![]() Child Support Enforcement, FY 2004
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| THE CHILD SUPPORT TRIBAL PROGRAM | |||||
|
TRIBES |
CASELOAD |
PATERNITIES ESTABLISHED |
SUPPORT ORDERS ESTABLISHED |
TOTAL COLLECTIONS |
OUTLAYS |
|
CHICKASAW |
9,643 |
98 |
8,613 |
$8,484,338 |
$1,141,584 |
|
FLAMBEAU |
904 |
329 |
416 |
250,379 |
236,454 |
|
LUMMI |
132 |
6 |
18 |
48,328 |
509,754 |
|
MENOMINEE |
1,574 |
111 |
799 |
746,504 |
684,624 |
|
NAVAJO |
13,959 |
2,010 |
146 |
2,454,930 |
2,844,777 |
|
POTAWATOMI |
NA |
NA |
NA |
272,315 |
129,434 |
|
PUYALLUP |
500 |
5 |
23 |
128,536 |
165,266 |
|
SISSETON |
NA |
14 |
NA |
NA |
291,093 |
|
S'KLALLAM |
213 |
200 |
196 |
35,024 |
672,184 |
|
TOTAL |
26,425 |
2,773 |
10,211 |
$12,420,354 |
$6,625,170 |
NA = Tribes that did not have information available.
Table 1 - Financial Overview, FY 2003 and FY 2004
Table 2 - Statistical Overview, FY 2003 and FY 2004
Table 3 - Total Distributed Collections, FY 2004
Table 4 - Statistical Program Status, FY 2004
Table 5 – Current & Arrears Collections Due and Distributed, FY 2004
Table 6 - Cases with Arrears Due and Cases Paying Towards Arrears, FY 2004
Table 7 - Collections and Expenditures, FY 2004
Table 8 - Paternity Establishment, FY 2004
Table 9 – Net Undistributed Collections (UDC), FY 2003 and FY 2004
Table 10 - Unaudited Performance Incentive Scores, FY 2004
Table 11 - TANF Closed Cases w/Child Support Payment and TANF Closed Cases
Nationwide Box Scores
| Nationwide | % change from FY 03 | |
| Collections Distributed | $21,861,258,876 | 3.2% |
| - Current Assistance | $1,104,586,871 | RC |
| - Former Assistance | $9,359,180,662 | RC |
| - Never Assistance | $9,504,531,503 | RC |
| - Medicaid Assistance | $1,892,959,840 | RC |
| Total Expenditures | $5,322,260,723 | 2.1% |
| CSPIA Cost Effectiveness | $4.38 | 0.1% |
| Paternities & Acknowledgements | 1,606,303 | 5.4% |
| Orders Established | 1,181,012 | 1.7% |
| Full Time Equivalent Staff | 60,354 | -0.7% |
| Total Caseload | 15,854,475 | -0.4% |
| - Current Assistance | 2,628,214 | -4.8% |
| - Former Assistance | 7,281,092 | -1.2% |
| - Never Assistance | 5,945,169 | 2.6% |
The initial FY 1995-1999 National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan was developed as part of a pilot project under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1993 and included performance measures for each goal and objective in the plan. This plan served as the foundation for several Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program improvements including performance-based incentive and penalty systems. A new incentive system enacted by the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA) became effective in FY 2000. The FY 1995-2000 OCSE Strategic Plan was eventually replaced by the FY 2000-2004 National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan. The most important of these performance measures are those used for incentive purposes and include: paternity establishment, support order establishment, current support collections, cases with an arrears collections, and cost-effectiveness.
The FY 2000-2004 Strategic Plan was developed as a result of refinements made to the strategic planning process through effective partnership and collaboration with state child support enforcement agencies (A copy of the FY 2000-2004 Strategic Plan can be found in the Appendix.) The plan was implemented in conjunction with stronger child support enforcement tools such as the Federal Parent Locator Service, enhancements to CSE automated systems, and reliable data reporting. The effectiveness of the strategic plan is indicated by continuous improvements to the program performance measures contained in the plan. There were a total of 17 performance indicators in the areas of parentage, financial and medical orders and support, and efficiency.
Gains in the Child Support Enforcement Program resulting from ongoing improvements in results-oriented, strategic planning have been encouraging. For instance, during the five year period covered by the initial FY 1995-1999 Strategic Plan, child support collections rose to over $15 billion and, for the first time, more children had paternity established than were born outside of marriage in a given year. Further, in FY 2003, during the five year period covered by the succeeding FY 2000-2004 Strategic Plan, $21.2 billion was collected on behalf of children. Similar gains were made in paternity establishments and the percentage of child support collections that actually went to the children on whose behalf the collections were made.
Preliminary analysis of data highlighting the achievements of the Child Support Enforcement Program for FY 2004 with respect to performance measures contained in the FY 2000-2004 Strategic Plan reveals that, in general, states made continuous progress in meeting targeted goals and objectives during the years covered under the FY 2000-2004 OCSE Strategic Plan. This progress can be observed in the accompanying Strategic Plan Tables and in the following examples:
Paternity Establishment. Strategic plan indicator results for the paternity establishment percent (PEP) shown in Table A reveal that, in FY 2000, the average percentage of children born out-of-wedlock with paternities and acknowledgments, in states selecting to use the IV-D caseload PEP, was 71.97 percent. With the exception of FY 2003, this percentage improved each successive year and, in FY 2004, reached 85 percent. In Statewide PEP states, the average percentage of paternities established was almost 98 percent in FY 2000 and, even though there was a decrease in this percentage in FY 2001, there were improvements in each successive year. In FY 2004, this average percentage reached close to 99 percent.
Support Order Establishment. Table D reveals that continuous improvement was made in Support Order Establishment in successive years covered under the FY 2000-2004 Strategic Plan. The average percentage of IV-D cases with Support Order Establishment in FY 2000 was more than 62 percent. This percentage steadily increased each year until it reached 74 percent in FY 2004.
Current Support Collections. Table H reveals steady progress with respect to collections for current support. In FY 2000, on average, almost 54 percent of current collections due were paid. This rate continued to improve in succeeding years and, in FY 2004, reached a level of about 59 percent.
Arrears Collections. The percentage of arrears cases with a collection on arrears has remained around 60 percent from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004, as shown in Table J.
Cost Effectiveness. Even though progress in the area of cost effectiveness (defined as total dollars collected per $1 of expenditures, as reported in Table M) has been slower, indications are that continuous progress in this area has begun. In FY 2000, the cost effectiveness ratio was $4.23 and, in FY 2004, it increased to $4.38.
Examples of progress in child support enforcement made by the individual states can be observed from a further examination of data contained in the accompanying tables.
Table A - The Paternity Establishment Percent, FY 2000-2004
Table B - The Percentage of Children Born Out-Of-Wedlock with Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgements, FY 2000-2004
Table C - The Percentage of Children in the CS Caseload with Paternity Resolved, FY 2000-2004
Table D - The Percentage of Cases with Support Orders Establishment, FY 2000-2004
Table E - Percent of Cases in which Medical Support was Ordered, FY 2000-2004
Table F - The Percentage of Interstate Responding Cases with Orders for Support, FY 2000-2004
Table G - Total Dollar Amount Distributed in CS Cases, FY 2000-2004
Table H - The Current Support Collection Rate for, FY 2000-2004
Table I - The Percentage of Cases with Orders Where Some Child Support was Paid, FY 2000-2004
Table J - The Percentage of Arrears Cases with a Collection on the Arrears, FY 2000-2004
Table K - The Percentage of Cases Where Health Insurance is Provided As Ordered, FY 2000-2004
Table L - The Percentage of Interstate Responding Cases with Collections, FY 2000-2004
Table M - Total Dollars Collected per $1of Administrative Expenditures, FY 2000-2004
|
CSPIA INCENTIVE MEASURE FORMULAS | |
|
INCENTIVE MEASURE |
FORM AND LINE NUMBERS |
|
PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT PERCENTAGE (PEP): IV-D | |
|
Number of Children in the Caseload
in the FY or as of the End of the FY
Who Were Born Out-of-Wedlock
with Paternity Established or Acknowledged |
OCSE-157, Line 6 divided by OCSE-157, Line 5 (of the preceding FY) Who Were Born Out-of-Wedlock |
|
PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT PERCENTAGE (PEP): STATEWIDE | |
Number of Minor Children in the State
Born Out-of-Wedlock with
Paternity Established or Acknowledged During the
FY |
OCSE-157, Line 9 |
|
SUPPORT ORDER ESTABLISHMENT | |
|
Number of IV-D Cases with Support Orders |
OCSE-157, Line 2 |
|
CURRENT COLLECTIONS | |
|
Amount Collected for Current Support in IV-D Cases |
OCSE-157, Line 25 |
|
ARREARAGE COLLECTIONS | |
|
Number of IV-D Cases Paying Toward Arrears |
OCSE-157, Line 29 |
|
COST-EFFECTIVENESS | |
|
Total IV-D Dollars Collected |
OCSE-34A, Lines 8 + 5 + 13 of column (G) |
|
STATE COLLECTION BASE | |
|
2 times (Current Assistance + Former Assistance |
OCSE-34A: |
How an Incentive Payment is Determined
Because of the complexity of the incentives formula set forth in section 458 of the Social Security Act, we have included an example of how the system would work in a particular year for State A. Let's make the following assumptions regarding State A (See table A):
| Table A | ||||
|
Measure |
State A's Performance Level |
Applicable Percent based on Performance |
Weight |
State A's Collection Base (assumed to be $50,000,000) |
|
Paternity Establishment |
93% |
100% |
1.00 |
$50,000,000 |
|
Order Establishment |
74% |
88% |
1.00 |
$44,000,000 |
|
Current Collections |
59% |
69% |
1.00 |
$34,500,000 |
|
Arrearage Collections |
60% |
70% |
0.75 |
$26,250,000 |
|
Cost-Effectiveness |
$4.40 |
80% |
0.75 |
$30,000,000 |
|
State A's Maximum Incentive Base Amount |
$184,750,000 | |||
| Table B | ||||
|
State |
Maximum Incentive Base Amounts |
State's Share of $318,750,000 |
Incentive Payment Pool $461,000,000 | |
|
A |
$184,750,000 |
0.58 |
$267,199,216 | |
|
B |
$84,000,000 |
0.26 |
$121,487,059 | |
|
C |
$50,000,000 |
0.16 |
$72,313,725 | |
|
Totals |
$318,750,000 |
1.00 |
$461,000,000 | |
| Table C[7] | |||||
| If the Paternity Establishment or Support Order Performance Level Is: | |||||
|
At Least: |
But Less Than: |
The Applicable Percentage Is: |
At Least: |
But Less Than: |
The Applicable Percentage Is: |
|
80% |
100% |
64% |
65% |
74% | |
|
79% |
80% |
98% |
63% |
64% |
73% |
|
78% |
79% |
96% |
62% |
63% |
72% |
|
77% |
78% |
94% |
61% |
62% |
71% |
|
76% |
77% |
92% |
60% |
61% |
70% |
|
75% |
76% |
90% |
59% |
60% |
69% |
|
74% |
75% |
88% |
58% |
59% |
68% |
|
73% |
74% |
86% |
57% |
58% |
67% |
|
72% |
73% |
84% |
56% |
57% |
66% |
|
71% |
72% |
82% |
55% |
56% |
65% |
|
70% |
71% |
80% |
54% |
55% |
64% |
|
69% |
70% |
79% |
53% |
54% |
63% |
|
68% |
69% |
78% |
52% |
53% |
62% |
|
67% |
68% |
77% |
51% |
52% |
61% |
|
66% |
67% |
76% |
50% |
51% |
60% |
|
65% |
66% |
75% |
0% |
50% |
0% |
| Table D[8] | |||||
| If the Current Collections or Arrearage Collections Performance Level Is: | |||||
|
At Least: |
But Less Than: |
The Applicable Percentage Is: |
At Least: |
But Less Than: |
The Applicable Percentage Is: |
|
80% |
100% |
59% |
60% |
69% | |
|
79% |
80% |
98% |
58% |
59% |
68% |
|
78% |
79% |
96% |
57% |
58% |
67% |
|
77% |
78% |
94% |
56% |
57% |
66% |
|
76% |
77% |
92% |
55% |
56% |
65% |
|
75% |
76% |
90% |
54% |
55% |
64% |
|
74% |
75% |
88% |
53% |
54% |
63% |
|
73% |
74% |
86% |
52% |
53% |
62% |
|
72% |
73% |
84% |
51% |
52% |
61% |
|
71% |
72% |
82% |
50% |
51% |
60% |
|
70% |
71% |
80% |
49% |
50% |
59% |
|
69% |
70% |
79% |
48% |
49% |
58% |
|
68% |
69% |
78% |
47% |
48% |
57% |
|
67% |
68% |
77% |
46% |
47% |
56% |
|
66% |
67% |
76% |
45% |
46% |
55% |
|
65% |
66% |
75% |
44% |
45% |
54% |
|
64% |
65% |
74% |
43% |
55% |
53% |
|
63% |
64% |
73% |
42% |
43% |
52% |
|
62% |
63% |
72% |
41% |
42% |
51% |
|
61% |
62% |
71% |
40% |
41% |
50% |
|
60% |
61% |
70% |
0% |
40% |
0% |
| Table E[9] | ||
| If the Cost-Effectiveness Performance Level Is: | ||
|
At Least: |
But Less Than: |
The Applicable Percentage Is: |
|
5.00 |
100% | |
|
4.50 |
4.99 |
90% |
|
4.00 |
4.50 |
80% |
|
3.50 |
4.00 |
70% |
|
3.00 |
3.50 |
60% |
|
2.50 |
3.00 |
50% |
|
2.00 |
2.50 |
40% |
|
0.00 |
2.00 |
0% |
| Table F |
| The incentive payment pool is: |
|
For each fiscal year following fiscal year 2008, the incentive payment pool will be multiplied by the percentage increase in the CPI between the two preceding years. For example, for fiscal year 2009, if the CPI increases by one percent between fiscal years 2007 and 2008, then the incentive pool for fiscal year 2009 would be a one percent increase over the $483,000,000 incentive payment pool for fiscal year 2008, or $487,830,000.
FOR FY 2000-2004
Under the first Child Support Enforcement Program strategic plan for the period FY 1995 to 1999, there were enormous strides made in improving program outcomes for children and families in need of support from both parents. Collections have risen to over $15.8 billion and, for the first time, more children had paternity established than were born outside of marriage in a given year. These are noteworthy outcomes. And yet, with a caseload still in excess of 19 million cases, more needs to be done by the nation's child support system.
This revised strategic plan, for the period FY 2000-2004 is our vision at the start of a new century. It is our commitment to do more. It is our commitment to lead the child support program into the new century as a key component to assist families to become self-sufficient or to remain self-sufficient. It is our vision that child support is an important line of defense against children living in poverty. It is our vision that medical child support is an important line of defense against children living without health insurance. It is our commitment to provide world class service to children and families in need. It is our commitment to go beyond what we have done in the past by using all the new tools provided to us in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Welfare Reform). It is our commitment to continually find new and creative ways to enhance program success. It is our commitment to crack down on those parents who can pay but refuse to support their children, while providing necessary and appropriate assistance to those who want to pay but are unable to pay their fair share due to their current life circumstances.
Over the past five years, there has been enormous change in the environment that surrounds the nation's child support program. We will respond to these changes by dynamically leading the program. We acknowledge that the child support program is much more than cost recovery, though that remains an important focus. The program must also be much more than just a partnership between Federal, State, local and tribal governments if we are to be truly successful. We must enlist our stakeholders and the general public to join with us to promote the economic and social well-being of families, children, individuals and communities, which is at the heart of the child support program's mission. Through our joint vision we continue to see:
Trust, communications, planning, creativity, risk-taking and respect among program partners and stakeholders are the values to which we in the nation's child support community pledge ourselves.
The Child Support Enforcement Program is authorized and defined by statute, title IV-D of the Social Security Act. The purpose and the mission of the Program are derived from the Act:
To assure that assistance in obtaining support, including financial and medical, is available to children through locating parents, establishing paternity and support obligations, and monitoring and enforcing those obligations.
VISION FOR THE FUTURE
The Child Support Program will put children first by helping both parents assume responsibility for the economic and social well-being, health and stability of their children. We recognize the value of improved relationships with both parents.
The Child Support Enforcement Program will promote stability, health, safety and economic security for all children in need of support. This will be accomplished by assuring that a parent who lives outside the primary residence of the child(ren) has a legal relationship with the child(ren), pays an appropriate level of child support on a regular and timely basis, and is encouraged, except in cases where this is proven to be inappropriate, to have an ongoing relationship with the child(ren). Child support includes providing for medical support.
We acknowledge that fathers and mothers (and other caretakers) each play a critical emotional role in a child's upbringing. Thus, within the context of first serving the best interests of the child, we must see that all parents are treated fairly and equitably by the CSE system and that the concerns of both parents are recognized.
The Program is committed to expanding its knowledge base through research and demonstration projects that are intended to improve the operations of the program and advance the well-being of children.
The Program is sensitive to the fact that we now have access to a vast array of personal information about those people receiving our services as well as others outside the child support program. We recognize the responsibility that comes with access to this data and we are committed to respecting and ensuring the privacy and security of this information.
OUR CUSTOMERS, PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS
For the purpose of this document, the primary customers and beneficiaries of the Child Support Enforcement Program are children in need of support. Secondary customers are the parents or custodians of these children. It is important to recognize the different values and perspectives of those involved in children's lives and to acknowledge that, while interests may conflict, the physical and emotional needs of the child are paramount.
The Child Support Program is operated by a number of entities that must work together in partnership to achieve results for Program customers. The partners who operate the program include:
Many other groups have an important role in helping us serve our customers. Without the active cooperation of these additional partners, we would be unable to operate our Program effectively. These additional partners include, but are not limited to:
Many other groups have a legitimate interest in how our customers are served. These stakeholders make a contribution toward, and benefit from, a well-run Program. They include national interest groups and community-based organizations that help serve the interests of Program customers or partners; Congress; State legislatures; taxpayers; and the public in general.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Program goals are the broad-based outcomes or impacts sought for program customers. Objectives are the results to be accomplished in order for the goals to become a reality. Accomplishing the objectives will move the program forward in achieving its strategic goals.
The goals and objectives described below represent the most important outcomes the Program seeks to achieve. They were developed in collaboration with Federal, State, local and tribal child support partners. Specific strategies for meeting these objectives rest with Federal, State, local and tribal child support agencies depending on their individual roles. Many of the objectives were part of the first Strategic Plan and have since gained additional importance as they evolved into the performance measures included in the “Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998.” We agreed that the establishment of paternity and support obligations, the collection and enforcement of support, the establishment and enforcement of medical support, and the operation of a customer-focused and cost-effective program continue to be the desired outcomes of the child support program.
GOAL 1: ALL CHILDREN HAVE PARENTAGE ESTABLISHED
Objective A:
To Increase Establishment of Paternities, Particularly Those Established within One Year of Birth
Objective A Indicators:
1. The Ratio that the Total Number of Children in the IV-D Caseload in the FY or, at the option of the State, as of the end of the FY, who have been Born-Out-of- Wedlock, the Paternity of Whom has been Established or Acknowledged, Bears to the Total Number of Children in the IV-D Caseload as of the end of the preceding FY who were Born Out-of-Wedlock
(Statutory Caseload Paternity Establishment Percentage)
2. The Ratio that the Total Number of Minor Children who have been Born Out-of-Wedlock and for whom Paternity has been Established or Acknowledged during the FY, bears to the Total Number of Children Born Out-of-Wedlock during the preceding FY
(Statutory Statewide Paternity Establishment Percentage)
3. The Percentage of Children Born-Out-of-Wedlock with Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgments
4. The Percentage of Children in the IV-D Caseload with Paternity Resolved
GOAL 2: ALL CHILDREN IN IV-D CASES HAVE FINANCIAL AND MEDICAL SUPPORT ORDERS
Objective A:
To Increase the Percentage of IV-D Cases with Orders for Financial Support
Objective A Indicator:
1. The Percentage of IV-D Cases with Support Orders
(Statutory Support Order Performance Level)
Objective B:
To Increase the Percentage of IV-D Cases with Orders for Medical Support
Objective B Indicator:
1. The Percentage of IV-D Cases with Medical Support Orders
Objective C:
To Increase the Percentage of Interstate IV-D Cases with Orders for Support
Objective C Indicator:
1. The Percentage of Interstate Responding IV-D Cases with Orders for Support
GOAL 3: ALL CHILDREN IN IV-D CASES RECEIVE FINANCIAL AND MEDICAL SUPPORT FROM PARENTS AS ORDERED
Objective A:
To Increase the IV-D Collection Rate
Objective A Indicators:
1. Total Dollar Amount Distributed in IV-D Cases
2. IV-D Collection Rate for Current Support
(Statutory Current Payment Performance Level)
3. Percentage of IV-D Cases with Orders Where Some Child Support is Paid
4. Percentage of Arrears Cases with a Collection on the Arrears. (Statutory Arrearage Payment Performance Level)
Objective B:
To Increase the Percentage of IV-D Cases Where Medical Support Is Obtained After Being Ordered
Objective B Indicator:
1. Percentage of IV-D Cases Where Health Insurance is Provided as Ordered
Objective C:
To Increase the Collections on Interstate IV-D Cases
Objective C Indicator:
1. The Percentage of Interstate Responding IV-D Cases with Collections
GOAL 4: THE IV-D PROGRAM WILL BE EFFICIENT AND RESPONSIVE IN ITS OPERATIONS
Objective A:
To operate an efficient program
Objective A Indicators:
1. Total Dollars Collected per $1 of Expenditures
(Statutory Cost-Effectiveness Performance Level)
2. Placeholder for Future Cost Avoidance Indicator
Objective B:
To operate a responsive program
Objective B Indicators:
1. Children First Customer Satisfaction Survey of Custodial and Noncustodial Parents' Satisfaction with Child Support Services
2. Survey of State Child Support Enforcement Programs' Satisfaction with Federal Performance
[1]This report was prepared by Renée Jackson-Hebron, Adrienna Johnson, Delores Johnson, Nina Campbell and Kenneth Dittmar under the leadership of Nehemiah Rucker and direction of Joyce Mathews Pitts. Please direct comments to jpitts@acf.hhs.gov.
[2]The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA) provided for an alternative penalty procedure for states that fail to meet federal child support data processing requirements. In addition, CSPIA reformed federal incentive payments for an effective child support program by requiring a performance-based incentive system.
[3] A current assistance case is one in which the children are: (1) recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) under title IV-A of the Social Security Act or (2) entitled to Foster Care maintenance payments under title IV-E of the Social Security Act. In addition, the children's support rights have been assigned by a caretaker to the state and a referral to the state IV-D agency has been made. A former assistance case is a case in which the children were formerly receiving title IV-A (AFDC or TANF) or title IV-E, Foster Care services. A never assistance case is a case in which the children are receiving services under the title IV-D program, but are not currently eligible for, and have not previously, received assistance under the titles IV-A or IV-E of the Social Security Act. This includes cases in which the family is receiving IV-D services as a result of a written application (including cases in which children are receiving state, not title IV-E, foster care services) or a case in which they are Medicaid recipients not receiving additional assistance.
[4]OCSE charges an assortment of fees to states in return for services provided to state agencies administering the child support program. These fees reduce the total amount of expenditures that are eligible for FFP. Total expenditures (including state and federal shares) reported are net of these fees. The Federal government reimburses states for 66 percent of the majority of allowable expenditures and 90 percent for laboratory paternity costs.
[5]Because the measure has less weight.
[6]Because the measure has less weight.
[7]Use this table to determine the maximum incentive levels for the paternity establishment and support order performance measures.
[8]Use this table to determine the maximum incentive levels for the current and arrearage support collections performance measures.
[9]Use this table to determine the maximum incentive level for the cost-effectiveness performance measure.
Download FREE Adobe Acrobat® Reader™ to view PDF files located on this site.
OCSE Home
|
Press Room
|
Events Calendar
|
Publications
|
Systems:
FPLS
|
FIDM
|
State and Tribal
|
State Profiles
Resources:
Grants Information
|
Información en Español
|
International
|
Federal/State Topic Search (NECSRS)
|
Tribal
|
Virtual Trainer's Library