Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Policy
January 27, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22380
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
Summary
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program
(Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) to help strengthen families by securing financial support
for children from their noncustodial parent on a consistent and continuing basis and by helping
some families to remain self-sufficient and off public assistance by providing the requisite CSE
services. Over the years, CSE has evolved into a multifaceted program. While cost-recovery still
remains an important function of the program, its other aspects include service delivery and
promotion of self-sufficiency and parental responsibility. In FY2012, the CSE program collected
$27.7 billion in child support payments and served nearly 15.7 million child support cases.
However, the program still collects only 63% of current child support obligations for which it has
responsibility and collects payments for only 59% of its November 7, 2014
The House Ways and Means Committee is making available this version of this Congressional Research Service
(CRS) report, with the cover date shown, for inclusion in its 2014 Green Book website. CRS works exclusively
for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to Committees and Members of both the
House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.
Congressional Research Service
RS22380
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
Summary
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program
(Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) to (1) reduce public expenditures for welfare recipients by
obtaining ongoing support from noncustodial parents that could reimburse the state and federal
governments for part of their expenses (i.e., welfare cost-recovery) and (2) help strengthen
families by securing financial support for children from their noncustodial parent on a consistent
and continuing basis to enable some families to remain self-sufficient and off public assistance.
Over the years, CSE has evolved into a multifaceted program. While welfare cost-recovery still
remains an important function of the program, its other aspects include service delivery and
promotion of self-sufficiency and parental responsibility. The CSE program has different rules for
welfare and non-welfare families.
The CSE program provides seven major services on behalf of children: (1) parent location, (2)
paternity establishment, (3) establishment of child support orders, (4) review and modification of
child support orders, (5) collection of child support payments, (6) distribution of child support
payments, and (7) establishment and enforcement of medical support.
Child support collection methods used by state CSE agencies include income withholding;
intercept of federal and state income tax refunds; intercept of unemployment compensation; liens
against property; reporting child support obligations to credit bureaus; intercept of lottery
winnings; sending insurance settlement information to CSE agencies; authority to withhold or
suspend driver’s licenses, professional licenses, and recreational and sporting licenses of persons
who owe past-due support; and authority to seize assets of debtor parents held by public or
private retirement funds and financial institutions. Moreover, federal law authorizes the Secretary
of State to deny, revoke, or restrict passports of debtor parents. Federal law also provides for
international enforcement of child support.
The CSE program is a federal-state matching grant program under which states must spend
money in order to receive federal funding. For every dollar a state spends on CSE expenditures, it
generally receives 66 cents from the federal government. States also receive CSE incentive
payments from the federal government.
In FY2013, the CSE program collected $28.0 billion in child support payments and served nearly
15.6 million child support cases. However, the program still collects only 64% of current child
support obligations for which it has responsibility and collects payments for only 60% of its
caseload.
Congressional Research Service
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
Contents
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Program Elements ............................................................................................................................ 2
Locating Absent Parents ............................................................................................................ 3
Paternity Establishment ............................................................................................................. 34
Establishment of Child Support Orders ..................................................................................... 4 5
Review and Modification of Support Orders ............................................................................ 45
Enforcement .............................................................................................................................. 46
Financing ................................................................................................................................... 57
Collection and Disbursement. .................................................................................................... 58
Distribution of Support .............................................................................................................. 5 9
Visitation Grants and Responsible Fatherhood Programs ............................................................... 6
Tables
Table 1. Child Support Data—FY2012 (Preliminary) 10
Access and Visitation Grants......................................................................... 2
Contacts
Author Contact Information.......................... 10
Responsible Fatherhood Programs .......................................................................................... 10
Tables
Table 1. Child Support Data—FY2013 (Preliminary) ..................................................................... 2................... 7
Congressional Research Service
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
Background
The CSEChild Support Enforcement (CSE) program, Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act,
was enacted in January 1975
(P.L. 93-647).1 The CSE program is administered by the Office of
Child Support Enforcement
(OCSE) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
and funded by general
revenues. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands
operate CSE programs and are entitled to federal matching funds.1 2
Families receiving Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits (Title IV-A of the
Social Security Act), foster
care payments (Title IV-E of the Social Security Act), or Medicaid
coverage (Title XIX of the
Social Security Act) automatically qualify for CSE services free of
charge.23 Collections on behalf
of families receiving cash TANF block grant benefits are used, in part, to
reimburse state and
federal governments for TANF payments made to the family. Other families
must apply for CSE
services, and states must charge an application fee that cannot exceed $25.3
Child support
collected on behalf of nonwelfarenon-welfare families goes to the family, usually through the state
state disbursement unit.
Between FY1978 and FY2012FY2013, child support payments collected by CSE agencies increased from
$1 billion in FY1978 to $27.728.0 billion in FY2012FY2013, and the number of children whose paternity was
established or acknowledged increased from 111,000 to 1.658595 million. However, the program still
collects only 19% of child support obligations for which it has responsibility if arrearage
payments are taken into account (otherwise, 6364%)4 and collects payments for only about 5960% of
its caseload. OCSE data indicate that in FY2012FY2013, paternity had been established or acknowledged
for 95% of the 11.10 million children on the CSE caseload without legally identified fathers.5 The
CSE program is estimated to handle 50%-60% of all child support cases; the remaining cases are
handled by private attorneys, collection agencies, or through mutual agreements between the
parents.
1
States were historically required to provide CSE services to Indian tribes and tribal organizations as part of their CSE
caseloads. In contrast to the federal matching rate of 66% for CSE programs run by the states or territories, pursuant to
the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), the CSE program provides direct federal funding equal to 100% of
approved and allowable CSE expenditures during the start-up period, provides 90% federal funding for approved CSE
programs operated by tribes or tribal organizations during the first three years of full program operation, and provides
80% federal funding thereafter. As of June 2013, 51 Indian tribes or tribal organizations operated comprehensive tribal
CSE programs and 9 Indian tribes or tribal organizations operated start-up tribal CSE programs
(http://www.supporttribalchildren.org/Tribal%20Program%20Directory/Tribal%20Program%20Directory.pdf ). For
additional information, see CRS Report R41204, Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs, by Carmen SolomonFears.
2
In addition, families who are required by the state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to cooperate
with the CSE agency automatically qualify for CSE services free of charge.
3
P.L. 109-171, effective October 1, 2006, requires families who have never been on TANF to pay a $25 annual user
fee when child support enforcement efforts on their behalf are successful (i.e., at least $500 annually is collected on
their behalf). For more information on the CSE annual user fee, see CRS Report RS22753, Child Support Enforcement:
$25 Annual User Fee, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
4
In FY2012, $148.3 billion in child support obligations ($33.7 billion in current support and $114.6 billion in past-due
support) was owed to families receiving CSE services, but only $28.9 billion was paid ($21.2 billion current, $7.7
billion past-due).
5
For more information regarding FY2012 data on the CSE program, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/
resource/fy2012-preliminary-report#tables.
Congressional Research Service
1
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
Table 1. Child Support Data—FY2012 (Preliminary)
Total CSE caseload
Total, 15.8 million; TANF, 1.9 million; former-TANF, 6.8 million; never-TANF, 7.0 million
Total CSE collections
Total, $27.719 billion; TANF families, $0.961 billion; former-TANF, $8.889 billion; neverTANF, $11.759 billion (plus $6.111 billion on behalf of Medicaid-only families)
Payments to families
Total, $25.6 billion; TANF, $164 million; former-TANF, $7.8 billion; never-TANF,
$11.6 billion (plus $5.9 billion on behalf of Medicaid-only families)
Federal share of TANF
collections
$923 million
State share of TANF
collections
$640 million
Medical support
payments
$423 million
Total CSE expenditures
$5.661 billion; federal share, $3.407 billion, state share, $2.254 billion
Incentive payments to
states (estimated)
$450 million
Paternities established and
acknowledged
1,658,287
Support orders established
1,204,644 (includes only new orders; excludes modifications)
Collections made
For 9,215,021 total families; TANF families, 659,678; former-TANF families, 3,934,848;
never-TANF families, 4,620,495
Table 1, below, provides FY2013 data on the CSE program, including total collections and
expenditures, caseload numbers, and the number of paternities and child support orders
established. The balance of this report describes each of the major program elements of the CSE
program. It also includes a discussion of the related programs: Access and Visitation Grants and
the Responsible Fatherhood Program.
1
The CSE statute is found in Sections 451 through 469B of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §651 through §669b).
The CSE federal regulations are found in 45 C.F.R. §301 through 310.
2
States were historically required to provide CSE services to Indian tribes and tribal organizations as part of their CSE
caseloads. Although tribes were not specifically included in the CSE statute until the 1996 welfare reform law, several
tribes had negotiated agreements (e.g., informal, cooperative, intergovernmental, and joint powers) with some states in
a mutual effort to serve Native American children. The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) allowed direct federal
funding of approved tribal CSE programs. In general, Native American children living on Indian reservations that have
a tribal CSE program are covered by that specific tribal CSE program; Native American children who do not live on
Indian reservations are covered by the state’s CSE program.
3
In addition, families who are required by the state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to cooperate
with the CSE agency automatically qualify for CSE services free of charge.
4
In FY2013, $150.0 billion in child support obligations ($33.9 billion in current support and $116.1 billion in past-due
support) was owed to families receiving CSE services, but only $29.2 billion was paid ($21.6 billion current, $7.6
billion past-due).
5
For more information regarding FY2013 data on the CSE program, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/
resource/fy2013-preliminary-report.
Congressional Research Service
1
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
Table 1. Child Support Data—FY2013 (Preliminary)
Total CSE caseload
Total, 15.6 million; TANF, 1.8 million; former-TANF, 6.7 million; never-TANF, 7.1 million
Total CSE collections
Total, $28.007 billion; TANF families, $0.908 billion; former-TANF, $8.772 billion; neverTANF, $11.381 billion (plus $6.945 billion on behalf of Medicaid-only families)
Payments to families
Total, $26.0 billion; TANF, $155 million; former-TANF, $7.8 billion; never-TANF,
$11.2 billion (plus $6.7 billion on behalf of Medicaid-only families)
Federal share of TANF
collections
$791 million
State share of TANF
collections
$627 million
Medical support
payments
$464 million
Total CSE expenditures
$5.588 billion; federal share, $3.344 billion, state share, $2.244 billion
Incentive payments to
states (estimated)
$448 million
Paternities established and
acknowledged
1,594,664
Support orders established
1,142,204 (includes only new orders; excludes modifications)
Collections made
For 9,382,977 total families; TANF families, 663,728; former-TANF families, 3,970,014;
never-TANF families, 4,749,235
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support
Enforcement, Department of Health and Human Services.
Note: Some totals are imprecise because of rounding.
Program Elements
The CSE program provides seven major services on behalf of children: (1) parent location, (2)
paternity establishment, (3) establishment of child support orders, (4) review and modification of
child support orders, (5) collection of child support payments, (6) distribution of child support
payments, and (7) establishment and enforcement of medical support.6
6
A noncustodial parent may be ordered to provide health insurance if available through his or her employer, pay for
private health insurance premiums, or reimburse the custodial parent for all or a portion of the costs of health insurance
obtained by the custodial parent. Federal law requires every child support order to include a provision for health care
coverage. The CSE program is required to pursue private health care coverage when such coverage is available through
a noncustodial parent’s employer at a reasonable cost. P.L. 109-171 required that medical support for a child be
provided by either or both parents and that it must be enforced. It authorizes the state CSE agency to enforce medical
support against a custodial parent whenever health care coverage is available to the custodial parent at reasonable cost.
Moreover, it stipulates that medical support may include health care coverage (including payment of costs of
premiums, co-payments, and deductibles) and payment of medical expenses for a child. (For additional information on
medical child support, see CRS Report R43020, Medical Child Support: Background and Current Policy, by Carmen
Solomon-Fears.)
Congressional Research Service
2
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
Locating Absent Parents
If the CSE program cannot locate the noncustodial parent with the information provided by the
custodial parent, it must try to locate the noncustodial parent through the State Parent Locator
Service. The state uses various information sources such as telephone directories, motor vehicle
registries, tax files, and employment and unemployment records. The state also can ask the
Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS)7 to locate the noncustodial parent. The FPLS can access
data from the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of
Defense, the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, the National Security Agency, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and State Employment Security Agencies.
To improve the CSE agency’s ability to locate absent parents, states are required to have
automated registries of child support orders that contain records of each case in which CSE
services are being provided and all new or modified child support orders. The state registry
child support
case registry includes a record of the child support owed under the order, arrearages, interest or
late penalty charges,
amounts collected, amounts distributed, the child’s date of birth, and any
liens imposed; and also
includes standardized information on both parents, such as name, Social
Security number, date of
birth, and case identification number. States also must establish an
automated directory of new
hires containing information from employers, including federal, state,
and local governments and
labor organizations, for each newly hired employee, that includes the
name, address, and Social
Security number of the employee and the employer’s name, address,
and tax identification
number. This information generally is supplied to the state new hires
directory within 20 days
after the employee is hired. Moreover, federal law required the
establishment of a federal case
registry of child support orders and a national directory of new
hires.78 The federal directories
consist of information from the state directories and federal
agencies (located in the Federal
Parent Locator Service, or FPLS).
FPLS).
7
The FPLS is an assembly of systems operated by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), to assist states in
locating noncustodial parents, putative fathers, and custodial parents for the establishment of paternity and child
support obligations, as well as the enforcement and modification of orders for child support, custody, and visitation.
The FPLS assists federal and state agencies in identifying overpayments and fraud, and assists with assessing benefits.
Developed in cooperation with the states, employers, federal agencies, and the judiciary, the FPLS was expanded by
P.L. 104-193 to include the following:
• The National Directory of New Hires (NDNH): a central repository of employment, unemployment insurance, and
wage data from State Directories of New Hires, State Workforce Agencies, and federal agencies.
• The Federal Case Registry (FCR): a national database that contains information on individuals in child support cases
and child support orders.
• The Federal Offset Program (FOP): a program that collects past-due child support payments from the tax refunds of
parents who have been ordered to pay child support.
• The Federal Administrative Offset Program (FAOP): a program that intercepts certain federal payments in order to
collect past-due child support.
• The Passport Denial Program (PDP): a program that works with the Secretary of State in denying passports of any
person that has been certified as owing a child support debt greater than $2,500.
• The Multistate Financial Institution Data Match (MSFIDM): a program that allows child support agencies a means of
locating financial assets of individuals owing child support.
For additional information on the FPLS, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/federal-parent-locatorservice-information-for-families.
8
Within three business days after receipt of new hire information from the employer, the state directory of new hires is
required to furnish the information to the national directory of new hires. (For additional information, see CRS Report
RS22889, The National Directory of New Hires, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.)
Congressional Research Service
3
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
Federal law allows all states to link up to an array of databases, and permits the FPLS to be used
for the purpose of establishing parentage; establishing, setting the amount of, modifying, or
enforcing child support obligations; and enforcing child custody or visitation orders.89 Federal law
requires that a designated state agency, directly or by contract, conduct automated comparisons of
the Social Security numbers reported by employers to the state directory of new hires and the
Social Security numbers of CSE cases that appear in the records of the state registry of child
support orders. Federal law requires the HHS Secretary to conduct similar comparisons of the
federal directories.910 Automation is critical to the operation and success of the CSE program.1011
Paternity Establishment
Legally identifying the father is a prerequisite for obtaining a child support order. Federal law
requires TANF applicants and recipients to cooperate in establishing paternity or obtaining
7
Within three business days after receipt of new hire information from the employer, the state directory of new hires is
required to furnish the information to the national directory of new hires. (For additional information, see CRS Report
RS22889, The National Directory of New Hires, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.)
8
In divorce
cases, the husband is generally deemed to be the father of any children born during the marriage.
In nonmarital birth cases, paternity must be established.
Federal law requires states to have procedures that permit the establishment of paternity for all
children under the age of 18.12 Federal law also requires TANF applicants and recipients to
cooperate in establishing paternity or obtaining support payments. Moreover, a penalty for
noncooperation exists. If it is determined that an individual is not cooperating and the individual
does not qualify for any good cause or other exception, then the state must reduce the family’s
TANF benefit by at least 25% and may eliminate it entirely. In addition, federal law (1) requires
that paternity be established for 90% of the CSE cases needing such a determination, (2) requires
a simple civil process for establishing paternity, (3) requires an affidavit to be completed by men
voluntarily acknowledging paternity and entitles the affidavit to full faith and credit in any state,13
(4) stipulates that a signed acknowledgment of paternity be considered a legal finding of paternity
unless it is rescinded within 60 days, and thereafter may be challenged in court only on the basis
of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, (5) provides that no judicial or administrative action
is needed to ratify an acknowledgment that is not challenged, and (6) requires all parties to submit
to genetic testing in contested paternity cases.14
9
P.L. 104-193 permitted both custodial and certain noncustodial parents to obtain information from the FPLS. P.L.
105-33, however, prohibited FPLS information from being disclosed to noncustodial parents in cases where there is
evidence of domestic violence or child abuse, and the local court determines that disclosure may result in harm to the
custodial parent or child.
910
When a match occurs, the state directory of new hires is required to report to the state CSE agency the name, address,
and Social Security number of the employee, and the employer’s name, address, and identification number. Within two
business days, the CSE agency then instructs appropriate employers to withhold child support obligations from the
employee’s paycheck, unless the employee’s income is not subject to income withholding.
10
Federal law requires suspension of all federal CSE funding to the state when its CSE plan, after appeal, is
disapproved. Moreover, states without approved CSE plans could lose funding for the TANF block grant. 11
P.L. 105-200
imposed substantially smaller imposed financial penalties on states that failed to meet the law’s automated data systems requirements.
The HHS Secretary is required to reduce the amount the state would otherwise have received in federal CSE funding by
the penalty amount for the fiscal year in question. TheSection 455(a)(4)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
§655(a)(4)(B)) stipulates that the penalty amount percentage is 4% in the case of the first year of
noncompliance (FY1998); 8% in noncompliance; 8% in
the second year (FY1999); 16% in the third year (FY2000); 25% in the fourth year
(FY2001); and 30% in the fifth or any subsequent year.
Congressional Research Service
3
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
support payments. Moreover, a penalty for noncooperation exists. If it is determined that an
individual is not cooperating and the individual does not qualify for any good cause or other
exception, then the state must reduce the family’s TANF benefit by at least 25% and may
eliminate it entirely. Federal law also (1) requires that paternity be established for 90% of the
CSE cases needing such a determination, (2) requires a simple civil process for establishing
paternity, (3) requires an affidavit to be completed by men voluntarily acknowledging paternity
and entitles the affidavit to full faith and credit in any state, (4) stipulates that a signed
acknowledgment of paternity be considered a legal finding of paternity unless it is rescinded
within 60 days, and thereafter may be challenged in court only on the basis of fraud, duress, or
material mistake of fact, (5) provides that no judicial or administrative action is needed to ratify
an acknowledgment that is not challenged, and (6) requires all parties to submit to genetic testing
in contested paternity cases.; and 30% in the fifth or any subsequent year.
12
Section 466(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §666(a)(5)). P.L. 109-171 stipulated that the 90% federal
matching rate for laboratory costs associated with paternity establishment would be reduced to 66% beginning October
1, 2006.
13
Section 466(a)(5)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §666(a)(5)(D)).stipulates that an unmarried woman
cannot put a man’s name on a child’s birth record/certificate unless the man has voluntarily acknowledged that he is the
father of that child or a court or administrative agency has ruled that the man is the father of the child in question.
14
Federal law requires states to have procedures which create a rebuttable or, at the option of the state, conclusive
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
Establishment of Child Support Orders
A child support order legally obligates noncustodial parents to provide financial support for their
children and stipulates the amount of the obligation and how it is to be paid. It is usually
established at the time of divorce or when an unmarried couple dissolves their relationship or
when a welfare case is initiated. Child support payments enable parents who do not live with their
children to fulfill their financial responsibility to their children by contributing to the payment of
childrearing costs.
The child support order is established administratively by a state/county CSE agency or through
the state courts. P.L. 100-485 required states to use their state-established
guidelines in establishing child support orders. States decide child support amounts based on the
noncustodial parent’s income or based on both parents’ income; other factors include the age of
child, whether a stepparent is in the home, whether the child is disabled, and the number of
siblings.
Review and Modification of Support Orders
Without periodic modifications, child support obligations can become inadequate or inequitable.
Under current law, states generally must review child support orders every three years to
determine if the order should be adjusted to reflect the parent’s financial circumstances.11
Enforcement
Collection methods used by state CSE agencies include income withholding,12
establishing child support orders. Child support guidelines are a set of rules and tables that are
used to determine the amount of the child support order. Child support guidelines are designed to:
(1) protect the best interests of the children by trying to ensure that the child or children in
question continue to benefit from the financial resources of both parents in situations in which the
parents go their separate ways and (2) make the calculation of child support fair, objective,
consistent, and predictable (which in many instances has the added benefit of reducing conflict
and tension between the parents).
States decide child support amounts based on the noncustodial parent’s income or based on both
parents’ income; other factors include the age of child, whether a stepparent is in the home,
whether the child is disabled, and the number of siblings.
States currently use one of three basic types of guidelines to determine child support award
amounts (i.e., the child support order): (1) “Income shares,” which is based on the combined
income of both parents (37 states and Guam); (2) “percentage of income,” in which the number of
eligible children is used to determine a percentage of the noncustodial parents’ income to be paid
in child support (10 states and the District of Columbia); and (3) “Melson-Delaware,” which
provides a minimum self-support reserve for parents before the cost of rearing the children is
prorated between the parents to determine the award amount (3 states).15
Review and Modification of Support Orders
Without periodic modifications, child support obligations can become inadequate or inequitable.
Effective review and modification of child support orders is an important step in ensuring that
noncustodial parents continue to comply with realistic orders based on actual ability to pay
them.16
Generally, child support orders can be modified when a noncustodial parent’s ability to pay
changes substantially. Under current law,17 states generally must review child support orders
(...continued)
presumption of paternity upon genetic testing results indicating a threshold probability that the alleged father is the
actual father of the child (Section 466(a)(5)(G) of the Social Security Act) (42 U.S.C. §666(a)(5)(G)).
15
Information was not available for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The following webpage indicates that the data
was updated February 2012 (http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/guideline-models-by-state.aspx).
16
See the following webpage: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocse/
providing_expedited_review_and_modification.pdf.
17
Section 466(a)(10) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §666(a)(10)).
Congressional Research Service
5
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
periodically to determine if the order should be adjusted to reflect the parent’s financial
circumstances—every three years in cases where the custodial parent is receiving TANF
assistance, and for all other cases, orders may be reviewed upon the request of either parent.
CSE programs usually rely on one of the parents to request a modification of the child support
order. It is important for parents facing job loss or other substantial changes in circumstances to
seek a modification to their order quickly so that they do not fall behind in their payments and
thereby have to contend with child support arrearages (i.e., past-due child support payments).18
Enforcement
The CSE program has a vast array of enforcement methods at its disposal. Child support
collection methods used by state CSE agencies include income withholding,19 intercept of federal
and state income tax refunds, intercept of unemployment compensation, liens against property,
reporting child support obligations to credit bureaus, intercept of lottery winnings, sending
insurance settlement information to CSE agencies, authority to withhold or suspend driver’s
licenses, professional licenses, and recreational and sporting licenses of persons who owe pastdue support, and authority to seize assets of debtor parents held by public or private retirement
funds and financial institutions. Moreover, federal law authorizes the Secretary of State to deny,
11revoke, or restrict passports of debtor parents.
All jurisdictions also have civil or criminal contempt-of-court procedures and criminal
nonsupport laws. In addition, federal criminal penalties may be imposed in certain cases. Federal
law also requires states to enact and implement the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
(UIFSA), and expand full faith and credit procedures.
Federal law also provides for international enforcement of child support.20 P.L. 113-183 (enacted
on September 29, 2014), an omnibus bill that includes changes to child welfare and child support
programs21, contains provisions that are designed to improve child support collections in cases
where the custodial parent and child live in one country and the noncustodial parent lives in
18
If a noncustodial parent cannot pay his or her child support payments because of unemployment, imprisonment, and
so forthor
some other reason, then the noncustodial parent should immediately contact the court in order to have the child support order
order modified. Pursuant to federal law (Section §466(a)(9) of the Social Security Act), the court will not be able to
retroactively reduce the back payments (i.e., arrearages) that a noncustodial parent owes.
1219
There are three exceptions to the immediate income withholding rule: (1) if one of the parties demonstrates, and the
court (or administrative process) finds that there is good cause not to require immediate withholding, (2) if both parties
agree in writing to an alternative arrangement, or (3) at the HHS Secretary’s discretion, if a state can demonstrate that
the rule will not increase the effectiveness or efficiency of the state’s CSE program.
Congressional Research Service
4
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
revoke, or restrict passports of debtor parents. All jurisdictions also have civil or criminal
contempt-of-court procedures and criminal nonsupport laws. In addition, federal criminal
penalties may be imposed in certain cases. Federal law also requires states to enact and
implement the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), and expand full faith and credit
procedures. Federal law also provides for international enforcement of child support.13
Financing14
The federal government reimburses each state 66% of the cost of operating its CSE program.15 In
addition, the federal government pays states an incentive payment to encourage them to operate
effective programs.16 Federal law requires states to reinvest CSE incentive payments back into the
CSE program or related activities.17
Collection and Disbursement
All states are required to have a centralized automated state collection and disbursement unit to
which child support payments are paid and from which they are distributed. Federal law generally
requires employers to remit to the state disbursement unit (SDU) income withheld within seven
business days after the employee’s payday. Further, the SDU is required to send child support
payments to custodial parents within two business days of receipt of such payments.
Distribution of Support
Distribution rules determine which claim is paid first when a child support collection occurs. The
order of payment of the child support collection is important because in many cases arrearages
are never fully paid. While the family receives TANF cash benefits, the states and federal
government retain any current support and any assigned arrearages18 collected up to the
13
The CSE program has reciprocating agreements regarding the enforcement of child support with 15 countries:
Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
14
For additional information on the financing of the CSE program, see CRS Report RL33422, Analysis of FederalState Financing of the Child Support Enforcement Program, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
15
P.L. 109-171 stipulated that the 90% federal matching rate for laboratory costs associated with paternity
establishment would be reduced to 66% beginning October 1, 2006.
16
The CSE incentive payment—which is based in part on five performance measures related to establishment of
20
The CSE program has reciprocating agreements regarding the enforcement of child support with 15 countries:
Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Note: Canada
is a federal state, composed of 10 provinces and 3 territories, each with its own government and power to make laws.
The United States currently has bilateral, federal-level agreements with 9 Canadian provinces and 3 Canadian
territories. The 9 provinces are Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador,
Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. The 3 territories are Northwest Territories, Nunavut,
and Yukon. The United States does not have a bilateral, federal-level agreement with Quebec. (See federal Child
Support Enforcement webpage—http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/international/.)
21
For more information on P.L. 113-183, see CRS Report R43757, Child Welfare and Child Support: The Preventing
Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (P.L. 113-183), by Emilie Stoltzfus, Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara,
and Carmen Solomon-Fears.
Congressional Research Service
6
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
another country. It ensures that the United States is compliant with any multilateral child support
enforcement treaties and, as part of this, requires states to update their Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act (UIFSA) law to incorporate verbatim any amendments adopted as of September 30,
2008, by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Additionally, P.L.
113-183 facilitates greater access to the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) by foreign
countries and tribal governments as part of improving child support collections. The new law
(P.L. 113-183) also amends federal law so that the federal income tax refund offset program is
available for use by a state to handle CSE requests from foreign reciprocating countries and
foreign treaty countries.22
Financing23
The CSE program is funded with both state and federal dollars. There are five funding streams
for the CSE program. First, states spend their own money to operate a CSE program; the level of
funding allocated by the state and/or localities determines the amount of resources available to
CSE agencies.
CSE Funding Elements
Second, the federal government reimburses
each state 66% of all allowable expenditures
on CSE activities.24 The federal government’s
funding is “open-ended” in that it pays its
percentage of expenditures by matching the
amounts spent by state and local governments
with no upper limit or ceiling.
State dollars
Federal matching funds (i.e., 66% of general state
CSE expenditures)
Retained child support collections from
noncustodial parents on behalf of welfare families
Incentive payments to states
Fees
Third, states collect child support on behalf of
families receiving TANF assistance to
reimburse themselves (and the federal government) for the cost of TANF cash payments to the
family. (See Distribution of Support section, below).
Fourth, the federal government provides states with an incentive payment to encourage them to
operate effective programs.25 Federal law requires states to reinvest CSE incentive payments back
into the CSE program or related activities.26
22
For additional information on international enforcement of child support, see CRS Report R43779, Child Support
Enforcement and the Hague Convention on Recovery of International Child Support, by Carmen Solomon-Fears and
Alison M. Smith.
23
For additional information on the financing of the CSE program, see CRS Report RL33422, Analysis of FederalState Financing of the Child Support Enforcement Program, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
24
In contrast to the federal matching rate of 66% for CSE programs run by the states or territories, pursuant to the 1996
welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), the CSE program provides direct federal funding equal to 100% of approved and
allowable CSE expenditures by tribes and tribal organizations during the start-up period, provides 90% federal funding
for approved CSE programs operated by tribes or tribal organizations during the first three years of full program
operation, and provides 80% federal funding thereafter. According to OCSE’s Dear Colleague Letter (DCL-14-06), as
of April 4, 2014, 54 Indian tribes or tribal organizations operated comprehensive tribal CSE programs and 7 Indian
tribes or tribal organizations operated start-up tribal CSE programs. For a listing of the tribal programs, see
http://www.supporttribalchildren.org/Tribal%20Program%20Directory/Tribal%20Program%20Directory.pdf. For
additional information, see CRS Report R41204, Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs, by Carmen SolomonFears.
25
The CSE incentive payment—which is based in part on five performance measures related to establishment of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
Fifth, application fees and costs recovered from non-welfare families may help finance the CSE
program. In the case of a non-welfare family, the custodial parent can hire a private attorney or
apply for CSE services. As one might expect, hiring a private attorney is more expensive than
applying for services under the federal/state CSE program. The CSE agency must charge an
application fee, not to exceed $25, for families not on welfare. The CSE agency may charge this
fee to the applicant or the noncustodial parent, or pay the fee out of state funds. Moreover, a state
may at its option recover costs in excess of the application fee. Such recovery may be either from
the custodial parent or the noncustodial parent. In addition, P.L. 109-171, effective October 1,
2006, required families who have never been on TANF to pay a $25 annual user fee when child
support enforcement efforts on their behalf are successful (i.e., at least $500 annually is collected
on their behalf).27 Such fees and costs recovered from non-welfare cases must be subtracted from
the state’s total administrative costs before calculating the federal reimbursement amount (i.e., the
66% matching rate).
Collection and Disbursement
All states are required to have a centralized automated state collection and disbursement unit to
which child support payments are paid and from which they are distributed.
The main objectives of State Disbursement Units (SDUs) are to facilitate child support
enforcement via the income withholding process by providing employers with a single location in
each state to send the withheld child support payments and to make the processing of child
support payments more efficient and economical.
The State Disbursement Unit must be operated directly by the state CSE agency, by two or more
state CSE agencies under a regional cooperative agreement, or by a contractor responsible
directly to the state CSE agency. The SDU may be established by linking local disbursement units
through an automated information network if the Secretary of HHS agrees that the system will
not cost more, take more time to establish, or take more time to operate than a single state system.
All states, including those that operate a linked system, must give employers one and only one
location for submitting withheld income.
The SDU must be used to collect and disburse support payments, to generate orders and notices
of withholding to employers, to keep an accurate identification of payments, to promptly
distribute money to custodial parents or other states, and to furnish parents with a record of the
current status of child support payments. The SDU must use automated procedures, electronic
(...continued)
paternity and child support orders, collection of current and past-due child support payments, and cost-effectiveness—
was statutorily set by P.L. 105-200. In the aggregate, incentive payments to states may not exceed $458 million for
FY2006, $471 million for FY2007, and $483 million for FY2008 (to be increased for inflation in years thereafter).
Aggregate incentive payments to states are capped at $526530 million for FY2012FY2013 and estimated to amount to $465448
million. For additional information on CSE incentive payments, see CRS Report RL34203, Child Support Enforcement
Program Incentive Payments: Background and Policy Issues, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
1726
P.L. 109-171, effective October 1, 2007, prohibited federal matching of state expenditure of federal CSE incentive
payments. However, P.L. 111-5 required HHS to temporarily provide federal matching funds (in FY2009 and FY2010)
on CSE incentive payments that states reinvest back into the CSE program. Thus, CSE incentive payments that are
received by states and reinvested in the CSE program are no longer eligible for federal reimbursement.
18
The child support assignment covers any child support that accrues while the family receives cash TANF benefits, as
well as any child support that accrued before the family started receiving TANF benefits. Pursuant to P.L. 109-171
(effective October 1, 2009, or at state option, October 1, 2008), the assignment only covers child support that accrues
while the family receives TANF.
Congressional Research Service
5
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
cumulative amount of TANF benefits paid to the family. While states may pay their share of
collections to the family, they must pay the federal government the federal government’s share of
child support collections collected on behalf of TANF families. P.L. 109-171 helps states pay for
the cost of their CSE pass-through and disregard policies by requiring the federal government to
share in the costs of the entire amount (up to $100 per month for one child; up to $200 per month
for two or more children) of child support collections passed through and disregarded by states in
determining the family’s TANF cash benefit. Based on February 2012 data, 19 states and the
District of Columbia have a CSE pass-through and disregard policy and 31 states (and the 3
territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) do not.1927
For more information on the CSE annual user fee, see CRS Report RS22753, Child Support Enforcement: $25
Annual User Fee, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
Congressional Research Service
8
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
processes, and computer-driven technology to the maximum extent feasible, efficient, and
economical.
Federal law generally requires employers to remit to the state disbursement unit (SDU) income
withheld within seven business days after the employee’s payday. Further, the SDU is required to
send child support payments to custodial parents within two business days of receipt of such
payments.
Distribution of Support
Distribution rules determine which claim is paid first when a child support collection occurs. The
order of payment of the child support collection is important because in many cases arrearages
are never fully paid.
While the family receives TANF cash benefits,28 the states and federal government retain any
current support and any assigned arrearages29 collected up to the cumulative amount of TANF
benefits paid to the family. While states may pay their share of collections to the family, they
must pay the federal government the federal government’s share of child support collections
collected on behalf of TANF families. P.L. 109-171 helps states pay for the cost of their CSE
pass-through and disregard policies by requiring the federal government to share in the costs (of
an amount equal to up to $100 per month for one child or up to $200 per month for two or more
children) of child support collections passed through and disregarded by states in determining the
family’s TANF cash benefit. Based on February 2012 data, 19 states and the District of Columbia
have a CSE pass-through and disregard policy and 31 states (and the 3 territories of Guam, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands) do not.30
States must distribute to former TANF families the following child support collections first before
the state and the federal government are reimbursed (the “family-first” policy): (1) all current
child support, (2) any child support arrearages that accrue after the family leaves TANF (these
arrearages are called never-assigned arrearages), plus (3) any arrearages that accrued before the
family began receiving TANF benefits. An exception to this rule occurs when child support
arrearages are collected via the federal income tax refund offset program—those collections are
divided between the state and federal government.20 (Any child support arrearages that accrue
during the time the family is on TANF belong to the state and federal government.)
Visitation Grants and Responsible
Fatherhood Programs
Historically, Congress has agreed that visitation and child support should be legally separate
issues, and that only child support should be under the purview of the CSE program. Both federal
and state policymakers have maintained that denial of visitation rights should be treated
separately, and should not be considered a reason for stopping child support payments. However,
in recognition of the negative long-term consequences for children associated with the absence of
their father, P.L. 104-193 provided an annual entitlement of $10 million from the federal CSE
budget account for grants to states for access and visitation programs, including mediation,
counseling, education, and supervised visitation.
(Any child support arrearages that accrue during the time
the family is on TANF belong to the state and federal government.)31
28
Federal law requires families who receive TANF cash assistance to assign their child support rights to the state in
order to receive TANF.
29
Pursuant to P.L. 109-171 (effective October 1, 2009, or at state option, October 1, 2008), the assignment only covers
child support that accrues while the family receives TANF.
30
National Conference of State Legislatures, State Policies Regarding Pass-Through and Disregard of Current
Month’s Child Support Collected for Families Receiving TANF-Funded Cash Assistance, Updated February 2012.
31
P.L. 109-171 gave states the option of distributing to former TANF families the full amount of child support
collected on their behalf (i.e., both current support and all child support arrearages—including arrearages collected
through the federal income tax refund offset program). This provision took effect on October 1, 2009, or October 1,
2008, at state option.
Congressional Research Service
9
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
Visitation Grants and Responsible
Fatherhood Programs
Access and Visitation Grants
A noncustodial parent’s right to visit with his or her children is commonly referred to as visitation
or child access (and more recently as voluntary parenting time arrangements). State family or
domestic relations law almost universally treats child support and visitation as completely
separate issues. Historically, Congress has agreed that visitation and child support should be
legally separate issues, and that only child support should be under the purview of the CSE
program. Both federal and state policy makers have maintained that denial of visitation rights
should be treated separately, and should not be considered a reason for stopping child support
payments. However, in recognition of the negative long-term consequences for children
associated with the absence of their father, federal and state policy makers have increasingly
promoted efforts that address child support and access and visitation in the same forum.
In order to promote visitation and better relations between custodial and noncustodial parents, the
1996 welfare reform (P.L. 104-193) provided an annual entitlement of $10 million from the
federal CSE budget account for grants to states for access and visitation programs.32 Eligible
activities include but are not limited to mediation, counseling, education, development of
parenting plans, visitation enforcement, and development of guidelines for visitation and
alternative custody arrangements.
P.L. 113-183 includes a Sense of the Congress statement that specifies that (1) establishing
parenting time arrangements (also known as visitation) when obtaining child support orders is an
important goal that should be accompanied by strong family violence safeguards, and (2) states
should use existing funding sources to support the establishment of parenting time arrangements,
including child support incentives, Access and Visitation Grants, and Healthy Marriage
Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants.
Responsible Fatherhood Programs
The federal government has also sought to engage men in the lives of their children through what
are known as responsible fatherhood programs.33 These programs recognize that committed,
involved, and responsible fathers are important in the lives of their children. These programs seek
to promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial parents for their children and
increase the participation of fathers in their children’s lives. Some responsible fatherhood
programs help noncustodial parents strengthen their parenting skills. Other programs try to
discourage young men from becoming fathers until they are married and ready for the
responsibility.
32
Even before the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485) authorized
a limited number of grants to states for demonstration projects to develop, improve, or expand activities designed to
increase compliance with child access provisions of court orders.
33
Although programs that seek to help fathers initiate or maintain contact with their children and become emotionally
involved in their children’s lives are usually referred to as “fatherhood” programs, the programs are generally gender
neutral. Their underlying goal is participation of the noncustodial parent in the lives of his or her children.
Congressional Research Service
10
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
P.L. 109-171 provided $50 million per year for five years (FY2006-FY2010) in competitive
grants (under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act) for responsible fatherhood programs to states,
territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit organizations,
including religious organizations.
P.L. 111-291 (enacted December 8, 2010) extended funding for the Title IV-A Healthy Marriage
and Responsible Fatherhood grants through FY2011. For FY2011, P.L. 111-291 appropriated $75
million for awarding funds for healthy marriage promotion activities and $75 million for
awarding funds for activities promoting responsible fatherhood. The result is that the Title IV-A
19
National Conference of State Legislatures, State Policies Regarding Pass-Through and Disregard of Current
Month’s Child Support Collected for Families Receiving TANF-Funded Cash Assistance, Updated February 2012.
20
P.L. 109-171 gives states the option of distributing to former TANF families the full amount of child support
collected on their behalf (i.e., both current support and all child support arrearages—including arrearages collected
through the federal income tax refund offset program). This provision took effect on October 1, 2009, or October 1,
2008, at state option.
Congressional Research Service
6
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grants, which were funded at $150 million
annually from FY2006 through FY2010, were funded for an additional year (FY2011) on an
equal basis. Since then, several appropriation laws have extended funding for the Healthy
Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs ($150 million annually divided equally
between the two programs). P.L. 113-76 (enacted January 17, 2014), extended funding for the
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs (at their FY2013 funding level)
through the end of FY2014. (P.L. 113-164 (enacted September 19, 2014), extended funding for the
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs (at their FY2014 funding level)
through December 11, 2014.
Most responsible fatherhood programs include parenting education; training in responsible
decision-making, conflict resolution, and coping with stress; mediation services for both parents;
problem-solving skills; peer support; and job-training opportunities.34
34
For more information on responsible fatherhood programs, see CRS
Report RL31025, Fatherhood Initiatives:
Connecting Fathers to Their Children, by Carmen
Solomon-Fears.)
Author Contact Information
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Policy
csolomonfears@crs.loc.gov, 7-7306 Solomon-Fears.
Congressional Research Service
711