22nd OCSE Annual Report

Foreword

The Child Support Enforcement Program

Appendix A - 1997 Program Results

Appendix B - State Box Scores: by OCSE Regions & Nationwide or by States

Appendix C - State Data Tables

Appendix D - Glossary of Financial and Statistical Terms

Appendix E - FY 1997 Action Transmittals

Appendix F- State Child Support Enforcement Agencies

Appendix G - OCSE Organization Charts (not included)

Appendix H - Legislative History of Child Support

Appendix I - Fact Sheets and News Releases

Foreword

President Clinton and I have made improving child support enforcement and increasing child support collections a top priority. This 22^nd Annual Report to Congress highlights the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program’s accomplishments and demonstrates the progress made during fiscal year 1997.

Together with our partners in the nation’s child support enforcement program, we have cracked down on nonpaying parents and strengthened the enforcement of child support dramatically since 1993. In fiscal year 1997, a record $13.4 billion was collected on behalf of children, an increase of 70 percent since fiscal year 1992. In addition, more than one million paternities were established, an increase of more than 100 percent since fiscal year 1992, largely attributable to paternities established through the voluntary in-hospital paternity programs.

Gains also were made in establishing support orders and in locating noncustodial parents who were not paying child support: 1.3 million orders were established and the income, assets, or employers of 6.4 million parents were located.

These numbers--a testimony to the commitment and dedication of individuals at the local, state, and federal levels of the CSE program--send a strong message that parental responsibility is not an option.

As important as this work is for millions of children, however, millions more are still being deprived of the help they need and deserve. The collection of child support is a crucial part of this Administration’s resolve to help families attain self-sufficiency.

On signing welfare reform legislation in 1996, President Clinton noted that “There is no area where we need more personal responsibility than child support.” When paid regularly, it provides millions of children and families the resources needed to improve their daily lives.

Donna E. Shalala

LIST OF TABLES

Program Overview

Table 1 Financial Overview for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 2 Statistical Overview for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 3 Program Trends for FY 1992, 1996, and 1997

Program Collections

Table 4 Total Distributed Collections for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 5 Distributed AFDC-TANF/Foster Care Collections for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 6 Distributed AFDC-TANF Collections for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 7 Distributed Foster Care Collections for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 8 Distributed Non-AFDC-TANF Collections for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 9 Total Child Support Collections per Dollar of Total Administrative Expenditures for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Federal and State Shares and Incentives

Table 10 Net Federal Share of AFDC-TANF/Foster Care Collections for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 11 State Share of AFDC-TANF/Foster Care Collections for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 12 Incentive Payments Estimates for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 13 Incentive Payments Actuals for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Payments to Families 

Table 14 AFDC-TANF/Foster Care Payments to Families for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 15 Medical Support Payments to Families and Medicaid

Table 16 AFDC-TANF Collections Distributed as Payments to Families and Disregarded in AFDC-TANF Eligibility Determinations ($50 Pass-Through) for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Method of Collection

Table 17 Total Collections Made by the States by Method of Collection, FY 1997

Table 18 AFDC-TANF/FC Collections Made by the States by Method of Collection, FY 1997

Table 19 Non-AFDC-TANF Collections Made by the States by Method of Collection, FY 1997

Table 20 Total Administrative Expenditures for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Program Savings

Table 21 Total Program Savings for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Program Expenditures

Table 22 Fees Received and Costs Recovered for Non-AFDC-TANF Cases for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Functional Costs

Table 23 Total ADP Expenditures for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 24 Total ADP Expenditures at Enhanced Funding Rate for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 25 Expenditures for Laboratory Tests for Paternity Establishment for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Caseload and Cases with Collections

Table 26 Average Annual CSE Caseload by AFDC-TANF/FC, Non-AFDC-TANF, and AFDC-TANF/FC Arrears Only, FY 1997

Table 27 Average Annual CSE Caseload with Orders Established, FY 1997

Table 28 Average Number of CSE Cases in Which a Collection was Made on an Obligation By AFDC-TANF/FC, Non-AFDC-TANF, and AFDC-TANF/FC Arrears Only, FY 1997

Location, Paternity, Establishment, and

Enforcement Services Required

Table 29 Average Number of Absent Parents Requiring Location to Establish an Obligation By AFDC-TANF/FC, Non-AFDC-TANF, and AFDC-TANF/FC Arrears Only, FY 1997

Table 30 Average Number of Absent Parents Requiring Location to Enforce or Modify an Obligation By AFDC-TANF/FC, Non-AFDC-TANF, and AFDC-TANF/FC Arrears Only, FY 1997

Table 31 Average Number of Children Requiring Paternity Determination By AFDC-TANF/FC, Non-AFDC-TANF, AFDC-TANF/FC Arrears Only, FY 1997

Table 32 Average Number of Cases Requiring a Support Obligation be Established By AFDC-TANF/FC, Non-AFDC-TANF, and AFDC-TANF Arrears Only, FY 1997

Table 33 Average Number of Cases Requiring a Support Obligation be Enforced or Modified By AFDC-TANF/FC, Non-AFDC-TANF, and AFDC-TANF Arrears Only, FY 1997

Locations 

Table 34 Absent Parents Located by AFDC-TANF/FC, Non-AFDC-TANF, and AFDC-TANF/FC Arrears Only, FY 1997

Table 35 Absent Parents Located to Establish and Enforce or Modify an Order, FY 1997

Table 36 Federal Parent Locator Service Requests Processed with Known Social Security Numbers For Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 37 Federal Parent Locator Service Requests Processed with Unknown Social Security Numbers For Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Paternities

Table 38 Total Number of Paternities Established for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 39 IV-D Paternities Established by AFDC-TANF/FC, Non-AFDC-TANF, and AFDC-TANF/FC Arrears Only, FY 1997

Table 39A In-Hospital Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgements for Four Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 40 IV-D Paternity Standard Data for Five Consecutive Fiscal Year Orders Established and Enforced

Table 41 Number of Support Orders Established by AFDC-TANF/FC, Non-AFDC-TANF, and AFDC-TANF/FC Arrears Only, FY 1997

Table 42 Total Number of Support Orders Established that Include Health Insurance, FY 1997

Table 43 Total Number of Support Orders Enforced or Modified By AFDC-TANF/FC, Non-AFDC-TANF, and AFDC-TANF/FC Arrears Only, FY 1997

Table 44 Total Number of Support Orders Enforced or Modified that Include Health Insurance, FY 1997

AFDC

Table 45 Number of Families Removed from AFDC-TANF with Child Support Collections For Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 46 IV-A Cases in Which Parents Claim Good Cause for Refusing to Cooperate in Establishing Paternity and Securing Child Support and IV-A cases in which Good Cause Claims Were Found Valid, FY 1997

Staffing

Table 47 Total Full Time Equivalent Staff Employed as of September 30, 1997

Table 48 Total Full Time Equivalent Staff Employed as of September 30, 1997

For Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 49 Total Salary and Fringe Benefits for Full Time Staff Employed as of September 30, 1997

Table 50 State Workload per Full-Time Equivalent Staff, FY 1997

Table 51 Costs and Staff Associated with the Central Office of Child Support EnforcementFor Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Voluntary Payments

Table 52 Total Cases with Voluntary Payments, FY 1997

Table 53 Total Amount of Voluntary Payments, FY 1997

Cases Opened and Closed

Table 54 Total Number of Cases Opened During the Year, FY 1997

Table 55 Total Number of Cases Opened for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 56 Total Number of Cases Closed During the Year FY, 1997

Table 57 Total Number of Cases Closed for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Federal Income Tax Refund Offset

Table 58 Federal Income Tax Refund Offset Program, FY 1997

Table 59 Federal Income Tax Refund Offset Program Collections for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years

Table 60 IRS Full Collections, FY 1997

Accounts Receivable - Current Amounts

Table 61 Amount of Current Support Due, FY 1997

Table 62 Amount of Current Support Received, FY 1997

Accounts Receivable - Prior Years' Amounts

Table 63 Amount of Prior Years' Support Due, FY 1997

Table 64 Amount of Prior Years' Support Received, FY 1997

Accounts Receivable - This Year's Amounts

Table 65 Amount of Support Due for Orders Entered This Year, FY 1997

Table 66 Amount of Support Received for Orders Entered This Year, FY 1997

Accounts Receivable - Current Orders

Table 67 Number of Orders for Current Support Where a Collection was Due, FY 1997

Table 68 Number of Orders for Current Support Where a Collection was Received, FY 1997

Accounts Receivable - Prior Years' Orders

Table 69 Number of Orders for Prior Years' Support Where a Collection was Due, FY 1997

Table 70 Number of Orders for Prior Years' Support Where a Collection was Received, FY 1997

Accounts Receivable - Orders Entered During the Year

Table 71 Number of Orders Entered This Year Where a Collection was Due, FY 1997

Table 72 Number of Orders Entered This Year Where a Collection was Received, FY 1997

Interstate Activity

Table 73 Cases Initiated in Reporting States By AFDC-TANF/FC, Non-AFDC-TANF, and AFDC-TANF/FC Arrears Only, FY 1997

Table 74 Cases Initiated in Other States By AFDC-TANF/FC, Non-AFDC-TANF, and AFDC-TANF/FC Arrears Only, FY 1997

Table 75 Cases in Which Collections Were Sent to Other States, FY 1997

Table 76 Cases in Which Collections Were Received from Other States, FY 1997

Table 77 Total Collections Made on Behalf of Other States, FY 1997

Table 78 Total Collections Received from Other States, FY 1997

The Child Support Enforcement Program

In 1975 Congress created the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program by enacting title IV-D of the Social Security Act for the purpose of establishing and enforcing the support obligations owed by noncustodial parents to their children.

The CSE Program is a joint undertaking involving Federal, State, and local cooperative efforts. Because the States and territories run their own CSE programs, there are 54 separate systems, each with is own unique laws and procedures.

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is the Federal agency that oversees administration of the CSE Program. Within DHHS, the Administration for Children and Families’ Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) provides Federal oversight of the Program.

OCSE sets program standards and policy, evaluates States’ performance in conducting their programs, and offers technical assistance and training to States. It conducts audits of State program activities and operates the Federal Parent Locator Service, National Training, Center, and National Resource Center.

The Federal Government shares in the cost of funding the CSE Program by contributing to States’ administrative costs and providing incentive payments to States. OCSE acts in cooperation with the Internal Revenue Service in facilitating collection of overdue support from Federal income tax refunds.

State governments work directly with families through State child support enforcement agencies and/or their local counterparts. These agencies work closely with a variety of government entities in four areas: locating noncustodial parents; establishing paternity; establishing support orders; and collecting and distributing support.

CSE services are available automatically for families receiving assistance under the new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program. Current child support collected usually reimburses the State and Federal governments for TANF payments made to the family. In fiscal year 1997, a number of States opted (at their own expense) to pass through some portion of or all child support collected to the custodial TANF family. Child support services are also available to families not receiving TANF who apply for such services. Child support payments that are collected on behalf of nonTANF families are sent to the family. For these families, States must charge an application fee of up to $25 but may pay this fee from State funds.

State child support offices 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 cases city, county, and/or local governments, participate in funding the program. In 1984,1988,1993, and 1996 Congress enacted significant amendments to the CSE program, providing the States with additional remedies to collect child support.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), signed by President Clinton into law on August 22, 1996, established the most sweeping revisions of the child support program to date. PRWORA provides States with new enforcement tools to ensure that children receive the support due them and that children are financially supported by both parents. The 1996 legislation also recognizes the importance of children’s access to their noncustodial parents by including grants to help States establish programs that support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ visitation with and access to their children. In addition, the law creates the National Directory of New Hires to help States with interstate enforcement efforts.

OCSE was one of a few Federal agencies selected to pilot the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) process, which reforms the way Federal agencies do business. With its State and other Federal partners, in fiscal year 1997 OCSE:

• continued to implement a national strategic plan that includes the CSE Program’s mission, vision, goals and objectives;
• collaborated on the development of fifteen outcome measures, including at least one for each goal and objective;
• recommended a performance-based incentive plan to Congress (proposed to be phased in beginning October 1, 1999) that would reward performance in five areas: establishment of paternities, establishment of support orders, collections on current support, collections on overdue support, and cost-effectiveness; and
• established workgroups of State and Federal representatives to revise data reporting forms so that information necessary to measure success in achieving strategic plan goals, calculate proposed incentives, and reduce reporting burdens was collected.

Fiscal Year 1997 Program Highlights

• Collected a record $13.4 billion, an increase of 70 percent since 1992.
• Collected a record $1 billion in delinquent child support by intercepting income tax refunds of nonpaying parents.
• Established paternity for more than one million children.
• Established 1.3 million new support orders.
• Located the income, assets, or employers of 6.4 million parents.
• Provided services to customers in over 19 million cases.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

Child Support Provisions

Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), each State must operate a child support enforcement program that meets Federal requirements in order to be eligible for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grants. In addition, the law, which overhauled the nation’s welfare system, contains strong work requirements, a performance bonus to reward States for moving welfare recipients into jobs, State maintenance of effort requirements, comprehensive child support enforcement provisions, and support for families moving from welfare to work.

Through new hire reporting and other means, the new law expands information available to the CSE program to help locate noncustodial parents. This is not limited to information about the physical whereabouts of an individual but also includes information concerning the location and nature of assets owned by—or sources of income available to—an individual.

Under PRWORA, each State will maintain Case and Order Registries. These registries will be linked to a centralized Federal Case and Order Registry. All employers will be required to report information about newly hired employees to a State agency specifically designated to receive this information, and these reports will be shared with a Federal New Hire Registry. Additionally, all States will have access to information maintained by certain public and private entities, including financial institutions.

In addition to an expansion of the information resources available to the CSE Program, PRWORA includes a number of other improvements. States will be required to establish a single disbursement unit for the distribution of child support payments—providing employers with one address in each State for sending payments. States must make services available to residents of other States on the same basis as in-State residents and must handle interstate requests with the same priority as in-State cases. OCSE is required to produce new standardized interstate CSE support enforcement forms. States also must treat requests for services in cases referred by qualified foreign countries as a request from another State.

Also included: improvements to assist the States in collecting child support payments from employees of the Federal Government; a simplified process for periodic review and adjustment of child support orders; and an expansion of the use of credit bureau reporting.

An important part of the CSE program enhancements contained in PRWORA is the expansion of the administrative authority of State CSE agencies. All State CSE agencies will have the authority to: issue income withholding orders and subpoenas; order genetic testing in cases where paternity is in issue; intercept judgments, settlements, and lottery winnings; attach public and private retirement funds; and impose liens.

PRWORA also includes provisions to streamline the legal process for paternity establishment, making it easier and faster to establish paternities. Parties can be required to submit to genetic testing in contested paternity cases. The voluntary in-hospital paternity establishment program is expanded under PRWORA, as States are required to have a form incorporating uniform data elements for voluntary paternity acknowledgment. States also may enter into cooperative agreements with Indian tribes with established tribal court systems that can enter child support and paternity orders. Direct payments may be made to tribes with approved State child support plans.

In addition, States must publicize the availability of and encourage the use of voluntary paternity establishment processes. Individuals who fail to cooperate in establishing paternity, without a finding of good cause, will have their monthly case assistance reduced by at least 25 percent.

Other important provisions of the new law enable States to seize assets, revoke drivers and professional licenses, and require community service for past due support; and families that are no longer receiving welfare assistance to have priority in the distribution of monies collected toward child support arrears. Finally, PRWORA mandates that one percent of the Federal share of collections is to be appropriated for child support enforcement technical assistance, projects, research, and demonstrations.

Implementation

Federal Parent Locator Service

FPLS is a computerized national network to provide Social Security Numbers, addresses, and employer and wage information to State and local CSE agencies to establish and enforce child support orders. The FPLS uses the most current information available from the IRS, SSA, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and State Employment Security Agencies.

During fiscal year 1997, the FPLS processed approximately 4.9 million requests for information from State and local CSE agencies.

FPLS is expanded under PRWORA to include the National New Hire Directory and also a Federal Case Registry of child support orders. The expanded system will be implemented in several phases. During the transition period, the current FPLS will operate in parallel with the expanded system and will use the NDNH as a new source of locate information. Upon full implementation, the expanded FPLS will provide States with the most comprehensive and current locate information available to improve child support enforcement and increase financial support to the nation’s children.

National New Hire Reporting

A key provision of PRWORA is the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH), which will be the largest and most current database of newly hired employee information dedicated to locating noncustodial parents and enforcing child support orders. Since more than 30 percent of child support cases involve noncustodial parents who reside and/or work in a different State than their children, the creation of NDNH dramatically enhances a State’s ability to locate delinquent parents across State lines.

Under the system, all employers will report information about newly hired employees to a State Directory of New Hires (SDNH). The data will then be forwarded to the NDNH, where it will be matched against State child support information. Resulting matches will be reported to the appropriate State(s) for processing and enforcement. With 60 million new hire records expected annually, the NDNH will be a powerful new enforcement tool for States.

To ensure that States were prepared to transmit data by the October 1, 1997 deadline, OCSE provided timely, comprehensive technical assistance to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. As part of the assistance, OCSE provided the States with guides to implementation and data submission, as well as an information kit and companion video. The OCSE Webpage was also expanded to include a section on New Hire Reporting.

OCSE also undertook a major employer outreach initiative to complement and support State efforts, developing outreach materials targeted at the national employer community. In addition, OCSE representatives have coordinated and given presentations for employer organizations such as the National Alliance of Business, American Payroll Association, and American Society of Payroll Managers. A customer service telephone system information line staffed by OCSE representatives has also been established to answer employer questions on the program and/or to refer them to their State contact. During the last three months of fiscal year 1997, more than 9,000 calls were received. Most of the calls were from employers, who typically had questions about new hire reporting requirements or multistate employer issues.

Paternity Establishment

OCSE has established a Paternity Establishment Workgroup to provide a national focal point for State, regional, and federal efforts to increase paternity establishment for children born to unmarried parents. This Workgroup pays particular attention to projects that:(1) support States’ efforts to implement effective in-hospital and other early paternity acknowledgment programs; (2) help achieve the paternity establishment goals of the National Strategic Plan; and (3) implement the paternity establishment provisions of PRWORA.

An important requirement of PRWORA is a provision to streamline the legal process for paternity establishment, making it easier and faster to establish paternity. States are required to have a form incorporating uniform data elements for voluntary paternity acknowledgment. The Paternity Establishment Workgroup made recommendations in fiscal year 1997 as to which data elements were necessary or desirable for the form. After the Workgroup completed this task, OCSE published the data elements in an Action Transmittal. In addition, work began on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to provide regulatory guidance on the new paternity provision, as required by the statute.

Members of the Paternity Establishment Workgroup also helped to develop, and participated in, three regional forums. These forums, well-attended by State staff from around the country, were held to raise issues and provide answers to questions related to the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity.

In addition, The Task Group on Public Education and Outreach (a sub group of the Paternity Establishment Workgroup) met for three days in June in Washington, DC and developed the production standards and criteria to be used in the procurement of a national video on paternity establishment for unwed parents. The video will explore the benefits, responsibilities, and legal consequences of signing a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity form.

This national video is expected to help State IV-D agencies, hospitals, vital record offices, and other designated entities comply with the PRWORA requirement that unwed parents be advised orally of their rights and responsibilities prior to signing a voluntary acknowledgment.

Interstate

The child support provisions of PRWORA require all States to adopt the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) by January 1, 1998. By the end of fiscal year 1997, 41 States and the District of Columbia had already implemented UIFSA. Four other States had enacted it into State law but were delaying its implementation.

UIFSA was drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and approved by the American Bar Association in 1993 as a replacement for the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), the model interstate child support enforcement law dating back to the 1950s. URESA required enacting States to reciprocate in the enforcement of duties of support, but, since it was a State law, States enacted various forms of it. This made the interstate enforcement of support difficult in many cases.

In contrast, UIFSA provides for uniform rules, procedures, and forms for interstate cases. To inform the child support community, in November, 1996 OCSE issued the July 18, 1996 version of UIFSA, which modified the 1992 version, with a memo from NCCUSL explaining changes. OCSE reissued this version in March, 1997 along with revised comments.

In fiscal year 1997, OCSE continued to work collaboratively with the States to facilitate the transition from URESA to UIFSA. To this end, in March, 1997 OCSE issued the notes from a pair of retreats at which Federal, State, and local interstate child support professionals developed recommended "best practices" for use by the States’ child support programs in implementing UIFSA.

The efforts of OCSE’s Interstate Forms Workgroup, composed of Federal, State, and local staff, resulted in the issuance of standard Federal forms compatible with UIFSA. In March, 1997 OCSE issued the Interstate Subpoena, the Notice of Interstate Lien, and the Order/Notice, as required by PRWORA. In May, 1997 the agency released the approved Federal standard interstate child support enforcement forms required by Federal regulations, along with instructions for each form.

In addition, Federal child support staff formed an Interstate Workgroup (separate from the Forms Workgroup) to compile and respond to State questions on implementing the new Interstate and UIFSA requirements.

Automated Systems

Fiscal year 1997 efforts to provide assistance to States in developing statewide automated child support enforcement systems focused on two fronts: helping States meet the revised deadline for having a statewide automated system that met the functional requirements of the Family Support Act before October 1, 1997, as required by the statute; and helping them initiate the implementation of PRWORA’s automation requirements.

To address its first priority, OCSE conducted on-site visits to every State and territory in fiscal year 1997. These visits included 39 on-site reviews, providing technical assistance to States in various stages of developing an automated system that met the requirements of the Family Support Act of 1988. Nine full certification reviews, involving several days of on-site technical assistance, were conducted for States with child support automated systems that were being implemented statewide. An additional four reviews were conducted on systems that were being piloted in one or more counties. Twelve States received functional reviews to determine their readiness to pilot the system either on a statewide or county-by-county basis. Another 14 on-site visits were conducted by Central and Regional OCSE systems staff to provide a wide range of technical assistance requested by the States.

OCSE determined that such on-site visits were invaluable and strengthened its commitment to providing useful assistance to States. The visits had a two-fold value: they helped OCSE assess the readiness of States in meeting automation requirements; and States could focus on areas that needed enhancements or changes in order to meet certification requirements.

In fiscal year 1997 OCSE certified seven additional States as meeting the automation requirements of the 1988 Family Support Act. These States were: Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. This brought to 17 the total number of States whose automated systems had been certified by OCSE.

Congress required all States to meet the systems-related requirements of the Family Support Act of 1988 no later than October 1, 1997. State unable to meet this deadline would not be able to maintain an approved CSE state plan. Without an approved plan, a State cannot receive Federal funding for its child support program. Because of the importance of statewide, automated CSE systems to the success of the child support program, on September 17, 1997, Secretary Shalala wrote the Governors of all States whose CSE automated systems had not yet been certified pledging OCSE's technical assistance and urging the Governors to increase the priority of this activity.

By the end, however, of fiscal year 1997 (and before the October, 1997 deadline) another 18 States indicated that they had implemented their statewide child support systems, bringing to 35 the number of States that, by the end of fiscal year 1997, had statewide operational child support automated systems that met the functional requirements of the Family Support Act of 1988. (On-site visits to these States, though not made until

early in fiscal year 1998, verified the claims.)

To meet the needs of its second priority, implementing the requirements of PRWORA, OCSE proactively formed several national workgroups, comprised of State, Federal, and local representatives to study the legislation in detail. The impact on automated systems was carefully monitored and analyzed to determine how automated systems would meet the statutory requirements. By the time the legislation had passed in August, 1996, OCSE was well prepared to assist States in implementing PRWORA.

In fiscal year 1997, OCSE provided States with a high-level analysis of the requirements of PRWORA. This analysis indicated that the new requirements redefined the way States would need to design, enhance, modify, and implement their automated systems. Not only, for example, would a State have to have a system to process data for its own enforcement needs, but there were now demands for State data at a national level for the ever-growing and very complex interstate caseload.

Under PRWORA, States would have to develop often entirely new databases or directories of information, as well as develop interfaces to transmit and receive information from other States and the national level databases. This would require that new batch processes and locate sources be developed and added to the current systems.

Additionally, to assist States with implementation of the automation provisions of PRWORA, OCSE:

• Issued OCSE Action Transmittal 96-10, which provided guidance on the funding for developing statewide automated systems;

• Developed draft regulations implementing provisions of PRWORA and convened a State/Federal workgroup to develop the new legislative functional requirements for automated CSE systems;

• Awarded a contract to assist in revising the OCSE Financial Distribution Test Deck to reflect PRWORA child support distribution scenarios over a fiscal quarter. This financial test deck generator is a software application that permits each State to select from the options provided in PRWORA to distribute child support payments. The test deck provides assistance to the States in the design and development, as well as testing, of PRWORA’s child support distribution requirements and options.

Audit

The rules for auditing State CSE programs changed under PRWORA. Audit requirements emphasize performance outcomes instead of processes. This means that the Federal Government’s oversight responsibilities balance with the States’ responsibilities for child support service delivery and fiscal accountability.

Under PRWORA, State child support agencies will be required to perform an annual review of their operations to assess whether they are meeting Federal requirements for providing child support services, including expedited processes. States will report performance indicators to demonstrate how they will meet proposed performance standards. States that meet or exceed the standards for each of the performance measures will become eligible for incentive payments.

In the change from a process-based system to a performance-based system, a PRWORA requirement stipulates that once every three years OCSE will assess the accuracy, completeness, reliability, and security of a State’s computer-processed data and of the reporting systems used to calculate its performance indicators. As part of the assessment, OCSE auditors will test the general and application controls and data produced by the State’s system to ensure that it is complete and reliable.

OCSE has the legislative requirement to evaluate the adequacy of the financial management of a State’s program. Specifically, OCSE Division of Audit is mandated to perform administrative cost audits and reviews to determine whether collections and disbursements of support payments are being carried out correctly and are fully accounted for.

The primary objective of the administrative cost audits is to determine whether:

• Costs claimed by the State for Federal reimbursement are allowable, allocable, and reasonable to the child support program; and

• The State has sufficient internal controls in operation to effectively ensure that costs claimed are valid and adequately supported.

These audits will help OCSE ensure that States bear their fair share of child support costs.

In fiscal year 1997, the OCSE Division of Audit issued final reports to five States based on revised Program Results/ Performance Measurements audits of their programs covering various audit periods from 1995 through 1996. These audits were conducted using the revised audit regulations, which were effective for audit periods beginning on or after December 23, 1994. The reports were advisory in nature and were not intended to reflect whether these States had an effective child support program in substantial compliance with title IV-D requirements for purposes of initiating sanctions.

OCSE continued to focus its audit process on evaluating the States’ financial and statistical data reporting systems and related areas, which will be used to measure progress in the future. OCSE issued 12 Reporting System Review reports in 1997, as well as four Limited Cost Review reports.

Additionally, OCSE Audit continued performing Undistributed Collections Reviews to evaluate the handling of these collections; determine the accuracy of undistributed collections amounts reported by States; and analyze the States’ efforts to reduce their undistributed collections balance. In fiscal year 1997, three States were issued final reports.

Deficiencies noted in four of the five Program Results and Performance Measurements audits were in the criteria of "Establishment of Paternity and Support," "Review and Adjustment of Support Orders," and "Medical Support." These States did not, in 75 percent of the cases reviewed, perform all requirements for establishing paternity and support. The States did not meet, in 75 percent of the cases reviewed, all requirements to periodically review and adjust, if necessary, current support orders. Finally, the States did not meet all requirements to ensure the inclusion of medical support in the support orders, where applicable, and/or obtain all medical support information required by Federal regulations.

Deficiencies noted in the reporting system reviews issued in fiscal year 1997 covered all three areas of the States’ reporting systems: collections, expenditures, and statistical. Five of the 10 collections systems reviewed were found to be reliable, along with 10 of the 11 expenditures systems and 5 of the 11 States’ statistical systems. Improvements were suggested for the reporting systems in all States reviewed. Problems included reporting interest income and other program income. We also found that some system definitions, as well as data reported, for the individual line items on each of the Federal reports were not consistent with Federal reporting requirements.

Deficiencies noted in the four Limited Cost Reviews completed in fiscal year 1997 included contractor costs incorrectly charged to the program. Also, one State did not report cost recoveries related to laboratory paternity determinations. Two States claimed bad debt losses related to nonsufficient fund checks and adjustments to IRS offsets. These unallowable claims resulted in recommended refunds to the Federal Government of $61,636 and $35,176. The same review also showed unreported interest income of $227,354.

Deficiencies in the three Undistributed Collections Reports issued in fiscal year 1997 included instances where not all collections received were included in States’ reports and returned payments were not researched timely for correct addresses of recipients.

Self Assessment

In fiscal year 1997, the Division of Audit expanded its technical assistance activity in the area of Self-Assessment (State-level self-review/monitoring) by forming a workgroup composed of 14 Federal and 10 State representatives. The objectives of the workgroup were to: (1) define the criteria that States would be required to address in their annual reports to the Commissioner of OCSE; (2) establish a process or methodology to be used to review the criteria; and (3) develop a suggested format to be used to report the results of these reviews. To accomplish their objectives, the workgroup held two meetings and conferred on a biweekly basis through group conference calls and drafted three documents to meet the established objectives. All three documents were sent to each State IV-D director for review and comment.

Other Activities and Accomplishments

The Big 8 Initiative

This effort is targeted at those eight States that have the largest caseloads: California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Together, their caseloads and distributed collections make up nearly 50 percent of the national total.

The Big 8 partnership is designed as one of the key activities to achieve national goals and meet expectations that child support is an integral part of achieving real welfare reform. A central part of the effort is coordinating with senior officials and technical experts in headquarters, regional offices, and the field to take advantage of the rich body of experience available in all States. The partnership seeks to build models and new processes aimed toward high volume and high impact which can be replicated in all States to benefit children and families. Priority issues before the group are systems development, cases without orders, and creative planning to dramatically increase paternity establishment and collections.

Law Enforcement

OCSE’s law enforcement initiative is an effort to build partnerships among Federal, State, and local law enforcement and the child support enforcement community. Commissioned as a new program in April of 1997, the goal for fiscal year 1997 has been

to acquaint law enforcement executives with the PRWORA legislation and provide them with background on the history and philosophy of child support enforcement.

To achieve this, over 200 chiefs of police, elected sheriffs, and other criminal justice and child support officials were brought together for two days of interactive conversation and problem solving. As a result, partnerships have begun to be developed among OCSE, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the HHS Inspector General’s Office of Criminal Investigations. The law enforcement initiative also serves as liaison with the Department of Justice regarding the referral and prosecution of cases under the Child Support Recovery Act.

Technical Assistance and Training

Within OCSE, the Division of State and Local Assistance (DSLA) consists of the National Training Center, the Technical Assistance Branch, and the Special Initiatives Branch. DSLA works in partnership with the Training and Technical Assistance Workgroups, the regional offices, other OCSE components, national organizations such as the National Child Support Enforcement Association and Eastern Regional Interstate Enforcement Association, State CSE agencies, and private partners to provide leadership on special initiatives and to develop technical assistance and training strategies to address State needs.

In fiscal year 1997 the national Technical Assistance Workgroup and the regional offices worked together to develop a streamlined needs assessment instrument. Using the instrument, State technical assistance and training needs were identified and grouped into five broad areas: distribution and centralized collections; enforcement; interstate; paternity establishment; and systems and management. DSLA coordinated with other OCSE components and the regional offices to ensure that these areas were addressed. For example, numerous forums, conferences, and retreats were conducted, such as: a retreat on administrative enforcement and interstate liens; another on UIFSA and one-State interstate; several paternity establishment forums; a review and adjustment forum; a cooperation/good cause and domestic violence forum; and a series of workshops for partners on such topics as law enforcement, the courts, Head Start, Child Welfare, and TANF.

Other technical assistance, special initiatives, and training activities to assist states included:

• Development of a national electronic child support resource system (NECSRS). NECSRS will provide users with timely and easy access to the wealth of child support resources provided by Federal, State, local agencies, and tribal organizations. It will facilitate access to these resources via the OCSE Webpage with Internet links to other Federal, State, local, and tribal Websites;

• Development of distance learning and computer-based training which can be tailored for individual State needs. Through an Interagency Agreement with the Graduate School, U.S. Department of Agriculture, OCSE is developing six computer-based training (CBT) courses for use by the child support community. These are to be distributed in 1998. The topics include Orientation to Child Support, Locate, Paternity Establishment, Enforcement, Interstate Case Processing, and Distribution;

• Development of new special initiatives to promote the involvement of the judiciary and the financial industry in child support issues; and of medical support and interstate enforcement to improve services in these areas to children and families.

• Development of resource materials to further assist States. These included: CSE PRWORA resource lists; a compendium of State best practices; a paper on good cause cooperation and domestic violence; a summary of the one-state interstate retreat; interstate forms; direct withholding forms; a matrix on state license restrictions, suspensions, and revocations; an interstate course curriculum; and legislative implementation guides; and

• Development of trainer skills through training of trainer (TOT) course deliveries and OCSE’s Seventh National Training Conference, which was attended by 450 State and local CSE trainers and practitioners. The theme of this conference was strengthening agencies to strengthen families through partnerships, collaboration, and technology.

Tribal Outreach

Four State/tribal cooperative agreements were funded under section 1115 of the Social Security Act. The purpose: to demonstrate new approaches between States and tribal entities aimed at improving the delivery of child support services on tribal lands. The approved applicants were North Dakota, Oklahoma, Washington, State, and Wisconsin.

North Dakota’s agreement focused on the development of tribal child support codes by the Northern Plains Tribal Judicial Training Institute with possible enactment by Turtle Mountain Chippewa, Spirit Lake, Standing Rock Sioux, and the Three Affiliated Tribes. Oklahoma and the Chickasaw tribe will establish an agreement to provide child support services on tribal lands. Washington State and the Northwest Tribal Judges Association will jointly develop a child support reference book for tribal judges. Wisconsin will develop a cooperative agreement with the Menominee Tribe for operation of a child support program on reservation lands.

Advocates

As part of its outreach on PRWORA regulations development, OCSE conducted a two-hour consultation with advocates on the access and visitation provisions of the new law. The meeting, a nationwide video/audio conference held simultaneously in the central office and the regions,and via phone lines, drew more than 100 participants. Those who took part represented a broad array of child support advocacy organizations, as well as organizations focusing on domestic violence and judicial/legal matters related to child support.

Access and Visitation

Ten million dollars in access and visitation grants in response to applications were provided to all States and territories for fiscal year 1997. States are using the funds for

mediation, parental education, counseling, supervised and monitored visitation, development of parenting plans, neutral drop-off and pick-up sites, guidelines for visitation, and alternative custody arrangements.

Collaboration/Partnerships

OCSE and other ACF programs began to combine their efforts to bring awareness of child support services to eligible single-parent families participating in other ACF programs, such as Child Care and Head Start. Examples include CSE and Child Care staff making presentations at each others’ conferences and workshops, and a joint letter from the Commissioners of Child Support and Head Start to promote CSE services for Head Start single-parent families.

Faith-based Outreach

In fiscal year 1997 OCSE began an effort to expand its outreach to include faith-based organizations. Section 104 of PRWORA allows Federal, State, and local governments to partner with "charitable, religious, or private organizations" in providing services to persons in need. This presents a window of opportunity for OCSE to expand its outreach efforts to include faith-based organizations, which routinely deal with families in crisis. Working with charitable and faith-based organizations is expected to connect the child support community with a greater number of mothers and fathers and, it is hoped, motivate more parents to accept their financial and emotional responsibilities to their children.

Customer Service

• OCSE Webpage

OCSE continued in fiscal year 1997 to provide information over the Internet in a timely fashion. The addition of complete site maps, improved navigation tools, and general helps to users increased the usefulness of OCSE’s Webpage. These improvements made the Webpage a more effective and user-friendly means to finding OCSE resource material and researching child support related topics.

The Webpage includes a "feedback" page that enables individuals to provide comments or inquire about their cases. Through this function, OCSE received and responded to hundreds of public inquiries over the Internet. Information placed on the Internet during the year via OCSE’s Webpage included basic program information, newsletters and announcements, reports, policy documents, IV-D related information from outside the agency, and links to State child support Websites. Through its CD-ROM project, OCSE is able to provide program information to States that do not have Internet capability.

• Public Inquiries

In fiscal year 1997 OCSE’s public inquiries unit responded to nearly 4,500 written inquiries and more than 8,200 telephone calls. The public inquiries site on the Internet triggered an additional 1,200 messages with questions about child support laws and practices. As children are the beneficiaries of the child support program, on their behalf OCSE provides general and specific information and referrals, as appropriate, to custodial and noncustodial parents, advocates, Congressional staff, and members of special interest groups.

• National Resource Center

OCSE’s National Resource Center receives and responds to requests for child support publications and materials from a variety of sources. Requests by telephone and mail, for example, come from academic institutions, advocacy groups, child support enforcement offices, Congressional staff, consultants, courts, employers, Federal agencies, judges, lawyers, private citizens, and State and local government. During fiscal year 1997, more than 4,000 requests for publications were received by the Center. In response, nearly 55,000 publications were mailed, including more than 32,000 copies of the popular "Handbook on Child Support Enforcement," a how-to guide to help parents get the child support payments their children need and deserve.

• Hispanic Initiatives

During fiscal year 1997, OCSE’s Hispanic action items included: informing OCSE policymakers about Hispanics; designing OCSE information about child support enforcement for Hispanic families; and partnering with national and community-based Latino organizations. OCSE has established in-house Hispanic expertise for outreach and communications, as well as the use of culturally effective media and methods.

OCSE materials are not just translated but adapted culturally for Latinos. OCSE publishes its FACT Sheet and other information in Spanish and makes program information available in Spanish on its Webpage. In addition, the OCSE Handbook was adapted into Spanish for Latino families as "Mi Familia, Nuestra Vida." Distributed to OCSE’s national network, Migrant Head Start grantees, and to all States, it is available by request from the OCSE National Resource Center. "Mi Familia, Nuestra Vida" also is available for reading and downloading on the OCSE Webpage.

• Customer Satisfaction Surveys

OCSE continued to be heavily invested in customer service activities during fiscal year 1997. A joint Federal/State/local child support customer service workgroup oversaw the completion of a project that determined it would be feasible to develop a national customer service satisfaction survey. In addition, a customer satisfaction survey instrument developed by the workgroup for States to use on a voluntary basis in determining the satisfaction of customers with their child support program services was tested in a series of noncustodial focus groups. The focus group participants gave accounts of their experiences with the child support program and made recommendations to make the instrument more relevant and useful for noncustodial parents.

• Child Support Report

OCSE’s national monthly newsletter provides useful and timely information about the program to those who work in the field and to other interested individuals and organizations. By keeping abreast of national CSE issues and learning about what other States are doing, caseworkers, managers, and agency directors in the States can improve their own practices. PRWORA was a focus of coverage in fiscal year 1997. Articles included: "Reform: for the Sake of the Children;" "A Brief Look at the Welfare Reform Bill;" "Welfare Reform: A State Perspective" (in two parts); "Meeting the New Hire Deadline;" and "Incentive Funding Recommendations."

• Children Today

OCSE’s Division of Consumer Services produced a special child support enforcement issue of ACF’s publication, Children Today.

Research

During fiscal year 1997, OCSE awarded 24 research and demonstration grants to 18 States. The total amount awarded for all the grants was $1.4 million. As indicated below, these projects, which are envisioned as 3-year demonstrations, encompass a wide array of child support activities.

• Access and Visitation (California): Providing noncustodial parents with employment and access and visitation assistance through a comprehensive mix of services and motivation to become responsible parents;

• Agencies Demonstration (Alaska): A statewide project to use modern technology to periodically collect income information from various sources to be used for reviewing and adjusting child support orders;

• Assurance Program (Minnesota): Design and test a child support assurance program model that is adapted to the post-PWORA world;

• Child Welfare Programs (South Carolina): Demonstrate the use of location services available to support enforcement agencies to facilitate family preservation through the placement of children currently in foster care with a biological parent;

• Children First (Puerto Rico): Waive the application and fee for nonTANF cases so that cases can receive expedited follow-up services as needed;

Domestic Violence

• (Massachusetts): Test different approaches to handling TANF/IV-D cases with a history of domestic violence;

• (Missouri): Increase knowledge about domestic violence, increase the safety of victims of domestic violence and increase collections on behalf of these families;

• (New York): Assess the magnitude of cooperation compliance issues, develop and implement a model cooperation compliance process, and test variations to the cooperation compliance model in selected jurisdictions;

Fatherhood

• (Maryland): Assist noncustodial parents who need social, employment, or access and visitation services with a comprehensive mix of services and motivation to assist them to be responsible parents;

• (Washington State): Increase the incomes, child support compliance, and fatherhood involvement of low or no income custodial parents;

Head Start and Child Care

• (Alaska): to develop and implement models of collaboration between Child Support Enforcement, Child Care, and Head Start programs at State and local levels;

• (Connecticut): Develop and implement models of collaboration between Child Support Enforcement, Child Care, and Head Start programs at State and local levels;

• (Illinois): Develop and implement models of collaboration between Child Support Enforcement, Child Care, and Head Start programs at State and local levels;

• (Maryland): Develop and implement models of collaboration between Child Support Enforcement, Child Care, and Head Start programs at State and local levels;

• (Minnesota): Develop and implement models of collaboration between Child Support Enforcement, Child Care, and Head Start programs at State and local levels;

• (Missouri): Develop and implement models of collaboration between Child Support Enforcement, Child Care, and Head Start programs at State and local levels;

• Interviewing and Client Referral Services (Minnesota): Demonstrate and evaluate a coordinated IV-A/IV-D process to increase the cooperation of custodial parents who receive public assistance in establishing paternity and obtaining child support payments;

Parenting

• (Missouri): Assist noncustodial parents who need social, employment, or access and visitation services with a comprehensive mix of services and motivation to assist them to be responsible parents;

• (Wisconsin): Assist noncustodial parents who need social, employment, or access and visitation services with a comprehensive mix of services and motivation to assist them to be responsible parents;

• (New Hampshire): Assist noncustodial parents who need social, employment, or access and visitation services with a comprehensive mix of services and motivation to assist them to be responsible parents;

• (Colorado): Assist noncustodial parents who need social, employment, or access and visitation services with a comprehensive mix of services and motivation to assist them to be responsible parents;

Review and Adjust

• (Maine): Demonstrate the effectiveness of an on-going automated interface with the courts in increasing the number of modifications of child support orders through automated review and adjustment;

• (Oklahoma): Inform parents about new laws regarding requesting review and adjustment through an intense public information campaign; and

• (Vermont): Test streamlined methods for reviewing and adjusting child support orders by concentrating on an automated approach.

APPENDIX A:

1997 Program Results

*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. Cases where families were referred to the Child Support agency because they are receiving AFDC/TANF and title IV-E Foster Care are classified as AFDC/TANF/FC cases; cases where the custodial parents applied for child support enforcement services or are receiving Medicaid but not AFDC/TANF services are called non-AFDC/TANF cases. Nationally, the Child Support Enforcement program had 19.0 million cases in FY 1997, a decrease of more than one percent over fiscal year 1996 and an increase of 11 percent since FY 1993. This decrease in total caseload is attributed to the declining number of AFDC/TANF/AFDC Arrears cases resulting from the initiatives of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. During the five-year period from 1993 to 1997, the non-AFDC/TANF portion of the caseload increased by 32 percent, while the AFDC/TANF and AFDC/TANF Arrears caseload has decreased by 5 percent.

Some States voluntarily report in-hospital information to OCSE. In-hospital numbers include an unknown number of acknowledgments for children in the IV-D caseload and children outside the IV-D caseload.

*The number of children for whom paternity has been established has grown steadily over the past five years. The combined total of in-hospital paternities acknowledged and IV-D paternities established was 1,290,055 for fiscal year 1997. In fiscal year 1993, 554,289 IV-D paternities were established by the State Child Support Enforcement agencies. By 1997, this had increased by 45 percent to 803,504 paternities established. The total number of in-hospital paternities acknowledgments for fiscal year 1997 was 486,551. In-hospital paternities are reported on a voluntary basis. In FY 1997, 40 States reported in-hospital information.

*The legal establishment of an order to pay child support is a prerequisite to collecting child support. In FY 1997, the Child Support Enforcement program established 1,250,490 support orders. The number of child support orders established have increased by more than 22 percent over the last five years.

States report the number of cases remaining open on the last day of each quarter that have support orders established. Of the 19.1 million cases in the child support caseload in FY 1997, 58 percent had support orders (53.8% of AFDC/TANF cases and 61.0% of Non-AFDC/TANF cases had orders).

States report the number of cases in which a collection was made during the second month of each quarter. In FY 1997 there were 4.2 million cases with a collection in the Child Support Enforcement program. This is an increase of 7 percent over FY 1996. Paying cases accounted for 22 percent of the Child Support Enforcement caseload; this figure has risen since FY 1993 when the figure was 18.3 percent.

*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/TANF, Title IV-E foster care and Medicaid programs and non-AFDC/TANF families who have applied for child support services. In FY 1997, collections reached a record high of $13.3 billion, an 11 percent increase over FY 1996 and an increase of over 49 percent since FY 1993. For FY 1997, Non-AFDC/TANF collections accounted for almost 79 percent of the total amount collected.

*AFDC/TANF collections, including title IV-E Foster Care collections, amounted to $2.8 billion in FY 1997. This is a decrease of .4 percent over the previous year and 18 percent since FY 1993. This decrease can be attributed to the decrease in the AFDC/TANF caseload in FY 1997.

*The Federal and State governments retain portions of AFDC/TANF child support collections as reimbursement for (title IV-A) AFDC/TANF payments to families. In FY 1997, States kept almost $1.2 billion as their share of AFDC/TANF payment reimbursements and received an additional $412 million in collection incentives from the Federal share of AFDC/TANF collections. The Federal share of the $2.8 billion collected in AFDC/TANF cases amounted to slightly more than $1.0 million. In FY 1997, AFDC/TANF families received over $157 million in support collections through the Child Support Enforcement program.

*Non-AFDC/TANF distributed collections are child support payments made on behalf of and distributed to families who have applied for Child Support Enforcement services. In FY 1997 non-AFDC/TANF collections rose to $10.5 billion, an increase of almost 15 percent since the previous year and a 62 percent increase since FY 1993.

*Collections made on behalf of families in other States totaled a record $983 million in FY 1997, an increase of 10 percent. In five years, interstate collections rose by 36 percent: these increases may reflect better communications and cooperation among the States. A State's distributed collections amount does not include collections made on behalf of other States. Hence, total distributed collections do 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.

*There are various ways in which child support payments are made. Wage withholding, withholding of unemployment compensation, and State income tax refund offsets are all powerful enforcement techniques. However, wage withholding is by far the most effective, totaling 56 percent of all collections in FY 1997. Federal and State income tax refund offsets contributed 8 percent and 1 percent, respectively; and the withholding of unemployment compensation accounted for about 2 percent of total collections. The remaining 34 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 data present the total dollar amount of child support payments due and received by IV-D agencies. Information reported for FY 1997 indicates that $17.6 billion in current support and $44.6 billion in prior years support was due. Almost $9.5 billion or 54 percent of the current support due was collected. Of prior year’s support due, only $3.2 billion or 7 percent was collected. Comparisons of States' accounts receivable data are complicated because States count arrearages differently based on State laws and practices. For example, some States have statutes of limitations governing collection of debt, some assess interest on arrearages which becomes part of the amount due, and some have policies for writing off bad debts.

*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 $3.4 billion in FY 1997, an increase of about 13 percent over FY 1996. Of this $3.4 billion, $2.3 billion was the Federal share and $1.1 billion was the States' share. The increases in program costs over the last five years are heavily impacted by the costs of developing and implementing automated systems, as required by the Family Support Act of 1988.

*ADP expenditures are for the planning, development, and implementation of automated child support systems and for the acquisition of operational hardware utilized in these systems. ADP expenditures at the enhanced rate was $245.1 million in FY 1997 compared to $163 million in FY 1996.

*Nationally, almost $4.00 in child support payments are collected for every $1.00 spent to administer the Child Support Enforcement program. During the five-year period FY 1993 to FY 1997, the ratio of total child support collections to total administrative costs has fluctuated between $3.98 to $3.59 and remains in the vicinity of $4.00. This variation in cost effectiveness is largely due to the increases in expenditures for automated systems, which should have a long-term beneficial impact on future program performance.

FY 97 Box Scores by State

Alabama %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $170,581,427 8.0 * TANF/FC $23,360,517 -0.4 * Non-TANF $147,220,910 9.5 Total Expenditures $41,252,000 -10.9 Cost Effectiveness $4.14 21.3 * TANF/FC $0.57 11.8 * Non-TANF $3.57 23.0 Paternities Established 12,096 -19.2 * IV-D 6,558 -7.7 * Acknowledgements 5,538 -29.7 Orders Established 17,683 48.2 Locations 35,792 -19.1 Full Time Equiv. Staff 740 -0.7 Total Caseload 369,043 -4.8 * TANF/FC Arrears 116,008 -4.5	Alaska %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $64,919,032 12.5 * TANF/FC $20,636,510 11.8 * Non-TANF $44,282,522 12.8 Total Expenditures $18,669,000 7.1 Cost Effectiveness $3.48 5.1 * TANF/FC $1.11 4.4 * Non-TANF $2.37 5.4 Paternities Established 3,228 247.5 * IV-D 1,025 10.3 * Acknowledgements 2,203 NA Orders Established 3,279 0.5 Locations 19,512 -14.8 Full Time Equiv. Staff 238 13.3 Total Caseload 57,847 3.6 * TANF/FC Arrears 32,911 2.7
Arizona %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $132,048,847 16.4 * TANF/FC $26,030,525 9.6 * Non-TANF $106,018,322 18.2 Total Expenditures $49,086,000 4.6 Cost Effectiveness $2.69 11.2 * TANF/FC $0.53 4.7 * Non-TANF $2.16 12.9 Paternities Established 23,350 33.5 * IV-D 10,454 5.0 * Acknowledgements 12,896 71.0 Orders Established 7,517 3.4 Locations 64,719 1.2 Full Time Equiv. Staff 1,102 1.6 Total Caseload 271,587 -0.2 * TANF/FC Arrears 132,732 -0.1	Arkansas %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $91,457,022 15.1 * TANF/FC $19,876,008 0.7 * Non-TANF $71,581,014 19.9 Total Expenditures $46,273,000 61.4 Cost Effectiveness $1.98 -28.7 * TANF/FC $0.43 -37.6 * Non-TANF $1.55 -25.7 Paternities Established 12,436 -11.9 * IV-D 7,122 -14.0 * Acknowledgements 5,314 -8.8 Orders Established 7,437 -13.7 Locations 81,534 -17.8 Full Time Equiv. Staff 633 3.3 Total Caseload 137,754 0.1 * TANF/FC Arrears 64,057 -2.7
California %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $1,174,214,624 13.5 * TANF/FC $544,639,364 9.8 * Non-TANF $629,575,260 17.0 Total Expenditures $513,659,000 17.3 Cost Effectiveness $2.29 -3.2 * TANF/FC $1.06 -6.4 * Non-TANF $1.23 -0.3 Paternities Established 286,133 40.3 * IV-D 200,272 9.2 * Acknowledgements 85,861 319.0 Orders Established 222,662 13.3 Locations 867,471 -1.2 Full Time Equiv. Staff 6,436 0.0 Total Caseload 2,277,401 -7.8 * TANF/FC Arrears 1,524,780 -9.0	Colorado %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $123,564,692 14.1 * TANF/FC $36,950,268 3.9 * Non-TANF $86,614,424 19.2 Total Expenditures $40,282,000 5.0 Cost Effectiveness $3.07 8.7 * TANF/FC $0.92 -1.1 * Non-TANF $2.15 13.5 Paternities Established 12,733 11.6 * IV-D 5,294 -10.4 * Acknowledgements 7,439 35.2 Orders Established 9,608 7.9 Locations 64,798 10.1 Full Time Equiv. Staff 653 3.5 Total Caseload 211,214 5.9 * TANF/FC Arrears 108,627 0.4
Connecticut %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $141,543,436 13.0 * TANF/FC $60,342,040 11.1 * Non-TANF $81,201,396 14.5 Total Expenditures $45,879,000 6.6 Cost Effectiveness $3.09 6.0 * TANF/FC $1.32 4.2 * Non-TANF $1.77 7.4 Paternities Established 10,589 6.2 * IV-D 8,333 0.2 * Acknowledgements 2,256 36.2 Orders Established 24,612 -3.4 Locations 59,858 57.4 Full Time Equiv. Staff 506 -1.4 Total Caseload 235,005 -0.2 * TANF/FC Arrears 142,696 1.2	D.C. %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $29,906,318 7.6 * TANF/FC $5,631,212 -6.6 * Non-TANF $24,275,106 11.6 Total Expenditures $9,938,000 -15.0 Cost Effectiveness $3.01 26.6 * TANF/FC $0.57 9.9 * Non-TANF $2.44 31.3 Paternities Established 5,406 21.5 * IV-D 1,366 -7.8 * Acknowledgements 4,040 36.2 Orders Established 1,210 6.8 Locations 6,379 -58.4 Full Time Equiv. Staff 215 -2.3 Total Caseload 104,606 4.2 * TANF/FC Arrears 39,969 -9.1
Delaware %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $38,616,387 9.1 * TANF/FC $7,962,068 -4.2 * Non-TANF $30,654,319 13.2 Total Expenditures $17,333,000 22.3 Cost Effectiveness $2.23 -10.8 * TANF/FC $0.46 -21.7 * Non-TANF $1.77 -7.5 Paternities Established 6,128 23.2 * IV-D 3,085 -12.4 * Acknowledgements 3,043 109.3 Orders Established 2,339 -22.6 Locations 36,179 12.5 Full Time Equiv. Staff 200 17.0 Total Caseload 58,798 4.7 * TANF/FC Arrears 25,890 -0.6	Florida %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $472,988,063 15.0 * TANF/FC $88,481,832 10.4 * Non-TANF $384,506,231 16.2 Total Expenditures $140,487,078 6.9 Cost Effectiveness $3.37 7.6 * TANF/FC $0.63 3.2 * Non-TANF $2.74 8.6 Paternities Established 20,535 NA * IV-D 20,535 11.9 * Acknowledgements - NA Orders Established 20,877 47.0 Locations 41,425 3.7 Full Time Equiv. Staff 2,796 11.2 Total Caseload 940,502 -7.5 * TANF/FC Arrears 360,857 -17.6
Georgia %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $278,059,999 3.5 * TANF/FC $77,172,899 -24.6 * Non-TANF $200,887,100 20.9 Total Expenditures $71,589,000 4.5 Cost Effectiveness $3.88 -0.9 * TANF/FC $1.08 -27.9 * Non-TANF $2.81 15.7 Paternities Established 13,934 9.2 * IV-D 6,923 120.1 * Acknowledgements 7,011 -27.1 Orders Established 31,852 19.0 Locations 58,812 69.6 Full Time Equiv. Staff 1,167 1.4 Total Caseload 512,691 -1.3 * TANF/FC Arrears 219,426 -8.8	Guam %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $6,681,544 -0.8 * TANF/FC $1,320,394 -34.1 * Non-TANF $5,361,150 13.3 Total Expenditures $3,535,000 34.7 Cost Effectiveness $1.89 -26.4 * TANF/FC $0.37 -51.1 * Non-TANF $1.52 -15.9 Paternities Established 461 -42.5 * IV-D 461 -42.5 * Acknowledgements - NA Orders Established 349 -45.8 Locations 2,453 -20.1 Full Time Equiv. Staff 55 -5.2 Total Caseload 9,279 3.1 * TANF/FC Arrears 6,199 0.9
Hawaii %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $55,015,639 5.4 * TANF/FC $11,510,438 -6.0 * Non-TANF $43,505,201 8.9 Total Expenditures $23,438,000 -2.0 Cost Effectiveness $2.35 7.5 * TANF/FC $0.49 -4.1 * Non-TANF $1.86 11.1 Paternities Established 1,761 -1.3 * IV-D 1,761 -1.3 * Acknowledgements - NA Orders Established 4,486 6.5 Locations 184,830 8.8 Full Time Equiv. Staff 201 -2.4 Total Caseload 64,387 9.9 * TANF/FC Arrears 21,249 -1.2	Idaho %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $48,025,328 9.1 * TANF/FC $10,224,918 -8.0 * Non-TANF $37,800,410 14.9 Total Expenditures $17,612,000 -7.0 Cost Effectiveness $2.73 17.3 * TANF/FC $0.58 -1.1 * Non-TANF $2.15 23.5 Paternities Established 3,395 -26.4 * IV-D 1,942 -23.3 * Acknowledgements 1,453 -30.2 Orders Established 2,458 -27.5 Locations 17,112 12.8 Full Time Equiv. Staff 160 -30.4 Total Caseload 83,651 13.4 * TANF/FC Arrears 34,509 -11.4
Illinois %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $267,359,518 7.0 * TANF/FC $77,682,722 7.3 * Non-TANF $189,676,796 6.9 Total Expenditures $130,721,000 25.9 Cost Effectiveness $2.05 -15.0 * TANF/FC $0.59 -14.8 * Non-TANF $1.45 -15.1 Paternities Established 76,736 146.7 * IV-D 47,516 79.4 * Acknowledgements 29,220 531.6 Orders Established 29,660 30.1 Locations 68,849 25.3 Full Time Equiv. Staff 1,665 3.5 Total Caseload 739,941 1.3 * TANF/FC Arrears 405,343 -8.9	Indiana %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $208,444,050 5.8 * TANF/FC $39,853,408 -11.4 * Non-TANF $168,590,642 11.0 Total Expenditures $33,738,000 12.1 Cost Effectiveness $6.18 -5.6 * TANF/FC $1.18 -21.0 * Non-TANF $5.00 -1.0 Paternities Established 19,857 342.8 * IV-D 19,857 342.8 * Acknowledgements - NA Orders Established 45,124 76.9 Locations - -100.0 Full Time Equiv. Staff 634 -13.9 Total Caseload 411,069 -32.6 * TANF/FC Arrears 60,844 -75.8
Iowa %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $166,155,139 9.4 * TANF/FC $40,772,612 1.7 * Non-TANF $125,382,527 12.1 Total Expenditures $34,114,000 17.4 Cost Effectiveness $4.87 -6.9 * TANF/FC $1.20 -13.4 * Non-TANF $3.68 -4.5 Paternities Established 6,524 -15.3 * IV-D 1,881 -44.9 * Acknowledgements 4,643 8.3 Orders Established 12,563 9.4 Locations 143,126 19.4 Full Time Equiv. Staff 530 3.9 Total Caseload 201,438 3.1 * TANF/FC Arrears 98,135 0.9	Kansas %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $114,979,206 6.9 * TANF/FC $27,071,883 -5.9 * Non-TANF $87,907,323 11.6 Total Expenditures $37,584,000 103.3 Cost Effectiveness $3.06 -47.4 * TANF/FC $0.72 -53.7 * Non-TANF $2.34 -45.1 Paternities Established 15,197 28.8 * IV-D 9,218 -21.9 * Acknowledgements 5,979 NA Orders Established 13,897 -10.8 Locations 135,080 4.1 Full Time Equiv. Staff 450 -24.1 Total Caseload 142,574 3.1 * TANF/FC Arrears 54,447 -8.8
Kentucky %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $164,357,171 13.4 * TANF/FC $39,449,293 0.0 * Non-TANF $124,907,878 18.4 Total Expenditures $43,283,000 2.5 Cost Effectiveness $3.80 10.6 * TANF/FC $0.91 -2.5 * Non-TANF $2.89 15.5 Paternities Established 12,991 12.0 * IV-D 9,747 -2.5 * Acknowledgements 3,244 102.8 Orders Established 29,796 1.6 Locations 24,893 3.6 Full Time Equiv. Staff 844 -0.4 Total Caseload 297,294 -7.7 * TANF/FC Arrears 117,882 -11.3	Louisiana %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $154,821,458 7.8 * TANF/FC $27,122,762 -13.1 * Non-TANF $127,698,696 13.6 Total Expenditures $35,770,000 3.7 Cost Effectiveness $4.33 3.9 * TANF/FC $0.76 -16.2 * Non-TANF $3.57 9.5 Paternities Established 29,581 163.3 * IV-D 12,560 11.8 * Acknowledgements 17,021 NA Orders Established 16,483 14.8 Locations 25,473 1.8 Full Time Equiv. Staff 874 6.7 Total Caseload 333,341 -1.9 * TANF/FC Arrears 113,865 -21.3
Maine %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $68,615,439 9.6 * TANF/FC $31,809,926 7.7 * Non-TANF $36,805,513 11.4 Total Expenditures $16,220,000 5.1 Cost Effectiveness $4.23 4.3 * TANF/FC $1.96 2.5 * Non-TANF $2.27 6.0 Paternities Established 2,274 6.8 * IV-D 2,274 6.8 * Acknowledgements - NA Orders Established 5,366 -3.9 Locations 96,556 22.0 Full Time Equiv. Staff 241 -4.0 Total Caseload 78,574 1.7 * TANF/FC Arrears 45,007 -0.8	Maryland %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $322,363,403 12.0 * TANF/FC $38,008,067 -18.6 * Non-TANF $284,355,336 17.9 Total Expenditures $73,146,000 10.8 Cost Effectiveness $4.41 1.0 * TANF/FC $0.52 -26.6 * Non-TANF $3.89 6.4 Paternities Established 22,709 21.2 * IV-D 12,716 16.3 * Acknowledgements 9,993 28.1 Orders Established 17,831 4.1 Locations 55,887 5.7 Full Time Equiv. Staff 1,013 -12.6 Total Caseload 406,326 7.0 * TANF/FC Arrears 192,566 2.7
Massachusetts %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $258,584,016 4.3 * TANF/FC $67,381,987 -5.7 * Non-TANF $191,202,029 8.3 Total Expenditures $63,909,000 4.3 Cost Effectiveness $4.05 0.0 * TANF/FC $1.05 -9.5 * Non-TANF $2.99 3.9 Paternities Established 31,086 54.6 * IV-D 10,145 -0.5 * Acknowledgements 20,941 111.3 Orders Established 13,432 -2.8 Locations 79,853 4.5 Full Time Equiv. Staff 848 0.1 Total Caseload 241,896 16.1 * TANF/FC Arrears 144,066 7.9	Michigan %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $1,092,176,097 15.1 * TANF/FC $161,658,369 -5.8 * Non-TANF $930,517,728 19.7 Total Expenditures $161,468,000 12.8 Cost Effectiveness $6.76 2.0 * TANF/FC $1.00 -16.5 * Non-TANF $5.76 6.1 Paternities Established 38,407 -36.9 * IV-D 17,656 -29.1 * Acknowledgements 20,751 -42.2 Orders Established 31,987 -8.8 Locations 210,498 -6.0 Full Time Equiv. Staff 2,242 -5.3 Total Caseload 1,619,950 3.8 * TANF/FC Arrears 1,193,179 0.9
Minnesota %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $355,371,919 11.5 * TANF/FC $64,572,484 -0.5 * Non-TANF $290,799,435 14.5 Total Expenditures $85,899,000 17.4 Cost Effectiveness $4.14 -5.0 * TANF/FC $0.75 -15.2 * Non-TANF $3.39 -2.4 Paternities Established 18,289 1.9 * IV-D 8,801 -9.2 * Acknowledgements 9,488 15.0 Orders Established 21,702 7.5 Locations 14,696 -10.0 Full Time Equiv. Staff 1,482 12.1 Total Caseload 251,317 5.0 * TANF/FC Arrears 116,447 -2.2	Mississippi %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $97,017,611 14.7 * TANF/FC $21,856,876 -10.6 * Non-TANF $75,160,735 25.1 Total Expenditures $30,792,000 4.5 Cost Effectiveness $3.15 9.8 * TANF/FC $0.71 -14.5 * Non-TANF $2.44 19.7 Paternities Established 20,279 42.3 * IV-D 14,560 2.2 * Acknowledgements 5,719 NA Orders Established 13,135 -29.1 Locations 121,233 -11.5 Full Time Equiv. Staff 677 0.4 Total Caseload 274,430 1.2 * TANF/FC Arrears 92,735 -8.4
Missouri %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $318,310,313 14.0 * TANF/FC $51,858,350 -22.1 * Non-TANF $266,451,963 25.3 Total Expenditures $78,632,000 5.7 Cost Effectiveness $4.05 7.9 * TANF/FC $0.66 -26.3 * Non-TANF $3.39 18.6 Paternities Established 29,556 -29.9 * IV-D 19,731 -20.4 * Acknowledgements 9,825 -43.4 Orders Established 21,148 -30.4 Locations 172,616 -17.4 Full Time Equiv. Staff 1,166 -39.7 Total Caseload 314,461 -20.0 * TANF/FC Arrears 162,997 -24.4	Montana %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $33,400,682 13.8 * TANF/FC $8,327,589 1.9 * Non-TANF $25,073,093 18.3 Total Expenditures $12,224,000 0.9 Cost Effectiveness $2.73 12.8 * TANF/FC $0.68 1.1 * Non-TANF $2.05 17.3 Paternities Established 2,267 -31.0 * IV-D 1,404 -10.4 * Acknowledgements 863 -49.8 Orders Established 3,047 3.1 Locations 67,531 10.1 Full Time Equiv. Staff 199 6.4 Total Caseload 41,711 -3.3 * TANF/FC Arrears 17,681 -10.8
Nebraska %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $108,623,657 13.9 * TANF/FC $12,674,874 1.9 * Non-TANF $95,948,783 15.7 Total Expenditures $29,360,000 -2.7 Cost Effectiveness $3.70 17.1 * TANF/FC $0.43 4.8 * Non-TANF $3.27 18.9 Paternities Established 7,432 61.6 * IV-D 4,031 -12.3 * Acknowledgements 3,401 NA Orders Established 5,302 -4.5 Locations 34,028 12.7 Full Time Equiv. Staff 390 -1.3 Total Caseload 129,829 -1.3 * TANF/FC Arrears 33,460 0.6	Nevada %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $60,063,294 6.1 * TANF/FC $8,432,985 -0.1 * Non-TANF $51,630,309 7.2 Total Expenditures $37,395,000 67.3 Cost Effectiveness $1.61 -36.6 * TANF/FC $0.23 -40.3 * Non-TANF $1.38 -36.0 Paternities Established 1,832 -35.4 * IV-D 1,832 -18.7 * Acknowledgements - NA Orders Established 4,688 -10.0 Locations 15,863 31.8 Full Time Equiv. Staff 383 11.3 Total Caseload 82,580 2.6 * TANF/FC Arrears 30,204 -4.3
New Hampshire %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $54,468,733 12.9 * TANF/FC $9,844,988 -6.5 * Non-TANF $44,623,745 18.3 Total Expenditures $13,588,000 -3.6 Cost Effectiveness $4.01 17.1 * TANF/FC $0.72 -3.1 * Non-TANF $3.28 22.7 Paternities Established 3,137 -0.7 * IV-D 580 -7.6 * Acknowledgements 2,557 1.0 Orders Established 3,864 -5.5 Locations 5,515 -5.4 Full Time Equiv. Staff 228 -1.7 Total Caseload 49,263 4.9 * TANF/FC Arrears 19,483 -1.8	New Jersey %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $553,712,995 10.7 * TANF/FC $88,148,886 -2.8 * Non-TANF $465,564,109 13.7 Total Expenditures $115,610,000 4.4 Cost Effectiveness $4.79 6.0 * TANF/FC $0.76 -6.9 * Non-TANF $4.03 8.9 Paternities Established 32,727 4.5 * IV-D 12,574 -14.9 * Acknowledgements 20,153 21.7 Orders Established 24,716 -2.8 Locations 152,298 -4.4 Full Time Equiv. Staff 2,211 4.2 Total Caseload 510,146 -3.1 * TANF/FC Arrears 221,570 -6.9
New Mexico %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $34,417,383 14.3 * TANF/FC $9,498,319 51.9 * Non-TANF $24,919,064 4.4 Total Expenditures $23,732,000 12.3 Cost Effectiveness $1.45 1.8 * TANF/FC $0.40 35.2 * Non-TANF $1.05 -7.0 Paternities Established 2,774 19.3 * IV-D 2,774 19.3 * Acknowledgements - NA Orders Established 6,035 33.2 Locations 15,479 -17.8 Full Time Equiv. Staff 230 0.0 Total Caseload 74,916 -2.9 * TANF/FC Arrears 24,088 -33.0	New York %Change from FY 96 Collections Distributed $803,825,889 14.5 * TANF/FC $224,750,647 9.2 * Non-TANF $579,075,242 16.7 Total Expenditures $200,588,000 15.2 Cost Effectiveness $4.01 -0.6 * TANF/FC $1.12 -5.2 * Non-TANF $2.89 1.4 Paternities Established 92,439 42.9 * IV-D 49,694 20.3 * Acknowledgements 42,745 82.7 Orders Established 45,324 38.2 L