< Back to Current Version

Child Support Enforcement Annual User Fee: In Brief

Changes from July 29, 2014 to June 22, 2017

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.


Child Support Enforcement: $25 Annual User Fee

July 29, 2014—$25 Annual User Fee: In Brief June 22, 2017 (RS22753)

Summary

P.L. 109-171, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, required states to impose aBackground This report provides an overview of the $25 annual user fee that is required for certain Child Support Enforcement (CSE) cases. This includes a discussion of the policy issues surrounding the fee, which relate to the historical development of the CSE program as a whole. The report also provides data on the variety of approaches taken by the states to implement the fee. While the statutory requirement for the fee has not changed since its enactment, how some states approach the fee has evolved over time. The CSEfor Child Support Enforcement (CSE) services provided to families with no connection to the welfare system. The user fee is to be assessed if the state CSE agency collects at least $500 in child support payments on behalf of the family in a given fiscal year. The law gives the states four options on how to obtain the user fee. According to an examination of the CSE program profiles of the 54 jurisdictions with CSE programs, 18 jurisdictions pay the fee with state funds, 4 jurisdictions get the fee from the noncustodial parent, 2 jurisdictions impose the user fee directly on the custodial parent, 29 jurisdictions impose the fee indirectly on the custodial parent by retaining the fee from the family's child support payment (after $500 per year has been collected on behalf of the family), and 1 jurisdiction imposes the fee on both the noncustodial parent and the custodial parent via the family's child support payment.


Child Support Enforcement: $25 Annual User Fee

Background

The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act). The CSE program helps 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.

The CSE program provides program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program (P.L. 93-647; Title IV-D of the Social Security Act). Today, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operate CSE programs, which provide seven major services on behalf of children: (1)1. parent location, (2) paternity establishment, (3)

  • 2. paternity establishment,
  • 3. establishment of child support orders, (4) 4. review and modification of child support orders, (5) 5. collection of child support payments, (6) 6. distribution of child support payments, and (7) establishment and enforcement of medical 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.

    All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operate CSE programs and are entitled to federal matching funds. The federal government and the states share CSE program costs at the rate of 66% and 34%, respectively. Families receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) assistance (Title IV-A), foster care payments (Title IV-E), Medicaid coverage (Title XIX), or food stamp recipients who, at state option, are required by law to cooperate with the CSE agency, automatically qualify for CSE services free of charge.1 Other families must apply for CSE services, and states must charge an application fee that cannot exceed $25.2

    Annual CSE User Fee

    P.L. 109-171 (Section 7310), the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (enacted February 8, 2006), required families that have never been on the TANF program to pay a $25 annual user fee when the CSE program collects at least $500 in child support annually (from the noncustodial parent) on their behalf.3

    P.L. 109-171 provides the state with four options on how to collect the fee. The $25 user fee may be (1) retained by the state from child support collected on behalf of the family (but the $25 cannot be part of the first $500 collected in any given federal fiscal year); (2) paid by the custodial parent; (3) recovered/recouped from the noncustodial parent; or (4) paid by the state out of state funds.4

    The intent of the $25 user fee is to recoup in part the costs of the CSE program to the federal and state governments by decreasing CSE program expenditures.5 The $25 user fee (from custodial and noncustodial parents) is considered income to the CSE program. The federal and state governments share income to the CSE program (sometimes referred to as cost recovery) at the same rate that they share program costs (i.e., 66% federal and 34% state). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the $25 CSE annual user fee provision would save the federal government $405 million and the state governments $215 million over the nine-year period FY2007-FY2015.6

    After the $25 user fee was enacted, there was a lot of interest in how it would be implemented. Most of the arguments about the user fee (for and against) concerned the option that permitted states to charge the custodial parent.

    Persons in favor of the mandatory $25 annual user fee maintain that it will, to a limited extent, compensate the federal government and the states for operating a CSE program. They claim that even on top of the CSE application fee, the CSE program is still a bargain for custodial parents. They argue that there is no comparison between the nominal fees that the CSE program charges and the much higher fees that a private attorney or collection agency would charge for obtaining child support payments. They say that unlike the CSE application fee, it only applies to those who have received a certain amount of child support payments. They also point out that 71% of custodial parents had income above the poverty level (2011 Census data)7 and thereby could probably afford to pay the user fee without it negatively affecting their standard of living. In addition, they assert that it is normal practice to charge a fee or user charge for services rendered.

    Persons opposed to the mandatory $25 annual user fee (that is imposed on the custodial parent) contend that it treats similarly situated families in an unequal manner. They argue that a low-income custodial parent who has not had to go on welfare needs child support just as much as a custodial parent who formerly was on welfare (i.e., the TANF program). They contend that the $25 annual fee would impose a new surcharge on working poor families who were previously successful in remaining self-sufficient. They contend that fees generally take away funds that otherwise could be available to the child and the family. They also point out that because the $25 user fee is considered CSE program income, the state gets 34% of the $25 fee ($8.50) and the federal government gets the remaining 66% ($16.50). They claim that the administrative cost of reprogramming a state's automated computer system to account for the fee would outweigh the financial benefit of the fee's increased income to the state. They also say that the financial benefit, if any, to the federal government would be negligible.8

    According to the Lewin Group/ECONorthwest report entitled Anticipated Effects of the Deficit Reduction Act Provisions on Child Support Program Financing and Performance Summary of Data Analysis and IV-D Director Calls (July 20, 2007):

    Many directors noted potential benefits of the fee, including program revenue and instilling a sense of ownership in one's child support case. Directors, though, identified more drawbacks to the fee. All directors expected the cost of programming the statewide automated system would exceed the revenue generated from the fee, at least in the short-term. This occurs at a time when they are already facing budget cuts or foregoing other project enhancements. Some expressed concern that it will take money from low-income families; others fear it will drive customers—largely consistent payers—from the program, hurting not only child support program performance but families as well. One-fourth of the surveyed directors stated that their programs would not charge the fee and would pay the federal share out of program resources.9

    The final regulation pertaining to the $25 CSE annual user fee includes the following comment from OCSE:

    The Federal Government continues to pay 66 percent of State costs to operate child support enforcement programs. This is a generous matching rate, exceeding the administrative matching rate of other programs such as Medicaid and Food Stamps. Therefore, we do not believe that the annual fee amounts to direct compliance costs on States and local governments, nor does it have a federalism impact.10

    According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report:

    Some CSE officials we interviewed stated that their states absorbed the $25 service fee due to concerns that the fee would be a burden, while others said that they charged the fee to custodial parents because their states couldn't afford to absorb the fee due to budgetary constraints. Some of the latter told us that the reason they charged the service fee to custodial, rather than noncustodial, parents was because it was easier administratively. A few also reported that families affected by the fee had voiced little opposition to it.11

    Implementation of CSE User Fee

    The provision mandating a $25 annual user fee became effective on October 1, 2006. However, some states had to enact the provision into state law before they could impose the mandatory $25 user fee. The proposed regulations on the user fee were published in January 2007.12 The final regulations were published on December 9, 2008, and became effective on February 9, 2009.13

    Table 1 is based on an examination of the CSE program profiles of the 54 jurisdictions with CSE programs.14 As of July 2014, of the 54 jurisdictions with CSE programs, 18 jurisdictions pay the fee with state funds, 4 jurisdictions get the fee from the noncustodial parent, 2 jurisdictions impose the user fee directly on the custodial parent, 29 jurisdictions impose the fee indirectly on the custodial parent by retaining the fee from the family's child support payment (after $500 per year has been collected on behalf of the family), and 1 jurisdiction imposes the fee on both the noncustodial parent (directly) and the custodial parent (indirectly) via the family's child support payment.

    Table 1. Method By

  • 7. establishment and enforcement of medical child support.
  • The program is administered federally by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the Administration for Children and Families, a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agency.

    Families who are required to enroll in the CSE program are those receiving cash assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF), Medicaid coverage, or, at state option, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food assistance.1 The program is also available to non-assistance families if they choose to enroll.

    When the CSE program was first enacted, its primary purpose was to reduce public expenditures for recipients of cash assistance (i.e., "cash assistance cost-recovery"). This was to be accomplished by obtaining ongoing support from noncustodial parents, which could be used to reimburse the federal and state governments for part of the expenses involved in providing assistance to needy families. Relatedly, the program also sought to strengthen families by securing financial support for children from their noncustodial parent on a consistent and continuing basis to enable some families to remain off public assistance. Over the years, the mission of the CSE program has shifted to emphasize the promotion of self-sufficiency and parental responsibility. Throughout this evolution in program focus, the CSE program has maintained different rules for assistance and non-assistance families.2

    The CSE program costs, which are incurred through providing services to families, are funded via a number of sources. These include federal matching funds for state CSE expenditures and incentive payments to the states from the federal government. States also collect child support on behalf of families receiving TANF assistance to reimburse themselves (and the federal government) for the cost of that assistance to the family.3 Finally, fees and administrative costs recovered—from which TANF families (and, in some cases, families enrolled in other assistance programs) are exempt—also help finance the CSE program.

    Fees and recoveries may be collected through a variety of mechanisms.4 Currently, CSE agencies are required to charge a one-time fee to non-assistance families who apply for CSE services, in an amount not to exceed $25.5 Fees also may be charged in other circumstances, including for performing genetic tests (for purposes of paternity establishment) on any individual who is not a recipient of TANF assistance or Medicaid.6 Moreover, states may recover costs from either the custodial or noncustodial parent.7 Many of these authorities to charge fees and recover costs date back to the inception of the program. As they have been implemented and expanded over the years, the approaches taken by the states have varied significantly in the amount charged for each fee and the extent to which costs are recovered.

    Most recently, the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171; DRA) added a further requirement for certain non-assistance family child support cases that states charge a $25 annual fee when the CSE program collects at least $500 in child support annually from the noncustodial parent.8 Unlike the application fee and cost recovery authorities, which allow states in many circumstances to determine how much to charge or recover, states are required either to collect the full amount of the annual user fee or reimburse the federal government's portion of the fee from state funds. The provision mandating the fee became effective on October 1, 2006.9

    Annual CSE User Fee Overview of Requirements

    The Social Security Act, Section 454(6)(B)(ii), requires that states charge a fee for furnishing CSE services when more than $500 is collected for a case in a year. The act exempts current or former TANF assistance CSE cases from this fee.10 In addition, the state cannot charge a fee to a custodial parent or noncustodial parent who is cooperating with the CSE program as a condition of SNAP eligibility.11

    • 1. The act provides the state with four options to collect the fee:
    • 2. The state can retain the fee from the child support collected on behalf of the family. However, that $25 cannot be part of the first $500 collected in any given federal fiscal year.12
    • 3. The state may recover the fee from the noncustodial parent, in addition to the child support that is paid by that parent.
    • 4. The state may charge the fee to the custodial parent (or the person applying for CSE services).
    • 5. The state may pay the fee out of its own funds. (If the $25 annual user fee is paid by the state out of state funds, it is not considered an administrative cost of the CSE program and thus is not eligible for federal matching funds.)

    The function of the $25 user fee is to recoup, in part, the costs of the CSE program to the federal and state governments.13 The federal and state governments share income to the CSE program (sometimes referred to as "cost recovery") at the same rate that they share program costs (i.e., 66% federal and 34% state). Consequently, the federal government retains 66% of the fee that is collected ($16.50), while the state retains 34% ($8.50). If a state chooses to forego collecting the fee and opts instead to pay the fee out of state funds, it must reimburse the federal government's share of the fee ($16.50).

    There are no data available on the total amount of annual user fees collected by the states. (The data in the OCSE Annual Report to Congress aggregates this fee with a number of other CSE-related collections made by the states.14) However, in its cost estimate of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the $25 CSE annual user fee provision would save the federal government $405 million, and the state governments $215 million, over the nine-year period between FY2007-FY2015.15

    Policy Debate

    The policy question of whether an annual user fee should be charged for CSE services has received attention from federal and state stakeholders for the past few decades. For example, before the fee requirement was enacted, the issue was studied by HHS as early as 1992,16 and a proposal for the fee was included in the George H. W. Bush Administration's FY1992 budget request and the George W. Bush Administration's FY2003 budget request. State attention to the issue prior to the enactment of the federal requirement included an extensive study of the feasibility of collecting fees for child support conducted by the Washington State Division of Child Support in 2001.17

    Over the years prior to and immediately after the user fee requirement was enacted, a number of possible implications were identified as arguments for and against the fee.18 Arguments in favor were largely focused on the potential budgetary benefits of the fee, which would, to a limited extent, compensate the federal government and the states for the costs of operating a CSE program. Arguments against included concerns that charging fees for child support services would generally have the effect of reducing funds that otherwise could be available to the child and the family. Some also asserted that the administrative cost of reprogramming a state's automated computer system to account for the fee would outweigh the financial benefit of the fee's increased income to the state.

    Prior to when the user fee was implemented, the debate also focused on the question of whether states should charge the fee to custodial parents.19 Some argued that even if the fee was charged to custodial parents, they would still find the program to be a good value compared to the much higher fees that a private attorney or collection agency would charge for obtaining child support payments. They also pointed out that the fee (as enacted) was structured to apply to those who had received a certain minimum amount of child support payments. And, they asserted, even if states opt to charge the fee to custodial parents, most of those parents have income above the poverty level and therefore could likely pay the user fee without it negatively affecting their family's standard of living. In contrast, some opposed to imposing the fee on the custodial parent contended that it would treat similarly situated custodial families in an unequal manner (based on whether they had received TANF benefits in the past). In effect, some posited, the $25 annual fee would impose a new surcharge on working poor families who had been successful in remaining self-sufficient.20

    Implementation Table 1 is based on an examination of the CSE profiles of the 54 jurisdictions with CSE programs from the OCSE Intergovernmental Reference Guide.21 (These jurisdictions are the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.) As of June 2017, CSE programs impose the fee on the custodial parent in the majority of jurisdictions, either indirectly by withholding it from the support payment, or directly by recovering it through a separate process.
    • 19 jurisdictions pay the annual user fee with their own funds.
    • 5 jurisdictions recover the fee from the noncustodial parent.
    • 2 jurisdictions recover the fee directly from the custodial parent.
    • 27 jurisdictions impose the fee indirectly on the custodial parent by retaining it from the family's child support payment (after $500 per year has been collected on behalf of the family).
    • 1 jurisdiction imposes the fee on both the noncustodial parent (directly) and the custodial parent (indirectly) via the family's child support payment.
    Table 1. Method by Which $25 CSE Annual User Fee Is Imposed

    State

    Fee Paid by State Out of State Funds

    Fee Paid by Noncustodial Parent

    Fee Paid by Custodial Parent

    Fee Paid Out of Child Support Payment

    Alabama

     

     

     

    X

    Alaska

    X

     

     

     

    Arizona

     

     

     

    X

    Arkansas

    a
     

     

    X

     

    California

    b
     

     

     

    X

    Colorado

    c
     

     

     

    X

    Connecticut

     

     

     

    X

    Delaware

     

     

     

    X

    District of Columbia

    X

     

     

     

    Florida

    X

     

     

     

    Georgiaa

    d
     

    X

     

    X

    Guam

    X

     

     

     

    Hawaii

     

     

     

    X

    Idaho

    e
     

     

    X

     

    X

     

    Illinois

    X

     

     

     

    Indiana

     

    X

     

     

    Iowa

     

     

     

    X

    Kansas

    X

     

     

     

    Kentucky

     

     

     

    X

    Louisiana

     

     

     

    X

    Maine

     

     

     

    X

    Marylandb

    f

    X

     

     

     

    Massachusetts

    X

     

     

     

    Michigan

    X

     

     

     

    Minnesota

     

    X

     

     

    X

     

    Mississippi

     

    X

     

     

    Missouri

     

    X

     

     

    Montana

    X

     

     

     

    Nebraska

     

     

     

    X

    Nevada

     

     

     

    X

    New Hampshire

     

     

     

    X

    New Jersey

    X

     

     

     

    New Mexico

    X

     

     

     

    New York

     

     

     

    X

    North Carolina

     

     

     

    X

    North Dakota

     

     

     

    X

    Ohio

    g
     

    X

     

     

    Oklahoma

     

     

     

    X

    Oregon

     

     

     

    X

    Pennsylvaniac

    h

    X

     

     

     

    Puerto Rico

    X

     

     

     

    Rhode Island

    X

     

     

     

    South Carolina

     

     

    X

     

    South Dakota

    X

     

     

     

    Tennessee

     

     

     

    X

    Texas

     

     

     

    X

    Utah

     

     

     

    X

    Vermont

    X

     

     

     

    Virgin Islands

     

     

     

    X

    Virginia

     

     

     

    X

    Washington

     

     

     

    X

    West Virginia

    X

     

     

     

    Wisconsin

     

     

     

    X

    Wyoming

     

     

     

    X

    Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service on July 28, 2014(CRS) on June 5, 2017, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement website (Intergovernmental Reference Guide (IRG)—, available at https://ocspwww.acf.hhs.gov/irg/profileQuery.html).

    a. Georgia requires $13 from the noncustodial parent (to be paid in monthly installments) and $12 from the child support payment (after the $500 threshold has been met) at a rate of $1 per month.

    b. Maryland pays the $25 CSE annual usercss/irg-state-map). Unless otherwise noted, additional information in table notes is taken from questions F11.1-4. a. Arkansas pays the fee out of state funds for Medicaid-only cases. b. California pays the fee out of state funds on behalf of "state-only aided custodial parties" (e.g., CalWorks). c. Colorado counties may opt to pay the fee out of county funds. d. Georgia requires $13 from the noncustodial parent (to be paid in monthly installments) and $12 from the child support payment (after the $500 threshold has been met) at a rate of $1 per month. e. Under Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Administrative Rules (16.03.03 §304), the $25 fee is billed to the noncustodial parent once $500 in support has been collected. f. Maryland pays the fee out of state funds for cases in which the annual child support collection is between $500 and $3,499.99. If the annual child support collection is $3,500 or more, the $25 annual CSE user fee is retained from child support payments.

    c. Pennsylvania pays the $25 CSE annual userg. Ohio adds a processing charge (the greater of 2% or $1) to each child support obligation that is paid by the noncustodial parent. The mandatory annual fee is recovered from the processing charges collected after $500 has been paid on never assistance cases. When recovered processing charges do not total to $25 on the case, the state pays the balance of the fee out of its own funds. h. Pennsylvania pays the fee out of state funds for cases in which the annual child support collection is between $500 and $1,999.99. If the annual child support collection is $2,000 or more, the $25 annual CSE user fee is retained from child support payments.

    Soon after the annual user fee was implemented, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a study that, in part, examined how the 54 jurisdictions had implemented the user fee.22 It also summarized the primary rationales reported by those interviewed for how the fee had been implemented:

    Some CSE officials we interviewed stated that their states absorbed the $25 service fee due to concerns that the fee would be a burden, while others said that they charged the fee to custodial parents because their states couldn't afford to absorb the fee due to budgetary constraints. Some of the latter told us that the reason they charged the service fee to custodial, rather than noncustodial, parents was because it was easier administratively. A few also reported that families affected by the fee had voiced little opposition to it.23

    The information in the report also shows that state practices may change from what was initially adopted. At the time of the report, GAO found that 27 states charged the custodial parent either directly (through action to recover) or indirectly (by deducting it from support paid),24 while 22 jurisdictions paid the fee with their own funds.25 Since that time, five jurisdictions have shifted from paying the fee out of their own funds to directly recovering the fee from the custodial parent (Arkansas) or deducting the fee from the child support paid (California, Connecticut, Maine, and Texas). In addition, three jurisdictions have shifted their approach from directly or indirectly recovering the fee from the custodial parent to covering the fee out of state funds (Michigan and Minnesota) or recovering the fee from the noncustodial parent (Idaho).

    Author Contact Information

    [author name scrubbed], Specialist in Social Policy ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])

    Acknowledgments

    [author name scrubbed], former CRS Specialist in Social Policy, authored earlier versions of this report. Sarah Caldwell, Senior Research Librarian at the Congressional Research Service, assisted with the data compilation for this report.

    Footnotes

    1.

    States may choose to require that either a custodial or noncustodial parent receiving SNAP benefits cooperate with the CSE program. In addition, one or both parents of a child who is placed in foster care may be ordered to pay child support, but the determination of whether this requirement should be made is left up to the state child welfare agency. Section 471(a)(17) of the Social Security Act requires the child welfare agency "where appropriate" to secure assignment of child support rights on behalf of any child receiving foster care support pursuant to Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. However, the establishment of child support order is not a condition of IV-E foster care support.

    2.

    In some cases, CSE program rules distinguish between TANF and non-TANF families. In others, the special rules for those receiving assistance apply both to families who receive TANF, and also those who have received or are eligible for other assistance, such as Medicaid coverage, IV-E foster care, or, at state option, SNAP food assistance.

    3.

    Similarly, families who are enrolled in Medicaid and to whom medical support is due must assign that support to the state to reimburse the cost of Medicaid (see CRS Report R43020, Medical Child Support: Background and Current Policy, by [author name scrubbed]). Likewise, when states establish a child support order from the parent or parents of a child in IV-E foster care, they are required to use the funds to reimburse federal and state costs of foster care first (Social Security Act, §457(d)).

    4.

    The authorities for states to charge fees and recover costs are located in the Social Security Act, §454(6). For a legislative history of changes made to the fee and cost recovery elements of the CSE program, see CRS Report R44423, The Child Support Enforcement Program: A Legislative History, by [author name scrubbed].

    5.

    States may charge the application fee to the person applying for services or the noncustodial parent, or opt to pay the fee out of state funds. Prior to 1997, "assistance families" for the purposes of the application fee exemption were those receiving benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC). The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) transitioned this exemption for AFDC families to TANF families. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) stipulated that, in addition to TANF families, families receiving Medicaid coverage, IV-E foster care, or, at state option, SNAP food assistance, also would be exempt from the application fee.

    6.

    45 C.F.R., Ch. III, 302.33(a)(3).

    7.

    Federal regulations prohibit recovering costs from the noncustodial parent for current TANF cases. In addition, costs may not be recovered from the custodial parent in a Medicaid-only case (45 C.F.R., Ch. III, 302.33(d)).

    8.

    P.L. 109-171, §7310.

    9.

    Some states had to enact the provision into state law before they could impose the fee. The proposed regulations on the user fee were published in January 2007. (See Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 15, January 24, 2007, Child Support Enforcement Program, pp. 3093-3102). The final regulations were published on December 9, 2008, and became effective on February 9, 2009. (Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 237, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Final Rules, December 9, 2008, pp. 74898-74921, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-12-09/pdf/E8-28660.pdf).

    10.

    Social Security Act, §454(6)(B)(ii).

    11.

    45 C.F.R., Ch. III, 302.33(a)(3), (e)(3)(i-iii).

    12.

    In addition, this method cannot be used to collect the fee from any international case with a foreign obligee receiving services pursuant to Section 454(32)(c) of the Social Security Act.

    13

    Footnotes

    15. 22. These two methods of collecting the fee from the custodial parent were aggregated in the GAO report.

    1.

    In FY2013, of the 15.6 million CSE cases, 11.5% (1.8 million) were in the TANF program, 43.2% (6.7 million) had formerly been in the TANF program, and 45.3% (7.1 million) had never been in the TANF program.

    2.

    The CSE program enacted in 1975 (P.L. 93-647) at first permitted, and then in 1984 (P.L. 98-378) required, the CSE agency to charge a one-time application fee for families not on welfare. In 1975, the law required that the application fee be reasonable, as determined by federal regulations. In 1984, the law specified that the fee could not exceed $25. The CSE agency may charge this fee to the applicant (i.e., the custodial parent) or the noncustodial parent, or pay the fee out of state funds. In addition, a state may at its option recover costs in excess of the application fee. Such recovery of costs may be either from the custodial parent or the noncustodial parent. Although the application fee is mandatory, federal law allows the state to charge an amount that can range from 1 cent to $25. Many of the states that charge a $1 or less application fee do so to maximize non-TANF clients' access to CSE services. Many state CSE officials view application fees as a barrier to clients who do not have the financial means to apply for services. They also claim that fees and other charges may discourage clients from seeking services, because the fee is paid regardless of whether any child support is collected on behalf of the family. Others view application fees for non-TANF families as a way to reduce CSE program costs. The legislative history of P.L. 98-378 (S. Rept. 98-387, p. 30-31; April 9, 1984) says: "The Committee believes that this minimal fee requirement represents a reasonable way to help defray some of the costs incurred in processing the application and in providing support enforcement services. This fee would still be significantly less costly to the non-AFDC applicant than the cost of pursuing support enforcement through a private attorney."

    3.

    Provision of a mandatory $25 annual user fee for non-welfare CSE families has been discussed for many years. Such a proposal was included in the George H. W. Bush Administration's FY1992 budget proposals and in the George W. Bush Administration's FY2003 budget proposals. For additional information, see States' Practices and Perspectives for Assessing Fees for Child Support Services to Applicants not Receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, July 8, 1992 http://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region6/69100048.pdf. Also see Feasibility of Collecting Fees for Child Support Services, by Carol Welch, Washington State, Department of Social and Health Services, Division of Child Support, Fiscal Management, June 2001, http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/esa/dcs/reports/feestudy.pdf.

    4.

    If the $25 annual user fee is paid by the state out of state funds, it is not considered an administrative cost of the CSE program and thus is not eligible for 66% federal matching funds.

    5.

    In FY2013, CSE program expenditures amounted to nearly $5.6 billion; child support payments collected from noncustodial parents by CSE agencies totaled $28.0 billion.

    614.

    See Table 50, "Fees and Costs recovered in Excess of Fees for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years," in Office of Child Support Enforcement, FY2015 Annual Report to Congress, January 12, 2017, p. 303, available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/fy2015_part_11.pdf.

    Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate of S. 1932 (Deficit Reduction Act of 2005), January 27, 2006, p. 55 and p. 60.

    716.

    U.S. Census Bureau, Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2011, by Timothy S. Grall, P60-246, October 2013, p. 4.

    8.

    National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA), Resolution on $25 Annual Fee, June 17, 2002, see http://www.ncsea.org/files/Resolution-AnnualFee.pdf.

    9.

    See http://www.nccsd.net/documents/nccsd_final_report_revised_2_437782.pdf.

    10See Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, 'States' Practices and Perspectives for Assessing Fees for Child Support Services to Applicants not Receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children, July 8, 1992 available at https://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region6/69100048.pdf.
    17.

    Carol Welch, Feasibility of Collecting Fees for Child Support Services, Washington State, Department of Social and Health Services, Division of Child Support, Fiscal Management, June 2001, https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ESA/dcs/documents/feestudy.pdf.

    18.

    In addition to the sources above, see, for example, Steven Garasky, "User Fees and Family Policy: Attempting to Recover Costs for State-provided Child Support Enforcement Services," Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1997, pp. 100-108; National Women's Law Center, "Attempting to Finance the Child Support Enforcement System Through Increased Fees Will Harm Families and the Child Support System," December 1999; National Child Support Enforcement Association, Resolution on $25 Annual Fee, June 17, 2002; Lewin Group/ECONorthwest, Anticipated Effects of the Deficit Reduction Act Provisions on Child Support Program Financing and Performance Summary of Data Analysis and IV-D Director Calls, July 20, 2007, available at https://www.ncsea.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-Lewin-Group-Report-on-Anticipated-Effects-of-the-Deficit-Reduction-Act-Provisions-on-Child-Support-Program-Financing-and-Performance.pdf.

    19.

    Ibid.

    20.

    A similar policy debate occurred with regard to the CSE application fee, which was first required in 1984 (P.L. 98-378). In the first years of its implementation, many states opted to charge a $1 or less application fee to maximize non-AFDC (now-TANF) clients' access to CSE services. Some who did so argued that application fees would be a barrier to clients who lack financial means to apply for services, or could discourage clients from seeking services because the fee is paid regardless of whether any child support is collected on behalf of the family. (See Government Accountability Office (GAO), Child Support Enforcement: Opportunity to Defray Burgeoning Federal and State Non-AFDC Costs, GAO/HRD-92-91, June 5, 1992, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/HRD-92-91; Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, 'States' Practices and Perspectives for Assessing Fees for Child Support Services to Applicants not Receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children, July 8, 1992, available at https://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region6/69100048.pdf.) Others viewed application fees for non-TANF families as a way to reduce CSE program costs, and argued that custodial parents would not find them to be a barrier because CSE services are less expensive than the alternative. (See S. Rept. 98-387, p. 30-31, April 9, 1984.)

    21.

    The information in these profiles is self-reported by each respective state or jurisdiction within the OCSE guide. For further information, see https://ocsp.acf.hhs.gov/irg/welcome.html.

    Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 237, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Final Rules, December 9, 2008, pp. 74913-74914 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-12-09/pdf/E8-28660.pdf#page=1).

    11.

    U.S. Government Accountability Office, Child Support Enforcement: Departures from Long-term Trends in Sources of Collections and Caseloads Reflect Recent Economic Conditions, GAO-11-196, January 2011, p. 24.

    1223.

    Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 15, January 24, 2007, Child Support Enforcement Program, pp. 3093-3102. The proposed regulations can be found at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/AT/2007/at-07-01.htmIbid, p. 25.

    24.
    1325.

    Four jurisdictions recovered the fee from the noncustodial parent, and Georgia recovered $13 of the fee from the noncustodial parent, and deducted the remainder ($12) from the child support paid to the custodial parent. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Child Support Enforcement: Departures from Long-term Trends in Sources of Collections and Caseloads Reflect Recent Economic Conditions, GAO-11-196, January 2011, p. 25.

    .

    Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 237, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Final Rules, December 9, 2008, pp. 74898-74921(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-12-09/pdf/E8-28660.pdf#page=1).

    14.

    These state/jurisdiction profiles are provided by the states/jurisdictions to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE).