ACF OPRE: ACF Annual Performance Plans and Reports

3. Increase parental responsibility

Approach for the Strategic Objective: Establish paternities for children born out-of-wedlock and ensure that parents support their children.

3.1 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

The mission of ACF’s Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program is to assure that assistance in obtaining support is available to children by locating parents, establishing paternity and support obligations, and modifying and enforcing those obligations. The performance targets in this plan are consistent with the DHHS goal of self-sufficiency for low-income families through employment and child support collections. The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) works in cooperation with State agencies to achieve these goals.

The CSE Program is federally funded, i.e., the Federal government pays 66% of State administrative costs, 90% of paternity laboratory costs, and (subject to a cap and other limitations) 80% of approved automation costs, but it is administered by State and local governments. The Federal role is to provide direction, guidance, technical assistance, oversight, and some critical services to States' CSE Programs for activities mandated under title IV-D of the Social Security Act. The request for an increase of $200 million for State Child Support includes funding Tribal child support programs at 90% and up to $.5 million in start up costs over two years, administrative costs and Federal incentive payments to States for several initiatives to strengthen the child support enforcement program. These proposals reflect investing in families while at the same time addressing existing financing structure and other administrative complexities.

The CSE Program was selected as a GPRA pilot for FY 1995 and FY 1996. As a result, a consensus National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan (FY 1995 - 1999) was completed in February 1995, by State and Federal partners. Performance measures for each goal and objective in the Plan followed in July 1996. The goals, objectives and performance measures in this Performance Plan are aligned with those in the strategic plan. Previous GPRA performance plans reported on paternities established and dollars collected while State and Federal partners jointly developed the CSE program’s performance measures. The FY 1999 data are available; the FY 2000 data on the five performance plan measures of paternity establishment, order establishment, collections of current support, collections on past-due support, and cost-effectiveness, which are audited for completeness and reliability, will be available in late spring 2001. State, Federal, local and tribal partners completed the Strategic Plan for FY 2000-2004 in June 2000. The goals, objectives and performance measures in this Performance Plan are aligned with those in the FY 2000-2004 Strategic Plan.

Welfare Reform: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is having a dramatic impact on the child support program. The new law adds major new responsibilities and increases workloads for both State and Federal staff. As described below, the Child Support Enforcement program has been greatly strengthened by the welfare reform law.

The Child Support Enforcement program broke new records in nationwide collections in FY 2000, reaching $17.9 billion. The government collected a record $1.4 billion in overdue child support from Federal income tax refunds for tax year 2000. More than 1.42 million families benefited from these collections. In addition, a program to match delinquent parents with financial records found more than one million accounts belonging to more than 690,000 delinquent non-custodial parents nationwide with a value in excess of $3 billion. The number of paternities established or acknowledged reached a record 1.6 million in FY 1999. Of these, over 754,000 were established through in-hospital acknowledgement programs. An additional 845,000 paternities were established through the Child Support Enforcement program.

PRWORA provided new tools to the Child Support Enforcement program to secure emotional and financial support for many of our nation's children. Some of the new support enforcement tools are the National Directory of New Hires, the Federal Case Registry, Financial Institution Data Matches, State Disbursement Units, activities in Paternity Establishment, and the Passport Denial program. PRWORA included significant enhancements of State and Federal data systems. States are now required to have a State Directory of New Hires and a State Case Registry for Child Support Enforcement. Together, the NDNH and the FCR give States the ability to track non-custodial parents across State lines using a complete and automated system. These various tools provided by the welfare reform law generate direct collections and also ancillary benefits. Some States are beginning to use matches provided by the system to locate custodial parents to distribute child support payments. The landscape of child support enforcement is changing because of the speed, efficiency, and effectiveness of this new system.

Incentive funding: The CSE program includes an incentive funding system with a formula based in statute. PRWORA required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a new revenue-neutral, performance-based incentive funding formula in consultation with States. This incentive funding system, which pays rewards to States based on cost effectiveness, will remain in effect until FY 2001, while a new system, enacted by the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA), is being phased in beginning in FY 2000. The formula will be instrumental in driving the CSE program toward achievement of the performance targets in this plan. This performance plan employs the same five performance measures enacted by CSPIA:

· Statewide paternity establishment percentage (PEP)

Number of Children in State with Paternity Established or Acknowledged during the FY
Number of Children in State Born Out-of-Wedlock in the Preceding FY

· Percentage of IV-D cases with support orders:

Number of IV-D Cases with Support Orders
Number of IV-D Cases

· IV-D collection rate for current support:

Collections on Current Support in IV-D Cases
Current Support Amount Owed in IV-D Cases

· IV-D arrearage cases paying:

Number of IV-D Cases Paying Toward Arrears
Number of IV-D Cases with Arrears Due

· Total dollars collected per $1 of expenditures:

Total of IV-D Dollars Collected
Total of IV-D Dollars Expended

In order to implement the new incentive system, OCSE has been providing training to States on the incentive measures, the formula for calculating payments and revised data reporting. OCSE’s auditors are closely monitoring the ability of States to report reliable data and are also assessing the validity of State-reported data.

During FY 2002, ACF will be measuring the CSE Program's success using these outcome measures which are part of the new incentive system to gauge the achievement of the goals and objectives of the National CSE Strategic Plan.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

ACF will aggressively implement the child support provisions of the law through technical assistance, tracking parents, and helping collect court-ordered support payments. This strategy will be achieved through a variety of means, including implementing Federal policy, technical assistance, training, information dissemination, a more performance-based incentive funding structure, and Federal oversight and assistance with State-based quality assurance.

The Federal Parent Locator Service will be expanded to facilitate location of non-custodial parents, their employers and their assets in order to promote the establishment and enforcement of child support orders. The National Directory of New Hires and Federal Case Registry have been implemented and are locating absent parents across State lines. The FCR contains 15.5 million child support cases (6% are non-IV-D) involving 31.7 million unduplicated case participants. As of January 31, 2001, 52 States and Territories (note: Guam and VI are missing) and 146 Federal agencies are reporting data to the NDNH. From Oct. 1, 2000 through Jan. 31, 2001, information was sent to States on more than 3.5 million non-custodial parents or putative fathers who live or work in another State than the one in which their child(ren) reside.

ACF works with the Department of State to deny passports to non-custodial parents who are not fulfilling their child support obligations. As many as 60 passports are denied every business day. Since the program's inception in June 1998, more than $6.5 million in lump sum payments have been collected by the States through the program. This amount does not include collections made through payment plans into which NCPs enter upon denial of their passport.

ACF operates the Multi-State Financial Institution Data Match (MSFIDM) with financial institutions and works with State partners to implement the In-State Financial Institution Data Match that assists in the identification of non-custodial parent assets. From October 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000, about 696,000 matches have been returned from the multi-state financial institutions based on matching social security numbers. States are using arrangements including in-house, consortia, and outsourcing to implement the in-state financial institution data match with local financial institutions.

ACF will continue efforts to broaden parental responsibility, especially the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, through several means. First, by focusing attention on the positive role fathers have in improving their children’s well-being. Second, by ensuring that the DHHS research agendas pay adequate attention to the role of fathers in families and the effects of fathering on children’s well-being. Third, by using positive messages and language regarding fathers and fatherhood in publications and announcements; and finally, by ensuring that DHHS’ own workforce policies encourage and enable fathers to balance work and family life responsibilities.

Working in partnership with States, ACF will use the following resources and tools to achieve the FY 2002 performance goals:

Federal match of State administrative expenditures (66%) and enhanced match for Statewide automated systems (80%) ($170 million currently available in unclaimed funds);
Data Reliability Audits of performance data and related technical assistance provided to States by Federal auditors;
All incentive funding provided to States will be based on paternity establishment, order establishment, current support collections, arrears cases paying and cost effectiveness (incentives capped at $450 million);
Section 1115 research grants, 1% and 2% set aside funding to provide technical assistance, supportive contracts, demonstration grants and child access and visitation grants;
Expanded Federal Parent Locator Service including a database of new hires and child support cases to assist States in locating parents and obtaining support through wage withholding;
Federal Tax Refund/Administrative Offset program to offset income tax refunds and selected Federal benefits payments to child support obligors;
ACF central office child support (151) and regional office (74) employees estimated at 225;
Central office child support staff are supplemented by approximately 200 contractor staff located both on and off-site;
Self assessments by States to help managers identify cases that need services thus increasing performance; and
Federal staff working collaboratively with State staff to implement new tools and requirements of welfare reform and the National CSE Strategic Plan.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Crosscutting Issues

ACF has instituted several mechanisms for ensuring internal and external coordination. Child Support reforms are being coordinated at several levels. The Office of Child Support Enforcement was a GPRA pilot and many of the PRWORA reforms have been integrated into the GPRA project activities. The GPRA process involves extensive consultation and collaboration with the CSE State partners. Additionally, there are child support implementation working groups for all the major reform activities under PRWORA. These groups are composed of Federal, State and local agency staff and also involve consultation with advocacy groups and national organizations.

DHHS has coordinated efforts to increase parental responsibility through promoting and encouraging father involvement through a Fathers’ Initiative that has representatives from all DHHS agencies. Meeting regularly to foster coordination and collaboration across DHHS, this group has developed working relationships with many non-governmental groups working to promote more father involvement in the lives of children. The faith-based community has been contacted to help in spreading the word on parental responsibility and child support services.

OCSE has partnered extensively with a range of Federal agencies/programs and State and local entities. The Expanded Federal Parent Locator Service employs data from the Social Security Administration and the Department of Labor in implementing the National Directory of New Hires and Federal Case Registry. Treasury’s Financial Management Service is a partner in the IRS Tax Refund Offset and the Administrative Payment Offset programs. The State Department is a partner in denying and revoking passports of individuals who meet certain delinquency criteria. OCSE has coordinated with numerous multi-state and in-state financial institutions to identify assets of non-custodial parents. OCSE has also collaborated with foundations, community-based organizations and State and local child support programs to launch demonstration projects in 10 sites to promote responsible fatherhood. These three year "fragile family" demonstrations, beginning in March 2000, will total $15 million including $10 million in Federal funding. Final evaluations will be completed one or two years after the demonstrations end.

In order to bring more resources toward holding non-custodial parents responsible, OCSE's Project Save Our Children (PSOC) has partnered with the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the DHHS Inspector General, and numerous State and local law enforcement agencies. OCSE has reached out to the Department of Labor’s Welfare to Work program in order to secure funds to benefit non-custodial parent job training. OCSE has enlisted other ACF programs including Head Start, Foster Care and Child Care to educate clients about child support services. OCSE has collaborated with the domestic violence community to inform service providers of the importance of child support and to ensure the safety of victims seeking child support services.

Program-wide Performance

The OCSE Audit Office has completed all FY 1999 data reliability audits and issued final reports for all States except one where they issued an interim report. As of February 2001, all States have reported all or partial data on their FY 2000 performance. Data are currently being reviewed.

Collections (measure 3.1c): The total amount of child support distributed as current support in FY 1999 was $11.8 billion. The total amount of current support due in FY 1999 was $22.5 billion.

Expenditures (measure 3.1e):In FY 1999, total administrative expenditures were up 15.9 percent to $4.0 billion. Comparison to total collections of $15.8 billion yields a cost-effectiveness ratio of $3.92, a decrease of 2.0 percent from FY 1998. This is due to increased automated data processing expenditures that are expected to continue to increase.

OCSE has re-evaluated the projections for performance measures. The following circumstances warranted replacing the FY 1996 baseline (with the exception of the cost-effectiveness ratio) and establishing a new baseline using FY 1999 data.

Changes to Reporting System: OCSE recently made significant revisions to its statistical and financial reporting forms to reflect the goals and objectives of the strategic plan and the performance-based incentive funding system enacted by the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA). The new forms added new data elements and revised definitions. In addition, Federal auditors have begun to assess the completeness and reliability of State-reported data. Specifically, auditors will review all statistical data used to calculate the measures that gauge State performance in paternities established, orders established, current support collections, and past-due collections. The only performance measure and data elements remaining largely unchanged during the transition from old to new reporting and incentive systems is the cost-effectiveness ratio. In addition, new statewide automated systems in over 44 States now report new data requirements more reliably with fewer errors and duplicated counts. Of the remaining States, Nebraska, Nevada and Ohio have indicated that they are compliant with ADP requirements but OCSE has not yet reviewed the documentation. California, Michigan, and South Carolina are not certified. It will be another two years before Michigan’s system will be completed. California and South Carolina should have their systems operational statewide in FY 2005 or 2006.

Statutory Evolution of the Program: The child support program has never been in a steady state. Significant legislation with new requirements and new collection tools has been enacted every few years through the 29-year history of the program. The capabilities and responsibilities of the program in 2002 are far greater than in 1995, prior to enactment of welfare reform. We believe comparison of past performance on these measures is not possible and would result in a comparison of "apples and oranges". Data definitions for FY 1999 - 2002 differ significantly from the past and have been prescribed by statute. For example, for incentive purposes, States may now exclude cases where they have no jurisdiction, such as those involving foreign countries and Indian tribes. In addition, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 divides collections into three new categories (current assistance, former assistance, and never assistance) which are integral to the incentive calculation and dramatically alter reporting systems. While the majority of the measures are new, the cost effectiveness ratio has been a traditional measure of the program. State-reported child support collections and program expenditures have been reported consistently and reliably for many years.

The FY 1999 - 2000 performance targets were very ambitious reflecting anticipation of results from a range of new collection tools and program improvements such as new hire reporting and increasing statewide automation. The strong economy augured well for collecting support from more employed non-custodial parents. But because these new collection tools had not been fully implemented, States failed to realize as large an increase in collections as expected, although collections of $17.9 billion were significant. Therefore, the FY 2001 and 2002 targets for measures 3.1b-c and 3.1e for have been adjusted downward from earlier projections based on the actual FY 1999 performance (data were not complete until December 2000).

Data Issues

State Automated Systems. States currently maintain information on the necessary data elements for the five program measures. Most States use an automated system to maintain this data, while a few maintain the data manually. All States were required to have a comprehensive, statewide, automated CSE system in place by October 1, 1997. 44 States currently meet this requirement. Continuing implementation of these systems, in conjunction with cleanup of case data, will improve the accuracy and consistency of reporting.

Data Completeness and Reliability. As part of OCSE’s certification of automated systems, their ability to produce valid data will be reviewed. Data reliability audits are conducted on an annual basis. Self-evaluation by States and OCSE audits will provide an on-going review of the validity of data input and the ability of automated systems to produce accurate data. There is a substantial time lag in data availability. The Audit Office has completed all FY 1999 audits and issued final reports for all States except for one State where they issued an interim report. As of February 2001, all States have reported all or partial data on their FY 2000 performance. The Audit Office has begun the FY 2000 audits and these should be completed during the summer of 2001. A Final Rule was published December 27, 2000 covering the requirements for the new performance-based incentive funding system, performance penalties, and standards for certain types of audits.

Summary Table

Performance Measures	Targets		Actual Performance	Reference (page # in printed document)
PROGRAM GOAL: All children have parentage established
Objective: Increase the number of paternities established, particularly those established within one year of birth.
3.1a. Increase the paternity establishment percentage (PEP) among children born out of wedlock.	FY 02: 97% FY 01: 96.5%^**1 FY 00: 96% FY 99: 96%		FY 02: FY 01: FY 00: 10/01 FY 99: 106%^*Ö	Px M-66
*This percentage (106%) represents not only current paternity established cases but also includes completion of backlogs of older IV-D cases. [back]
*PROGRAM GOAL: All children in IV-D cases have financial and medical support orders.*
Objective: Increase the percentage of IV-D cases with orders for financial support.
3.1b. Increase from the FY 99 baseline the percentage of IV-D cases having support orders.	FY 02: 64% FY 01: 62%^**2 FY 00: 76% FY 99: 74%		FY 02: FY 01: FY 00: 10/01 FY 99: 60%Ö	Px M-66
*PROGRAM GOAL: All children in IV-D cases receive financial and medical support from both parents.*
Objective: Increase the collection rate.
3.1c. Increase from the FY 99 baseline the IV-D collection rate for current support.	FY 02: 55% FY 01: 54%^**3 FY 00: 71% FY 99: 70%		FY 02: FY 01: FY 00: 10/01 FY 99: 52%Ö	Px M-67
Objective: Increase paying cases.
3.1d. Increase the percentage of paying cases among IV-D arrearage cases.	FY 02: 55% FY 01: 54.5%^**4 FY 00: 46% FY 99: 46%		FY 02: FY 01: FY 00: 10/01 FY 99: 54%Ö	Px M-68
Objective: Make the process more efficient and responsive.
3.1e. Increase the cost-effectiveness ratio (total dollars collected per $1 of expenditures).	FY 02: $4.20 FY 01: $4.00^**5 FY 00: $5.00 FY 99: $5.00		FY 02: FY 01: FY 00: 10/01 FY 99: $3.92Ö FY 98: $4.00 FY 97: $3.90 FY 96: $3.93	Px M-68
Please refer to discussion "Changes in Reporting System" providing the rationale for the use of FY 1999 as the baseline year for these measures. Ö FY 1999 data that was not available when the FY 1999 report was submitted with the FY 2001 CJ FY 2001 targets for measures 3.1b-c and 3.1e were decreased and 3.1a and 3.1d were increased based on FY 1999 actual performance. [back to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Availability of FY 2000 Data: FY 2000 final complete data should be available by October of 2001. The first reports are due October 30, 2000 with revised reports following by December 30, 2000. During the fall and winter, OCSE performs an analysis of the data and often communicates with States about possible errors or aberrations from the historic trend of performance. OCSE compiles a preliminary data report each spring followed by the Annual Report to Congress.
Total Funding (dollars in millions)See detailed Budget Linkage Table in Appendix 6 for line items included in funding totals.		FY 02: $3933.8 FY 01: $3732.5 FY 00: $3267.8 FY 99: $2965.5	Bx: budget just. sections B & L Px: page # performance plan

Performance Measures for FY 2002 and Final Measures for FY 2001.

The achievement of the performance targets will be significantly affected by a number of factors interacting with the CSE program in ways that help or hinder achievement of performance goals including: (1) the effect of State Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program structures and policies; (2) the 5-year time limit on TANF benefits which leaves child support as the linchpin for family self-sufficiency; (3) the health of the economy; (4) wage and unemployment rates; and (5) demographic and social trends such as divorce and non-marital birth rates. These, and other external factors, impact State agency caseloads, paternity establishment workloads, and ability to collect support payments.

States have organized their enforcement systems and infrastructures differently. Through its considerable national and regional technical assistance initiatives, many of which incorporate State self-assessment and peer technology transfers, ACF is customizing its efforts to individual State needs. Additionally, the new performance-based incentive process will add impetus to those States that may need to assign a higher priority to their child support programs.

The program objective statements listed below are part of the Office of Child Support’s multi-year Strategic Plan aimed at increasing overall performance. Annual measures are stated in terms consistent with the expected amount of increased or maintained performance. Performance projections for FY 2002 indicate that all five measures will remain relatively stable. One reason is continuing development of State automated systems, especially in States with large caseloads. ACF is unsure of the effect of certified automated systems operating in all 54 jurisdictions. While systems will allow for more effective child support enforcement in most performance areas, they are also likely to result in improved data reporting, which can alter current estimates of performance up or down. In addition, Data Reliability Audits will greatly assist in determining actual performance levels.

We are anticipating that performance will improve over time due to the phased-in implementation of incentives legislation which began in FY 2000. States’ performance should improve as a result of the incentives and the use of more reliable data systems. Almost all States are using automated systems; a few States may be developing their own systems. It is assumed that all States will be using the majority of enforcement tools resulting from enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

PROGRAM GOAL: All children have parentage established.

Objective:Increase the number of paternities established, particularly those established within one year of birth.

3.1a. FY 2001: Increase to 96.5% the paternity establishment percentage (PEP) among children born out of wedlock.

FY 2002: Increase to 97% the paternity establishment percentage (PEP) among children born out of wedlock.

Data source: The OCSE Form 157 is the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

This measure directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing paternities established during the fiscal year with the number of non-marital births during the preceding fiscal year. The statute allows States to use the IV-D PEP or a Statewide PEP. The Statewide PEP was selected because most States have indicated they will use the Statewide PEP as well. The rates above include paternities established by the IV-D program and paternities established by hospital-based programs. Maintaining the target rate in FY 2002 requires States to keep up with establishing paternities on out-of-wedlock births while continuing to handle backlogs of older IV-D cases needing paternity established.

Early interventions will be sought through expanding in-hospital based paternity establishment programs and partnering with birth record agencies, pre-natal clinics and other entities and encouraging voluntary acknowledgments, in accordance with the requirements of PRWORA. Partners will work together and with customers to help both parents understand their parental responsibilities and to promote establishing paternity in a non-adversarial manner wherever possible. In collaboration with partners and stakeholders, ACF will explore a variety of activities to help individuals better understand their parental responsibilities, including contributing to direct education programs in high schools, counseling, public awareness campaigns, public service announcements, and brochures about the CSE program. Technical assistance, training and education activities will be increased.

PROGRAM GOAL: All children in IV-D cases have financial and medical support orders.

Objective:Increase the percentage of IV-D cases with orders for financial support.

3.1b. FY 2001: Increase to 62% from the FY 1999 baseline the percentage of IV-D cases having support orders.

FY 2002: Increase to 64% from the FY 1999 baseline the percentage of IV-D cases having support orders.

Data source: The OCSE Form 157 is the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

A support order is needed to collect child support. This measure directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing the number of IV-D cases with support orders with the total number of IV-D cases. The FY 2001 target has been adjusted downward based on the actual performance in FY 1999 of 60%. We are projecting a slight increase in the target rate for FY 2002. This will require more effort as new child support cases are added to State workloads each year, increasing the overall caseload needing services.

PRWORA also gives States new tools to establish an order more quickly, such as administrative authority to require genetic testing, subpoena financial and other information, and to access a wide array of records. More States are voluntarily shifting from court-based to agency-based order establishment procedures. PRWORA requires expedited administrative procedures for the establishment of orders. PRWORA expands paternity acknowledgment programs to birth record agencies, which would set the stage for order establishment. PRWORA requires that all States enact the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act which grants States expansive long-arm jurisdiction allowing them to establish support orders against non-residents, thus avoiding the lengthy two-State process.

The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 requires the Secretary of HHS to recommend a medical support indicator for inclusion in the new incentive system. The Secretary’s report to Congress in June 1999 recommended postponement of the development of an indicator until June 2001. OCSE is currently working with States to develop the medical support indicator.

PROGRAM GOAL: All children in IV-D cases receive financial and medical support from both parents.

Objective:Increase the collection rate.

3.1c. FY 2001: Increase to 54% from the FY 1999 baseline the IV-D collection rate for current support.

FY 2002: Increase to 55% from the FY 1999 baseline the IV-D collection rate for current support.

Data source: The OCSE Form 157 is the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

This measure, a proxy for the regular and timely payment of support, directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing total dollars collected for current support in IV-D cases with total dollars owed for current support in IV-D cases. The FY 2001 target rate has been adjusted downward based on the actual performance in FY 1999. We are projecting a slight increase in the target rate for FY 2002. This represents an increase in effort because State caseloads generally increase every year.

Focus will be placed on improved enforcement techniques emphasizing automated mechanisms for enforcement, collections and payments to families. ACF will emphasize improvement of numerous processes that result in the support of children. These improvements include: (1) simplifying the payment process; (2) reducing barriers to non-custodial parents providing support payments; (3) increasing the number of cases handled using automated systems; (4) using alternative disposition strategies such as consensual agreements and other non-judicial agreements; (5) improving interstate case processing; (6) increasing coordination and integration of services with other agencies; and (7) increasing access to services.

PRWORA gives States new tools to increase collection of support, such as license revocation, new hire reporting, centralized collection and disbursement, enhancement of wage withholding procedures, and uniform procedures for interstate cases.

Objective:Increase paying cases.

3.1d. FY 2001: Increase to 54.5% the percentage of paying cases among IV-D arrearage cases.

FY 2002: Increase to 55% the percentage of paying cases among IV-D arrearage cases.

Data source: The OCSE Form 157 is the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

This measure directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing the total number of IV-D cases paying any amount toward arrears with the total number of IV-D cases with arrears due. More direct measurement of a national arrearage collection rate was not possible because States have laws that count arrears in widely varying ways. Some new cases enter the caseload with arrearages already accrued before the State can take any action. This measure, developed by the State/Federal Incentive Formula effort, has been incorporated into the revised FY 2000-2004 Strategic Plan.

Obtaining payment of arrears is often difficult. States must collect both current support and any accrued arrearages. Non-custodial parents often cannot keep up with both current support and arrears, hence arrears payments suffer. Focus will be placed on improved enforcement techniques emphasizing automated mechanisms for enforcement, collections and payments to families. ACF will emphasize improvement of numerous other processes that result in the support of children, including (1) simplifying the payment process; (2) reducing barriers to non-custodial parents providing support payments; (3) increasing the number of cases handled using automated systems; (4) using alternative disposition strategies such as consensual agreements and other non-judicial agreements; (5) improving interstate case processing; (6) increasing coordination and integration of services with other agencies; and (7) increasing access to services. PRWORA gives States new tools to increase collection of support such as license revocation, new hire reporting, centralized collection and disbursement, and uniform procedures for interstate cases. Other collection techniques aimed at arrears include administrative offset and seizing assets held in financial institutions.

Objective:Make the process more efficient and responsive.

3.1e. FY 2001: Maintain the cost-effectiveness ratio (total dollars collected per $1 of expenditures) from the FY 1999 baseline at $4.00.

FY 2002: Increase the cost-effectiveness ratio (total dollars collected per $1 of expenditures) to $4.20.

Data sources: The OCSE Form 34A and 396A are the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

This measure directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing total IV-D dollars collected by States with total IV-D dollars expended by States. Maintaining the target rate for FY 2002 requires more work because State caseloads and the total amount of child support owed increase each year.

Under current law, cost effectiveness is being phased out as the sole determinant for incentive payments. It is important to monitor the allowable costs of the program in relation to the amount collected. Focus will be placed on increased efficiency of State programs through automated systems of case management, enforcement, collection and disbursement, staffing, administrative processes and increased collections resulting from approaches described previously under current collections and arrears cases paying. Federal audits will focus on administrative costs to ensure States do not shift costs from block grants to matching programs.

OCSE is continuing an internal tactical planning process to align Federal operations with the National Strategic Plan. OCSE has collaborated with State partners to revise and update the National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan for FY 2000-2004. OCSE has employed a partnership approach in all major services it provides to States. For example, the development of the new hire reporting system, incentive funding proposal, and technical assistance and training plans have all been developed collaboratively with State partners through State/Federal work groups.

Table of Contents | Previous | Next