Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Policy
April 22, 2010
The House Ways and Means Committee is making available this version of this Congressional Research
Service (CRS) report, with the cover date shown above, for inclusion in its 2011 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
R41204
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Summary
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program.
Its mission is to enhance the well-being of children by helping custodial parents and children
obtain financial support from the noncustodial parents. Although states were always required to
provide CSE services to members of Indian tribes and tribal organizations who were part of their
CSE caseloads, tribes were not specifically included in the CSE statute until the 1996 welfare
reform law (P.L. 104-193). The 1996 law allowed any state that has Indian country within its
borders to enter into a cooperative agreement with an Indian tribe if the tribe demonstrated that it
had an established tribal court system with the authority to establish paternity, and establish,
modify, and enforce child support orders. In addition, P.L. 104-193 gave the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to make direct payments to
Indian tribes that have approved CSE programs.
In FY2008, there were 45 tribal CSE programs (32 comprehensive tribal CSE programs and 13
start-up tribal CSE programs). In contrast to the federal matching rate of 66% for CSE programs
run by the states or territories, the tribal 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. In
FY2008, the 32 tribes or tribal organizations with comprehensive tribal CSE programs had an
aggregate of 29,251 cases and collected nearly $20 million in total child support collections.
Tribal CSE program services include parent location, paternity establishment, establishment of
child support orders, review and modification of child support orders, enforcement/collection of
child support payments, and distribution of child support. Indian tribes and tribal organizations
that choose to operate a tribal CSE program must run programs that conform to the objectives of
the state CSE program and that are in compliance with the tribal CSE program regulations.
However, federal regulations provide some flexibility that allows tribes and tribal organizations to
develop and administer tribal CSE programs that are consistent with the tribe’s law and tradition.
In 2008, about 308,000 (46%) of American Indian and Alaska Native children were living with
only one of their parents. In 2007, 65% of American Indian and Alaska Native children were born
to unmarried women. Given that only 45 of the 569 federally recognized tribes are operating
comprehensive or start-up tribal CSE programs, these statistics suggest that many Native
American children are without adequate CSE services and may not be getting the child support to
which they are entitled. This report presents some demographic data on the number of Native
Americans living in the United States and also provides statistical data on tribal CSE programs.
Although the data are useful in developing an understanding of tribal CSE programs, they should
not be used to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of tribal CSE programs.
This report describes the components of tribal CSE programs and discusses issues related to
jurisdictional matters, paternity establishment, child support enforcement methods, nonpayment
problems, and consistency of tribal programs with each other and with state CSE programs. The
report also includes three appendices. Appendix A includes six tables that arrange each tribe
according to its ranking in FY2008 on several CSE program indicators. Appendix B displays
FY2008 information that shows the 32 comprehensive tribal CSE programs and the 13 start-up
tribal CSE programs. Appendix C shows the American Indian and Alaska Native household
population for 2005 for tribes with CSE programs.
Congressional Research Service
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Background ................................................................................................................................ 3
CSE Provisions Related to Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations ........................................ 4
Tribal CSE Programs .................................................................................................................. 7
Requirements for Operating a Tribal CSE Program ............................................................... 7
Jurisdictional Requirement Related to a Minimum Number of Children........................... 8
Administrative and Management Procedures and Recordkeeping .................................... 8
Program Services Requirements ...................................................................................... 9
Locating Absent Parents............................................................................................ 9
Paternity Establishment........................................................................................... 10
Child Support Order Establishment and Modification.............................................. 11
Medical Child Support ............................................................................................ 12
Enforcement/Income Withholding........................................................................... 12
Distribution of Child Support .................................................................................. 13
State and Tribal Cooperation and Coordination........................................................ 14
Automated Systems ............................................................................................................ 15
Funding .............................................................................................................................. 16
Start-Up Programs ........................................................................................................ 17
Comprehensive Programs.............................................................................................. 18
Financing Mechanics .................................................................................................... 18
Data.......................................................................................................................................... 19
Data Problems..................................................................................................................... 19
Demographic Information ................................................................................................... 20
CSE Tribal Information....................................................................................................... 21
Issues........................................................................................................................................ 29
Jurisdictional Matters.......................................................................................................... 30
Paternity Establishment....................................................................................................... 32
Child Support Enforcement Methods................................................................................... 34
Nonpayment Problems ........................................................................................................ 36
Consistency of Tribal CSE Programs to Each Other and to State CSE Programs .................. 38
Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 40
Figures
Figure 1. Map of Tribal CSE Programs........................................................................................ 6
Figure 2. Tribal CSE Program: Collections and Expenditures, FY2004-FY2008 ........................ 25
Tables
Table 1. Tribal CSE Program Financial and Statistical Data, FY2004-FY2008........................... 23
Table 2. Tribal CSE Program, Expenditures and Collections Per Case, FY2004-FY2008 .......... 26
Table 3. Tribal CSE Summary Data by Tribe, FY2008............................................................... 27
Congressional Research Service
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Table A-1. Tribal CSE Collections by Tribe, in Rank Order, FY2008......................................... 43
Table A-2. Tribal CSE Expenditures by Tribe, in Rank Order, FY2008 ...................................... 45
Table A-3. Tribal CSE Caseload by Tribe, in Rank Order, FY2008 ............................................ 46
Table A-4. Tribal CSE Program: Paternities Established by Tribe, in Rank Order, FY2008 ........ 47
Table A-5. Tribal CSE Program: Child Support Orders Established by Tribe,
in Rank Order, FY2008 .......................................................................................................... 48
Table A-6. Tribal CSE Program: Collections Per Dollar of Expenditures by Tribe, in Rank
Order, FY2008 ....................................................................................................................... 49
Table B-1. Comprehensive Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs, September 2008 ........ 51
Table B-2. Start-Up Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs, FY2008................................ 52
Table C-1. Population Figures for Tribes with Tribal CSE Programs: Tribal Enrollment
(2005), BIA Service Population (2005), and Census AIAN Populations in Census-
Defined Federal AIAN Areas (2000) ...................................................................................... 53
Appendixes
Appendix A. Tribal CSE Program Indicators ............................................................................. 43
Appendix B. Comprehensive and Start-Up Tribal CSE Programs............................................... 51
Appendix C. American Indian and Alaska Native Population Figures for Tribes with CSE
Programs ............................................................................................................................... 53
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 56
Congressional Research Service
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Introduction
Child support is the cash payment that a noncustodial parent is obligated to pay for the financial
support of his or her children. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands operate Child Support Enforcement (CSE) programs. Historically, states were
required to provide CSE services to members of Indian tribes and tribal organizations who were
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 American1 children. The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) allowed direct federal
funding of approved tribal CSE programs.2
In FY2008, there were 45 tribal CSE programs.3 (See Table B-1 and Table B-2.) The Indian
tribes or tribal organizations that operated CSE programs in FY2008 are listed in the text box on
the next page and are shown on the map in Figure 1. The tribes or tribal organizations with
comprehensive CSE programs distributed nearly $20 million in total child support collections in
FY2008 to 29,251 cases in the CSE tribal program.
Only federally recognized tribes and tribal organizations are eligible to operate tribal CSE
programs. Currently, there are 564 federally recognized Indian tribes.4 Although tribal CSE
programs do not have to have a court system per se, they are required to have either a judicial or
administrative system to hear, establish, and enforce child support orders.5 Moreover, tribal CSE
programs are required to ensure that the due process rights of participants are protected.
According to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), it may be necessary to make adjustments to an existing court
system or to develop an administrative process under a start-up tribal CSE program.6 However,
according to OCSE, when a tribe applies for funding to operate a comprehensive tribal CSE
program,7 it must demonstrate that the judicial or administrative process is sufficient to establish
1 In this report, the terms “Native American,” “Indian,” and “AIAN” will be used interchangeably. They all mean
American Indians and Alaska Natives (“Alaska Natives” includes the American Indians, Eskimos (Inuit and Yupik),
and Aleuts of Alaska).
2 Federal regulations that were published in their final form in 2004, rather than the federal law, specified the level of
federal funding. Pursuant to title 45 Code of Federal Regulation (C.F.R.) section 309.130(c), 100% federal funding is
available for tribal CSE programs during the start-up period, 90% federal funding during the first three years that the
program is fully operational, and 80% federal funding thereafter.
3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, List of Tribal CSE Programs,
October 28, 2008, https://ocse.acf.hhs.gov/int/directories/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.tribalivd.
4 Federal Register, vol. 74, no. 153, August 11, 2009, p. 40218; see http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=598663376018+2+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve.
5 About 275 federally recognized tribes have tribal courts and 23 have Courts of Indian Offenses, according to the
National Tribal Justice Resource Center of the National American Indian Court Judges Association. Tribal courts vary
widely with respect to the types of cases heard, and the law applied in each is distinctly unique to each tribe. Some
tribal courts resemble Western-style courts where written laws and rules of court procedure are applied. However, an
increasing number of tribes are returning to their traditional means of resolving disputes through the use of
peacemaking, elders’ councils, and sentencing circles; http://www.tribalresourcecenter.org/tribalcourts/history.asp.
6 In FY2008, there were 13 start-up tribal CSE programs. A start-up tribal program does not have to have all of the 14
CSE program components mandated by federal regulations.
7 In FY2008, there were 32 comprehensive tribal CSE programs. A tribal program is considered comprehensive if it has
all of the 14 program components stipulated in the federal tribal CSE regulations.
Congressional Research Service
1
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
and enforce child support orders. Thus, the universe of tribes that are potentially eligible to
operate a tribal CSE program may not be as high as 564 because the tribe must have a court
system (which about 298 tribes have) or an administrative system. The number of potentially
eligible tribes is further reduced because tribes must have at least 100 children under their
jurisdiction, and many tribes do not meet this requirement.
CSE Tribal Programs
Because sufficient demographic
Aleutian/Pribiloff Islands
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe
and social statistics on Indian
Association*
Indian Reservation*
tribal members are not collected
Blackfeet Nation*
Modoc Tribe of OK
by federal or other entities, it is
Central Council Tlingit and Haida Muscogee (Creek) Nation
difficult to estimate how many
Indian Tribes of Alaska
children under tribal jurisdiction
Cherokee Nation
Navajo Nation
are not covered by tribal CSE
Chickasaw Nation
Nez Perce Tribe*
programs. Most estimates are
Chippewa Cree Tribe*
Nooksack Indian Tribe
derived from Census counts,
Coeur D’ Alene Tribe*
Northern Arapaho Tribe
which are based on race, not tribal
Comanche Nation of Oklahoma
Oneida Tribe of Indians of WI
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Osage Tribe of OK
membership. (See the discussion
Reservation*
under “Data” below.) One estimate Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Penobscot Nation
based on Census racial data found
Indian Reservation
that, in 2008, about 46% of the
Eastern Shoshone Tribe*
Ponca Tribe of OK
665,888 American Indian and
Forest County Potawatomi
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
Alaska Native children (i.e.,
Community
308,000 children) were living with Fort Belknap Indian Community* Pueblo Of Zuni
only one of their parents.8 In 2007, Kaw Nation
Puyallup Tribe of Indians
65% of American Indian and
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Quinault Indian Nation
Alaska Native children were born
Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas
Red Lake Band of Chippewa
Indians
to unmarried women (again,
Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma*
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate
according to race).9 Given that
Sioux Tribe
only 45 tribes10 are operating
Klamath Tribes
The Suquamish Tribal Council*
comprehensive or start-up tribal
Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake
Three Affiliated Tribes
CSE programs, these statistics,
Superior Chippewa Indians
even though they are based on race Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe*
Tulalip Tribes*
and not tribal membership, suggest Lummi Nation
White Earth Nation
that many Native American
Menominee Indian Tribe of WI
Winnebago Tribe of NE
children may be without CSE
Mescalero Apache Tribe
Zuni Tribe
* Denotes start-up programs
services and therefore may not be
getting the child support to which they are entitled.
8 In 2008, the comparable percentages of children living in one-parent households for other groups were as follows:
16% of Asian American and Pacific Islander children, 22% of white children, 36% of Hispanic children, and 59% of
black children. (Source: Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Data Center, 2009 Data Book,
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Default.aspx)
9 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Preliminary Data for
2007,” by Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, and Stephanie J. Ventura, National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 57, no.
12, March 18, 2009, p. 6.
10 The 32 tribes with comprehensive CSE programs served about 29,000 cases in FY2008. A CSE case may include
more than one child. OCSE defines a CSE “case” as a noncustodial parent (mother, father, or putative/alleged father)
who is now or eventually may be obligated under law for the support of a child or children receiving services under the
CSE program. If the noncustodial parent owes support for two children by different women, that would be considered
two cases; if both children have the same mother, that would be considered one case.
Congressional Research Service
2
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
This report provides a brief legislative history of CSE provisions related to tribes, presents basic
information on tribal CSE programs, describes the information that tribal CSE programs must
contain in order to be approved for federal funding, displays data on current tribal CSE programs,
and discusses issues related to ensuring that Native American children receive the child support to
which they are entitled. The report also includes three appendices. Appendix A includes six
tables that arrange each tribe according to its ranking in FY2008 on several CSE program features
or indicators. Appendix B displays FY2008 information that shows the 32 comprehensive tribal
CSE programs and the 13 start-up tribal CSE programs. Appendix C shows estimates of total
population for each tribe that operates a tribal CSE program.
Background
The 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. The mission of the CSE program has shifted and
expanded over the years. It has evolved from being a program primarily focused on welfare cost
recovery to a program that focuses more on enhancing the well-being of children by obtaining
child support from noncustodial parents and by emphasizing the personal responsibility of both
parents to their children. 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 CSE program currently 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) enforcement/collection of child support payments, (6)
distribution of child support payments, and (7) establishment and enforcement of medical
support. The CSE program serves both families that receive Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) benefits and those who do not. All 50 states and four jurisdictions (the District
of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) operate CSE programs. In addition,
45 tribes or tribal organizations have CSE programs. The CSE program is administered by the
federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), which is in the Administration for Children
and Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
In the early days of child support enforcement, states were required to cooperate in interstate CSE
cases, but problems arose stemming from the autonomy of local courts. Family law traditionally
had been under the jurisdiction of state and local governments, and citizens fell under the
jurisdiction of the courts where they lived. Thus, when parents lived in different states, conflicts
arose with regard to which state’s rules applied to the case in question. During the 1930s and
1940s, domestic/family law under the jurisdiction of state and local courts was used to establish
and enforce child support obligations when the noncustodial parent, custodial parent, and child
lived in the same state. But when noncustodial parents lived out of state, enforcing child support
was cumbersome and ineffective. Often, the only option in those cases was to extradite the
noncustodial parent and, when successful, jail the person for nonpayment of child support. This
procedure, which was rarely used, generally punished the delinquent noncustodial parent, but it
left the abandoned family without financial support. Even up until the late 1990s, many
commentators and CSE staff said that interstate cases were the most difficult child support orders
to enforce. Others, however, noted that when a child support case involved a Native American
child, the case moved to another level of complexity.
Congressional Research Service
3
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Before enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), the CSE statute placed the
authority to administer the delivery of CSE services solely with the states.11 However, within
much of Indian country, the authority of state and local governments was very limited or
nonexistent. Thus, states were limited in their ability to provide CSE services on tribal lands and,
vice versa, Indian families had difficulty obtaining CSE services from the state CSE programs.12
Pursuant to the Constitution, numerous court decisions, and federal law, Indian tribes have the
authority to make and enforce laws, to adjudicate civil and criminal disputes (including domestic
relations cases), to tax, and to license, regarding members and other Indians within their
jurisdictions. State power is limited unless Congress has authorized it. Therefore, prior to the
1996 welfare reform legislation, states that attempted to provide CSE services on tribal lands
were restricted in their authority to establish paternity and to establish and enforce child support
orders. During the pre-1996 period, cooperative agreements between Indian tribes and states were
the primary method by which Indian children (especially those living on reservations) received
CSE services.13
CSE Provisions Related to Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations
This section describes federal laws relating to child support that specifically mention Indian tribes
and tribal organizations.
In 1994, P.L. 103-383 (the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act) was
enacted. Section 3(a) of the 1994 act required a state to recognize and enforce another state’s
child support order. “State” is defined as “a state of the United States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territories and possessions of the United States, and
Indian country (as defined in Section 1151 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code).”14 Therefore, states and
tribes are required to recognize and enforce valid tribal child support orders, without regard to
whether such orders were issued by a state or tribal court or agency.
In 1996, P.L. 104-193 (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996) included two CSE provisions pertaining to Indian tribes. First, it allowed states to enter into
cooperative agreements with Indian tribes and tribal organizations,15 and second, it authorized the
11 At state option, CSE services can be administered by local units of government. In most of the states (29 states and
the District of Columbia), the CSE program is state administered with offices in many local areas. However, 14 states
have programs that are locally (i.e., county) administered; and eight states have programs that are state administered in
some counties and locally administered in others (two of these states indicated that they also use private contractors).
(Source: OCSE, Intergovernmental Referral Guide, Section A1 for each of the states, January 2008,
http://ocse.acf.hhs.gov/ext/irg/sps/selectastate.cfm.)
12 Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs, preamble of final
rule, p. 16638.
13 Office of Child Support Enforcement, Action Transmittal OCSE-AT-98-21, “Implementing Section 454(33) of the
Social Security Act, Cooperative Agreements Between Indian Tribes and State Agencies Operating a State Child
Support Enforcement Program Under Title IV-D of the Act,” July 28, 1998, p. 1.
14 28 U.S.C. 1738B(b). “Indian country” is defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 as “(a) all land within the limits of any Indian
reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and,
including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the
United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the
limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-
way running through the same.”
15 Prior to the 1996 law, CSE state plan requirements only included provisions for states to cooperate with other states
in interstate CSE cases. Moreover, because states generally did not have jurisdiction on Indian reservations, a tribe
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
HHS Secretary to provide direct federal funding to Indian tribes. The 1996 law allowed any state
that has Indian country (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151) within its borders to enter into a
cooperative agreement with an Indian tribe or tribal organization if the tribe demonstrated that it
had an established tribal court system with the authority to establish paternity, and establish,
modify, and enforce child support orders.16 In addition, P.L. 104-193 gave the HHS Secretary the
authority to make direct payments to Indian tribes that have approved CSE programs. In contrast
to the federal matching rate of 66% for CSE programs run by the states or territories, 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.17
Finally, in 1997, P.L. 105-33 (the Balanced Budget Act of 1997), which in part made numerous
technical amendments to the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), made minor changes to
eliminate ambiguity in the provision that allowed state CSE agencies to enter into cooperative
agreements with an Indian tribe or tribal organization. The 1997 act also clarified that direct
federal funding could be given to an Indian tribe or tribal organization that demonstrates the
capacity to operate a tribal CSE program that meets the objectives of the CSE program,
“including the establishment of paternity, establishment, modification, and enforcement of
support orders, and location of absent parents.”18
(...continued)
would enter into an agreement with the state to recognize the state (or county) jurisdiction on tribal lands for the sole
purpose of child support enforcement. In such agreements, the tribe generally allowed the CSE agency to extend CSE
procedures to the reservation. If under such agreement the CSE agency requested the tribe to carry out a child support
enforcement activity, the tribe had to perform the child support enforcement function in accordance with federal CSE
regulations. The 1996 law modified the federal CSE law that required states to cooperate with other states to also
include cooperation with all tribal CSE programs. Further, under the 1996 law, a cooperative agreement with a tribal
entity does not require that tribal law conform with federal CSE regulations in order for the state to receive federal CSE
matching funds for the CSE services provided to the family (i.e., the tribe would receive the payment specified in the
cooperative agreement and the state or locality would be entitled to federal matching funds for CSE expenditures made
pursuant to the agreement). See Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Implementing section 454(33) of the Social
Security Act, Cooperative Agreements Between Indian Tribes and State Agencies Operating a State Chile Support
Enforcement Program Under Title IV-D of the Act,” OCSE-AT-98-21, July 28, 1998.
16 42 U.S.C. 654(33). This provision defines tribes and tribal organizations in accordance with § 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638, as amended), which defines “Indian tribe” as a federally
recognized tribe or an Alaska Native regional or village corporation, and defines “tribal organization” as a tribal
government, an organization established by a tribal government, or a community organization established by tribal
members (25 U.S.C. 450b(e), (l)).
17 45 C.F.R. § 309.130(c), p. 325 (October 1, 2009, edition).
18 42 U.S.C. 655(f). According to OCSE-AT-98-21 (July 28, 1998), it is not necessary that the tribe comply with every
federal CSE regulation in order to qualify for a cooperative agreement with a state CSE agency.
Congressional Research Service
5
Figure 1. Map of Tribal CSE Programs
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notes: Tribal CSE programs are labeled and shaded. Areas of tribes without tribal CSE programs are outlined, but not labeled or shaded. Hawaii is not shown because it
has no federally recognized Indian tribes. The Comanche Nation area shown is the Kiowa-Comanche-Apache Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (OTSA) determined by the
Census Bureau. Alaska areas shown are Alaska Native Regional Corporation (ANRC) statistical areas determined by the Census Bureau; the Census Bureau did not
determine geographic areas for the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association or the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian tribes.
CRS-6
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Tribal CSE Programs
Part of the mission of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) is to provide
direction, guidance, technical assistance, and oversight to state and tribal CSE program offices.
The Assistant Secretary for Children and Families is the official director of OCSE, but the deputy
director/commissioner manages daily operation of the OCSE. OCSE’s Division of Special Staffs
works with tribal CSE programs. In addition, there are federal CSE staff in each of the
Administration for Children and Families’ 10 regional offices who are assigned to work on tribal
matters. Regional office staff work directly with states and tribes on program implementation and
operations. Central and regional offices collaborate to assess state and tribal needs, and to provide
technical assistance, policy clarification, training, and support for CSE programs.19
Indian tribes and tribal organizations that choose to operate a tribal CSE program must run
programs that conform to the objectives of the state CSE program and are in compliance with the
tribal CSE program regulations. However, federal regulations provide some flexibility that allows
tribes and tribal organizations to develop and administer tribal CSE programs that are consistent
with the tribe’s law and tradition. Moreover, some CSE program documents indicate that tribes
and tribal organizations should review the regulatory requirements to determine if a CSE program
is appropriate for their tribe or tribal organization.20
Requirements for Operating a Tribal CSE Program
A tribal CSE plan must include the following components in order to be approved by HHS and
thereby receive federal funds for its operation:21 (1) a description of the population subject to the
jurisdiction of the tribal court or administrative agency for child support purposes, (2) evidence
that the tribe has in place procedures for accepting all applications for CSE services and
providing CSE services required by law and regulation, (3) assurance that due process rights are
protected, (4) administrative and management procedures, (5) safeguarding procedures, (6)
maintenance of records, (7) copies of applicable tribal laws and regulations, (8) procedures for the
location of noncustodial parents, (9) procedures for the establishment of paternity, (10) guidelines
for the establishment and modification of child support obligations, (11) procedures for income
withholding, (12) procedures for the distribution of child support collections, (13) procedures for
intergovernmental case processing, and (14) tribally determined performance targets.22
In addition, federal law and regulations permit tribes or tribal organizations that cannot satisfy all
of the 14 requirements but that can demonstrate their capacity to operate a CSE program to
19 Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Building a Tribal IV-D Program: A Guide to the Start-Up Application
Process,” Information Memorandum IM-05-06, June 22, 2005, p. 1.
20 Ibid, p. 4.
21 A tribe or tribal organization may submit a tribal CSE program application at any time. The HHS Secretary or his or
her designee must determine whether the application meets the specified requirements within 90 days of receipt. If the
HHS Secretary or designee needs additional information, the tribe will be notified to provide the needed material. The
HHS Secretary or the designee must approve or disapprove the application within 45 days of receipt of the additional
information. A tribe or tribal organization may re-apply at any time after it has resolved the matter that led to the
disapproval of its CSE program. (Source: Title 45 C.F.R. sections 309.35 and 309.50, p. 315 and p. 317 (October 1,
2008, edition).)
22 Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, p. 16643.
Congressional Research Service
7
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
request start-up funding.23 Such tribes or tribal organizations must submit a program development
plan to HHS that indicates their ability to meet certain milestones, and meet the 14 required
components mentioned above within a certain timeframe.
Jurisdictional Requirement Related to a Minimum Number of Children
Currently there are 564 federally recognized tribal governments in the United States. According
to Census Bureau data, based on race, there were 2.2 million persons who classified themselves
as solely American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) in 2004, representing about 1% of the U.S.
population.24 The 2004 Census data indicate that about 26% of AIAN persons are under the age of
18.25 Because the enrollment of federally recognized tribes varies widely, some tribes have fewer
than 10 persons while others have over 200,000 persons.26 It is likely that many tribes will have
fewer than 100 children under age 18.
To obtain approval of its tribal CSE plan, a tribe or tribal organization must certify that there are
at least 100 children under the age of majority (as defined by tribal law or code) in the population
subject to the jurisdiction of the tribal court or administrative agency.27 This may include Indian
children who are not members of the applying tribe but who reside on the reservation. In addition,
children who are members of the tribe do not have to live on the tribe’s reservation in order for
the tribal court or administrative agency to have jurisdiction over such children. Moreover,
children of employees of the tribe and its tribal enterprises or privately owned tribal business on
the reservation who reside either on or off reservation may also be included, provided they are
subject to the jurisdiction of the tribal court or administrative agency.28
Administrative and Management Procedures and Recordkeeping
The tribal CSE plan must include a description of the tribal administering agency and the
distribution of responsibilities within the agency. The plan must include evidence that all federal
funds and amounts collected by the tribal CSE agency are protected against loss. Tribes and tribal
organizations may comply with this requirement by submitting documentation that every person
who receives, disburses, handles, or has access to or control over funds collected is covered by a
bond or insurance sufficient to cover all losses. The plan must include procedures under which
notices of child support collected, itemized by month of collection, are provided to families
receiving services under the tribal CSE program at least once a year and to either the custodial or
noncustodial parent upon request.29
23 45 C.F.R. § 309.16, p. 315 (October 1, 2009, edition). (Note: In this context, the term “capacity” generally means
basic governmental and administrative capabilities, such as an effective accounting system and experience in
successfully managing service programs.)
24 U.S. Census Bureau, “The American Community—American Indians and Alaska Natives: 2004,” American
Community Survey Reports, ACS-07, May 2007, p. 1, http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/ace-07.pdf.
25 Ibid, p. 7.
26 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2005 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report,
Washington, DC, http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/idc-001719.pdf.
27 CSE law allows a tribe or tribal organization to receive a waiver from the 100-children rule if it can demonstrate to
the HHS Secretary that it can operate a CSE program with fewer than 100 children.
28 Office of Child Support Enforcement, Action Transmittal (OCSE-AT-05-07), May 12, 2005, p. 2 and p. 7.
29 45 C.F.R. § 309.75, p. 320 (October 1, 2009, edition).
Congressional Research Service
8
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
If the tribal CSE agency intends to charge an application fee, the plan must contain provisions
that the fee will be uniformly applied and cannot exceed $25; that in intergovernmental cases
referred for services, the application fee may only be charged by the jurisdiction in which the
individual applies for services; that fees may not be charged to individuals receiving services
under Titles IV-A (TANF), IV-E (foster care assistance), or XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security
Act; and that the tribal CSE agency may recover actual costs of providing services in excess of
the application fee. Child support application fees collected and costs recovered are considered
program income and must be used to reduce the amounts of expenditures for federal matching. In
other words, the tribal CSE agency must exclude from its quarterly expenditure claims an amount
equal to all fees collected and costs recovered during the quarter.30
The tribal CSE plan is required to provide that the tribal CSE agency will maintain records
necessary for proper and efficient operation of the program, including records regarding (1)
applications for child support services; (2) efforts to locate noncustodial parents; (3) actions taken
to establish paternity and obtain and enforce child support; (4) amounts of child support owed,
child support arrearages, and amounts and sources of child support collections, and the
distribution of such collections; (5) tribal CSE program expenditures; (6) any fees charged and
collected, if applicable; and (7) statistical, fiscal, and other records necessary for reporting and
accountability.31
Program Services Requirements
The tribal CSE agency is required by federal law to extend the full range of services available
under its tribal CSE plan to states and other tribal CSE programs, and also to respond to all
requests from, and to cooperate with, states and other tribal CSE programs.
Locating Absent Parents
The tribal CSE plan must include provisions governing the location of custodial and noncustodial
parents and their assets. The tribal CSE agency must attempt to locate custodial and noncustodial
parents or sources of income and/or assets when location is required to take necessary action in a
case, and must use all sources of information and records reasonably available to locate
custodial32 and noncustodial parents and their sources of income and/or assets.
Tribes have many options and resources for obtaining location information, such as friends and
relatives of the party being located; tribal employment records; tribal records; utilities; the United
States Postal Service; organizations such as labor unions or professional associations; federal,
state, local, or tribal tax departments; real estate records; law enforcement; credit bureaus; public
assistance and social services agencies; the Department of Natural Resources; and licensing
boards (e.g., motor vehicle, professional, recreation).33
30 Ibid.
31 45 C.F.R. § 309.85, p. 321 (October 1, 2009, edition).
32 The reference to custodial parents is included to ensure that locate sources are used to find custodial parents for
whom support has been collected and whom the tribe may be unable to find. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61,
March 30, 2004, p. 16644).
33 Office of Child Support Enforcement, “OCSE Training Courses for Tribal IV-D Programs—Locate Module,”
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/resources/tribal/training/.
Congressional Research Service
9
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Tribes and tribal organizations may also contact any other tribal, state, or federal agencies that
may have information, such as the Fish and Game Commission or the Conservation Agency.
Other locate options tribes and tribal organizations may select include directly accessing a state
system or requesting information from a state system. Currently, tribes and tribal organizations
are not authorized to request Federal Parent Locator Service information,34 but a resident parent,
legal guardian, agent, or attorney of a child may request locate information through the state CSE
agency if location assistance is needed for child support purposes.35
Paternity Establishment
The tribal CSE agency must attempt to establish paternity by the process set out under tribal law,
code, and/or custom. It must also provide the alleged father an opportunity to voluntarily
acknowledge paternity. In a contested paternity case, the child, the mother, and the alleged father
or fathers (more than one man may be alleged as the father) must submit to a genetic test (unless
otherwise barred by tribal law) upon the request of any party if the request is supported by a
sworn statement that (1) alleges paternity, and sets forth facts establishing a reasonable possibility
of the requisite sexual contact between parties; or (2) denies paternity, and sets forth facts
establishing a reasonable possibility of the nonexistence of sexual contact between the parties.
Federal regulations clarify that establishment of paternity under tribal CSE programs does not
infer tribal enrollment or membership.36
To meet tribal CSE plan requirements, tribal law must explicitly provide for genetic testing. Like
state CSE programs, a tribe may have a conclusive presumption of paternity when a child is born
to married parents or if a noncustodial parent has been validly served in a paternity proceeding
and failed to contest paternity in such proceeding. Also, some tribal CSE programs may recognize
a man who holds himself out to be the father as the father, and in effect deem the man to be the
father and thereby may preclude that man from challenging paternity. Federal regulations allow
the tribal CSE program to prohibit genetic testing in cases such as those mentioned above in
which the tribe had already determined or stipulated paternity. In such cases, because paternity
had already been determined, genetic testing would thereby be barred by tribal law.37 Federal
regulations also stipulate that the tribal CSE agency is not required to establish paternity in any
case involving incest or rape, or in a case in which legal proceedings for adoption are pending.38
When genetic testing is used to establish paternity, the tribal CSE agency must identify and use
accredited laboratories, which perform at reasonable cost legally and medically acceptable
genetic tests that seek to identify the father or exclude the alleged father.39
34 According to an HHS document, direct access for Indian tribes to the Federal Income Tax Refund Offset program
and the Federal Parent Locator Service could result in about $100 million in additional collections to tribal families
over a five-year period. (Source: HHS Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Administration for
Children and Families, FY2004, p. B-14.)
35 Office of Child Support Enforcement, “OCSE Training Courses for Tribal IV-D Programs—Locate Module,”
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/resources/tribal/training/. (Note: States may charge tribes for these services.)
36 Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, p. 16644.
37 Ibid, p. 16658.
38 45 C.F.R. § 309.100, p. 321 (October 1, 2009, edition).
39 Probability of exclusion testing can exclude 95%-99% of falsely accused men. In other words, the test generally is
able to determine that a man is “not” the father of a given child. Thus, there is a very high probability the test will
exonerate a falsely accused man. The exclusion probability has nothing to do with the likelihood that a non-excluded
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Child Support Order Establishment and Modification
The tribal CSE plan must establish one set of child support guidelines by law or by judicial action
for setting and modifying child support obligation amounts; include a copy of the child support
guidelines; and indicate whether noncash payments of support will be permitted to satisfy the
child support obligation. However, pursuant to federal regulations, noncash payments may not be
used to satisfy assigned support obligations (i.e., child support obligations for children receiving
TANF cash benefits).40
Federal regulations define “noncash support” as “support provided to a family in the nature of
goods and/or services, rather than in cash, but which, nonetheless, has a certain and specific
dollar value.”41 The noncash support must directly contribute to the needs of a child, such as
“making repairs to automobiles or a home, the clearing or upkeep of property, providing a means
for travel, or providing needed resources for a child’s participation in tribal customs and
practices.”42 A tribal support order allowing noncash payments must state the specific dollar
amount of the support obligation.
The tribal CSE plan must provide for the application of the guidelines unless there is a written
finding or a specific finding on the record of the tribunal that the application of the guidelines
would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case. The guidelines must take into account the
needs of the child and the earnings and income of the noncustodial parent and be based on
specific descriptive and numeric criteria.43
The child support guidelines must be reviewed, and if appropriate revised/modified, at least every
four years and must provide a rebuttable presumption that the child support award is the correct
amount based on the guidelines.44
The tribe or tribal organization must also provide assurances that it will recognize child support
orders issued by other tribes and tribal organizations, and by states, in accordance with the
requirements under 28 U.S.C. 1738B, the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act.45
Tribal child support orders are established through use of tribal courts, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Courts,46 state courts, administrative processes, mediators prior to going to
(...continued)
man may be the father. Probability of paternity testing examines the similarities between the alleged father’s blood and
the child’s and a calculation is made regarding the statistical likelihood of paternity based on the chance of such
similarities occurring in a random male in the general population. Probability of paternity testing generally can
determine with almost 100% probability that a man is the father of a given child.
40 45 C.F.R. § 309.105, p. 322 (October 1, 2009, edition).
41 45 C.F.R. § 309.05, p. 314 (October 1, 2009, edition).
42 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal and State Jurisdiction
to Establish and Enforce Child Support,” March 12, 2007, p. 59, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2007/
im-07-03.htm.
43 45 C.F.R. § 309.105, p. 322 (October 1, 2009 edition).
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid, p. 324.
46 Courts of Indian Offenses are courts operated by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, on
certain reservations. Those courts operate under federal regulations contained in Volume 25 of the Code of Federal
Regulations and thus are often referred to as “CFR” courts.
Congressional Research Service
11
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
court, and agreement orders. Most tribes use petitions to establish child support orders. Means of
serving process include tribal process servers, tribal police, tribal security officers, private process
servers, sheriffs, voluntary service via sending a letter to the individual, court bailiffs, and
subpoena or summons.47
Jurisdictional issues affect how cases are established. Some tribes exert jurisdiction over tribal
members, no matter where they are in the country, based on enrollment factors. Other tribes assert
that they have concurrent jurisdiction in paternity cases when the child was born off the
reservation but to an enrolled tribal member. 48 Jurisdictional claims between tribes and states are
sometimes very contentious and it can be hard for either entity to give up jurisdiction.49
Medical Child Support
There is no current requirement that tribal support orders include medical support.50 However,
there is no prohibition for a tribal support order to do so. Tribes are encouraged to make sure that
children have access to medical care through the Indian Health Service (IHS) or otherwise.51 The
IHS is an agency of the United States Public Health Service, within HHS. It does not provide
health insurance coverage. But, it is responsible for providing federal health services to the
approximately 1.5 million American Indians and Alaska Natives who belong to the 562 federally
recognized tribes in 35 states.52
Enforcement/Income Withholding
Tribal CSE agencies are responsible for enforcing child support orders. However, tribes are only
mandated to use the income withholding enforcement method. Any other enforcement actions
they take are solely at the tribe’s discretion and are based on tribal policies, procedures,
ordinances, and codes. Some of these enforcement remedies include several procedures that must
be done collaboratively with states, such as federal income tax refund intercepts, bank levies,
liens against non-reservation property, state hunting and fishing license suspensions, state fishing
taxes, and passport denials.
47 Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal Child Support Enforcement Systems Workgroup, Session III Joint
Application Development Final Report,” October 2005, p. 15.
48 Ibid.
49 Pursuant to federal regulations, tribes are required to provide in their Tribal CSE Plan a description of the population
subject to the jurisdiction of the tribe for child support purposes (45 C.F.R. §309.65(a)(1) and 45 C.F.R. §309.70 ).
50 Federal law mandates that states have procedures under which all child support orders are required to include a
provision for medical support for the dependent child to be provided by either or both parents. Medical support is the
legal provision of payment of medical, dental, prescription, and other health care expenses for dependent children. It
can include provisions for health care coverage, such as coverage under a health insurance plan (including payment of
premium costs, co-payments, and deductibles) as well as cash payments for a dependent child’s medical expenses.
Pursuant to changes mandated by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), if appropriate health insurance is
available to either parent, states are required to establish an order requiring that the children be placed on such coverage
with appropriate cost sharing. Moreover, states now are able to enforce such orders against both custodial and
noncustodial parents.
51 Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, p. 16660.
52 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal and State Jurisdiction
to Establish and Enforce Child Support,” March 12, 2007, p. 89, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2007/
im-07-03.htm.
Congressional Research Service
12
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Some examples of innovative methods that tribes and tribal organizations use to encourage timely
and consistent payment of child support include the following: (1) some non-paying noncustodial
parents are required to explain to an Elders’ Panel why they are not supporting their children; (2)
some tribes allow per capita payments53 to be intercepted to meet child support obligations; (3)
tribes with casinos may be able to withhold past-due child support (i.e., child support arrearages)
from the winnings of tribal members; (4) reservation fishing taxes; (5) reservation hunting and
fishing license suspension; (6) gaming license suspension; and (7) in cases where a noncustodial
parent has been unable to find a job and make child support payments, a tribe can request that the
court or administrative agency mandate a course of action to improve the noncustodial parent’s
employability (e.g., attending classes to obtain a certificate of general educational development or
high school equivalent, undergoing alcohol or drug abuse treatment, undertaking a work search,
attending trade classes).54
As noted above, with respect to child support enforcement/collection activities, tribes are only
required to use the income withholding enforcement method. The income withholding
requirements are similar to those requirements governing states’ CSE programs, except that
income is subject to withholding once the noncustodial parent has failed to make a payment equal
to the support payable for one month.55 Income withholding is not to be required in any case
where either the custodial or noncustodial parent demonstrates, and the tribunal enters a finding,
that there is good cause not to require income withholding; or where a signed written agreement
is reached between the custodial and noncustodial parent that provides for an alternate agreement.
The tribal CSE agency must allocate amounts withheld across multiple withholding orders, and in
no case shall the allocation result in a withholding for one of the orders not being implemented.
The tribal CSE agency is responsible for receiving and processing income withholding orders
from states or other tribes and ensuring orders are promptly served on employers.56
Distribution of Child Support
A tribal CSE plan must outline procedures for distribution of child support collections. As a
general rule, the tribal CSE agency must, in a timely manner, apply collections to satisfy current
support obligations first, and pay all child support collections to the family unless the family is
currently receiving or has formerly received assistance from the tribal TANF program,57 or the
tribal CSE agency has received a request for assistance in collecting support on behalf of the
family from a state or another tribal CSE agency. Such requests for assistance may be to collect
child support assigned to the state or tribe as a condition of receiving TANF assistance or to
provide CSE services on behalf of a family residing in or receiving services from the referring
53 “Per capita payments,” in this context, are payments by a tribe to its individual members (e.g., from tribal trust
property, gaming, or Indian claims awards). Such payments may also include Indian claims awards by the United States
paid directly to individual members.
54 Office of Child Support Enforcement, “OCSE Training Courses for Tribal IV-D Programs—Enforcement Module,”
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/resources/tribal/training/.
55 Delinquency-based income withholding was made obsolete for state CSE programs when P.L. 100-485 (the Family
Support Act of 1988) established immediate income withholding. The Family Support Act of 1988 greatly expanded
income withholding by requiring immediate withholding to begin in November 1990 for all new or modified orders
being enforced by states. Equally important, states were required, with some exceptions, to implement immediate wage
withholding in all support orders initially issued on or after January 1, 1994, regardless of whether a parent has applied
for child support services.
56 Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, p. 16645.
57 45 C.F.R. § 286.155, p. 200 (October 1, 2009, edition).
Congressional Research Service
13
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
state or tribe. When support is owed to both states and tribes, the tribal CSE agency may either
send collections to the requesting state or tribe for distribution or determine appropriate
distribution by contacting the requesting state or tribe and distribute collections accordingly.
Federal regulations with regard to tribal CSE programs stipulate that any child support collections
obtained through the Federal Income Tax Refund Offset program must be applied to satisfy child
support arrearages.58
State and Tribal Cooperation and Coordination
Federal regulations require states to extend the full range of services available under its CSE plan
to all tribal CSE programs.59 Prior to the 1996 law, although state CSE agencies had the resources
to obtain child support on behalf of Native American children, they usually lacked jurisdiction
over tribal members. In contrast, tribal courts often did not have the resources to obtain child
support on behalf of tribal members. Federal law now addresses the issue of nonpayment of child
support, in part, by authorizing states and tribes to enter into cooperative agreements to facilitate
obtaining child support for Native American children.
Realistically, in order to better serve Indian children, tribes must utilize the existing infrastructure
of state CSE programs.60 Federal regulations authorize tribal CSE programs to enter into
cooperative arrangements with states. Pursuant to the regulations, a tribe may delegate functions
of the tribal CSE program to another tribe, a state, or another agency or entity pursuant to a
cooperative arrangement, contract, or tribal resolution, but the tribal CSE agency retains ultimate
responsibility for meeting the CSE plan requirements.61 Moreover, tribes may enter into
agreements with any entity, including contracts with a private vendor, to carry out the functions
required in the tribal CSE plan. Federal regulations make clear that tribes, not states, are to be
held accountable for the proper operation of tribal CSE programs, including all actions
undertaken on behalf of such programs. In other words, if the tribe or tribal organization
delegates any of the functions of operating a CSE program to another tribe, state, or any other
agency, the tribe is still responsible for compliance with the approved tribal CSE plan.62
Tribal cooperative agreements with state CSE agencies were part of the 1996 welfare reform law.
Cooperative agreements under section 454(33) of the Social Security Act are between a state CSE
program and a tribe. The tribe performs agreed-upon activities and the state CSE program
reimburses the tribe for these activities. These cooperative agreements are under a state CSE
program and tribes must follow the state CSE program requirements within the scope of
cooperative agreement responsibilities. The state is ultimately responsible for the operation of its
CSE program and ensuring all requirements are met. However, if a tribal CSE program enters into
a cooperative agreement with a state under Section 455(f) of the Social Security Act, for the state
to perform a service for the tribe, the state must meet tribal CSE requirements applicable to the
actions taken pursuant to the cooperative agreement. Under this type of cooperative agreement,
58 45 C.F.R. § 309.115, p. 323 (October 1, 2009, edition).
59 45 C.F.R. § 302.36(a)(2), p. 234 (October 1, 2009, edition).
60 State CSE infrastructure includes the Federal and State Parent Locator Service, the National Directory of New Hires,
state centralized units for the collection and distribution of child support payments (i.e., State Disbursement Units), and
the array of state collection/enforcement methods.
61 45 C.F.R. §309.60(c), p. 318 (October 1, 2009, edition).
62 Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, p. 16651.
Congressional Research Service
14
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
the tribe is ultimately responsible for the operation of its CSE program and for ensuring that all
tribal CSE program requirements are met.63
In addition to the formal cooperative agreements, some commentators contend that the best
interests of Native American children could be better served if states would incorporate the
following procedures into their interactions with tribes and tribal organizations: (1) to determine
if someone is enrolled in a tribe, ask the person for his or her Certificate of Degree of Indian
Blood (CDIB) card or verification of Tribal Membership card; (2) remember that each tribe is
different, with its own laws; (3) find out what procedure(s) are required to register a state support
order for enforcement with the tribe; (4) coordinate service of process in Indian country with the
tribe (e.g., when personal service is required, tribal authorities are often the most appropriate
individuals for serving state process on a reservation); (5) rely on state and tribal court clerks for
information regarding pleadings, required forms, and filing deadlines and procedures; and (6)
ascertain tribal court practices and procedures (e.g., an attorney’s authority/admission to practice
law in a state court does not automatically mean that the attorney is admitted to practice in a tribal
court in that state).64 Also, child support administrators generally agree that cooperation between
tribes and states is enhanced when common goals can be identified and articulated and an open
dialogue is maintained between the tribes and state CSE staff.65
Automated Systems
With respect to the CSE program operated by states, there is widespread agreement that the
achievement of CSE program goals depends in large part on the effective planning, design, and
operation of automated systems. Automating CSE information systems generally improves
caseworker productivity by allowing automatic searches of a variety of databases and eliminating
the need for voluminous paper documentation. Automated CSE systems also help track court
actions relating to paternity and support orders and amounts of collections and distributions.
With respect to tribal CSE programs, many commentators and interested parties contend that
automation is necessary for tribes and tribal organizations to accurately and efficiently process
child support collections. These commentators argue that the costs for development of automated
programs should be allowable expenditures for tribal CSE programs (i.e., tribal expenditures for
development of data systems should be eligible to receive federal matching funds).66
Before the final regulations (released February 25, 2010) on tribal CSE automated systems,
development of automated data processing systems was not an allowable activity or expenditure
for comprehensive tribal CSE programs. They were generally only permitted to receive federal
funding for costs associated with the establishment of intergovernmental agreements with states
63 Office of Child Support Enforcement, Action Transmittal (OCSE-AT-05-07), May 12, 2005.
64 See State/Tribal Child Support Partnerships In Washington State, http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/esa/dcs/tribal/
TribalPartnerships.pdf. See also U.S. Department of Justice, Tribal Judicial Institute, “Walking on Common Ground:
Tribal-State-Federal Justice System Relationships,” December 2008.
65 See http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/esa/dcs/tribal/GuidingPrinciplesCoop.pdf. Also see National Tribal Child Support
Association, “Tribal Child Support Program: Information and Resource Guide,” by Gloria Howard (Puyallup Tribal
Child Support Program) and Tami J. Lorbecke (Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Office of Child Support Services),
updated May 2009.
66 Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 113, Computerized Tribal IV-D Systems and Office Automation—Notice of Proposed
Rule Making, June 11, 2008, p. 33049.
Congressional Research Service
15
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
and tribes for the use of an existing automated data processing computer system necessary to
support tribal CSE program operations.67 In contrast, the recently released final regulations
regarding computerized tribal CSE systems expand allowable activities and costs incurred by
comprehensive tribal CSE programs with regard to automated data processing computer systems
to include the installation, operation, maintenance, and enhancement of a model tribal system that
is described in the regulations.68 Comprehensive tribal CSE programs that are operating within
the first three-year period of federal funding are reimbursed for 90% of the cost of their
automated systems expenditures. Comprehensive tribal CSE programs operating after the initial
three-year period are reimbursed for 80% of their automated systems expenditures.
Automated systems have, to a certain extent, reduced barriers that were often faced by some
tribes who were geographically isolated from access to certain state or county CSE services.
Concomitantly, an administrative structure that depends primarily on automation might be at odds
with the types of flexible, face-to-face assistance that is often successful on Indian reservations.
Funding
Federal funding is based on the tribal CSE application, which includes the proposed budget and a
description of the nature and scope of the tribal CSE program and gives assurance that the
program will be administered in conformity with applicable requirements of the CSE program
(Title IV-D of the Social Security Act), federal regulations, and other official issuances of HHS
that specifically apply to tribes and tribal organizations.
A tribe or tribal organization may apply for federal funding in one of two ways. A tribe or tribal
organization may apply to operate a CSE program that meets all of the 14 mandated requirements
(as specified in federal regulations) for a tribal CSE program.69 If the tribe or tribal organization
can apply on this basis, it is considered a comprehensive tribal CSE program if it is approved by
the HHS Secretary. If a tribe or tribal organization does not currently meet the regulatory
requirements, it may apply for start-up funding. A tribe or tribal organization that applies on this
basis (and has such a plan approved) is considered to be operating a tribal CSE start-up
program.70
Unlike state CSE programs that are funded by both state and matching federal dollars, tribal CSE
programs that are designated as start-up programs can be funded solely by federal dollars. Tribal
CSE programs that are considered fully operational (i.e., comprehensive programs) are funded at
90% of total program expenditures for the first three years of the program, and at 80%
thereafter.71 The non-federal share of CSE program expenditures may be in cash and/or in-kind,
67 Before the final regulations (February 25, 2010), tribal CSE programs generally managed and tracked their child
support cases manually or contracted with the state to use their automated CSE system (45 C.F.R. §309.145(h)).
68 Federal Register, vol. 75, no. 37, February 25, 2010, p. 8508.
69 According to OCSE officials, although nine tribes began operating CSE programs after the 1996 legislation (P.L.
104-193) and before the final regulations on tribal CSE programs were published, those nine tribes had to reapply for
direct CSE funding once the final regulations were issued.
70 Office of Child Support Enforcement, Information Memorandum (IM-05-06), “Building a Tribal IV-D Program: A
Guide to the Start-Up Application Process,” June 22, 2005, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2005/im-05-
06.htm.
71 Federal funding of tribal CSE programs differs significantly from state CSE programs. The federal government
reimburses each state for 66% of the cost of operating its CSE program. In addition, the federal government pays states
an incentive payment to encourage them to operate effective programs. For additional information on the financing of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
fairly valued, by the tribe or tribal organization and/or by a third party. Both state and
comprehensive tribal CSE programs are considered entitlement programs and they both receive
mandatory funding on an open-ended basis (meaning that they receive federal matching funding
for all reasonable, necessary, and allocable expenditures on the CSE program).
Federal funds are available for the costs associated with operating a tribal CSE program that has
been approved by the HHS Secretary, provided that the Secretary determines that such costs are
reasonable, necessary, and allocable to the tribal CSE program.72 Federal regulations provide a
list of the kinds of activities and costs that can receive federal reimbursement. Federal regulations
also stipulate that tribal CSE program funds may not be used for (1) activities related to
administering other programs, including those under the Social Security Act; (2) construction and
major renovations; (3) any expenditures that have been reimbursed by fees or costs collected,
including any fee collected from a state; (4) expenditures for jailing of parents in tribal CSE
cases; (5) the cost of legal counsel for indigent defendants in tribal CSE program actions; (6) the
cost of guardians ad litem in tribal CSE cases; and (7) all other costs that are not reasonable,
necessary, and allocable to tribal CSE programs.73
Start-Up Programs
As mentioned earlier, federal law and regulations permit tribes or tribal organizations that cannot
satisfy all of the 14 mandatory provisions but that can demonstrate their ability to operate a CSE
program to request start-up funding. Start-up funding is for tribes to develop a CSE program that
will allow them to meet all the regulation requirements of a comprehensive child support
program. Allowable start-up costs and activities include planning for the initial development and
implementation of a program; developing tribal CSE laws, codes, guidelines, systems, and
procedures; recruiting, hiring, and training tribal CSE program staff; and any other reasonable
costs.74
During the period of start-up funding, a tribe or tribal organization will receive federal funds
equal to 100% (subject to a capped amount) of the approved and allowable CSE expenditures
made during that period.75 Tribes and tribal organizations that receive start-up funding do not
have to put up non-federal matching funds for their CSE programs. Federal funds are available
for the costs of developing a tribal CSE program that meets federal requirements, provided that
(...continued)
state CSE programs, see CRS Report RL33422, Analysis of Federal-State Financing of the Child Support Enforcement
Program, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
72 After enactment of the 1996 legislation that provided direct funding for tribes and before the final regulations on
tribal CSE programs were issued in 2004, OCSE gave tribes Special Improvement Project (SIP) grants to operate their
tribal CSE programs. The purpose of the SIP grant program is to provide funding for projects that further the national
child support mission and goals and to help improve program performance. SIP’s legislative authority is Section 452(j)
of the Social Security Act, and it provides federal funds for research and demonstration programs and special projects
of regional or national significance relating to the operation of state child support enforcement programs. No applicant
match is required. Eligible applicants include state and local public agencies, nonprofit agencies (including faith-based
organizations), and tribal organizations.
73 45 C.F.R. §309.155, p. 330 (October 1, 2009, edition).
74 Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, p. 16647.
75 Pursuant to federal regulations (45 C.F.R. § 309.16), tribal CSE start-up programs must have the capability to meet
all 14 components of a comprehensive tribal CSE program within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed two years.
In other words, a tribal CSE start-up program can potentially receive 100% federal matching for up to two years.
Congressional Research Service
17
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
such costs are reasonable, necessary, and can be allocated to the program.76 For start-up tribal
CSE programs, 100% federal funding is limited to $500,000, and there is no tribal match
required.77 Start-up funding must be obligated and liquidated within two years of the date in
which the start-up application was approved.
Comprehensive Programs
Tribes or tribal organizations that can meet all of the 14 mandatory provisions (such programs are
considered comprehensive or fully operating programs) receive 90% federal funding during the
first three years of full program operation. The tribe or tribal organization must provide a 10%
tribal match in order to receive the federal funding.78
After the initial three-year period of operating a comprehensive tribal CSE program, the tribe or
tribal organization will receive 80% federal funding each year thereafter for their tribal CSE
program if the tribe continues to meet federal requirements. The tribe or tribal organizations must
provide a 20% tribal match in order to receive the federal funding.79
Financing Mechanics
In order to receive federal funding, a tribal CSE agency must submit the following budgetary
information: a quarter-by-quarter estimate of CSE expenditures for the fiscal year; notification of
whether the tribe or tribal organization is requesting funds for indirect costs; a narrative
justification for each of the required elements of the program (that are listed on the application
form—start-up program may not include all of the 14 mandatory components); and either a
statement certifying that the tribe or tribal organization has or will have the non-federal share of
program expenditures available, as required, or a request for a waiver of the non-federal share.80
Unlike the state CSE program, which is funded on a prospective quarterly basis, tribal CSE
programs that qualify for funding of less than $1 million per 12-month period receive a single
annual award of the total amount. However, tribal CSE programs with funding of $1 million or
more per 12-month period will receive quarterly awards similar to state CSE programs. OCSE
documents indicate that the funding for tribal CSE activities is completely separate from funding
for state CSE programs. A tribe’s decision to run its own CSE program does not impact a state’s
CSE program funds. This means that tribal CSE funding is not apportioned from a state’s CSE
funding. However, funds for the tribal CSE programs come from the same appropriation as the
state CSE program.81
76 Tribal CSE funds may not be used for activities related to administering other programs, including those under the
Social Security Act; construction or major renovations; expenditures that have been reimbursed by fees collected,
including any fee collected from a state; jailing of parents in tribal CSE cases; the cost of legal counsel for defendants
in tribal CSE actions; or any other costs that are not reasonable, necessary, and allocable to the tribal CSE program.
77 Federal funding for tribal CSE program development generally may not exceed a total of $500,000 except in very
unusual or extraordinary circumstances. According to federal regulations (45 C.F.R. § 309.16), “in extraordinary
circumstances, the Secretary will consider a request to extend the period of time during which start-up funding will be
available and/or to increase the amount of start-up funding provided.”
78 45 C.F.R. § 309.130, p. 325 (October 1, 2009, edition).
79 Ibid.
80 45 C.F.R. § 309.15, p. 315 (October 1, 2009, edition).
81 Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, p. 16667.
Congressional Research Service
18
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Data
This section presents data on the number of Native Americans living in the United States, tribal
population estimates, the percentage of Native American women who had children outside of
marriage, living arrangements of Native American children, and the percentage of Native
Americans with child support orders. It also provides statistical information on tribal CSE
programs.
Data Problems
Although the data are useful in developing an understanding of tribal CSE programs, there are
several problems associated with the data. First, population data for federally recognized Indian
tribes are elusive. No federal entity performs a census of members of federally recognized tribes
such as the Census Bureau does for the U.S. population, so there are no detailed demographic or
socio-economic data on tribal members alone. All Census Bureau data on American Indians and
Alaska Natives (AIAN) are based on race, not tribal membership. The Census Bureau’s decennial
census and other surveys ask respondents to identify themselves by race, not by confirmed
membership in a federally recognized tribe.82 Not all persons self-identifying as AIAN are
members of federally recognized tribes, and it may be that not all tribal members identify
themselves as AIAN on the Census form. The decennial census does collect information by
Indian reservation or other Census-developed statistical area, for almost all federally recognized
tribes, so it can report AIAN race data (even if it cannot report membership) for a tribe’s
reservation or other statistical area. These reservation-specific AIAN decennial data may serve as
proxies for actual tribal data. However, Census Bureau data collected through non-decennial
sample surveys, such as the American Community Survey (ACS) or the Current Population
Survey (CPS), cannot yet be used for the great majority of Indian areas because the Indian areas’
populations are too small.83
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) publishes biennial estimates of its own service population—
defined as AIAN living on or near a reservation and eligible for BIA services—based on figures
received from federally recognized tribes. The BIA asks tribes to survey and provide estimates on
their members, but does not require a tribe to carry out a census to prepare these figures.84 The
BIA report also lists tribal enrollment totals, as reported by the tribes, but the BIA does not
conduct censuses to confirm these figures. The report does not provide tribal enrollees’
geographic, demographic, or socio-economic data, so it cannot show where enrollees are living or
their age or other characteristics. (See Table C-1 in Appendix C for population figures from
differing Census and BIA sources for CSE tribes and the nation.)
82 In the race question, the Census Bureau allows respondents to identify their tribe—still self-identification—but does
not confirm a respondent’s enrollment (or eligibility to be enrolled) in the tribe named. Hence, Census data on self-
reported tribes cannot be assumed to correspond to data on federally recognized tribes.
83 For ACS, see U.S. Census Bureau, “2008 American Community Survey: Overview of Census Geographic Areas in
the United States and Puerto Rico,” Table 1a, p. 2, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/
2008_geography_notes.pdf. For CPS, see U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey Design and Methodology,
Technical Paper 66, October 2006, pp. 21-22, http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/tp-66.pdf.
84 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2005 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report
Washington, DC, pp. v-viii, http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/idc-001719.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
19
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Another problem is that the tribal CSE program data include missing data related to
implementation issues. It is also important to note that this report does not try to analyze the
impact of factors such as size of tribe, wealth or poverty status of tribe, source of resources,
employment opportunities, or administrative structures (courts, administering agencies, etc.) on
the effectiveness of tribal CSE programs.
Demographic Information85
In 2008, the ACS estimated that there were about 4.7 million persons who were AIAN, either
alone or in combination with other races. The number of these individuals who reported AIAN as
their only race amounted to approximately 2.4 million persons, or about 0.8% of the U.S.
population, in 2008.86 In 2008, 28% of persons classified as AIAN alone were under age 18.87 As
the discussion above indicated, these AIAN population figures are based on race, not on tribal
membership; see Appendix C for other figures for the tribal population, for both the nation and
each CSE tribe.
In 2007, 65% of AIAN babies were born to unmarried mothers, compared with 17% of Asian or
Pacific Islander babies, 28% of white babies, 51% of Hispanic babies, and 72% of black babies.88
In 2008, 46% of AIAN children were living in single-parent families, compared with 16% of
Asian or Pacific Islander children, 22% of white children, 36% of Hispanic children, and 59% of
black children.89
85 Census Bureau data in this section are based on race.
86 U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community Survey, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-
state=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-_geoSkip=0&-mt_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G2000_B01001C&-
redoLog=false&-_skip=0&-geo_id=01000US&-_showChild=Y&-format=&-_lang=en&-_toggle=
ACS_2008_1YR_G2000_B01001C.
87 In 2008, 22% of whites were under age 18, as were 22% of Asians, 26% of Pacific Islanders, 28% of African-
Americans, and 34% of Hispanics.
88 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Preliminary Data for
2007,” by Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, and Stephanie J. Ventura, National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 57, no.
12, March 18, 2009, p. 6.
89 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Data Center, 2009, http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/
Rankings.aspx?ind=107.
Congressional Research Service
20
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
A special OCSE study that examined the CSE program with respect to minority families by
analyzing pooled Census Bureau data from 1994 through 2002 found that, among custodial
mothers, 51% of AIAN mothers had
child support orders, compared with
Child Support Awards Among Custodial Mothers,
by Race and Ethnicity (Pooled Data)
66% of white mothers, 46% of
Asian mothers, 43% of black
Percent Who
mothers, and 42% of Hispanic
Percent with
Child Support
Actually Received
mothers. Although AIAN mothers
Orders
Some Child
fared better than other minority
Support
mothers in terms of having child
White
66%
78%
support orders, the rate at which
Black
43%
62%
noncustodial parents complied with
those orders was lower for AIAN
Asian
46%
68%
mothers than for many of their
AIAN
51%
67%
minority counterparts. For AIAN
Hispanic
42%
70%
mothers who had a child support
order, 67% received some child support, compared with 78% of white mothers, 70% of Hispanic
mothers, 68% of Asian mothers, and 62% of black mothers.90
CSE Tribal Information
Below are two tables that highlight some of the financial and statistical data on tribal CSE
programs (in the aggregate and individually) provided by tribes and tribal organizations to the
federal OCSE. It is probably unwise to draw conclusions from the data because the complexity of
individual tribal CSE programs is overly simplified by the summary statistics shown in the tables,
there are wide differences among program indicators in tribal CSE programs, and the tribal CSE
programs have been operating for only a relatively short time. Moreover, unlike state CSE
programs, tribal CSE programs do not have the benefit of federal auditors who assess the
completeness and reliability of tribe-reported data.91
The data in Table 1 and Table 2 are based on information from tribes and tribal organizations on
their tribal CSE programs. Just as the state CSE data do not include child support cases heard
within the legal or administrative system of tribes or tribal organization, tribal CSE program
information does not include data on cases that were not processed through the tribal CSE
program. This means that tribal CSE program data do not include state CSE data nor information
on cases connected with the other 519 federally recognized tribal governments.
90 Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Minority Families and Child
Support: Data Analysis,” December 2007, pp. 3-4, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/DCL/2007/dcl-07-
43a.pdf.
91 Pursuant to P.L. 105-200, states are accountable for providing reliable data on a timely basis or they receive no CSE
incentive payments. (In addition to the 66% federal matching rate for state expenditures on child support activities, the
federal government provides states with an incentive payment—based in part on five program performance measures—
to encourage them to operate effective CSE programs.) The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)
Office of Audit performs data reliability audits to evaluate the completeness, accuracy, security, and reliability of data
reported and produced by state reporting systems. The audits help ensure that incentives under the Child Support
Performance and Incentives Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-200) are earned and paid only on the basis of verifiable data and that
the incentive payments system is fair and equitable. If an audit determines that a state’s data are not complete and
reliable for a given performance measure, the state receives zero payments for that measure.
Congressional Research Service
21
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Table 1 presents a summary of tribal CSE program data for the five-year period from FY2004
through FY2008.92 The table only provides information on comprehensive tribal CSE programs.
During the years FY2004-FY2006, there were nine comprehensive tribal CSE programs; in
FY2007, there were 12 comprehensive tribal CSE programs; and in FY2008, there were 32
comprehensive tribal CSE programs (see Table B-1). Child support payments collected by tribes
or tribal organizations increased from $12.3 million in FY2004 to $19.9 million in FY2008 (an
increase of 61%). The number of children whose paternity was established (or acknowledged) via
the tribal CSE program increased by 34%, from 13,746 in FY2004 to 18,465 in FY2008. In
FY2007, the number of paternities established represented about 96% of all tribal CSE cases in
which a child’s biological father had not been legally identified.93 In FY2008, although the
number of paternities established increased, the comparable percentage was 81%. The number of
child support orders/obligations established increased by 48%, from 9,767 in FY2004 to 14,414
in FY2008. Tribal CSE program expenditures also increased substantially, from $9.1 million in
FY2004 to $16.7 million in FY2008 (an 83% increase). However, during that same period, the
tribal CSE program caseload only increased 6%, from 27,750 cases in FY2004 to 29,350 cases in
FY2008.
Table 1 also shows that during the period FY2004-FY2008, the tribal CSE program increased the
amount it collected on current child support obligations by 25%, from $12.9 million in FY2004 to
$16.1 million in FY2008. During this same period, the tribal CSE program also increased the
amount it collected on past-due child support obligations by 187%, from $3.5 million to $10.0
million. Nonetheless, in FY2008 $179.1 million in child support obligations was owed to families
receiving tribal CSE services, but only $26.1 million was paid.94 This means that in FY2008, the
tribal CSE program only collected 15% of the child support obligations for which it had
responsibility.95 If current child support collections are examined separately, Table 1 indicates
that the tribal CSE program collected 57% of all current obligations in FY2008.96 If collections
on past-due child support obligations (i.e., arrearages) are examined separately, Table 1 indicates
that the tribal CSE program only collected 7% of child support arrearage payments in FY2008.
The tribal CSE program closely parallels the state CSE program in its inability to collect a
substantial portion of past-due child support obligations (i.e., child support arrearages).97 If child
92 FY2004 represents the first year for which complete tribal CSE data are available and FY2008 represents the most
recent data available.
93 Legally identifying a child’s father is a prerequisite for obtaining a child support order. If there is no child support
order, there is no legal financial obligation.
94 The $26.1 million figure is substantially larger than the $19.9 million mentioned earlier and shown in the first row of
Table 1 as distributed child support collections. These data come from two different sources (forms OCSE34A and
OCSE75), which have different reporting criteria instructions. Other reasons for the difference could include the
following factors: (1) child support forwarded to states is not included in the distributed tribal child support amount, (2)
voluntary child support payments that were not part of a legally established child support order are not included in the
distributed amount, and (3) interest payments and penalty payments on past-due child support (i.e., arrearages) are not
included in the distributed amount.
95 In FY2008, $28.1 million in current support and $151 million in past-due support was owed to families receiving
tribal CSE services, but only $16.1 million in current support and $10 million in past-due support was actually paid to
families. (See Table 14 in the Office of Child Support Enforcement FY 2008 Preliminary Report.)
96 In its first year of full implementation (FY2004), the tribal CSE program collected more current child support
obligations than were currently due. It collected $12.9 million in current child support obligations in FY2004 when
only $9.1 million in current child support obligations were actually owed. If these data are accurate, it would indicate
that noncustodial parents in the tribal CSE program paid 42% more than they were actually required to pay. CSE
administrators have suggested that there probably were some reporting errors in FY2004.
97 For state CSE programs, in FY2008, $136.9 billion in child support obligations ($31.4 billion in current support and
$105.5 billion in past-due support) was owed to families receiving CSE services, but only $27.6 billion was paid ($19.4
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
22
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
support is not paid in the month in which it is due it is considered past-due child support. Thus,
the past-due child support shown in the table for FY2008 could be from FY2008 or any of the
prior years. In other words, the past-due child support shown for FY2008 could have accrued in
any of the years shown in the table or even in earlier years. This means that much of the child
support arrearages that are currently part of the tribal CSE program could have been transferred
from a state CSE program to the tribal CSE program. Indeed, Table 1 shows that in FY2004 (the
first year in which comprehensive data are available) child support arrearages were already at
nearly $50 million.
The last row of Table 1 shows a measure of CSE program effectiveness, obtained by dividing
total tribal CSE collections by total tribal CSE expenditures (costs). This measure is sometimes
referred to as the collections-to-costs ratio. The table shows that in FY2008, $1.19 was collected
from noncustodial parents for the financial support of their children for each dollar spent on tribal
CSE programs.98 Although there was a decline in this measure over the FY2004-FY2008 period,
this could be attributed to the fact that the program was just getting underway in FY2004.
Table 1. Tribal CSE Program Financial and Statistical Data, FY2004-FY2008
Percent
Change,
FY2004-
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 FY2008
Distributed
Child Support
$12,327,444
$10,750,329
$12,885,776
$15,663,985
$19,882,411a 61.3%
Collections
Collections
Forwarded to
$2,161,323
$1,823,836
$1,987,837
$2,373,261
$3,188,101
47.5%
States
Expenditures $9,129,785
$9,427,218
$12,087,361
$13,162,704 $16,679,954 82.7%
Child Support
Caseload
27,750 24,650 25,898 27,184 29,350 5.8%
Child Support
Orders
9,767 8,162 9,128 12,567 14,414
47.6%
Number of
Children
Without
NA NA NA
15,767
22,928 NA
Paternity
Established
Paternity
Established
13,746 12,245 13,787 15,087 18,465 34.3%
(...continued)
billion current, $8.2 billion past-due). In FY2008, the federal/ state CSE program collected only 20% of child support
obligations for which it had responsibility. If current child support collections are examined separately, the state CSE
programs collected about 62% of all current obligations in FY2008. If child support arrearages are examined
separately, the state CSE programs collected about 8% of child support arrearage payments in FY2008.
98 With regard to state CSE programs, in FY2008, $4.79 was collected from noncustodial parents for the financial
support of their children for each dollar spent on state CSE programs.
Congressional Research Service
23
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Percent
Change,
FY2004-
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 FY2008
Current Child
Support Due
$9,145,632
$19,227,881
$21,708,165
$24,288,673
$28,121,641
207.5%
b
Current Child
Support
$12,892,936
$8,575,632
$9,664,579
$11,611,269
$16,144,883
25.2%
Collected and
Distributed
Past-Due
Child Support
$49,876,837 $122,987,564
$310,145,753
$138,658,867
$150,974,343
202.7%
Owedb
Past-Due
Child Support
Collected and
$3,473,444
$9,766,232
$4,603,739
$6,321,819
$9,955,264
186.6%
Distributed
Collections
Per Dol ar of
$1.35 $1.14 $1.07 $1.19 $1.19
-11.9%
Expenditures
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notes: Most of the data in this table are from the OCSE FY2008 Preliminary Report, Table 14. Figures for
“Collections Per Dol ar of Expenditures” (i.e., the last row of the table) were obtained by dividing distributed
collections (shown in the first row) by expenditures.
NA—not available.
a. This figure is much smal er than the sum of the figures labeled “Current Child Support Collected and
Distributed” and “ Past-Due Child Support Col ected and Distributed” primarily because the figures are
taken from two different reporting forms that have different reporting criteria instructions. (This figure
comes from form OCSE34A and the other figures mentioned come from form OCSE75.)
b. Some of this amount may have been owed to the custodial parent when the state-based cases were
transferred to the tribe.
Figure 2 graphically shows the amount of child support collected by the tribal CSE program for
the period FY2004-FY2008. It also shows the amount of expenditures associated with the tribal
CSE program. As mentioned earlier, one measure of a program’s cost-effectiveness is often
portrayed as the relationship of benefits to costs. As shown in Table 1, in FY2004, the tribal CSE
program collected $1.35 for each dollar that it spent. By FY2008, the collections-to-expenditures
rate had dropped to $1.19. A reason for this occurrence might be that tribal CSE programs that are
just getting underway are included in the data calculations. Another reason might be that the data
may be inconsistent and/or unreliable across tribes. Nonetheless, this trend of declining
collections to expenditures differs from that seen in the federal/state CSE program. The
federal/state CSE program has never, over any five-year period in its history (FY1978-FY2008),
shown a decrease in collections to costs.99
99 From FY1978 through FY2008, both child support collections and expenditures increased with each succeeding year.
(Source: Annual CSE data reports, various years.) CSE program administrators have indicated that preliminary FY2009
CSE data (not yet published) show a fall in collections.
Congressional Research Service
24
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Figure 2. Tribal CSE Program: Collections and Expenditures, FY2004-FY2008
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
Distributed Child
$15,000,000
Support Collections
Expenditures
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of Health and Human Services.
The data also show that expenditures per case in the tribal CSE program grew over the five-year
period FY2004-FY2008. Expenditures per case increased by 73% during this period, from $329
in FY2004 to $568 in FY2008 (see Table 2). Collections per case also increased during the
period, but not as much. Collections per case increased by 52%, from $444 in FY2004 to $677 in
FY2008.100 As mentioned earlier, tribal CSE cases increased by only 6% over the FY2004-
FY2008 period.
Although the two measures, expenditures per case and collections per case (see Table 2), help
illuminate the tribal CSE program, they are only averages and do not accurately reflect what
individual families receive. As noted earlier, Census Bureau data pertaining to child support
receipt do disaggregate by race, but AIAN are included in the “other race” category with Asians.
OCSE data do not provide information on actual cases with collections for the tribal CSE
program. Nevertheless, we do know that $153 million of child support owed to tribal members
went unpaid in FY2008, which is nearly 85% of the amount of money that the tribes and tribal
organizations were supposed to collect on behalf of Native American children.
100 The “expenditures per case” data were obtained by dividing the child support expenditures (displayed in Table 1) by
the child support caseload (also displayed in Table 1). The “collections per case” data were obtained by dividing the
child support collections (displayed in the first row of Table 1) by the child support caseload.
Congressional Research Service
25
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Table 2. Tribal CSE Program, Expenditures and Collections Per Case,
FY2004-FY2008
Percent
FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 Change,
FY2004-
FY2008
Expenditures Per Case
$329.00
$382.44
$466.73
$484.21
$568.31
72.7%
Collections Per Case
$444.23
$436.12
$497.56
$576.22
$677.42
50.2%
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Table 3 and Table A-6 show that there were wide differences among the tribes in how much
child support was collected for each dollar spent on the tribal CSE program, ranging from 2 cents
in the Quinault Nation to $3.59 in the Forest County Potawatomi tribe.101
Table 3 presents tribal CSE program data by tribe for FY2008. It shows tribal CSE expenditures,
collections, and caseload data. It also displays the number of paternities and child support orders
established by the tribe or tribal organization, and the collections-to-expenditure ratio for each
tribe or tribal organization. The table indicates that the Navajo Nation ranked highest in five of
the six categories shown. The Navajo Nation collected the most child support payments, had the
highest child support expenditures, had the largest child support caseload, and established the
most paternities and child support orders. The Navajo Nation was one of the first tribes to receive
direct federal CSE funding. It has had a comprehensive CSE program since FY2002. The Forest
County Potawatomi tribe had the best collections-to-expenditures ratio in FY2008, three times
higher than the average ($1.19) for all tribes. It also had the highest collections per case average
($4,399). Like the Navajo Nation, the Forest County Potawatomi tribe has had a comprehensive
CSE program since FY2002. (See Tables A-1 through A-6 in Appendix A for a ranking of the
tribes and tribal organizations with respect to each of the six program/performance indicators.)
The Navajo Nation is the largest Indian tribe in the United States, with about 14% of the U.S.
tribal enrollment. Although the Navajo Nation is not among the wealthiest tribes per capita, it
appears to have a very effective CSE administrative structure. In contrast, the Forest County
Potawatomi tribe is a much smaller tribe but appears to be relatively wealthy102 and seems also to
have an effective CSE administration. (See Table C-1 for enrollment and population data on
these tribes.)
101 As noted in Table 1, the average amount collected for each $1 spent for all of the tribes with CSE programs was
$1.19 in FY2008.
102 Indian gaming has greatly enhanced the economic development of the Forest County Potawatomi Community. The
Forest County Potawatomi government is now able to provide employment, for both tribal and non-tribal people in the
tribal offices, tribal businesses, and casinos, and is currently the largest employer in Forest County, WI (see
http://www.fcpotawatomi.com/index.php/Treaties/history-overview.html).
Congressional Research Service
26
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Table 3. Tribal CSE Summary Data by Tribe, FY2008
Tribal CSE
Paternities
Orders
Collections/
Collections
Expenditures Caseload Established
Established
Expenditures
Cherokee
Nation
$2,714,439
$1,042,241
3,182
1,935
1,303
$2.60
Chickasaw
Nation
4,862,590 2,207,608 1,753 2,202 2,386
2.20
Comanche
Nation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Forest
County
1,847,618 514,001 420 526 415
3.59
Potawatomi
Kaw Nation
13,748
52,921
12
21
6
0.26
Keweenaw
Bay
20,872
61,265
104
NA
103
0.34
Kickapoo
NA
NA
1
NA
1
NA
Klamath
NA
287,938
NA
NA
NA
NA
Lac Du
Flambeau
618,501 370,016 900 518 697
1.67
Lummi
Nation
300,529 944,398 591
21 259
0.32
Menominee 1,345,323 769,219 1,818 1,039 1,608
1.75
Mescalero
Apache
NA
NA
85
80
64
NA
Modoc
NA
448,748
580
437
371
NA
Muscogee
Nation
NA
20,375
301
NA
78
NA
Navajo
Nation
7,306,610
4,353,286
15,968
10,105
4,225
1.68
Nooksack
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Northern
Arapaho
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Oneida
NA
56,049
482
225
482
NA
Osage
Nation
NA
444,662
241
12
166
NA
Penobscot
Nation
NA
177,861
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ponca
15,690
100,806
8
16
8
0.16
Port Gamble
S'Klallam
108,297
846,576
368
244
304
0.13
Pueblo Of
Zuni
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Puyal up
139,053
1,130,175
559
295
486
0.12
Quinault
Nation
8,883
539,593
248
6
182
0.02
Congressional Research Service
27
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Tribal CSE
Paternities
Orders
Collections/
Collections
Expenditures Caseload Established
Established
Expenditures
Red Lake
Band
NA
180,559
23
31
11
NA
Sisseton
Wahpeton
552,562
680,090
1,284
24
892
0.81
Tlingit and
Haida
27,696
966,703
343
666
305
0.03
Three
Affiliated
NA
242,994
62
62
62
NA
Umatilla NA
93,413
4
NA
NA
NA
White Earth
Nation
NA
148,457
13
NA
NA
NA
Winnebago
NA
737,556
NA
NA
NA
NA
Zuni Tribe
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TOTAL
$19,882,411
$16,679,954
29,350
18,465
14,414
$1.19
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notes: According to OCSE, data reporting by the tribes has been an issue for three reasons: (1) reporting
methods before 2006 were not clear, (2) in 2006, the reporting form changed again and what was required was
not clear; and (3) until one of the tribes developed an MS Access-based case management system, all data were
calculated manually (most tribes now use the Access system).
NA—not available. (Al except one of the tribes for which data are not available are tribes that only began
operating “comprehensive” tribal CSE programs in FY2008. The Osage Nation was the exception; its program
became comprehensive in FY2007.)
It should be noted that during the formative years of any program, the meaning of program
indicators may not be clear-cut. For example, with respect to tribal CSE programs, a large
caseload may mean that the program is doing an excellent job of informing potential recipients of
the program, or it may mean that there are reasons external to the program that are contributing to
the high number of cases, such as high divorce rates, high rates of single-parent families, high
rates of nonmarital childbearing, or high rates of nonpayment of child support. Similarly, high
expenditures may mean that the program is providing a range of services to ensure child support
collections, or that it has increased program staff to facilitate outreach and program
administration, or that the families it is servicing require a lot of assistance (e.g., location
services, paternity establishment, order establishment). Thus, although the tables are provided to
shed some light on how individual tribal CSE programs are doing, it is probably unwise to draw
conclusions from the data or make broad generalizations about tribal CSE programs. The
effectiveness of tribal CSE programs may prove to be even more difficult to determine and
evaluate than state CSE programs.
Congressional Research Service
28
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Issues
Nearly eight years after tribes officially became part of the CSE program with the enactment of
the 1996 welfare reform law, final regulations103 were established to implement direct funding to
Indian tribes and tribal organizations for tribal CSE programs. The final regulations require that
all child support agencies accept applications for service from anyone and require that the tribal
CSE agency provides appropriate services. This includes taking all applications, opening a case
for each, determining what services are needed and may be provided by the tribal CSE agency,
and providing all of those services required by tribal CSE regulations. The tribe must provide, at a
minimum, basic assistance, such as location, preparation of documents for intergovernmental
processing, and case monitoring and distribution of collections forwarded from another
jurisdiction. There may be circumstances where the tribal agency’s only appropriate service will
be to request assistance from another tribal or state CSE program with the legal authority to take
actions on the case. In these and other such instances, states and tribes must work together to
ensure that families receive the child support that they deserve.104
Although tribes and tribal organizations can now operate CSE programs, many problems have yet
to be resolved. Even though there are rules related to whether a state or a tribe has jurisdiction
over certain cases, in some instances there is concurrent jurisdiction and in some instances the
complexity of the case blurs jurisdictional lines. Although federal regulations clarify that
establishment of paternity under tribal CSE programs does not infer tribal enrollment or
membership, paternity is inextricably linked to tribal membership. Many tribes view tribal
membership as a political and cultural issue and thereby do not want to rely on scientific
technology to confer tribal membership. A major difference between state CSE programs and
tribal CSE programs is that tribal CSE programs can authorize the use of noncash payments to
satisfy child support orders. Some observers are concerned that requiring the tribe to place a
dollar value on each type of noncash payment may prove to be administratively cumbersome and
costly. They argue that it is hard to predict and include a dollar amount for all of the kinds of
noncash payments that members of the tribe may want to use to satisfy their child support
obligations.
Some child advocates are concerned that children who receive tribal CSE services may be less
likely to receive the child support to which they are entitled than their counterparts who receive
state CSE services, because tribal CSE programs do not have access to the vast array of state
collection methods. Although nonpayment of child support is likely to be a perennial issue,
especially for low-income noncustodial parents, some observers assert that tribal CSE programs
that determine realistic and appropriate child support orders from the outset may improve the
long-term success of their programs. In addition, some observers are concerned that unequal
resources may result in children within a tribes’ jurisdiction not getting the child support they are
due, while others contend that the individualized approach used by tribes may counterbalance
reduced and/or inadequate resources. This section examines the issues mentioned above.
103 The final rule pertaining to tribal CSE programs is found in Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61,March 30, 2004. The
federal regulations are codified at 45 C.F.R. § 309.
104 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Tribal Policy Interpretation
Questions, PIQT-05-02, April 26, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
29
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Jurisdictional Matters
Indian tribes within the boundaries of the United States are considered “domestic dependent
nations” under federal law, and tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction has been viewed by the federal
government as limited. In general, tribal sovereignty applies in matters that affect tribe members
who live on the tribe’s reservation. Census data indicate that about 64% of AIAN, as defined by
race, live outside reservations and other Census-defined Indian areas.105
When all parties to a domestic relations case are not members of the tribe or any federally
recognized Indian tribe, the tribe may lack jurisdiction.106 Whether a tribal court or state court has
jurisdiction may be crucial in paternity cases and in child support matters.107 Most states do not
have criminal or civil jurisdiction over Indian tribal members on their reservations. P.L. 83-280
(usually referred to as Public Law 280), however, was enacted in 1953 and the affected states
received criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians on some or all reservations within their
boundaries. There are six mandatory Public Law 280 states (California, Minnesota, Nebraska,
Oregon, Wisconsin, and Alaska), where Public Law 280 required state jurisdiction (with some
exceptions); and there are 10 optional Public Law 280 states (Nevada, Florida, Idaho, Iowa,
Washington, South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, Arizona and Utah), which chose to acquire
various jurisdictional powers under Public Law 280’s authorization. Public Law 280 provides that
a state can exert jurisdiction over individual tribal members. This jurisdiction is concurrent with
that of the tribe.108 In general, a state with complete Public Law 280 civil jurisdiction has
jurisdiction over domestic relations actions, to which Indians are parties, and which arise in
Indian country. In the absence of Public Law 280 jurisdiction, if both parents are enrolled
members of the same tribe and live in Indian country, it is generally held that the tribal court has
exclusive jurisdiction.109
Although tribal courts have exclusive jurisdiction (in the absence of Public Law 280) over
parentage and child support matters where both parents are from the same tribe and reside on the
tribe’s reservation,110 there are many circumstances in which that is not the case. The following is
105 U.S. Census Bureau, “We the People: American Indians and Alaska Natives in the United States,” by Stella U.
Ogunwole, February 2006, p. 14 (based on 2000 data), http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/censr-28.pdf.
106 The Supreme Court, in Montana v. United States, 450 U.S.544 (1981), distinguished between retained tribal
sovereignty and that which has been divested, emphasizing that a tribe's sovereign power is strongest when it is being
exercised with respect to tribal members on tribal lands. The extent to which a tribe may exercise civil jurisdiction over
non-members involves a number of factors. Divestment of tribal authority may occur by virtue of a treaty or federal
statute, or as a result of the status of Indian tribes as being subject to the overriding sovereignty of the United States.
107 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal and State
Jurisdiction to Establish and Enforce Child Support,” March 12, 2007, p. 59, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/
IM/2007/im-07-03.htm.
108 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Policy Questions and
Responses to Miscellaneous Issues regarding Provisions of 45 CFR part 309, the Tribal Child Support Enforcement
Program Final Rule,” OSCE-AT-05-07, May 12, 2005, p. 13.
109 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal and State
Jurisdiction to Establish and Enforce Child Support,” March 12, 2007, p. 60-61, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/
pol/IM/2007/im-07-03.htm.
110 A valid exercise of tribal court jurisdiction requires valid service of process. When the civil action is being heard by
a tribal court, service should comply with the relevant tribal code. Most tribal codes allow personal service and/or
service by registered mail, return receipt requested. The tribal code may also specify who may serve process. For
example, in some tribes service of process may be performed by any person who is not a party and who is at least 18
years old. In other tribes, the court may require service of process by a tribal police officer or other person specially
appointed by the court. (Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
30
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
a list of several examples that would raise the issue of tribal court versus state court jurisdiction:
(1) Indian mother and non-Indian father, (2) non-Indian mother and Indian father, (3) Indian
mother who is a member of the tribe and an Indian father who is not a member of the tribe, or (4)
Indian mother who is not a member of the tribe and an Indian father who is a member of the
tribe.111
Concurrent jurisdiction does not necessary resolve conflict. For example, if there is concurrent
jurisdiction under Public Law 280, such as a case in which one party is a tribal member who
resides on the reservation and the other party, who may or may not be a tribal member, resides off
the reservation, it is possible that a state and a tribe may have competing interests. For example,
while the tribe has a significant interest in establishing paternity in such cases, there also could be
state concerns, such as the application for public assistance or CSE services. Also, tribal courts
might not use genetic testing for paternity establishment to the same extent as state courts. Tribal
courts are also less likely to recognize presumptions of paternity, and they historically have given
limited recognition to the marriage presumption. Balancing state interests and tribal interests is an
important consideration in such cases.112
Native American children who receive TANF benefits are another example in which state court
versus tribal court jurisdictional issues could arise. Some courts would characterize the state as a
non-Indian party and analyze jurisdiction accordingly. Other courts could characterize the state as
an Indian because it derives its interest in the child support actions from the Indian parent’s
assignment of child support rights.113
Even in mandatory Public Law 280 states, conflict over jurisdiction may occur. On January 19,
2010, the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes filed a lawsuit against the state
of Alaska’s Child Support Services Division (CSSD) for its refusal to recognize the tribe’s child
support orders. The state of Alaska and the Tlingit and Haida Tribes disagree on the underlying
jurisdictional issue of the tribal court’s authority to issue its own child support orders. CSSD
provides all necessary services, such as the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD)114 intercept, to all
“transferred” cases, but refuses to provide services when the underlying order is based upon a
tribal court child support order. According to the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian
Tribes,
This lawsuit will allow both the State and Tribe to resolve these underlying jurisdictional
issues and ensure that Native children and families receive the child support services
necessary to meet families’ basic needs. It will also address CSSD’s refusal to follow
Alaska’s Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to provide interstate services for
Central Council’s tribal child support orders.115
(...continued)
Enforcement, “Tribal and State Jurisdiction to Establish and Enforce Child Support,” March 12, 2007, p. 43,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2007/im-07-03.htm.
111 U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support, “Supporting Our Children: A Blueprint for Reform,” 1992, p. 201.
112 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Chapter 8, Paternity
Establishment,” in Essentials for Attorneys in Child Support Enforcement, 3rd ed. (October 2002);
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/essentials/c8.html.
113 U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support, “Supporting Our Children: A Blueprint for Reform,” 1992, p. 201.
114 The Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) are payments that are given to persons who are qualified Alaska residents.
115 Tlingit & Haida Central Council, Tribal News, Tribe Files Lawsuit Against State of Alaska, February 2010.
Congressional Research Service
31
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Some observers contend that states and tribes must avoid or set aside long-standing disputes over
land and jurisdiction so that they can better serve custodial parents in obtaining the CSE services
to which their children are entitled.
Jurisdictional issues between states and Indian tribes can be very complex, and even cases that
seem straightforward may have twists and turns. For instance, even though the state of Wisconsin
is a Public Law 280 state, which means that the state has jurisdiction over members of Indian
tribes even if they reside on the reservation, the Menominee Reservation is excepted from
Wisconsin’s Public Law 280 jurisdiction.116
Paternity Establishment
Legally identifying the father is a prerequisite for obtaining a child support order. Generally, if a
child is born to a married couple, the wife’s husband is presumed to be the baby’s father. In the
United States, nonmarital births are widespread, touching families of varying income class, race,
ethnicity, and geographic area. In 2007, 39.7% of the 4.3 million U.S. births were to unmarried
women. In that same year, 65.2% of the approximately 49,000 births to American Indian or
Alaska Native women, as identified by race, were nonmarital births.117
In cases where a child is born to unmarried parents, paternity must be established or
acknowledged. Tribes and tribal organizations allow the establishment of paternity through a
variety of methods, including through voluntary acknowledgement, through the tribal courts,
through the state courts, through an administrative process, by default, by stipulation, and through
tribal ceremony for adoptions.118
Most experts agree that use of highly reliable DNA tests greatly increases the likelihood of
correct identification of putative fathers. DNA tests can be used either to exclude unlikely fathers
or to establish a high likelihood that a given man is the father of a child. DNA profiling allows for
direct examination of the genetic material that a child inherited from his or her biological
parents.119 During the testing process, the genetic characteristics of a child are first compared to
those of his or her mother. The characteristics that cannot be found in the mother must have been
inherited from the biological father. If the tested man does not contain the genetic characteristics
necessary to be the biological father of the child, he is excluded.120 If the DNA of the tested man
116 State Bar of Wisconsin, “Jurisdictional Issues Relating to Contracts with Indian Tribes,” by Brian L. Pierson,
http://www.wisbar.org/AM/PrinterTemplate.cfm?section=indian_law_section&template=/cm/contentdisplay.cfm&
contentid=53479. Also see http://www.falmouthinstitute.com/training/public/oct/LW005.html.
117 The percentage of nonmarital births was 16.9% for Asian or Pacific Islander women (255,000 births), 27.8% for
white women (2.3 million births), 51.3% for Hispanic women (1.1 million births), and 71.6% for black women
(627,000 births). (Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics,
“Births: Preliminary Data for 2007,” National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 57, no. 12, March 18, 2009.)
118 Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal Child Support Enforcement Systems Workgroup, Session III Joint
Application Development Final Report,” October 2005.
119 Since DNA is present in all cells of the body, DNA testing can be done on a specimen collected by gently rubbing
the inside of the cheek with a cotton swab (i.e., the buccal swab method).
120 Negative genetic test results are usually considered conclusive evidence that the alleged father is not the biological
father. A negative genetic test result almost always results in a dismissal of all claims for child support.
Congressional Research Service
32
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
does contain those genetic characteristics, then the man cannot be excluded and the probability
that the tested man is the true biological father can be calculated.121
Many tribes and tribal organizations view paternity differently than states. Although federal
regulations clarify that establishment of paternity under tribal CSE programs does not infer tribal
enrollment or membership, paternity may be inextricably linked to tribal membership. Thus, even
though DNA testing is commonly used by tribes to establish paternity, many tribes view tribal
membership as a political and cultural issue and thereby do not want to rely solely on scientific
technology to confer tribal membership.
Others note that many people view paternity tests as an affront to their integrity and an indication
of a lack of trust. This situation is exacerbated in the case of an older child. According to some
focus group discussants, for many couples, once one of the partners or alleged partners indicates
that a paternity test is needed, any future chance for cooperative parenting is greatly diminished
because of lingering animosity over the father not stepping forward and meeting his financial
responsibility or the mother not being honest about her fidelity or use of birth control.122 Although
the discussants mentioned above were talking about problems with and ways to improve state
CSE programs, it is not unrealistic to infer that clients of tribal CSE programs may hold similar
negative views about the implications of paternity testing.
Although tribes and tribal organizations must give full faith and credit to child support orders,
they do not have to recognize stand-alone paternity orders.123 Some commentators contend that
tribes and tribal organizations should not be given so much discretion with regard to establishing
paternity. They maintain that the advances in science and technology make paternity
establishment straightforward and relatively inexpensive and argue that a tribe’s reluctance to use
DNA testing stems from its disinclination to confer membership on more persons and belies a
financial motivation in that some tribes might not want to share revenue from casinos, oil and
water rights, etc., with more members.124
Moreover, some persons argue that DNA testing to establish paternity is different from DNA
testing that tries to prove whether or not a person is a member of a tribe. They assert that DNA
paternity testing is almost infallible (with probability of paternity values reaching as high as
99.999%). They also point out that federal regulations more than adequately protect the status of
121 When a man is not excluded, the probability that he is indeed the father of the child can reach as high as 99.99%.
The exact percentage used to determine paternity varies among tribes. When tests indicate a high probability of
paternity, a rebuttable presumption arises and it becomes the man’s responsibility to disprove the findings. If he has not
challenged the results within the number of days specified in tribal procedures (and the genetic test results reach the
threshold of probability established by the tribe), the tribe may seek a conclusive determination of paternity. (Source:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “OCSE Training Courses for
Tribal IV-D Programs—Paternity Module,” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/resources/tribal/training/.)
122 National Women’s Law Center and Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy, “Family Ties: Improving
Paternity Establishment and Practices and Procedures for Low-Income Mothers, Fathers, and Children,” November 15,
2000, p. 15. See also Paula Roberts, “An Ounce of Prevention and a Pound of Cure: Developing State Policy on the
Payment of Child Support Arrears by Low Income Parents,” Center for Law and Social Policy, May 2001.
123 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal and State
Jurisdiction to Establish and Enforce Child Support,” March 12, 2007, p. 59, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/
IM/2007/im-07-03.htm.
124 Kim Tallbear and Deborah A. Bolnick, “Native American DNA Tests: What are the Risks to Tribes?”
http://www.williams.edu/go/native/tallbear_bolnick%20_dna.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
33
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
tribes by stipulating that establishment of paternity under tribal CSE programs does not infer
tribal enrollment or membership.125
Federal CSE law requires that in the case of unmarried parents, the father’s name shall not appear
on the birth certificate unless he has signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity or a court
has issued an adjudication of paternity; no such provision exists for tribal CSE programs. This
means that in a case in which a tribe or tribal organization has jurisdiction, if a woman puts a
man’s name on the birth certificate of her child and he does not contest the paternity (perhaps
because he does not know about it), the child could be deemed to be the child of the man whose
name is on the birth certificate—regardless of whether the name is on the birth certificate due to a
paternity adjudication, a default paternity order, or a paternity acknowledgment, and regardless of
whether the man is the child’s biological father.126
Child Support Enforcement Methods
Federal regulations require that tribes include in their tribal CSE plans tribal law, code, or
regulations that describe the types of collection/enforcement actions the tribe can use. The only
collection/enforcement method mandated (by federal regulations) for tribes and tribal
organizations is income withholding. For the states, income withholding is by far the most
effective method of obtaining child support payments. According to OCSE data, about 68% of
child support collected through the state CSE agencies is collected via income withholding.
However, if the noncustodial parent does not have a job or is self-employed, then income
withholding is not applicable.
Federal law requires that states enact state laws that authorize the use of the following
collection/enforcement methods: 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 child 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. 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 provides for international enforcement of child support. Some
tribes argue that allowing tribes to operate CSE programs but denying them access to the array of
enforcement methods that are available to states results in inequities in service that adversely
impact Native American children.
125 It is interesting that the biological child of a woman who is member of a tribe may not automatically be a member of
his or her mother’s tribe. Tribal enrollment requirements preserve the unique character and traditions of each tribe. The
tribes establish membership criteria based on shared customs, traditions, language, and tribal blood. Tribal enrollment
criteria are set forth in tribal constitutions, articles of incorporation, or ordinances. The criteria vary from tribe to tribe,
so uniform membership requirements do not exist. Two common requirements for membership are lineal descent from
someone named on the tribe’s base roll or relationship to a tribal member who descended from someone named on the
base roll. (A “base roll” is the original list of members as designated in a tribal constitution or other document
specifying enrollment criteria.) Other conditions such as tribal blood quantum, tribal residency, or continued contact
with the tribe are common. (Source: http://www.doi.gov/archive/enrollment.html#Requirements).
126 According to the National Tribal Child Support Association, although some tribes accept/acknowledge default
orders, most do not (http://www.supporttribalchildren.org/NTCSA_TCS%20Info_Resource%20Guide_2009_May.pdf).
Congressional Research Service
34
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Even though tribes do not have access to the vast array of child support enforcement/collection
tools that are available to the states, many tribes have been successful in implementing new and
innovative enforcement techniques, such as elders’ panels, attachment of per capita payments,
attachment of gaming winnings, and personal improvement mandates. (All enforcement
techniques must first be approved by the tribe’s governing body.)
One of the child support collection methods that has been mentioned as a tool that would greatly
benefit tribes is the federal income tax refund offset program.127 According to a representative of
the National Tribal Child Support Association, many noncustodial parents of Native American
children are reluctant to use their federal income tax refunds to pay past-due child support but
don’t mind if their refunds are withheld from them to pay past-due child support. Some
noncustodial parents view the refund as extra money, and while they might not use it to pay child
support on their own, they recognize as legitimate the reason for withholding it from them.128
Thus, some child advocates argue that the federal income tax refund offset is a very important
enforcement tool that should be available to the tribes. Under current law, tribes don’t have access
to the federal income tax refund and because of jurisdictional boundaries, states can not “serve”
(i.e., deliver a legal summons) an individual in a child support case if that person is on Indian
land. According to the National Tribal Child Support Association, several tribes are in the process
of negotiating contracts for states to access the federal income tax refund offset on behalf of
Indian children.129 In order for tribes to have direct access to the federal income tax refund offset,
Congress would have to pass legislation that specifically provided access to tribes and tribal
organizations.
Tribes do not have access to most of the state child support collection tools, but tribes, unlike
states, have the authority to allow noncustodial parents to use in-kind payments instead of cash to
satisfy child support debt.130 Many tribal CSE administrators view this as a great advantage,
especially because many of the noncustodial parents associated with their caseloads are
individuals with low-income and/or barriers to employment. The use of in-kind payments allows
noncustodial parents of Indian children to reduce or eliminate their monthly child support
obligation by providing a service to the custodial parent. Federal regulations require that child
support orders clearly include a specific dollar amount reflecting the child support obligation. For
example, a tribal CSE order could provide that a noncustodial parent owes $200 a month in
current support, which may be satisfied with the provision of firewood suitable for home heating
to the custodial parent and child. The child support order could provide that a cord of firewood
has a specific dollar value of $100 based on the prevailing market. Therefore, the noncustodial
parent would satisfy his or her child support obligation by providing two cords of firewood every
127 According to an HHS document, direct access for Indian tribes to the Federal Income Tax Refund Offset program
and the Federal Parent Locator Service could result in about $100 million in additional collections to tribal families
over a five-year period. (Source: HHS Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Administration for
Children and Families, FY2004, p. B-14.)
128 Clifton Adcock, “Tribes Seek State Tools for Child Support,” Cherokee Phoenix , http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/
3855/Article.aspx.
129 Ibid.
130 Although many custodial parents in state CSE programs receive some form of noncash support from the
noncustodial parent, this noncash support does not reduce their child support obligation. According to Census data,
61% of all custodial parents received some noncash support from the noncustodial parent in 2005. The most common
type of noncash support was gifts for birthdays, holidays, or other occasions (58%), followed by clothes (39%), food or
groceries (29%), medical expenses other than health insurance (19%), and full or partial payments for child care or
summer camp (11%). (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Children: 2005,” P60-
234, August 2007, p. 10).
Congressional Research Service
35
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
month. The valuation of noncash resources is the responsibility of the tribe.131 Other examples of
in-kind payments include food such as salmon and buffalo, and ceremonial regalia.
Some tribal CSE administrators view in-kind payments as an effective and innovative
enforcement strategy that encourages responsible parenting (by allowing noncustodial parents
with little income to provide for their children with noncash payments/services).132 Nonetheless,
there is also the concern that requiring a tribe to place a dollar value on each type of noncash
payment may prove administratively cumbersome and costly. Some observers argue that it is hard
to predict and include in a tribal CSE plan all of the kinds of noncash payments that tribal
members may want to use to satisfy their child support obligations. Others insist that one of the
major roadblocks for tribal CSE programs is the lack of access to state locate resources and state
enforcement tools.133
Nonpayment Problems
As discussed earlier, in FY2008 the tribal CSE program collected only 15% of the child support
obligations for which it had responsibility (i.e., 57% of current child support obligations and 7%
of child support arrearage payments). Nonpayment of child support is a major problem for both
tribal and state CSE programs. Some commentators contend that certain CSE procedures such as
the use of default judgments and unrealistically high child support orders are major contributors
to the problem of nonpayment of child support.
If a noncustodial parent gets a notice or a summons about child support or paternity establishment
but does not appear in court at the stipulated date and time, the court can enter a child support
order against the noncustodial parent by default. Although the majority of tribes with CSE
programs do not acknowledge default judgments, some do. In cases where default judgments are
recognized, if the noncustodial parent does not show up to tell his or her side of the story, the
court can decide that the evidence against that person must be true. Thus, a “no show” by the
noncustodial parent may result in the establishment of paternity and/or the establishment of a
child support order, which will be effective whether or not the man in question is the actual father
or whether or not the person in question has a job or a source of income. Some observers argue
that the practice of using default judgments (i.e., judgments made in the absence of the alleged
father), which is a practice of both tribal and state courts, has adversely affected many putative
fathers who claim they are not the father of the child in question but, for whatever reason, did not
show up in court to deny the allegations. Many analysts and observers maintain that the standards
governing default judgments should balance the rights of the putative father to proper notice and
the opportunity to be heard before paternity is established and a child support order is set against
the right of the child to obtain a determination of paternity and support (on a timely basis) from a
father who knowingly fails to appear in court.134
131 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal and State
Jurisdiction to Establish and Enforce Child Support,” March 12, 2007, p. 59, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/
IM/2007/im-07-03.htm.
132 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office Of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal Community, In-
Kind Payments a Useful Enforcement Strategy,” by Deborah Yates, Director, Comanche Nation Child Support
Program, Child Support Report, vol. 31, no. 10, October 2009, p. 8.
133 Clifton Adcock, “Tribes Seek State Tools for Child Support,” Cherokee Phoenix , http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/
3855/Article.aspx.
134 National Women’s Law Center and the Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy, “Dollars and Sense:
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
36
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Although nonsupport can be partly attributed to the low incomes of many noncustodial parents,
many commentators contend that unrealistically high child support orders and complicated time-
consuming modification requirements exacerbate the problem. According to Census Bureau data,
in 2007 25.3% of American Indians and Alaska Natives, as identified by race, had incomes below
the poverty level, more than twice the rate of their white counterparts.135 Setting child support
orders at a level that exceeds a noncustodial parent’s ability to pay may in some cases decrease
the amount of child support received by the custodial parent because of the noncustodial parent’s
low income and/or because of the noncustodial parent’s contention that the CSE system is
unfair.136 In contrast, CSE policies, both tribal and state, that result in realistic child support
orders, especially for persons at the lower end of the income scale, may result in more child
support from low-income noncustodial parents. Some commentators contend that child support
orders established by tribes are more realistic and fairer than those set by state guidelines. They
argue that tribes are more aware of the circumstances of their people. There is agreement among
policymakers and analysts that tribal CSE programs that establish realistic guidelines for child
support orders, allow swift and in some cases automatic modification of child support orders, and
provide effective means of cooperating and coordinating with states and other tribal CSE
programs will probably avoid many of the mistakes of state CSE programs.
Some noncustodial parents claim that the child support guidelines are inherently unfair because
they do not account for “affordability.” They say that in many states and on many reservations,
the basic living expenses of noncustodial parents, such as rent, food, and car payments, are often
not considered a legitimate factor in determining the child support order. Many commentators
agree that in many cases current levels of child support exceed what many middle and lower
income noncustodial parents can afford to pay.
According to information for the Puyallup Tribe,137 some tribes have significantly reduced child
support debt that they claimed was inappropriately set by states or for which repayment would be
impossible to achieve. However, other information indicates that some noncustodial parents who
have appeared in tribal court to try to modify their child support order were told that the tribal
court cannot modify their order because the custodial parent does not live on the reservation.
They were told that the tribal court could not modify the underlying child support order, but it
could make an “ability to pay” determination and thereby lower the amount to be paid to avoid a
contempt of court ruling.138
(...continued)
Improving the Determination of Child Support Obligations for Low-Income Mothers, Fathers, and Children,” 2002.
135 The comparable figures for whites, Asians, blacks, and Hispanics were 10.2%, 10.6%, 24.7%, and 20.7%,
respectively. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010,” 129th ed., pp. 40-41, Table
36).
136 Ingrid Rothe and Daniel R. Meyer, “Setting Child Support Orders: Historical Approaches and Ongoing Struggles,”
University of Wisconsin-Madison Institute for Research on Poverty, Focus, vol. 21, no. 1, Spring 2000, p. 61.
137 The Puyallup Tribal Child Support Program indicated that it continues to facilitate the reduction of child support
debt that was either inappropriately set by the state or for which repayment would be impossible due to changes in
circumstances. It reports that such reductions total over $2.3 million (Source: http://www.puyallup-tribe.com/
index.php?nav=programs&id=8).
138 North Dakota Supreme Court Committee on Tribal and State Court Affairs, April 12, 2002,
http://www.ndcourts.com/court/committees/tribstat/Minutes/MinutesApr2002.htm.
Congressional Research Service
37
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Consistency of Tribal CSE Programs to Each Other and to State
CSE Programs
While it is generally agreed that state and tribal CSE programs should move in the same
direction, it is also acknowledged that tribes are a sovereign entity and thus should have the
authority to develop their own policies to achieve CSE program directives. It is also recognized
that tribes are at the early stage of CSE program development and therefore need flexibility (as
long as they remain within the parameters established in the law) to adjust their programs so as to
better serve their clientele.
Although tribes have historically had some things in common, like their “boarding school”
experience139 and how they viewed nature and shared a holistic philosophy based on the premise
of the “circle of life,” they are also very diverse.140 In most tribes, the father is highly respected
but his role as a caregiver varies. In some tribes, the role of the father, like the mother, is to
provide affection and support to his children while the uncles (and aunts) provide supervision and
discipline. In other tribes, the father is very instrumental in assuring the cultural survival of the
tribe, so he may have a very close relationship to his male children so that they will model his
behavior and be prepared for leadership roles in the tribe. In other tribes, it is the grandparents
who instill in the children the cultural mores of the tribe.141 In many cases, the father’s role in a
particular tribe will have an impact on how other tribe members, including mothers, view
paternity establishment and child support. In some tribes, establishing paternity and child support
orders may be viewed as reducing the harmony and unity of the tribe. In some tribes, child
support enforcement techniques such as suspending various types of licenses of noncustodial
parents who owe past-due child support may be viewed as harming fathers rather than helping
children. Some observers contend that the potential variation among tribal CSE programs may
adversely affect some Native American children. They maintain that finding the correct balance
between historical tribal practices and the present-day needs of children is a crucial part of
developing and operating a tribal CSE program that will ultimately be successful in providing
Native American children with the child support to which they are entitled.
As indicated above, tribal CSE programs vary. Below is a summary of some of their differences,
as identified in a document prepared by the National Tribal Child Support Association.
139 From the 1880s to the late 1970s, most Native American children attending BIA-funded schools were sent to BIA
boarding schools, many for 12 years (since the late 1970s, most BIA students were in BIA day schools; see Paul Stuart,
“Nations Within a Nation,” 1987, pp. 111-168). Many Native Americans describe the boarding school experience as
horrendous, they say that the purpose of the schools was to strip them of their culture, they were told that their manner
of speaking and dressing was bad and that the only way for them to succeed was to ignore their cultural heritage and
assimilate into “American” culture. Many analysts contend that the negative psychological, emotional, social, and
cultural impact of that boarding school experience continues to affect the relationship between tribes, the federal
government, and states. (Sources: “The State of the Native Nations: Conditions Under U.S. Policies of Self-
Determination,” the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, May 2007, chapter 13, pp. 235-250;
“Native America in the Twentieth Century: An Encyclopedia,” 1994, pp. 193-195.) In addition, some analysts contend
that it is useful for state CSE administrators to recognize and not underestimate this history in their interactions with the
tribes. (Source: Information obtained from seminar titled, “Government-to-Government Relations Between the Federal
Government and Native American Tribes, Part 2 Working Together Today,” presented by Randy A. Doucet at the 19th
National Child Support Enforcement Training Conference, Washington, DC, November 3, 2009.)
140 Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Strengthening the Circle: Child
Support for Native American Children,” January 27, 1998.
141 William Damon and Richard M. Lerner, “Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality
Development,” 2006, p. 478-482.
Congressional Research Service
38
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
• Some tribes have adopted their own codes/laws but have incorporated their
state’s child support statutes by reference, while other tribes have written their
own codes/laws, procedures, and policies to govern their child support program.
• Most tribes have a court order process, some have CFR courts and some have
tribal courts. The Navajo Nation has an administrative process.
• Some tribal CSE programs use the automated/computer systems of their
corresponding state while others are not yet computerized and operate using
manual systems.
• A few tribes have agreements with their individual states or counties for personal
services on their reservation, although most do not.
• Administrative hearings may or may not be provided within the tribal programs.
• Some tribes will accept default orders (court or administrative), most will not.
• Some tribes will require paternity testing based on their tribal codes/laws if the
original order does not meet certain criteria.142
As seen earlier in Table 3, there are big differences between tribal CSE programs in terms of
caseloads, collections, and expenditures. The Navajo Nation is one of the tribes that is credited
with operating an effective CSE program. The Navajo Nation has a collaborative relationship
with Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico (the three states in which a majority of its members reside).
The New Mexico Child Support Enforcement Division has had a formal cooperative agreement
with the Navajo Nation since July 1, 1997.
The JPA [Joint Powers Agreement] between the State and the Navajo Nation provides the
Navajo Nation with the ability to access the CSED’s information system called the Child
Support Enforcement System (CSES). The CSES information system is connected through
the National New Hire Directory (NNHD), the Child Support Enforcement Network
(CSENet) and the Electronic Parent Locator Network (EPLN) through the “Federal Case
Registry” to the case registries of the 54 other states and territories, and 10 foreign nations.
These connections are used for “locating” persons who owe child support and automatically
“intercepting” their wage withholdings and other financial assets, and distributing it to the
children and their custodial parents who are owed that child support. The CSES system cost
the State of New Mexico $30 million in development costs over several years. ... In order to
accomplish the child support casework on Navajo Nation lands, two new regions (known as
Region 8 and Region 9) were created within both the physical structure of the CSED and
within the CSES system. In Region 8 and 9, employees of the Navajo Nation perform all
aspects of child support enforcement. Cases are transferred in or out of Regions 8 and 9 as
needed. This lends itself to cleaner casework that is done at a site closer to the custodial
parent.143
Cooperative agreements are viewed as a productive way to enable states and tribes to better
provide child support services to Indian children and to establish and enforce child support
obligations and judgments. Cooperative agreements are a tool that allows states and tribes to
work together as partners to provide culturally relevant CSE services, consistent with state and
142 National Tribal Child Support Association, “Tribal IV-D Comprehensive Program Information, Key Differences
and Similarities of Tribal Programs,” by Gloria Howard (Puyallup Tribal Child Support Program), November 2008.
143 New Mexico Human Services Department, Program Assessments, “Native American Initiative Report,” January
2005, p. 11-12.
Congressional Research Service
39
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
federal laws, that are based on tribal laws and customs. Under most cooperative agreements,
cases in which all or some of the parties involved are tribe members living on the tribal
reservation are referred by the state to the tribe to be processed in the tribal court.144
An integral part of state CSE programs is the incentive payment system. The incentive payment
system is part of the CSE program’s strategic plan that rewards states for working to achieve the
goals and objectives of the program. Incentive payments, although small when compared to
federal reimbursement payments for state and local CSE activities, are a very important
component of the CSE financing structure. Together with the incentive payment system is a
penalty system that imposes financial penalties on states that fail to meet certain performance
levels. The purpose of the two complementary systems is to reward states for results while
holding them accountable for poor performance, thereby motivating states to focus their efforts
on providing vital CSE services.145 Although tribal CSE programs do not have an incentive
payment component, in an effort to monitor the effectiveness of tribal CSE programs, federal
regulations146require a tribe to submit tribally determined performance targets for paternity
establishment, child support order establishment, the amount of current child support collected,
the amount of past-due child support to be collected and any other performance measures a tribe
may want to submit. Tribes determine their own performance targets for each required measure
and report the level of performance.147 Some analysts surmise that these self-ascribed
performance targets might be intentionally low and that such a system provides little incentive for
a tribe to operate more efficiently or effectively, especially given that the federal government pays
for at least 80% of the tribe’s CSE program costs regardless of the effectiveness of the program.
Others note that tribal CSE programs are much smaller than state CSE programs and that tribal
CSE programs generally view their clients as part of their extended family/community and thus
may be more internally motivated to operate effective programs.
Conclusion
The precept “it takes a village to raise a child” could have had its foundation in Indian culture.
For many years, the majority of Indian families maintained extended family relationships, usually
living in groups that included the nuclear family plus grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins,
nephew, nieces, and other related individuals. Children were raised within this extended family
network, which was responsible for their care, education, social well-being, cultural history, and
traditions. This situation does not exist nearly as much today; Native American families, like
those in many other population groups, have drifted apart over the past decades.148
144 See, for example, Revised Code of Washington State, Title 26, “Domestic Relations,” Chapter 26.25 RCW,
“Cooperative Child Support Services—Indian Tribes,” Section 26.25.010—Purpose, http://law.onecle.com/washington/
domestic-relations/26.25.010.html.
145 CRS Report RL34203, Child Support Enforcement Program Incentive Payments: Background and Policy Issues, by
Carmen Solomon-Fears.
146 45 C.F.R. § 309.65(a)(14), p. 319 (October 1, 2009, edition).
147 Office of Child Support Enforcement, Action Transmittal (OCSE-AT-05-07), May 12, 2005, p. 18.
148 National Research Council, “Changing Numbers, Changing Needs: American Indian Demography and Public
Health,” 1996, pp. 196-217. See also “The State of the Native Nations: Conditions Under U.S. Policies of Self-
Determination,” the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, May 2007, chapter 13, pp. 235-250.
See also “Native America in the Twentieth Century: An Encyclopedia,” 1994, pp. 193-195.
Congressional Research Service
40
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Just as in the early years of the state CSE system when some noncustodial fathers moved from
job to job or left the state where their children resided to avoid paying child support, it is
surmised that some Native American noncustodial parents are residing on reservations to avoid
paying child support. The principles of jurisdictional sovereignty, self-government, self-
determination, and the government-to-government relationship that exists between tribes and the
federal government were primary reasons why Congress provided direct federal funding of tribal
CSE programs. It was meant to enhance tribal self-determination and to support Indian tribes and
tribal organizations in their efforts to develop and implement their own programs to meet their
particular and individual needs. Indian tribes were given the flexibility to design CSE programs
that would meet the often complex and unique traditions and needs of Native American people.149
Nonetheless, new programs take time to mature. The state CSE program is now 35 years old, but
during its early years, it faced many problems related to implementation, consistency of data,
reporting of data, nonpayment of support, establishment of paternity, establishment of child
support orders, distribution of support, and an antagonistic relationship with noncustodial parents.
Many tribal CSE programs may also face these same problems, as well as problems related to the
placement of the tribal CSE program within tribal government, reasonable salaries for workers,
staffing, confidentiality of data, distribution of required notices, lack of reciprocity in
enforcement, service of process, and poor communication.
Perhaps the most important measure of the federal-state CSE program is its impact on overall
national rates of paying child support. Both Congress and the American public view the CSE
program as a means of improving the nation’s system of ensuring that all parents who no longer
live with their children continue to provide for their financial support. Although child support
alone is generally not enough to raise family income above the poverty level, poor families who
received child support but remained in poverty had their standard of living improved by the child
support payments. Similarly, incomes and standards of living were improved by child support
payments of non-poor families as well. On average, child support constitutes 17% of family
income for households who receive it. Among poor households that receive it, child support
constitutes about 30% of family income.150
Although the consistent and ongoing financial support of children by noncustodial parents is the
main purpose of the CSE program, the program provides many other benefits to children. One
such benefit, for many children, is the establishment of paternity. Social science research
generally indicates that in most cases the social, psychological, emotional, and financial benefits
of having one’s father legally identified are irrefutable.151 The research also overwhelmingly
indicates that both parents are critical in building the self-esteem of their children and helping the
children become self-sufficient, responsible members of society. Some commentators contend
that except for their role as payers of child support, fathers generally have been given short shrift
by federal, state, and local social welfare programs.152 They assert that tribal CSE programs are in
the position of being able to recognize, right from the start, the importance of fathers (who are
149 New Mexico Human Services Department, Program Assessments, Native American Initiative Report, January 2005.
150 Elaine Sorensen, “Child Support Gains Some Ground,” Urban Institute, Snapshots of America’s Families: III, no.
11, October 2003.
151 Laurene McKillop, “Benefits of Establishing Paternity,” Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child
Support Enforcement, reprinted September 1985. Also see National Women’s Law Center and the Center on Fathers,
Families, and Public Policy, “Family Ties: Improving Paternity Establishment Practices and Procedures for Low-
Income Mothers, Fathers, and Children,” November 2000.
152 Michael E. Lamb (editor), “The Role of the Father in Child Development,” Fifth Edition, 2010, p. 11.
Congressional Research Service
41
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
usually the noncustodial parent) in the lives of their children and to participate in cooperative,
respectful communication with fathers. It is generally agreed that an amenable relationship (as
opposed to an antagonistic relationship) between noncustodial parents and the CSE agency is
more likely to result in more noncustodial parents paying their child support obligations.153 Some
observers also encourage tribal CSE programs to coordinate with state programs such as CSE
access and visitation programs, healthy marriage promotion programs, and responsible fatherhood
programs to further foster productive relationships with fathers, with the ultimate goal of
obtaining the child support to which Indian children are entitled.154
It has been noted that there are 564 tribal governments, but only 45 tribal CSE programs. Figures
in Appendix C suggest that the 45 tribal CSE programs cover about 41%-56% of the total
population of tribal members (as variously estimated). Some observers contend it is likely that
gaps in the provision of CSE services to Native American children will remain a significant
problem for many more years. They question whether the needs of the universe of Native
American children can be met through the current configuration of tribal CSE programs. Others
assert that tribal CSE programs are just getting underway, that it is too soon to judge their
effectiveness, and that the eventual universe of tribal CSE programs is not yet knowable.155
153 William J. Doherty, Edward F. Kouneski, and Martha Farrell Erickson, “Responsible Fathering: An Overview and
Conceptual Framework—Final Report,” Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies (HHS-100-93-0012),
September 1996.
154 The Obama Administration’s FY2011 budget acknowledges that healthy families need more than just financial
support. It includes an increase in funding for the CSE access and visitation program from $10 million to $12 million
per year and makes the program available to tribal CSE programs that have been operating for at least one year. The
purpose of the CSE access and visitation program is to facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with
their children. 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.
155 According to OCSE data, the 12 comprehensive tribal CSE programs operating in FY2007 could have potentially
served about 600,000 tribal members, of whom approximately 135,000 were children under the age of majority.
(Source: OCSE Training Courses For Tribal IV-D Programs, Module 1C: How is it Working? http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/cse/resources/tribal/training/text/orientation/orientation_mod1_less3_1.html.) The 600,000 figure represents
roughly 27% of the U.S. Native American population. In FY2008, an additional 20 tribal CSE programs became
comprehensive tribal CSE programs. Although most of these additional programs were operated by tribes with
relatively small populations, comparable data related to the potential client pool are not available.
Congressional Research Service
42
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Appendix A. Tribal CSE Program Indicators
This appendix includes six tables that arrange each tribe according to its ranking on several CSE
program features or indicators. The data shown in all six tables are for FY2008. The tables only
include information on tribes with comprehensive CSE programs. If the data are not available, it
is so indicated. However, all except one of the tribes for which data are not available are tribes
which only began operating “comprehensive” tribal CSE programs in FY2008. (The Osage
Nation was the exception, its program became comprehensive in FY2007.)
The Appendix A tables highlight some important aspects of tribal CSE programs, but they do not
capture the complexity of individual programs. A simple ranking of the tribal programs does not
indicate a program’s effectiveness. For example, one would expect programs with larger
caseloads to have more child support collections (than other programs, all things being equal).
Similarly, one would expect programs with larger caseloads to have higher program expenditures
(than other programs, all things being equal). However, it may be less apparent that programs
with smaller caseloads could have higher collections based on a tribe’s access to casino profits
and/or valuable mineral rights Also, programs with smaller caseloads may have high program
expenditures because a higher proportion of tribal members need paternity establishment services.
Thus, broad generalizations about the data shown in the tables may prove to be inaccurate.
Table A-1 shows the amount of child support collected by each tribe. CSE administrators indicate
that tribal CSE program collections data may provide an inaccurate picture of how well some
tribes are doing because some collections obtained by tribes are distributed to the states and are
thereby not reflected in the data shown in the table. Table A-2 shows the amount of CSE
expenditures for each of the tribes. Table A-3 presents CSE caseload data. Table A-4 displays the
number of paternities established by each tribe. Table A-5 displays the number of child support
orders established by each tribe. Table A-6 shows CSE collections per dollar of expenditures for
each of the tribes. (The data in this appendix are from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
FY2008 Preliminary Report. The report can be found at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/
pubs/2009/reports/preliminary_report_fy2008/.)
Table A-1. Tribal CSE Collections by Tribe, in Rank Order, FY2008
% of Total Tribal
Tribe
Tribal CSE Collections
Collections
Comanche Nation
NA
NA
Kickapoo NA
NA
Klamath NA
NA
Mescalero Apache
NA
NA
Modoc NA
NA
Muscogee Nation
NA
NA
Nooksack NA
NA
Northern Arapaho
NA
NA
Oneida NA
NA
Osage Nation
NA
NA
Penobscot Nation
NA
NA
Congressional Research Service
43
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
% of Total Tribal
Tribe
Tribal CSE Collections
Collections
Pueblo Of Zuni
NA
NA
Red Lake Band
NA
NA
Three Affiliated
NA
NA
Umatilla NA
NA
White Earth Nation
NA
NA
Winnebago NA
NA
Navajo Nation
$7,306,610
36.7%
Chickasaw Nation
4,862,590
24.5%
Cherokee Nation
2,714,439
13.7%
Forest County Potawatomi
1,847,618
9.3%
Menominee 1,345,323
6.8%
Lac Du Flambeau
618,501
3.1%
Sisseton Wahpeton
552,562
2.8%
Lummi Nation
300,529
1.5%
Puyal up 139,053
0.7%
Port Gamble S'Klal am
108,297
0.5%
Tlingit and Haida
27,696
0.1%
Keweenaw Bay
20,872
0.1%
Ponca 15,690
0.1%
Kaw Nation
13,748
0.1%
Quinault Nation
8,883
0.0%
Total $19,882,411
100.0%
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notes: NA—not available. Note that all but one of the tribes for which the data were not available were tribes
with newly approved comprehensive tribal CSE programs in FY2008. Also, although data were reported for
FY2008, Keweenaw Bay, Ponca, and Kaw Nation became comprehensive tribal CSE programs in FY2008.
Congressional Research Service
44
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Table A-2. Tribal CSE Expenditures by Tribe, in Rank Order, FY2008
Tribal CSE
% of Total Tribal
Tribe
Expenditures
Expenditures
Comanche Nation
NA
NA
Kickapoo NA
NA
Mescalero Apache
NA
NA
Nooksack NA
NA
Northern Arapaho
NA
NA
Pueblo Of Zuni
NA
NA
Navajo Nation
$4,353,286
26.1%
Chickasaw Nation
2,207,608
13.2%
Puyal up 1,130,175
6.8%
Cherokee Nation
1,042,241
6.2%
Tlingit and Haida
966,703
5.8%
Lummi Nation
944,398
5.7%
Port Gamble S'Klal am
846,576
5.1%
Menominee 769,219
4.6%
Winnebago 737,556
4.4%
Sisseton Wahpeton
680,090
4.1%
Quinault Nation
539,593
3.2%
Forest County Potawatomi
514,001
3.1%
Modoc 448,748
2.7%
Osage Nation
444,662
2.7%
Lac Du Flambeau
370,016
2.2%
Klamath 287,938
1.7%
Three Affiliated 242,994
1.5%
Red Lake Band
180,559
1.1%
Penobscot Nation
177,861
1.1%
White Earth Nation
148,457
0.9%
Ponca 100,806
0.6%
Umatilla 93,413 0.6%
Keweenaw Bay
61,265
0.4%
Oneida 56,049
0.3%
Kaw Nation
52,921
0.3%
Muscogee Nation
$20,375
0.1%
Total $16,679,954
100.0%
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notes: NA—not available. Note that all but one of the tribes for which the data were not available were tribes
with newly approved comprehensive tribal CSE programs in FY2008.
Congressional Research Service
45
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Table A-3. Tribal CSE Caseload by Tribe, in Rank Order, FY2008
Tribe Caseload
Comanche Nation
NA
Klamath NA
Nooksack NA
Northern Arapaho
NA
Penobscot Nation
NA
Pueblo Of Zuni
NA
Winnebago NA
Navajo Nation
15,968
Cherokee Nation
3,182
Menominee 1,818
Chickasaw Nation
1,753
Sisseton Wahpeton
1,284
Lac Du Flambeau
900
Lummi Nation
591
Modoc 580
Puyal up 559
Oneida 482
Forest County Potawatomi
420
Port Gamble S'Klal am
368
Tlingit and Haida
343
Muscogee Nation
301
Quinault Nation
248
Osage Nation
241
Keweenaw Bay
104
Mescalero Apache
85
Three Affiliated
62
Red Lake Band
23
White Earth Nation
13
Kaw Nation
12
Ponca 8
Umatilla 4
Kickapoo 1
Total 29,350
Source: Congressional Research Service based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notes: NA—not available. Note that all but one of the tribes for which the data were not available were tribes
with newly approved comprehensive tribal CSE programs in FY2008.
Congressional Research Service
46
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Table A-4. Tribal CSE Program: Paternities Established by Tribe,
in Rank Order, FY2008
Tribe Paternities
Established
Comanche Nation
NA
Keweenaw Bay
NA
Kickapoo NA
Klamath NA
Muscogee Nation
NA
Nooksack NA
Northern Arapaho
NA
Penobscot Nation
NA
Pueblo Of Zuni
NA
Umatilla NA
White Earth Nation
NA
Winnebago NA
Navajo Nation
10,105
Chickasaw Nation
2,202
Cherokee Nation
1,935
Menominee 1,039
Tlingit and Haida
666
Forest County Potawatomi
526
Lac Du Flambeau
518
Modoc 437
Puyal up 295
Port Gamble S'Klal am
244
Oneida 225
Mescalero Apache
80
Three Affiliated
62
Red Lake Band
31
Sisseton Wahpeton
24
Kaw Nation
21
Lummi Nation
21
Ponca 16
Osage Nation
12
Quinault Nation
6
Total 18,465
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notes: NA—not available. Note that all but one of the tribes for which the data were not available were tribes
with newly approved comprehensive tribal CSE programs in FY2008.
Congressional Research Service
47
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Table A-5. Tribal CSE Program: Child Support Orders Established by Tribe,
in Rank Order, FY2008
Child Support Orders
Tribe
Established
Comanche Nation
NA
Klamath NA
Nooksack NA
Northern Arapaho
NA
Penobscot Nation
NA
Pueblo Of Zuni
NA
Umatilla NA
White Earth Nation
NA
Winnebago NA
Navajo Nation
4,225
Chickasaw Nation
2,386
Menominee 1,608
Cherokee Nation
1,303
Sisseton Wahpeton
892
Lac Du Flambeau
697
Puyal up 486
Oneida 482
Forest County Potawatomi
415
Modoc 371
Tlingit and Haida
305
Port Gamble S'Klal am
304
Lummi Nation
259
Quinault Nation
182
Osage Nation
166
Keweenaw Bay
103
Muscogee Nation
78
Mescalero Apache
64
Three Affiliated
62
Red Lake Band
11
Ponca 8
Kaw Nation
6
Kickapoo 1
Total 14,414
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Congressional Research Service
48
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Notes: NA—not available. Note that all but one of the tribes for which the data were not available were tribes
with newly approved comprehensive tribal CSE programs in FY2008.
Table A-6. Tribal CSE Program: Collections Per Dollar of Expenditures by Tribe,
in Rank Order, FY2008
Tribe Collections/
Expenditures
Comanche Nation
NA
Kickapoo
NA
Klamath
NA
Mescalero Apache
NA
Modoc
NA
Muscogee Nation
NA
Nooksack
NA
Northern Arapaho
NA
Oneida
NA
Osage Nation
NA
Penobscot Nation
NA
Pueblo Of Zuni
NA
Red Lake Band
NA
Three Affiliated
NA
Umatilla
NA
White Earth Nation
NA
Winnebago
NA
Forest County Potawatomi
$3.59
Cherokee Nation
2.60
Chickasaw Nation
2.20
Menominee 1.75
Navajo Nation
1.68
Lac Du Flambeau
1.67
Sisseton Wahpeton
0.81
Keweenaw Bay
0.34
Lummi Nation
0.32
Kaw Nation
0.26
Ponca 0.16
Port Gamble S'Klallam
0.13
Congressional Research Service
49
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Tribe Collections/
Expenditures
Puyal up 0.12
Tlingit and Haida
0.03
Quinault Nation
0.02
Tribal CSE Program Average
$1.19
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notes: NA—not available. Note that all but one of the tribes for which the data were not available were tribes
with newly approved comprehensive tribal CSE programs in FY2008.
Congressional Research Service
50
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Appendix B. Comprehensive and Start-Up Tribal
CSE Programs
This appendix includes two tables. Table B-1 displays the 32 comprehensive tribal CSE
programs, arranged by the year in which they became comprehensive. A tribal program is
considered comprehensive if it has all of the 14 program components stipulated in the federal
tribal CSE regulations. Table B-2 shows the 13 start-up tribal CSE programs. A start-up tribal
CSE program does not have to have all of the required program components. In FY2002 through
FY2006, there were nine tribes or tribal organizations that had comprehensive CSE programs. In
FY2007, 12 tribes or tribal organizations had comprehensive CSE programs. In FY2008, 20
additional tribes or tribal organizations (for a total 32) were operating comprehensive CSE
programs. In FY2009 (official data not yet available), four additional tribes or tribal organizations
(for a total 36) were operating comprehensive CSE programs.
Table B-1. Comprehensive Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs,
September 2008
Nine tribes were comprehensive in FY2002 through FY2006:
Chickasaw Nation
Forest County Potawatomi
Lac du Flambeau
Lummi Nation
Menominee
Navajo Nation
Port Gamble S’Klallam
Puyal up
Sisseton Wahpeton
Three tribes became comprehensive in FY2007:
Cherokee Nation
Osage Nation
Tlingit and Haida
Twenty tribes became comprehensive in FY2008:
Comanche Nation
Kaw Nation
Keweenaw Bay
Kickapoo
Klamath
Mescalero Apache
Modoc
Muscogee Nation
Nooksack
Congressional Research Service
51
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Northern Arapaho
Oneida
Penobscot Nation
Ponca
Pueblo of Zuni
Quinault Nation
Red Lake Band
Three Affiliated
Umatilla
White Earth Nation
Winnebago
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on information from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Table B-2. Start-Up Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs, FY2008
Aleutian/Pribiloff Islands Association
Blackfeet Nation
Chippewa Cree Tribe
Coeur D’ Alene Tribe
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Eastern Shoshone Tribe
Fort Belknap Indian Community
Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indian Reservation
Nez Perce Tribe
The Suquamish Tribal Council
Tulalip Tribes
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on information from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Congressional Research Service
52
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Appendix C. American Indian and Alaska Native
Population Figures for Tribes with CSE Programs
Table C-1 shows four population figures for each of the 45 tribal CSE programs. For a discussion
of the problems in determining tribal populations, see the “Data” section, above.
Table C-1. Population Figures for Tribes with Tribal CSE Programs: Tribal Enrollment
(2005), BIA Service Population (2005), and Census AIAN Populations in Census-
Defined Federal AIAN Areas (2000)
Census AIAN Population Living in Census-
BIA Service
Defined Federal AIAN Areasb (2000)
Tribal
Populationa
Enrollment
(On or Near
AIAN Alone or in
(Nationwide)
Reservation)
Combination with
CSE Tribes
(2005)
(2005)
AIAN Alone
Other Race(s)
Aleutian Pribilof Islands
n/a n/a 2,150c 2,274c
Association
Blackfeet Nation
15,873
9,088
8,507
8,684
Cherokee Nation
257,824
197,684
76,041d 104,482d
Chickasaw Nation
38,740
38,740
22,946d 32,372d
Chippewa Cree Tribe
5,656
3,379
2,578
2,598
Coeur D’Alene Tribe
1,968
1,251
1,251
1,327
Colville (Confederated
9,171 5,052
4,528
4,775
Tribes)
Comanche Nation
12,514
15,312
9,675de 13,045de
Eastern Shoshone Tribe
3,724
4,036
6,544f 6,864f
Forest County Potawatomi
1,295 1,352
482
489
Community
Fort Belknap Indian
6,304 6,035
2,790
2,809
Community
Kaw Nation
2,821
4,295
555d 793d
Keweenaw Bay Indian
3,315 2,829
896
1,078
Community
Kickapoo Tribe (Kansas)
1,654
812
714
766
Kickapoo Tribe of
2,675 2,675
1,738d 2,345d
Oklahoma
Klamath Tribes
3,579
2,672
4
4
Lac Du Flambeau Band of
3,323 2,178
1,778
1,797
Lake Superior Chippewa
Congressional Research Service
53
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Census AIAN Population Living in Census-
BIA Service
Defined Federal AIAN Areasb (2000)
Tribal
Populationa
Enrollment
(On or Near
AIAN Alone or in
(Nationwide)
Reservation)
Combination with
CSE Tribes
(2005)
(2005)
AIAN Alone
Other Race(s)
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
8,937
8,875
4,561
4,850
Lummi Nation
4,096
4,976
2,114
2,240
Menominee Tribe
8,311
5,291
3,070
3,088
Mescalero Apache Tribe
4,309
4,447
2,888
2,946
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe 3,800
2,337 1,171
1,225
Modoc Tribe
181
181
58d 73d
Muscogee (Creek) Nation
55,955
55,817
51,296d 77,253d
Navajo Nation
273,872
192,067
173,987
175,228
Nez Perce Tribe
3,338
1,978
2,101
2,375
Nooksack Indian Tribe
1,820
1,001
373
436
Northern Arapaho Tribe
7,417
6,068
6,544f 6,864f
Oneida Tribe (Wisconsin)
14,745
5,382
3,288
3,602
Osage Nation
19,929
11,960
6,410
9,209
Penobscot Nation
2,261
640
477
478
Ponca Tribe (Oklahoma)
3,195
3,146
800d 900d
Port Gamble S'Klal am Tribe
1,070
1,255
505
514
Puyal up Tribe
3,547
24,016
1,327
1,940
Quinault Indian Nation
2,454
3,203
1,051
1,069
Red Lake Band of Chippewa
9,541 10,338
5,071
5,087
Indians
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate
11,763
11,763
3,453
3,593
Suquamish Tribal Council
863
3,783
497
640
Three Affiliated Tribes of
11,897 8,773
3,986
4,091
Fort Berthold
Tlingit and Haida Indian
25,949 13,255
11,320g
15,059g
Tribes (Central Council)
Tulalip Tribes
3,731
2,869
2,049
2,265
Umatilla (Confederated
2,542 2,674
1,427
1,499
Tribes)
White Earth Nation
19,506
7,926
3,378
4,029
Congressional Research Service
54
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Census AIAN Population Living in Census-
BIA Service
Defined Federal AIAN Areasb (2000)
Tribal
Populationa
Enrollment
(On or Near
AIAN Alone or in
(Nationwide)
Reservation)
Combination with
CSE Tribes
(2005)
(2005)
AIAN Alone
Other Race(s)
Winnebago Tribe
4,321
1,490
1,447
1,467
Zuni Tribe
10,258
10,369
7,426
7,466
TOTAL for CSE tribes
890,044
703,270
438,708
519,124
TOTAL for all tribes
1,978,099 1,731,178
811,744
930,016
nationwide
CSE total as percent of
45%
41%
54%
56%
nationwide total
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2005 American Indian Population and Labor
Force Report, Washington, DC, 2007, available at http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/idc-
001719.pdf; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1), tables P7 and P9, accessed
December 16, 2009, via American FactFinder, http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.
Notes:
Abbreviations:
n/a = Not available in source
AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native
ANRC = Alaska Native Regional Corporation (statistical area)
ANVSA = Alaska Native Village Statistical Area
OTSA = Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area
TDSA = Tribal Designated Statistical Area
BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs
CSE = Child Support Enforcement
a. BIA service population includes Indians from other tribes residing within a tribe’s service area (on or near
reservation).
b. Census-defined federal Indian and Alaska Native areas include (1) American Indian Reservations and Off-
Reservation Trust Lands, (2) OTSAs, (3) ANRCs, (4) ANVSAs, and (5) TDSAs.
c. Aleut ANRC. Census Bureau did not define an area for the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, a tribal
organization.
d. Census OTSA (not a reservation).
e. Census population figures for the Comanche Nation are for al AIAN in the Kiowa-Comanche-Apache
OTSA.
f.
Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes share the Wind River Reservation. The Census figure in
the table for each tribe is the Census total for the Wind River Reservation, covering both tribes.
g. Sealaska ANRC. The Census Bureau did not define an area for the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida
Indian Tribes.
Congressional Research Service
55
Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs
Acknowledgments
This report was originally co-authored by Roger Walke, Specialist in American Indian Policy.
Congressional Research Service
56