97-408 EPW
Updated April 16, 1998
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Child Support Enforcement: New Reforms and
Potential Issues
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Education and Public Welfare Division
Summary
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(P.L. 104-193), signed into law on August 22, 1996, made major changes to the Child
Support Enforcement (CSE) program. The newly strengthened program is intended to
send the following message to noncustodial parents: If you are an unwed father, we will
identify you; if you are a mother or father not paying your child support, we will find
you; if you have any income or assets, we will locate them, and enforce your child
support obligation. P.L. 104-193 requires establishment by the federal government and
the states of an automated registry of child support orders (by October 1, 1998) and an
automated directory of new employees (by October 1, 1997) for the purpose of quickly
tracking and locating absent parents. It also requires states to operate an automated
centralized collection and disbursement unit. It requires states to establish paternity for
more children, and implement expedited procedures that allow them to secure assets of
a debtor parent to satisfy an arrearage in child support payments. In addition, it requires
states to implement procedures to withhold, suspend, or restrict the use of driver’s
licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational licenses of debtor
parents, and makes numerous other changes. In March and April, the House and Senate,
respectively, passed H.R. 3130, a bill that would change the CSE incentive payment
system and reduce financial penalties for noncompliance with CSE statewide automated
data processing and information retrieval requirements.
Background
The CSE program, Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act, was enacted in
January 1975 (P.L. 93-647). The CSE program is administered by the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS). The main goals of the program are to reduce
welfare spending for actual and potential public assistance recipients by obtaining support
from noncustodial parents on an ongoing basis; and to establish paternity for children born
outside of marriage so that child support can be obtained. The following families
automatically qualify for CSE services (free of charge): families receiving (or who
formerly received) Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)/Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits (Title IV-A), foster care payments, or
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
Medicaid coverage. Other families must apply for CSE services, and states must charge
an application fee that cannot exceed $25. Child support collected on behalf of nonwelfare
families go to the family (via the state disbursement unit). Collections on behalf of families
receiving Title IV-A benefits are used to reimburse state and federal governments for Title
IV-A payments made to the family.
The federal government pays 66% of state and local CSE costs, makes incentive
payments to states (out of its share of collections), and provides higher matching funds for
computerization and laboratory testing for paternity determination. All 50 states, the
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operate CSE programs
and are entitled to federal matching funds.
Between FY1978 and FY1996, child support payments collected by the CSE agencies
increased twelve-fold, from $1 billion in FY1978 to $12 billion in FY1996. The number
of children whose paternity was established increased by 862%, from 111,000 to
1,067,508; parents located increased by 1,173%, from 454,000 to 5,779,489; and support
orders established increased by 243%, from 315,000 to 1,081,781. However, the program
still collects less than one in four dollars of child support obligations for which it has
responsibility
1 and collects payments for only 21% of its caseload. Moreover, OCSE data
indicate that in FY1995, paternity was established for only 18% of the 3.7 million children
without legally identified fathers. The CSE program is estimated to handle at least 50%
of all child support cases; the remaining cases are handled by private attorneys, collection
agencies, or through mutual agreements between the parents.
Child Support Data—FY1996
Total CSE caseload—19.3 million; AFDC cases, 10.0 million; non-AFDC cases, 9.3 million
Total CSE collections—$12.0 billion; AFDC families, $2.86 billion; non-AFDC, $9.16 billion
Payments to AFDC families, $480 million
Federal share of AFDC collections, $888 million
State share of AFDC collections, $1,014 million
Incentive payments to States, $409 million
Medical support payments, $64 million
Total CSE expenditures—$3.1 billion
Federal share, $2.04 billion, State share, $1.02 billion
Absent parents located—5,779,489
Paternities established—1,067,508
Support orders established—1,081,781
Collections made for 1,341,000 AFDC families; 2,612,000 non-AFDC families
Families ineligible for AFDC because of collections—285,314
AFDC payments recovered through collections—15.5%
Some of the changes made by P.L. 104-193 include requiring states to increase the
percentage of fathers identified, establishing an integrated, automated network linking all
states to information about the location and assets of parents, and requiring states to
implement more enforcement techniques to obtain collections from debtor parents.

1 In FY1996, $57.1 billion in child support obligations ($17.1 billion in current support and $40.0
billion in past-due support) were owed to families receiving CSE services, but only $11.7 billion
was paid ($8.7 billion current, $3.0 past-due).

CRS-3
Program Elements
The CSE program provides six major services on behalf of children: (1) parent
location, (2) paternity establishment, (3) establishment of child (and spousal) support
orders, (4) review and modification of support orders, (5) collection of support payments,
and (6) distribution of support payments. Moreover, since 1984, CSE agencies have been
required to petition for medical support as part of most child support orders.
Locating Absent Parents. To improve the CSE agency’s ability to locate absent
parents, P.L. 104-193 requires states to have automated registries of child support orders
containing records of each case in which CSE services are being provided and each
support order established or modified on or after October 1, 1998. Under P.L. 104-193,
local registries could be linked to form the state registry. The state registry is to include
a record of the support owed under the order, arrearages, interest or late penalty charges,
amounts collected, amounts distributed, child’s date of birth, and any liens imposed; and
also will include standardized information on both parents, such as name, Social Security
number, date of birth, and case identification number. P.L. 104-193 requires states,
beginning October 1, 1997, to 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 to be supplied to the state new hires directory
within 20 days after the employee is hired.2 The new law also requires the establishment
of a federal case registry of child support orders and a national directory of new hires. The
federal directories are to consist of abstracts of information from the state directories and
will be located in the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS).
P.L. 104-193 allows all states to link up to an array of data bases and permits the
FPLS to be used for the purpose of establishing parentage; establishing, setting the amount
of, modifying, or enforcing child support obligations; or enforcing child custody or
visitation orders. By May 1, 1998, a designated state agency shall 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. (The new law requires the
DHHS Secretary to conduct similar comparisons of the federal directories.) When a match
occurs the state directory of new hires would be required to report to the state CSE
agency the name, date of birth, Social Security number of the employee, and employer’s
name, address, and identification number. The CSE agency would then, within 2 business
days, be required to instruct appropriate employers to withhold child support obligations
from the employee’s paycheck, unless the employee’s income is not subject to
withholding.3 P.L. 104-193 requires employers to remit to the state disbursement unit
income withheld within 7 business days after the employee’s payday. P.L. 104-193

2 Within 3 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.
3 There are two 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, or (2) if both parties agree in writing to an alternative arrangement.

CRS-4
requires states to operate a centralized collection and disbursement unit that would send
child support payments to custodial parents within 2 business days.
Paternity Establishment. Legally identifying the father is a prerequisite for
obtaining a child support order. P.L. 98-378 required states to implement laws to permit
paternity establishment until a child’s 18th birthday and P.L. 100-485 required states to
meet federal requirements for the establishment of paternity and require that all parties in
a contested paternity case submit to a genetic test upon request. P.L. 103-66 required
states to adopt procedures under which full faith and credit would be given to a
determination of paternity made by another state and simplify the process of voluntarily
acknowledging paternity.
Like previous law, P.L. 104-193 requires TANF block grant (Title IV-A) applicants
and recipients to cooperate in establishing paternity or obtaining support payments.
Moreover, it imposes a penalty for noncooperation; 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 deduct not less than 25% of the Title IV-A assistance that
otherwise would be provided to the family of the individual and the state may deny the
family all Title IV-A assistance.
The new law also (1) requires that paternity be established for 90% of the CSE cases
needing such a determination (up from 75%), (2) implements a simple civil process for
establishing paternity, (3) requires a uniform affidavit to be completed by men voluntarily
acknowledging paternity and entitles such 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 rescinded within 60 days; and thereafter may be challenged in court only
on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, and (5) provides that no judicial
or administrative action is needed to ratify an acknowledgment that is not challenged. P.L.
104-193 requires states to publicize the availability and encourage the use of procedures
for voluntary establishment of paternity and child support.
Enforcement. Collection methods used by CSE agencies include income
withholding, intercept of federal and state income tax refunds, intercept of unemployment
compensation, liens against property, security bonds, and reporting child support
obligations to credit bureaus. All jurisdictions also have civil or criminal contempt-of-
court procedures and criminal nonsupport laws.
P.L. 104-193 requires states to implement expedited procedures that allow them to
secure assets to satisfy the arrearage by intercepting or seizing periodic or lump sum
payments (such as unemployment and workers’ compensation), lottery winnings, awards,
judgements, or settlements, and assets of the debtor parent held by public or private
retirement funds, and financial institutions. It requires states to implement procedures
under which the state would have authority to withhold, suspend, or restrict the use of
driver’s licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational licenses of
persons who owe past-due support or who fail to comply with subpoenas or warrants
relating to paternity or child support proceedings. P.L. 104-193 authorizes the Secretary
of State to deny, revoke, or restrict passports of debtor parents.
It requires states to enact and implement an amended version of the Uniform
Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), by January 1, 1998, and expand full faith and

CRS-5
credit procedures. UIFSA is a model state law designed to deal with nonsupport by
instituting uniform laws in all 50 states that limit control of a child support case to a single
state. P.L. 104-193 also clarifies which court has jurisdiction in cases involving multiple
child support orders.
Financing and Distribution of Collections. The federal government currently
reimburses each state 66% of the cost of administering its CSE program. It also refunds
states 90% of the laboratory costs of establishing paternity and from 80% to 90% for
developing and improving statewide automated information/computer systems. In
addition, the federal government pays states an incentive amount ranging from 6% to 10%
of TANF and non-TANF collections to encourage states to operate effective programs.
P.L. 104-193 requires the DHHS Secretary in consultation with the state CSE directors
to develop a new revenue neutral system of incentive payments to states. On March 13,
1997, DHHS submitted its report to the Committees on Ways and Means and Finance.4
On March 5, 1998, the House passed H.R. 3130, the Child Support Performance and
Incentive Act of 1998, which included a revised version of the DHHS recommendations
and provisions to reduce CSE financial penalties for noncompliance with CSE statewide
automated data processing and information retrieval requirements. On April 2, 1998, the
Senate passed an amended version of H.R. 3130.
P.L. 104-193 eliminates the $50 passthrough payment (i.e., under old law, the first
$50 of current monthly child support payments collected on behalf of an AFDC family was
given to the family and disregarded as income to the family so that it did not affect the
family’s AFDC eligibility or benefit status). Once a family went off AFDC, child support
arrearage payments generally were divided between the state and federal governments to
reimburse them for AFDC; if any money remained, it was given to the family. In contrast,
under P.L. 104-193, arrearages that are collected through the federal income tax offset are
to be paid to the state (and federal government) and any arrearage payments made by any
other method are to be paid to the family first. P.L. 104-193 also includes a “hold
harmless” provision that requires the federal government to assure that a state retains an
amount equal to its FY1995 share of support collections.
Further, under the TANF structure, if a family is assisted with state-only funds rather
than federal TANF funds, there is no requirement that the family assign its child support
rights to the state or that the state send the federal government any portion of a support
collection made on that family’s behalf.
Other Provisions. P.L. 104-193 also makes changes related to medical support,
modification of support orders, collection from federal employees and members of the
Armed Forces, fraudulent transfer of property, access and visitation, CSE for Indian tribes,
a work requirement for debtor parents, and international enforcement.
Issues
Restructuring the Financing of the CSE Program. One consequence of the CSE’s
financing structure is that the federal government has lost money on the program every

4 For more information, see CRS Report 97-363, Child Support Enforcement Incentive Payments:
Background and Administration’s Recommendations
, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.

CRS-6
year since 1979 and the states (collectively) have made a profit on the program every year.
Before 1989, state profits more than compensated for federal losses resulting in a net
savings for taxpayers. However, beginning in 1989, the CSE program has been a net cost
for taxpayers. In FY1996, the loss to the federal government was $1.151 billion, the gain
to the states was $408 million, and the net public loss was $744 million. This pattern of
federal deficits and state surpluses from the CSE program raises the issue whether CSE
costs and collections are properly divided. Some maintain that the states should pay more
of the CSE costs, they assert that the reduction in the federal matching rate for CSE
administrative costs would result in an “increased stake by the states in this program” and
a closer “scrutiny of expenditures of scarce dollars.” On the other hand, not all the
benefits of the program can be measured in money terms. A large segment of the program,
namely the non-AFDC/TANF component, by definition, provides no direct CSE program
savings to the states or the federal government. Many argue that the indirect savings
(referred to as welfare cost avoidance) that occurs when a family is kept off “welfare”
because of child support collections make the CSE program worthwhile, despite
considerations of cost-effectiveness.
Penalties for States that Fail to Automate. If a state failed to implement the
federal CSE statewide automated data processing and information retrieval system
requirements by the October 1, 1997 deadline, the federal Office of Child Support
Enforcement (OCSE) cannot approve the state’s CSE program. OCSE has indicated that
it intends to disapprove CSE plans of several states because of their failure to meet the
deadline. The law requires suspension of all federal CSE payments to the state when its
CSE plan, after appeal, is disapproved. Moreover, states without approved CSE plans are
in eventual danger of losing funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) block grant program. H.R. 3130, as approved by the House and Senate would
impose substantially smaller financial penalties on the states.
The Federal Government’s Share of Child Support Collections. P.L. 104-193
requires states to pay the federal government its share of any child support collected on
behalf of TANF families. It is argued that states could aid families who are likely to
receive child support with state-only funds, and thereby reduce the amount of money they
would be required to pay the federal government. DHHS and some Members are
concerned that this option of the states to establish separate funding streams for their
welfare families may result in drastic reductions in the amount of child support
reimbursements to the federal government.
Cultivating Parental Involvement to Increase Child Support Collections.
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
support payments. Nonetheless, Census Bureau data (1991) indicate that it was more
likely for noncustodial parents to make payments of child support if they had either joint
custody or visitation rights. In 1996, Congress moderated its position. P.L. 104-193
provides $10 million per year for grants to states for access and visitation programs,
including mediation, counseling, education, development of parenting plans, and
supervised visitation. It has been suggested that funding be made available for community
workshops on parental responsibility in an effort to find workable solutions to the
problems of nonsupport and minimal contact with minor children.