Skip Navigation

Office of Child Support Enforcement
FY 2009
Preliminary Report

May 2010

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Program Highlights

The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Preliminary Report highlights financial and statistical program achievements that occurred in fiscal year (FY) 2009. The information was compiled from State-submitted reports on program status sent to the Federal government on a quarterly and annual basis. The results indicate that $26.4 billion in child support payments was collected and distributed; $24.3 billion was distributed to families or Foster Care agencies; 1.8 million paternities were established and acknowledged; and 1.3 million child support orders were established. The downturn in the American economy, including an unemployment rate of over 9 percent, had an impact upon the child support collections contributing to a decrease in annual total collections for the first time in the history of the CSE Program.

Caseload. OCSE defines a child support case as a parent (mother, father, or putative father) who is now or eventually may be obligated under law for the support of a child or children receiving services under the Child Support Program, Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. 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 TANF or Foster Care assistance. This includes cases in which the family is receiving child support 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.

There were 15.8 million cases in the Child Support Enforcement Program in FY 2009, an increase of 0.8 percent over the number of cases in the Child Support caseload in FY 2008. This represents the first increase in the caseload in two fiscal years. In FY 2009, there were 2.2 million current assistance cases, an increase of 6.4 percent from FY 2008; 6.9 million former assistance cases, a decrease of 2.8 percent from FY 2008; and 6.7 million never assistance cases reported, an increase of 2.9 percent from FY 2008 (Table P-3).

Paternities Established. Paternity establishment involves the legal establishment of fatherhood for a child. One way paternity can be established is by a voluntary acknowledgment signed by both parents as part of an in-hospital or other acknowledgment program.

In FY 2009, over 1.8 million paternities were established or acknowledged, of which 1.2 million involved in-hospital or other paternity acknowledgments. This represents a slight increase (.7%) over the number of paternities established in FY 2008.

Orders Established. In FY 2009, 1.3 million child support orders were established representing a 6.3 percent increase over the 1.2 million established in FY 2008 (Table P-3). This increase represents the largest increase in orders established since FY 1998 when the percentage was also 6.3 percent. In FY 2009, current assistance orders accounted for 18.0 percent of these orders, former assistance orders accounted for 32.0 percent, and never assistance orders accounted for 51.0 percent of the support orders established.

Collections Distributed. Total distributed child support collections amounted to $26.4 billion in FY 2009 (shown in Tables P-1, P-3, and P-4). This is a 0.7 percent decrease in comparison with the amount collected and distributed in FY 2008, which represents the first decrease in distributed collections in the history of the Child Support Program and also is attributed to the downturn in the American economy during FY 2009.

Collections Received. In FY 2009, child support continued to be received through different methods of collection, such as income withholding, unemployment compensation interception, and State or Federal tax refund offsets. Overall, 67.4 percent of payments were collected via income withholding; 5.3 percent from unemployment compensation; 6.9 percent from Federal and State tax offsets; 16.0 percent from other sources; 4.3 percent from other States, and 0.1 percent from other countries (Figure 6).

Collections per Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff. There were 58,516 FTE staff working in the States and jurisdictions in the Child Support Enforcement Program in FY 2009 (Table P-2 and P-3), a 2.5 percent decrease in comparison with FY 2008. Nationally, the amount of child support collected per FTE was over $450,912 compared to the $443,000 per FTE in FY 2008.

Expenditures. Total administrative expenditures were $5.8 billion in FY 2009, a 0.4 percent decrease over those in the previous year (Table P-3). This is the first reduction in total administrative expenditures in the history of the Child Support Program. The Federal share of expenditures was $3.9 billion, and the State share was $2.0 billion (Table P-1).

Collections Due and Distributed. The total amount of current support due for FY 2009 was over $32 billion. About $20 billion or 62 percent of that amount was collected and distributed (Table P-17), an increase of 2.4 percentage points over the percentage of current support collected and distributed in FY 2008.

The total amount of arrearages reported for all previous fiscal years was over $107 billion and over $7 billion of these arrearages was collected and distributed in FY 2009, a decrease of 9.2 percent in comparison with the amount of arrears collected and distributed in FY 2008 (Table P-19). Over 11 million cases had arrears due and in FY 2009, over 7.2 million or 63 percent of these cases had collections (Tables P-20 and P-21). A slight increase was noted for total cases in which a collection was made. There were 8.9 million cases with collections, a 0.1 percent increase over cases with collections in FY 2008 (Table P-2 and P-3).

The number of cases with an order established in FY 2009 was 12.5 million, a 1.2 percent increase over the number of cases with orders established in the previous fiscal year (Table P-2 and P-3).

The number of children in the Title IV-D caseload in FY 2009 was 17.4 million, a 2.2 percent increase from the 17.0 million children in the Title IV-D caseload in FY 2008 (Table P-2 and P-3).

There were 36 comprehensive Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs in FY 2009. These Tribes distributed over $19 million in collections in FY 2009 (Tables P-36 and P-37). This represented a 2.9 percent decrease from FY 2008. Collections sent to other States for Tribes in FY 2009 was over $4.9 million. Tribal total expenditures (outlays) were over $26 million in FY 2009, an increase of 48.9 percent over the previous year (Tables P-36 and P-39). There were 36,040 cases in the Tribal Program caseload (Tables P-36 and P-40), a 22.8 percent increase from FY 2008; over 19,000 children with paternity established (Tables P-36 and P-43), a 7.4 percent increase from FY 2008; and almost 18,000 support orders established (Tables P-36 and P-41), a 21.5 percent increase from FY 2008.

The attached tables and charts provide further preliminary detail regarding collections, expenditures, caseload, paternities, orders established, and other program statistics, related to both the Child Support Enforcement and Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs for FY 2009 and for some prior years.

Note: The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA) required the States to have complete and reliable data for purposes of computing incentives. Federal auditors begin their review of State data after the mandatory December 31^st deadline for data submission. Readers should note that no determination or assumption has been made in this report regarding data reliability for each State for fiscal year 2009. The numbers are presented as submitted to OCSE.

SUMMARY TABLES FY 2009

• Table P-1: Financial Overview for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-2: Statistical Overview for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-3: Program Trends for Three Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-4: Total Distributed Collections for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-5: Distributed Current Assistance Collections for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-6: Distributed Former Assistance Collections for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-7: Distributed Medicaid Never Assistance Collections for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-8: Distributed Never Assistance Collections for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-9: Total Caseload for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-10: Cases Open at the End of the Fiscal Year for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-11: Cases for Which the State Has No Jurisdiction for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-12: Total Cases with Support Orders Established for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-13: Number of Support Orders Established During the Fiscal Year for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-14: Number of Cases With Collections During the Fiscal Year for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-15: Total Number of Children in IV-D Cases for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-16: Amount of Current Support Due for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-17: Amount of Support Distributed as Current Support for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-18: Total Amount of Arrearages Due for All Fiscal Years for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-19: Total Amount of Support Distributed as Arrears for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-20: Cases with Arrears Due for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-21: Cases Paying Towards Arrears for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-22: Collections Forwarded to Non-IV-D Cases for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-23: Fees Retained by Other States For Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-24: Non IV-D Cost for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-25: Total Administrative Expenditures for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-26: Total Collections Sent To Other States for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-27: Current Assistance Collections Sent To Other States for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-28: Former Assistance Collections Sent To Other States for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-29: Medicaid Never Assistance Collections Sent To Other States for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-30: Never Assistance Collections Sent To Other States for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-31: Paternity Establishment, Fiscal Year 2009
• Table P-32: Net Undistributed Collections (UDC), Fiscal Year 2009
• Table P-33: Cases With Medical Support Ordered and Arrears-Only Cases With Order, Fiscal Year 2009
• Table P-34: Health Insurance Provided As Ordered, Fiscal Year 2009
• Table P-35: Unaudited Incentive Performance Measures, for Fiscal Year 2009
• Table P-36: Tribal Program - Financial and Statistical Overview for Three Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-37: Tribal Program - Total Distributed Collections for Three Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-38: Tribal Program - Total Collections Forwarded to States for Three Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-39: Tribal Program - Expenditures (Outlays) for Three Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-40: Tribal Program - Caseload for Three Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-41: Tribal Program - Support Orders Established for Three Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-42: Tribal Program - Total Number of Children Without Paternities Established for Three Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-43: Tribal Program - Children With Paternities Established for Three Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-44: Tribal Program - Total Amount of Current Support Due for Three Consecutive Fisal Years
• Table P-45: Tribal Program - Total Amount of Current Support Collected and Distributed for Three Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-46: Tribal Program - Total Amount of Past Due Support Owed for Three Consecutive Fiscal Years
• Table P-47: Tribal Program - Total Amount of Past Due Support Collected and Distributed for Three Consecutive Fiscal Years

NATIONWIDE, REGIONAL, AND STATE BOXSCORES FY 2009

Nationwide Boxscores

Nationwide Boxscores		% change from FY 08
Collections Distributed	$26,385,592,827	-0.7%
- Current Assistance	$978,127,090	0.0%
- Former Assistance	$9,293,931,882	-6.5%
- Never Assistance	$11,936,424,542	0.1%
- Medicaid Assistance	$4,177,109,313	12.2%
Total Expenditures	$5,849,699,175	-0.4%
Cost Effectiveness ($ Change)	$4.78	-$0.02
Paternities & Acknowledgements	1,810,564	0.7%
Orders Established	1,267,437	6.3%
Full Time Equivalent Staff	58,516	-2.5%
Total Caseload	15,797,768	0.8%
- Current Assistance	2,179,652	6.4%
- Former Assistance	6,872,007	-2.8%
- Never Assistance	6,746,109	2.9%
Net Undistributed Collections	$588,520,419	-16.4%
Arrears Amounts Due	$107,638,651,677	2.0%

CHARTS & GRAPHS FY 2009

Appendix

Incentive Formulas

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 divided by Number of Children in the Caseload as of the End of the Preceding FY Who Were Born Out-of-Wedlock	OCSE-157, Line 6 divided by OCSE-157, Line 5a
PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT PERCENTAGE (PEP): STATEWIDE
Number of Minor Children in the State Born Out-of-Wedlock with Paternity Established or Acknowledged During the FY divided by Number of Children in the State Born Out-of-Wedlock During the Preceding FY	OCSE-157, Line 9 divided by OCSE-157, Line 8a
SUPPORT ORDER ESTABLISHMENT
Number of IV-D Cases with Support Orders divided by Number of IV-D Cases	OCSE-157, Line 2 divided by OCSE-157, Line 1
CURRENT COLLECTIONS
Amount Collected for Current Support in IV-D Cases divided by Amount Owed for Current Support in IV-D Cases	OCSE-157, Line 25 divided by OCSE-157, Line 24
ARREARAGE COLLECTIONS
Number of IV-D Cases Paying Toward Arrears divided by Number of IV-D Cases with Arrears Due	OCSE-157, Line 29 divided by OCSE-157, Line 28
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Total IV-D Dollars Collected divided by Total IV-D Dollars Expended	OCSE-34A, Lines 4b + 4c + 8 + 11 of column (G) divided by OCSE-396A, Line 7 columns (A) + (C) less Line 1(c) columns (A) + (C)
STATE COLLECTION BASE
2 times (Current Assistance + Former Assistance Collections + Medicaid Assistance) + Never Assistance Collections + Fees Retained by Other States	OCSE-34A: 2 times ((Line 4b, columns A+B+C+D+E) + (Line 8, columns A+B+C+D+E)) + Line 4b, column F + Line 8, column F + Line 4c + 11 of column G

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):

• State A’s paternity performance level is 93 percent, making its applicable percent 100 percent (see Table C)
• State A’s order establishment performance level is 74 percent, making its applicable percent 88 percent (see Table C)
• State A’s current support collections performance level is 59 percent, making its applicable percent 69 percent (see Table D)
• State A’s arrearage support collections performance level is 60 percent, making its applicable percent 70 percent (see Table D)
• State A’s cost-effectiveness ratio is $4.40, making its applicable percent 80 percent (see Table E)
• State A’s collections base is $50 million (determined by 2 times the collections for Current Assistance, Former Assistance, and Medicaid Never Assistance plus Never Assistance collections and fees retained by other states)

• The maximum incentive for State A is:

  • $50 million collections base for paternity ($50 mil. times 1.00), plus
  • $44 million collections base for orders ($50 mil. times 0.88), plus
  • $34.5 million collections base for current collections ($50 mil. times 0.69), plus
  • $26.25 million collections base for arrearage collections ($50 mil. times 0.75[1] times 0.70) plus
  • $30.0 million collections base for cost-effectiveness ($50 million times 0.75[2] times 0.80) equals
  • Resulting in a maximum incentive base amount of $184.75 million for State A.

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

• We must now make some assumptions regarding the other States. Let’s assume that there are only two other States in our country--and the maximum incentive base amount is $84 million for State B and $50 million for State C, making the total maximum incentive base amount $318.75 million for all three States (See Table B).

• We must now determine what is State A’s share of the $318.75 million. It is 58 percent ($184.75 divided by $318.75).

Table B

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

• Let us assume it is FY 2003, so the incentive payment pool for the FY is $461 million (see table F).
• Since State A’s share is 0.58, this state has earned 58 percent of the $461 million incentive payment pool that Congress is allowing, or $267.2 million ($461 mil. x 0.58) incentive payment for this particular fiscal year.

Table C[3]

If the Paternity Establishment or Support Order Performance Level Is:

Performance Levels

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[4]

If the Current Collections or Arrearage Collections Performance Level Is:

Performance Levels

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[5]

If the Cost-Effectiveness Performance Level Is:

Cost-Effectiveness Performance Levels

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

Incentive Pool Payment, FY 2000-2009

The incentive payment pool is:

• $422,000,000 for fiscal year 2000
• $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2001
• $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2002
• $461,000,000 for fiscal year 2003
• $454,000,000 for fiscal year 2004
• $446,000,000 for fiscal year 2005
• $458,000,000 for fiscal year 2006
• $471,000,000 for fiscal year 2007
• $483,000,000 for fiscal year 2008
• $504,000,000 for fiscal year 2009

The incentive payment pool after FY 2008 is the amount of the incentive payment pool for the preceding FY, multiplied by the percentage by which the CPI for that preceding FY exceeds the CPI for the second preceding FY.

The CPI for a FY is the average of the CPI for the 12 month period ending on Sept. 30 of the FY. The CPI means the last CPI for all-urban consumers published by the United States Department of Labor. The NOT seasonally adjusted CPI numbers are used.

The percentage increase between the preceding FY (FY 2008) and second preceding FY (FY 2007) is about 4.44%. So, $483 million (the FY 2008 incentive pool amount) plus 4.44% equals about $504 million (the FY 2009 incentive pool amount).

---

[1]Because the measure has less weight.

[2]Use this table to determine the maximum incentive levels for the paternity establishment and support order performance measures.

[3]Use this table to determine the maximum incentive levels for the current and arrearage support collections performance measures.

[4]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 | Events Calendar | Publications | State Links
Site Map | FAQs | Contact Information
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