994. This is an
increase over the 12.0 rate of the year before and the 10.3 rate of
FY 1990.
It should be noted that even if States could collect all of the
child support due, it would not be possible for some to recover 100
percent of the title IV-A grant money. This is largely because AFDC
assistance payments often exceed child support award levels.
Non-AFDC Collections
Non-AFDC distributed collections are child support payments made
on behalf of and distributed to families who have applied for Child
Support Enforcement services.
In FY 1994, non-AFDC collections rose to $7.3 billion, an
increase of almost 13 percent since the previous year and 72 percent
since FY 1990. This growth in collections for non-AFDC cases closely
parallels the growth in the non-AFDC caseload (69 percent in 5
years).
Interstate Collections
Collections made on behalf of other States totaled a record $785
million in FY 1994, an increase of 8 percent. In five years,
interstate collections rose by 72 percent: these increases may
reflect better communications and cooperation among the States.
Interstate collections reported by the States amounted to 8 percent
of total collections in FY 1994.
A State's distributed collection amount does not include
collections made on behalf of other States, so does not reflect the
efforts put forth by one State to collect for another. In some
cases, a substantial amount of child support is collected by one
State on behalf of other States. Of the total amount collected by
eight States (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Wyoming), 20 percent or more was on
behalf of other States; for two jurisdictions (Nevada and the
District of Columbia) collections passed on to other States amount to
more than 30 percent of the total amount collected.
Total Collections by Method of Collection
Wage withholding, withholding of unemployment compensation, and
Federal and State income tax refund offset are all powerful
enforcement techniques. However, wage withholding is by far the most
effective, totaling 55 percent of all collections in FY 1994.
Federal and State income tax refund offset contributed 6 percent and
1 percent, respectively; and the withholding of unemployment
compensation accounted for about 2 percent of total collections.
The remaining 36 percent of collections was obtained from
parents who sent their child support payments directly to the State
Child Support Enforcement agency, payments received through other
enforcement techniques, or collections received from other States.
Accounts Receivable
Accounts receivable data present the total dollar amount of
child support payments due and received by IV-D agencies.
Information reported for FY 1994 indicates that $14.1 billion in
current support and $30.8 billion in prior years support was due.
Almost $7.6 billion or 54 percent of the current support due was
collected. Of prior years support due, only $2.1 billion or 7
percent was collected.
Overall, 22 percent of all reported receivables were collected
in FY 1994. This is slightly lower than the percent of receivables
collected in FY 1993.
Comparisons of States' accounts receivable data are complicated
because States count arrearages differently based on State laws and
practices. For example, some States include unreimbursed public
assistance as a debt and others do not. Some States have statutes of
limitations governing collection of debt and some have policies for
writing off bad debts.
Total Expenditures
Total expenditures are the net amounts of combined Federal and
State funds expended on the operation of the CSE program. The
amounts reported are reduced by the amount of program income (fees
and costs recovered in excess of fees, interest earned, and other
program income received) received by the States.
Total expenditures were $2.6 billion in FY 1994, an increase of
14 percent over FY 1993. Of this $2.6 billion, $1.7 billion was the
Federal share and $816 million was the States' share. The recent
increases in program costs are heavily impacted by the costs of
developing and implementing automated systems, as required by the
Family Support Act of 1988, as well as by increased caseloads.
Expenses associated with automation, for example, totaled $345
million in FY 1994.
Total Collections per Dollar of Administrative Costs
During the five-year period FY 1990 to FY 1994, the ratio of
total child support collections to total administrative costs has
increased from $3.75 to $3.86. This means that, nationally, almost
$4.00 in child support payments are collected for every $1.00 spent
to administer the Child Support Enforcement program.
OCSE 19th Annual Report Action Transmittal List - Appendix E
APPENDIX E: FY 1994 ACTION TRANSMITTALS
OCSE-AT-94-01, January 28, 1994
Instructions for completing standardized interstate forms in cases
involving a responding UIFSA State, and instructions for using the
interstate forms to request support orders for prior periods.
OCSE-AT-94-02, March 11, 1994
Revised Program Instructions for the Statutory Requirements for
Immediate Wage
Withholding in All Child Support Orders Initially Issued In the State
Not Being Enforced Under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.
OCSE-AT-94-03, June 1, 1994
Elimination of Annual Three-Year hardware and Software Configuration
Plan Requirement.
OCSE-AT-94-04, June 2, 1994
Charge-backs for Child Support Enforcement Network (CSENet) usage.
ACF/FNS-AT-94-05, July 22, 1994
Federal/State Information Technology Policy.
OCSE-AT-94-05, August 23, 1994
Collection of Child Support by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
through offsetting Federal income tax refunds.
OCSE-AT-94-06, December 23, 1994
Final Rule - Paternity Establishment and Revision of Child Support
Enforcement Program and Audit Regulations.
OCSE 19th Annual Report IV-D Agencies
APPENDIX F: State IV-D Agency Listing
ALABAMA
Mr. Phillip Browning, Director
Department of Human Resources
Division of Child Support
50 Ripley Street
Montgomery, AL 36130-1801
(334) 242-9300
FAX: (334) 242-0606
ALASKA
Glenda Straube, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
550 West 7th Avenue, 4th Floor
Anchorage, AK 99501-6699
(907) 269-6801
FAX: (907) 269-6868
ARIZONA
Nancy Mendoza, Assistant Director
Division of Child Support Enforcement
Department of Economic Security
P.O. Box 40458, Site Code 021A
3443 N. Central Avenue, 4th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85067
Street Address: 3443 N. Central Avenue, 4th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 274-7646
FAX: (602) 274-8250
ARKANSAS
Judy Jones Jordan, Administrator
Office of Child Support Enforcement
P.O. Box 8133
Little Rock, AR 72203
Street Address: Donaghey Building, 7th and Main
Little Rock, AR 72203
(501) 682-6047
FAX: (501) 682-6002
CALIFORNIA
Leslie Frye, Chief
Child Support Enforcement Unit
744 P Street, Mail Stop 17-29
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 654-1556
FAX: (916) 657-3783
COLORADO
Kathryn A. Stumm, Director
Division of Child Support Enforcement
1575 Sherman Street, 2nd Floor
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 866-5992
FAX: (303) 866-2214
CONNECTICUT
Anthony DiNallo, Director
Department of Social Services
Bureau of Child Support Enforcement
25 Sigourney Street
Hartford, CT 06105-5033
(203) 424-5251
FAX: (203) 951-2996
DELAWARE
Barbara A. Paulin, Director
Division of Child Support Enforcement
Biggs Building, DSS campus
P.O. Box 904
New Castle, DE 19720
Street Address: 1901 North Dupont Hwy
New Castle, DE 19720
(302) 577-4807
FAX: (302) 577-4873
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Kenneth Hill, Acting Director
Office of Paternity and Child Support Enforcement
613 G Street, NW 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 724-5610
FAX: (202) 724-5154
FLORIDA
Joyce McGee, Director
Child Support Enforcement Program
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 8030
Tallahassee, FL 32314
Street Address: 1170 Capitol Circle N.E.
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904) 922-9542
FAX: (904) 488-4401
GEORGIA
Robert Riddle, Director
Child Support Enforcement
2 Peachtree Street, N.W. Suite 15-107
P.O. Box 38450
Atlanta, GA 30334-0450
(404) 657-3851 or 3856
FAX: (404) 657-3326
GUAM
Margaret Bean, Deputy Attorney General
Department of Law
Office of the Attorney General, Family Division
Child Support Enforcement Office
238 Archbishop F.C. Flores Street
Suite 701, Pacific News Building
Agana, GU 96910
9-011-(671) 475-3360 -63
FAX: 9-011-(671) 477-6118
HAWAII
Norma Doctor Sparks, Esq., Administrator
Child Support Enforcement Agency
Department of Attorney General
P.O. Box 1860
Honolulu, HI 96805-1860
Street Address: 680 Iwilei Road
Suite 490
Honolulu, HI 96817
(808) 587-3698
FAX: (808) 587-3716
IDAHO
Teresa Kaiser, Bureau Chief
Bureau of Child Support Services
Department of Health and Welfare
450 West State Street
P.O. Box 83720
5th Floor
Boise, ID 83720 - 5005
(208) 334-5711
FAX: (208) 334-0666
ILLINOIS
Dianna Durham-McLoud, Administrator
Child Support Enforcement Division
Illinois Department of Public Aid
201 South Grand Avenue East
Springfield, IL 62763-0001
(217) 524-4602
FAX: (217) 524-4608
INDIANA
Allison Wharry, Deputy Director
Division of Family & Children
402 West Washington Street, Rm W360
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232-4894
FAX: (317) 233-4925
IOWA
Jim Hennessey, Director
Bureau of Collections
Department of Human Services
Hoover Building - 5th Floor
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-5580
FAX: (515) 281-4597
KANSAS
James Robertson, Administrator
Child Support Enforcement Program
Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services
P.O. Box 497
Topeka, KS 66601
Street Address: 300 S.W. Oakley Street
Biddle Building
Topeka, KS 66606
(913) 296-3237
FAX: (913) 296-5206
KENTUCKY
Steven P. Veno, Director
Division of Child Support Enforcement
Cabinet for Human Resources
275 East Main Street, 6th Floor East
Frankfort, KY 40621
(502) 564-2285; ext. 410
FAX: (502) 564-5988
LOUISIANA
Gordon Hood, Director
Support Enforcement Services
Office of Family Support
P.O. Box 94065
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4065
Street Address: 618 Main Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4065
(504) 342-4252
FAX: (504) 342-7397
MAINE
Colburn Jackson, Director
Division of Support Enforcement and Recovery
Bureau of Income Maintenance
Department of Human Services
State House Station 11 Whitten Road
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 287-2886
FAX: (207) 287-5096
MARYLAND
Brian Shea, Acting Executive Director
Child Support Enforcement Administration
311 West Saratoga Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
(410) 767-7674 or 767-7358
FAX: (410) 333-8992
MASSACHUSETTS
Jerry J. Fay, Deputy Commissioner
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
141 Portland Street
Cambridge, MA 02139-1937
(617) 577-7200 ext. 30481
FAX: (617) 621-4990
MICHIGAN
Wallace Dutkowski, Director
Office of Child Support
Department of Social Services
P.O. Box 30037
Lansing, MI 48909
Street Address: 235 South Grand Avenue
Suite 1406
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-7570
FAX: (517) 373-4980
MINNESOTA
Laura Kadwell, Director
Office of Child Support Enforcement
Department of Human Services
444 Lafayette Road, 4th floor
St. Paul, MN 55155-3846
(612) 296-2754
FAX: (612) 297-4450
MISSISSIPPI
Carolyn Bridgers, Director
Division of Child Support Enforcement
Department of Human Services
P.O. Box 352
Jackson, MS 39205
Street Address: 750 N. State Street
Jackson, MS 39202
(601) 359-4863
FAX: (601) 359-4415
MISSOURI
William R. LaRue, Director
Department of Social Services
Division of Child Support Enforcement
227 Metro Drive
P.O. Box 1527
Jefferson City, MO 65102-1527
(314) 751-4301
FAX: (314) 751-8450
MONTANA
Mary Ann Wellbank, Administrator
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services
P.O. Box 202943
Helena, MT 59620
Street Address: 3075 N. Montana Avenue
Suite 112
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-3338
FAX: (406) 444-1370
NEBRASKA
Mary Ann Miller, Administrator
Child Support Enforcement Office
Department of Social Services
P.O. Box 95026
Lincoln, NE 68509
Street Address: 301 Centennial Mall South
5th Floor
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402) 471-9390
FAX: (402) 471-9455
NEVADA
No Acting Chief
Child Support Enforcement Program
Nevada State Welfare Division
2527 North Carson Street, Capitol Complex
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 687-4744
FAX: (702) 687-5080
NEW HAMPSHIRE
William H. Mattil, Administrator
Office of Child Support
Division of Human Services
Health and Human Services Building
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-4578
FAX: (603) 271-4787
NEW JERSEY
Karen Highsmith, Director
Division of Family Development
Department of Human Services
Bureau of Child Support and Paternity Programs
CN 716
Trenton, NJ 08625-0716
(609) 588-2401
FAX: (609) 588-2354
NEW MEXICO
Ben Silva, Director
Child Support Enforcement Bureau
Department of Human Services
P.O. Box 25109
Santa Fe, NM 87504
Street Address: 2025 S. Pacheco
Santa Fe, NM 87504
(505) 827-7200
FAX: (505) 827-7285
NEW YORK
Joan Keenan, Director
Office of Child Support Enforcement
Department of Social Services
P.O. Box 14
Albany, NY 12260
Street Address: One Commerce Plaza
Albany, NY 12260
(518) 474-9081
FAX: (518) 486-3127
NORTH CAROLINA
Michael Adams, Chief
Child Support Enforcement Section
Division of Social Services
Department of Human Resources
100 East Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609-7750
(919) 571-4120
FAX: (919) 571-4126
NORTH DAKOTA
William Strate, Director
Child Support Enforcement Agency
P.O. Box 7190
Bismarck, ND 58507
Street Address: 1929 North Washington Street
Bismarck, ND 58507-7190
(701) 328-3582
FAX: (701) 328-5497
OHIO
Loretta Adams, Deputy Director
Office of Child Support Enforcement
Department of Human Services
30 East Broad Street - 31st Floor
Columbus, OH 43266-0423
(614) 752-6561
FAX: (614) 752-9760
OKLAHOMA
Paula Davidson Wood, Acting Administrator
Department of Human Services
P.O. Box 53552
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
Street Address: 2409 N. Kelley Avenue
Annex Building
Oklahoma City, OK 73111
(405) 522-5871
FAX: (405) 522-2753
OREGON
Phil Yarnell, Director
Recovery Services Section
Adult and Family Services Division
Department of Human Resources
P.O. Box 14170
Salem, OR 97309
Street Address: 260 Liberty Street, N.E.
Salem, OR 97310
(503) 373-1698
FAX: (503) 391-5526
PENNSYLVANIA
John F. Stuff, Director
Bureau of Child Support Enforcement
Department of Public Welfare
P.O. Box 8018
Harrisburg, PA 17105
Street Address: 300 North Second Street
17101 Commerce Building
12th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8018
(717) 787-3672
FAX: (717) 787-9706
PUERTO RICO
Miguel Verdiales, Assistant Secretary
for Child Support Enforcement
Department of Social Services
P.O. Box 3349
San Juan, PR 00902-9938
Street Address: Majagua Street, Building 2
Wing 4, 2nd Floor
Miramar, PR 00902-9938
(809) 725-0753
FAX: (809) 723-6187
RHODE ISLAND
Jack Murphy, Agency Head
Rhode Island Child Support
Department of Human Services
77 Dorrance Street
Providence, RI 02903
(401) 277-2847
FAX: (401) 277-6674
SOUTH CAROLINA
Larry J. McKeown, Director
Department of Social Services
Child Support Enforcement Division
P.O. Box 1469
Columbia, SC 29202-1469
Street Address: 3150 Harden Street
Columbia, SC 29202-1469
(803) 737-5870
FAX: (803) 737-6032
SOUTH DAKOTA
Terry Walter, Program Administrator
Office of Child Support Enforcement
Department of Social Services
700 Governor's Drive
Pierre, SD 57501-2291
(605) 773-3641
FAX: (605) 773-6834
TENNESSEE
Joyce D. McClaran, Director
Child Support Services
Department of Human Services
Citizens Plaza Building - 12th Floor
400 Deadrick Street
Nashville, TN 37248-7400
(615) 313-4880
FAX: (615) 532-2791
TEXAS
Cecelia Burke, Director
Child Support Division
Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711
Street Address: 300 West 15th Street, Suite 1401 M
Austin, TX 78704
(512) 463-9888
FAX: (512) 477-0015
UTAH
James Kidder, Director
Bureau of Child Support Services
Department of Human Services
P.O. Box 45011
Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0011
Street Address: 515 E. 100 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
(801) 536-8911
FAX: (801) 536-8509
VERMONT
Jeffrey Cohen, Director
Office of Child Support
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671-1901
(802) 241-2319
FAX: (802) 244-1483
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Ms. Aurjul H. Wilson
Paternity and Child Support Division
Department of Justice
GERS Building, 2nd Floor
48B-50C Krondprans Gade
St. Thomas, VI 00802
(809) 774-5666
FAX: (809) 774-9710
VIRGINIA
Michael R. Henry, Assistant Commissioner
for Child Support Enforcement
Department of Social Services
730 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 692-1501
FAX: (804) 692-1543
WASHINGTON
Meg Sollenberger, Director
Support Enforcement Division
DSHS
P.O. Box 9162
Olympia, WA 98507-9162
Street Address: 712 Pear Street, S.E.
Olympia, WA 98507
(360) 586-3520
FAX: (360) 586-3162
(effective May 2, 1994)
WEST VIRGINIA
Martha Hill, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Health and Human Resources
Room B812
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
(304) 558-3780
FAX: (304) 558-4092
WISCONSIN
Mary Southwick, Director
Division of Economic Support
P.O. Box 7935
Madison, WI 53707-7935
Street Address: 1 West Wilson Street
Room 382
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 267-0926
FAX: (608) 267-2824
WYOMING
James R. Mohler, Director
Child Support Enforcement
Department of Family Services
Hathaway Building, 2300 Capital Avenue
Cheyenne, WY 82002-0710
(307) 777-7193
FAX: (307) 777-7747
OCSE 19th Annual Report Federal Legislative History
APPENDIX H: Federal Legislative History of Child Support
Enforcement
1950
The first Federal child support enforcement legislation was Section
402(a)(11) of the Social Security Act [42 USC 602(a)(11)], which
required State welfare agencies to notify appropriate law enforcement
officials upon providing Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) with respect to a child who was abandoned or deserted by a
parent.
Also that year, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws and the American Bar Association approved the Uniform
Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (subsequent amendments to this
Act were approved in 1952, 1958, and 1968).
1965
Public Law (P.L.) 89-97, the Social Security Amendments of 1965,
allowed a State or local welfare agency to obtain from the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare the address and place of employment
of an absent parent who owed child support under a court order for
support.
1967
P.L. 90-248, the Social Security Amendments of 1967, allowed States
to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) the addresses of
absent parents who owed child support under a court order for
support. In addition, each State was required to establish a single
organizational unit to establish paternity and collect child support
for deserted children receiving AFDC. States were also required to
work cooperatively with each other under child support reciprocity
agreements and with courts and law enforcement officials.
1975
P.L. 93-647, the Social Security Amendments of 1974, created, inter
alia, PartþD of Title IV of the Social Security Act [Sections 451, et
seq.; 42 USC 651, et seq.]. The key child support enforcement
provisions, which reflect three years of intense Congressional
attention, are as follows:
The Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare (now the Department of Health and Human Services or
DHHS) has primary responsibility for the Program and is
required to establish a separate organizational unit to
operate the program. Operational responsibilities include
(1) establishing a parent locator service; (2) establishing
standards for State program organization, staffing, and
operation to assure an effective program; (3) reviewing and
approving State plans for the program; (4) evaluating State
program operations by conducting audits of each State's
program; (5) certifying cases for referral to the Federal
courts to enforce support obligations; (6) certifying cases
for referral to the IRS for support collections; (7)
providing technical assistance to States and assisting hem
with reporting procedures; (8) maintaining records of
program operations, expenditures, and collections; and (9)
submitting an annual report to the Congress.
Primary responsibility for operating the Child Support
Enforcement Program is placed on the States pursuant to the
State plan. The major requirements of a State plan are
that (1) the State designate a single and separate
organizational unit to administer the program; (2) the
State undertake to establish paternity and secure support
for individuals receiving AFDC and others who apply
directly for child support enforcement services; (3) child
support payments be made to the State for distribution; (4)
the State enter into cooperative agreements with
appropriate courts and law enforcement officials; (5) the
State establish a State parent locator service that uses
State and local parent location resources and the Federal
Parent Locator Service; (6) the State cooperate with any
other State in locating an absent parent, establishing
paternity, and securing support; and (7) the State maintain
a full record of collections and disbursements made under
the plan.
Procedures were set out for the distribution of child
support collections received on behalf of families
receiving AFDC.
Incentive payments to States for collections made on AFDC
cases were created.
Monies due and payable to Federal employees became subject
to garnishment for the collection of child support.
New eligibility requirements were added to the AFDC
program, which required each applicant for, or recipient
of, AFDC to make an assignment of support rights to the
State; to cooperate with the State in establishing
paternity and securing support; and to furnish his or her
Social Security number to the State.
The effective date of P.L. 93-647 was July 1, 1975, except for the
provision regarding garnishment of Federal employees, which was
effective upon enactment. However, several problems were identified
prior to the effective date and Congress passed P.L.þ94-46 to extend
the effective date to Augustþ1,þ1975. In addition, P.L.þ94-88 was
passed in August 1975 to allow States to obtain waivers from certain
program requirements under certain conditions until June 30, 1976 and
to receive Federal reimbursement at a reduced rate. This law also
eased the requirement for AFDC recipients to cooperate with State
child support enforcement agencies when such cooperation would not be
in the best interests of the child. It also provided for
supplemental payments to AFDC recipients whose grants would be
reduced due to the implementation of the child support enforcement
program.
1976
P.L. 94-566, effective October 20, 1976, required State employment
agencies to provide absent parents' addresses to State child support
enforcement agencies.
1977
P.L. 95-30, effective May 23, 1977, made several amendments to Title
IV-D:
Provisions relating to the garnishment of a Federal
employee's wages for child support were amended to (1)
include employees of the District of Columbia; (2) specify
the conditions and procedures to be followed to serve
garnishments on Federal agencies; (3) authorize the
issuance of garnishment regulations by the three branches
of the Federal Government and by the District; and (4)
define further certain terms used.
Section 454 of the Social Security Act (42 USC 654) was
amended to require the State plan to provide bonding for
employees who receive, handle, or disburse cash and to
insure that the accounting and collection functions be
performed by different individuals.
The incentive payment provision, under section 458(a) of
the Social Security Act [42 USC 658(a)], was amended to
change the rate to 15 percent of AFDC collections (from 25
percent for the first 12 months and 10 percent thereafter).
P.L. 95-142, the Medicare-Medicaid Antifraud and Abuse Amendments of
1977, established a medical support enforcement program, under which
States could require Medicaid applicants to assign to the State their
rights to medical support. State Medicaid agencies were allowed to
enter into cooperative agreements with any appropriate agency of any
State, including the IV-D agency, for assistance with the enforcement
and collection of medical support obligations. Incentives were also
available to localities making child support collections for States
and for States securing collections on behalf of other States.
1978
P.L. 95-598, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, repealed section
456(b) of the Social Security Act [42 USC 656(b)], which had barred
the discharge in bankruptcy of assigned child support debts. (This
section of the Act (now 546(h)) was restored by P.L. 97-35 in 1981.)
1980
P.L. 96-178 extended Federal Financial Participation (FFP) for
non-AFDC services to March 31, 1980, retroactive to October 1, 1978.
P.L. 96-265, the Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980,
increased Federal matching funds to 90 percent, effective July 1,
1981, for the costs of developing, implementing, and enhancing
approved automated child support management information systems.
Federal matching funds were also made available for child support
enforcement duties performed by certain court personnel. In another
provision, the law authorized the use of the IRS to collect child
support arrearages on behalf of non-AFDC families. Finally, the law
provided State and local IV-D agencies access to wage information
held by the Social Security Administration and State employment
security agencies for use in establishing and enforcing child support
obligations.
P.L. 96-272, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980,
contained four amendments to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.
First, the law made FFP for non-AFDC services available on a
permanent basis. Second, it allowed States to receive incentive
payments on all AFDC collections as well as interstate collections.
Third, as of October 1, 1979, States were required to claim
reimbursement for expenditures within two years, with some
exceptions. The fourth change postponed until October, 1980, the
imposition of the 5 percent penalty on AFDC reimbursement for States
not having effective child support enforcement programs.
1981
P.L. 97-35, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981, added five
amendments to the IV-D provisions. First, IRS was authorized to
withhold all or a part of certain individuals' Federal income tax
refunds for collection of delinquent child support obligations.
Second, IV-D agencies were required to collect spousal support for
AFDC families. Third, for non-AFDC cases, IV-D agencies were
required to collect fees from absent parents who were delinquent in
their child support payments. Fourth, child support obligations
assigned to the State no longer were dischargeable in bankruptcy
proceedings. The law imposed on States a requirement to withhold a
portion of unemployment benefits from absent parents delinquent in
their support payments.
1982
P.L. 97-248, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982,
included the following provisions, affecting the IV-D program:
FFP was reduced from 75 to 70 percent, effective October 1,
1982. Incentives were reduced from 15 to 12 percent,
effective October 1, 1983. The provision for reimbursement
of costs of certain court personnel that exceed the amount
of funds spent by a State on similar court expenses during
calendar year 1978 was repealed.
The mandatory non-AFDC collection fee imposed by P.L.þ97-35
was repealed, retroactive to August 13, 1981. States were
allowed to elect not to recover costs or to recover costs
from collections or from fees imposed on absent parents.
Another provision allowed States to collect spousal support
in certain non-AFDC cases.
As of October 1, 1982, members of the uniformed services on
active duty are required to make allotments from their pay
when support arrearages reach the equivalent of a 2-month
delinquency.
Also beginning October 1, 1982, States were allowed to
reimburse themselves for AFDC grants paid to families for
the first month in which the collection of child support is
sufficient to make a family ineligible for AFDC.
P.L. 97-253, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982, provided
for the disclosure of information obtained under authority of the
Food Stamp Act of 1977 to various programs, including State child
support enforcement agencies.
P.L. 97-252, the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act,
authorized treatment of military retirement or retainer pay as
property to be divided by State courts in connection with divorce,
dissolution, annulment, or legal separation proceedings.
1984
P.L. 98-378, the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984,
featured provisions that required critical improvements in State and
local child support enforcement programs in four major areas:
Mandatory Practices
All States must enact statutes providing for the use of
improved enforcement mechanisms, including (1) mandatory
income withholding procedures; (2) expedited processes for
establishing and enforcing support orders; (3) State income
tax refund interceptions; (4) liens against real and
personal property, security or bonds to assure compliance
with support obligations; and (5) reports of support
delinquency information to consumer reporting agencies.
State law must allow for the bringing of paternity actions
any time prior to a child's 18th birthday and all support
orders issued or modified after October 1, 1985, must
include a provision for wage withholding.
Federal Financial Participation and Audit Provisions
To encourage greater reliance on performance-based
incentives, Federal matching funds were reduced by 2
percent in FY 1988 (to 68 percent) and another 2 percent in
FY 1990 (to 66 percent). Federal matching funds at 90
percent became available for the development and
installation of automated systems, including computer
hardware purchases, to facilitate income withholding and
other newly required procedures.
State incentive payments were reset at 6 percent for both
AFDC and non-AFDC collections. These percentages can
increase to as much as 10 percent for both categories for
very cost-effective States, but a State's non-AFDC
incentive payments are limited by the amount of incentives
received for AFDC collections. The law further required
States to pass incentives through to local child support
enforcement agencies where these agencies have participated
in the costs of the program.
Annual State audits were replaced with audits conducted at
least once every 3 years. The focus of the audits was
altered to evaluate a State's effectiveness on the basis of
program performance as well as operational compliance.
Penalties for noncompliance are from 1 to 5 percent of the
Federal share of the State's AFDC funds. The Federal
government may suspend imposition of a penalty based on a
State's filing of, and complying with, an acceptable
corrective action plan.
Improved Interstate Enforcement
The proven enforcement techniques discussed above must be
applied to interstate cases as well as intrastate cases.
Both States involved in an interstate case may take credit
for the collection when reporting total collections for the
purpose of calculating incentives. Special demonstration
grants were authorized beginning in FY 1985 to fund
innovative methods of interstate enforcement and
collection. Federal audits will focus on States'
effectiveness in establishing and enforcing obligations
across State lines.
Equal Services for Welfare and Nonwelfare Families
The Social Security Act was amended to show that Congress
intended the Child Support Enforcement Program to aid both
nonwelfare and welfare families. Several specific
requirements were directed at improving State services to
nonwelfare families. All of the mandatory practices must
be made available for both classes of cases; the
interception of Federal income tax refunds is extended to
nonwelfare cases; incentive payments for nonwelfare cases
became available for the first time; when families are
terminated from the welfare rolls, they automatically must
receive nonwelfare support enforcement services without
being charged an application fee; and States must publicize
the availability of nonwelfare support enforcement
services.
Other Provisions
States were required to (1) collect support in certain
foster care cases; (2) collect spousal support in addition
to child support where both are due in a case; (3) notify
AFDC recipients, at least yearly, of the collections made
in their individual cases;(4) establish State commissions
to examine, investigate, and study the operation of the
State's child support system and report findings to the
State's governor; (5) formulate guidelines for determining
appropriate child support obligation amounts and distribute
the guidelines to judges and other individuals who possess
authority to establish obligation amounts; (6) offset the
costs of the program by charging various fees to nonwelfare
families and to delinquent absent parents; (7) allow
families whose AFDC eligibility is terminated as a result
of the payment of child support to remain eligible to
receive Medicaid for 4 months; and (8) seek to establish
medical support orders in addition to monetary awards. The
Federal Parent Locator Service was made more accessible and
effective in locating absent parents. Sunset provisions
are included in the extension of Medicaid eligibility and
Federal tax offsets for non-AFDC families.
P.L. 98-369, the Tax Reform Act of 1984, included two tax provisions
pertaining to alimony and child support.
Under prior law, alimony was deductible by the payor and
includible in the income of the payee. The 1984 law revised
the rules relating to the definition of alimony. Generally,
only cash payments that will terminate on the death of the
payee spouse qualify as alimony. Alimony payments, if in
excess of $10,000 per year, generally must be payable for
at least 6 years and must not decline by more than $10,000.
The prior law requirement that the payment be based on a
legal support obligation was repealed and payors are
required to furnish to the IRS the social security number
of the payee spouse. A $50 penalty for failure to do so
will be imposed. The provision is effective for divorce or
separation agreements or orders executed after 1984.
The 1984 law also provided that the $1,000 dependency
exemption for a child of divorced or separated parents
generally will be allocated to the custodial parent unless
the custodial parent signs a written declaration that he or
she will not claim the exemption for the year. Each parent
may claim the medical expenses that he or she pays for the
child, for purposes of computing the medical expense
deduction. The provision is effective for taxable years
beginning after 1984.
1986
P.L. 99-509, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, included
one child support enforcement amendment prohibiting the retroactive
modification of child support awards. Under this new requirement,
State laws must provide for either parent to apply for modification
of an existing order with notice provided to the other parent. No
modification is permitted before the date of this notification.
1987
P.L. 100-203, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, required
States to provide child support enforcement services to all families
with an absent parent who receives Medicaid and have assigned their
support rights to the State, regardless of whether they are receiving
AFDC.
1988
P.L. 100-485, the Family Support Act of 1988, emphasized the duties
of parents to work and support their children and, in particular,
emphasized child support enforcement as the first line of defense
against welfare dependence. The key child support enforcement
provisions, in brief, include:
Guidelines for Child Support Awards
Judges and other officials are required to use State
guidelines for child support unless they are rebutted by a
written finding that applying the guidelines would be
unjust or inappropriate in a particular case. States must
review guidelines for awards every four years. Beginning
five years after enactment, States generally must review
and adjust individual case awards every three years for
AFDC cases. The same applies to other IV-D cases, except
review and adjustment must be at the request of a parent.
Establishment of Paternity
States are required to meet Federal standards for the
establishment of paternity. The standard relates to the
percentage obtained by dividing the number of children in
the State who are born out of wedlock, are receiving cash
benefits or IV-D child support services, and for whom
paternity has been established by the number of children
who are born out of wedlock and are receiving cash benefits
or IV-D child support services. To meet Federal
requirements, this percentage in a State must: (1) be at
least 50 percent; (2) be at least equal to the average for
all States; or (3) have increased by 3 percentage points
from fiscal years 1988 to 1991 and by 3 percentage points
each year thereafter.
States are mandated to require all parties in a contested
paternity case to take a genetic test upon request of any
party. The Federal matching rate for laboratory testing to
establish paternity is set at 90 percent.
Disregard of Child Support
The child support enforcement disregard authorized under
the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 is clarified so that it
applies to a payment made by the noncustodial parent in the
month it was due even though it was received in a
subsequent month.
Requirement for Prompt State Response
The Secretary of DHHS required to set time limits within
which States must accept and respond to requests for
assistance in establishing and enforcing support orders as
well as time limits within which child support payments
collected by the State IV-D agency must be distributed to
the families to whom they are owed.
Requirement for Automated Tracking and Monitoring System
Every State that does not have a Statewide automated
tracking and monitoring system in effect must submit an
advance planning document that meets Federal requirements
by October 1, 1991. The Secretary must approve each
document within nine months after submission. By October 1,
1995, every State must have an approved system in effect.
Federal 90 percent matching rates for this activity expire
September 30, 1995.
Interstate Enforcement
A Commission on Interstate Child Support was created to
hold national conferences on interstate child support
enforcement reform and to report to Congress no later than
October 1, 1990 on recommendations for improvements in the
system and revisions in the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement
of Support Act.
Computing Incentive Payments
Amounts spent by States for interstate demonstration
projects are excluded from calculating the amount of the
States' incentive payments.
Use of INTERNET System
The Secretaries of Labor and DHHS required to enter into an
agreement to give the Federal Parent Locator Service prompt
access to wage and unemployment compensation claims
information useful in locating absent parents.
Wage Withholding
With respect to IV-D cases, each State must provide for
immediate wage withholding in the case of orders that are
issued or modified on or after the first day of the 25th
month beginning after the date of enactment unless: (1) one
of the parties demonstrates, and the court finds, that
there is good cause not to require such withholding; or (2)
there is a written agreement between both parties providing
for an alternative arrangement. Prior law requirements for
mandatory wage withholding in cases where payments are in
arrears apply to orders that are not subject to immediate
wage withholding. States are required to provide for
immediate wage withholding for all support orders initially
issued on or after January 1, 1994, regardless of whether a
parent has applied for IV-D services.
Work and Training Demonstration Programs for Noncustodial
Parents
The Secretary of DHHS is required to grant waivers to up to
five States to allow them to provide services to
noncustodial parents under the JOBS program. No new power
is granted to the States to require participation by
noncustodial parents.
Data Collection and Reporting
The Secretary of DHHS is required to collect and maintain
State-by-State statistics on paternity establishment,
location of absent parent for the purpose of establishing a
support obligation, enforcement of a child support
obligation, and location of absent parent for the purpose
of enforcing or modifying an established obligation.
Use of Social Security Number
Each State must, in the administration of any law involving
the issuance of a birth certificate, require each parent to
furnish his or her social security number (SSN), unless the
State finds good cause for not requiring the parent to
furnish it. The SSN shall not appear on the birth
certificate, and the use of the SSN obtained through the
|
Print
