The Child Support Enforcement Program: A Review of the Data

CRS Report for Congress
The Child Support Enforcement Program:
A Review of the Data
April 21, 2005
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The Child Support Enforcement Program:
A Review of the Data
Summary
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program is a federal/state program that
promotes self-sufficiency of families in which one of the biological parents is living
outside of the home by ensuring that noncustodial parents meet their financial
responsibility to their children. The CSE program provides several services on behalf
of children including parent location, paternity establishment, establishment of child
support orders, and collection and distribution of child support payments.
In FY1978, families who received cash welfare comprised 85% of the CSE
caseload. By FY2003, they comprised only 17% of the CSE caseload and 9% of CSE
collections. In FY2003, former cash welfare recipients comprised 47% of the CSE
caseload and 40% of CSE collections. Families that had never received cash welfare
comprised 36% of the CSE caseload and almost 52% of CSE collections. This is
consistent with the underlying premise of the CSE program: as child support
becomes a more consistent and stable income source/support, former cash welfare
families will never have to return to the cash welfare rolls and families that never
resorted to cash welfare will never have to do so. In FY2003, the CSE caseload was
comprised of 15.9 million families. The CSE program is estimated to handle about

60% of all child support cases; the remaining cases are handled by private attorneys,

collection agencies, or through mutual agreements between the parents. All of the
data in this report are exclusively CSE program data.
Before a state can enforce/collect a child support obligation, paternity must be
determined and a child support order must be established. During the period
FY1999-FY2003, the number of paternities established or acknowledged fell 5%
nationwide, from 1.6 million to 1.5 million. During the period FY1998-FY2002, the
number of cases with a support order established dropped 2% nationwide, from 11.5
million to 11.3 million.
The CSE program is a program of paradoxes. The CSE program only collected

18% of the child support obligations for which it had responsibility in FY2003 (i.e.,

58% of all current collections and 7% of obligations that were past-due). But, during
the period FY1999-FY2003, child support payments collected by CSE agencies
increased 33% for the nation as a whole, from $15.9 billion to $21.2 billion. Child
support collections have continued to increase even though the CSE caseload has
declined. Although the number and percent of CSE cases with collections have been
increasing over time, the average monthly child support payment for families that
actually receive a payment has been decreasing and is relatively small, amounting to
only $221 per month in FY2003. Although states incurred a cost of $355 million for
the CSE program in FY2003 and the federal government incurred a cost of almost
$2.3 billion, $4.33 in child support was collected for every $1 spent on CSE
activities. The CSE program began as a welfare cost-recovery program; however, in
FY2003, 90% of CSE collections went to CSE families (rather than the federal
government or the states); the comparable figure in FY1979 was no more than 56%.
This report will not be updated.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
CSE Caseload.....................................................5
Paternity Establishment............................................12
Establishment of Child Support Orders................................15
CSE Collections..................................................17
Child Support Collected on Behalf of TANF Families................21
Collections on Current Support Obligations and Arrearage Payments....24
CSE Administrative Expenditures....................................31
Cost-Effectiveness of the CSE Program...............................37
Conclusion ......................................................40
List of Figures
Figure 1. Child Support Enforcement Program: Collections and
Expenditures: FY1978-FY2003, Selected Years......................5
Figure 2. Child Support Enforcement Caseload,FY1978-FY2003............7
Figure 3. Child Support Enforcement Caseload, FY1999-FY2003..........11
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of National Child Support Enforcement Program
Statistics, Selected Fiscal Years 1978-2003.........................4
Table 2. Child Support Enforcement Caseload, FY1978-FY2003............8
Table 3. CSE Caseload, FY1999-FY2003..............................9
Table 4. Paternities Established or Acknowledged, FY1999-FY2003........13
Table 5. Paternity Establishment, FY2003.............................14
Table 6. Number of Cases with Child Support Orders Established,
FY1998-FY2002 .............................................16
Table 7. CSE Total Collections, FY1999-FY2003.......................18
Table 8. Average Monthly CSE Collections per Case,
by Category of Family, FY1999-FY2003..........................19
Table 9. Average Monthly Child Support Payments for Families with
Collections, Selected Years, FY1978-FY2003......................19
Table 10. Average Monthly Child Support Payments in Cases with
Collections, by State, FY1999-FY2003............................20
Table 11. Financial Overview of CSE Program, FY2003.................22
Table 12. Child Support Collected on Behalf of TANF Families,
FY1999-FY2003 .............................................23

Table 13. Collections on Current Child Support Obligations,
FY1999-FY2003 .............................................25
Table 14. Current Child Support Payments, FY2003.....................27
Table 15. Child Support Arrearage Payments, FY2003...................28
Table 16. Cases with Past-Due Child Support Payments (Arrearages),
FY2003 ....................................................30
Table 17. Total CSE Administrative Expenditures, FY1999-FY2003........32
Table 18. Federal Share of CSE Administrative Expenditures,
FY1998-FY2002 .............................................34
Table 19. State Share of CSE Administrative Expenditures,
FY1998-FY2002 .............................................35
Table 20. CSE Expenditures per CSE Case, Selected Years,
FY1978-FY2003 .............................................37
Table 21. Cost-Effectiveness Performance Level, FY1999-FY2003.........38
Table 22. State and Federal “Savings” and “Costs” from Income and
Expenditures Generated by the Child Support Enforcement Program....40

The Child Support Enforcement Program:
A Review of the Data
Introduction
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program (Title IV-D of the Social
Security Act) was enacted in January 1975 (P.L. 93-647). The CSE program is a
federal/state program that promotes self-sufficiency of families in which one of the
biological parents is living outside of the home by ensuring that noncustodial parents
meet their financial responsibility to their children. While the federal government
plays an important role in setting program standards and policy, evaluating state
performance, and providing technical assistance and training, states are responsible
for administering the CSE program (directly or through local CSE agencies and
family or domestic courts).
All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands operate CSE programs and are entitled to federal matching funds. To qualify
for federal matching funds, each state’s CSE plan must be approved by the Office of
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS). States also are eligible to receive incentive payments, based on certain
performance indicators. The CSE program provides seven major services on behalf
of children: parent location, paternity establishment, establishment of child support
orders, review and modification of support orders, collection of support payments,
distribution of support payments, and establishment and enforcement of medical
support. CSE services are provided to both welfare and non-welfare families.
Since 1975, the federal administration of the CSE program has been in the
OCSE, which was originally located in the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare (HEW), renamed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in
1979. From the beginning, OCSE has been required by law to review and approve
state CSE plans, establish standards for effective state CSE programs, provide
technical assistance to the states, assist them with reporting procedures, maintain
records of program operations and child support expenditures and collections, audit
state CSE programs, and prepare and submit an annual report to Congress. The
annual report to Congress has always included collection, expenditure, and caseload
data. In fact, Section 452(a)(10) of the Social Security Act stipulates that certain data
must be included in the annual report.
In March 2004, the CSE program was cited by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) as being the most cost-effective program among all social services

and block grant/formula programs reviewed government-wide.¹ In FY2003, $21.2
billion was collected at a combined federal/state cost of $5.2 billion. Thus, in effect,
four dollars in child support was collected for every dollar spent. While the
extensive reforms made to the CSE program in 1996, 1997, and 1998 have helped
to significantly improve child support collections and the number of paternities
established, the CSE program has since its beginning in 1975 been a highly respected
and valuable program which has made much progress in achieving its original goals
of reducing public expenditures for actual and potential welfare recipients by
obtaining ongoing support from noncustodial parents, and establishing paternity for
children born outside marriage so child support could be obtained for them.
Many commentators agree that the mission of the CSE program has changed
over the years. It began as a welfare cost-recovery program, but the Child Support
Enforcement Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-378) broadened the mission to reflect
service delivery. The criteria for making incentive payments to the states was
broadened in 1984 to include collections for non-welfare families. Some
commentators assert the service-delivery goal was reemphasized in 1996 legislation,
which established the “family first” policy. To help assure that former welfare
recipients stay off the TANF rolls,² the “family first” policy requires that such
families are to receive any child support arrearage payments collected by the state
before the state and federal governments retain their share of collections.³
Additionally, the sharp decline in the cash welfare rolls and reduced expenditures on
cash welfare since the mid-1990s helped shift the program from recovering declining
costs for a smaller population to collecting and paying child support to nonwelfare
families.
For the past 20 years (since the 1984 Amendments), the CSE program and major
changes or modifications to it have consistently had bipartisan congressional support.
Child support proposals that were introduced in the 106^th, 107^th, and 108^th
Congresses, and that have been reintroduced in the 109^th Congress, seek to fully
implement a “family first” policy by ensuring that more of the child support collected
on behalf of TANF families go to the family, and that all of the child support
collected on behalf of former-TANF families go to the family. In addition, the
proposed legislation has included additional child support collection
methods/enforcement techniques to ensure that noncustodial parents of all children
are made to be financially responsible for their children. These CSE proposals are
broadly supported but generally have been incorporated into the controversial welfare

¹ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
HHS News, Child Support Effectiveness Cited By OMB, Mar. 31, 2004.
² The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant replaced the Aid to
Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program in 1996 as the federal government’s
primary cash assistance program for poor families with children.
³ An exception to this rule occurs when child support is collected via the federal income tax
refund offset program. In federal income tax refund offset cases, the child support arrearage
payment (up to the cumulative amount of TANF benefits which has been paid to the family)
is retained by the state and federal governments. In other words, if child support arrearages
are collected via the federal income tax refund offset program, the family does not have first
claim on the arrearage payments.

reauthorization legislation, and therefore have not yet passed both houses of
Congress. (See CRS Issue Brief IB10140, Welfare Reauthorization: Overview of the
Issues.)
Table 1 presents a summary of child support program statistics for the nation
as a whole over a 25-year time span. Between FY1978 and FY2003, child support
payments collected by CSE agencies increased from $1 billion in FY1978 ($2.7
billion in 2003 dollars) to $21.2 billion in FY2003 (an almost seven-fold increase,
adjusting for inflation). During that same period, the number of children whose
paternity was established (or acknowledged) through the CSE program increased by
1,274%, from 111,000 to 1.525 million; and the number of child support obligations
established increased by 269%, from 315,000 to 1.161 million. During that period,
the CSE caseload expanded from 4.146 million in FY1978 to 15.923 million in
FY2003, an increase of 284%. (The definition of “caseload” is explained in the next
section of this report.) CSE expenditures also increased tremendously, from $312
million in FY1978 ($801 million in 2003 dollars) to $5.213 billion in FY2003 (a
more than five-fold increase, adjusting for inflation). Expenditures per case
increased from $75 in FY1978 ($193 in 2003 dollars) to $327 in FY2003 (a 69%
increase, adjusting for inflation).
Figure 1 graphically shows CSE collections and expenditures over the 25-year
period from FY1978-FY2003. The CSE program is estimated to handle about 60%
of all child support cases; the remaining cases are handled by private attorneys,
collection agencies, or through mutual agreements between the parents. All of the
data in this report are exclusively CSE program data.
Although this report does not address some significant areas of the CSE
program (e.g., medical child support and child support collections that have not been
distributed), it examines CSE caseload, collection, and expenditure data over the
period FY1978-FY2003. (FY1978 is the first year of complete data and the data for
FY2003 are the most recent data available.) It also presents more detailed data on
collections, expenditures, paternity establishment, child support order establishment,
cost-effectiveness, and program financing impacts on the federal government and the
states for the five-year period FY1999-FY2003. All of the tables in this report are
based on data from OCSE, obtained from the OCSE Internet website. The
information is taken from state-submitted reports on program status sent to OCSE
quarterly for financial data and annually for statistical data. The reader should note
that the 25-year trend data for CSE collections and caseload have been disaggregated
into two categories: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cases and
non-TANF cases. Before 1997, TANF cases were Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) cases and non-TANF cases were non-AFDC cases. Also, note that
the tables that display TANF cases, collections, or expenditures include foster care
cases as well, even though they are not labeled as such.⁴

⁴ In 1984, Congress reinstated authority for state CSE agencies to secure (when appropriate)
an assignment to the state for any rights to support on behalf of Title IV-E foster care
children and to collect child support on behalf of those children. In FY2003 CSE collections
made on behalf of foster care cases amounted to less than 0.4% of total CSE collections.

CRS-4
Table 1. Summary of National Child Support Enforcement Program Statistics, Selected Fiscal Years 1978-2003
(numbers in thousands, dollars in millions except as noted)
Measure 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
otal child support collections$1,047$1,770$3,246$6,010$9,850$12,019$15,901$17,854$18,958$20,137$21,176
2003 dollars^a$2,689$3,230$5,198$8,202$12,094$14,030$17,552$19,071$19,701$20,598$21,176
NF collections^b$472$786$1,225$1,750$2,550$2,855$2,482$2,593$2,592$2,893$2,972
otal Non-TANF collections$575$984$2,019$4,260$7,300$9,164$13,419$15,261$16,366$17,244$18,204
otal administrative expenditures$312$612$941$1,606$2,556$3,049$4,039$4,526$4,835$5,183$5,213
2003 dollars^a$801$1,117$1,507$2,192$3,138$3,559$4,458$4,835$5,024$5,302$5,213
otal CSE caseload4,1467,0249,72412,79618,61019,31917,33017,37417,06116,06615,923
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL32875}ANF cases3,5425,5457,2205,8727,9867,3803,7243,2993,0932,8072,759
^g/wTANF cases6041,4792,5036,92510,62411,93913,60614,07513,96713,25913,164
^s^.orANF cases with collections12.9%10.8%8.1%11.9%11.6%12.7%24.5%24.9%25.0%28.7%29.2%
^le^akon-TANF cases with
^://wiki 41.2% 30.3% 31.4% 19.7% 29.8% 21.9% 41.8% 45.5% 47.9% 52.9% 54.5%
^h^ttpumber of paternities established or
nowledged 111 173 245 393 676 1,058 1,600 1,554 1,568 1,527 1,525
ber of support obligations
315 462 731 1,022 1,025 1,093 1,220 1,175 1,181 1,220 1,161
otal child support collections (dollars)
inistrative
$ 3.4 $ 2.9 $ 3.5 $ 3.7 $ 3.9 $ 3.9 $ 3.9 $ 3.9 $ 3.9 $ 3.9 $ 4.1
^:^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,^U^.^S^.^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^H^eal^t^h^an^{d H}^u^m^aⁿ^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^{. D}^a^t^a^con^v^e^rt^{ed i}ⁿ^t^o^{2003 dol}^l^a^rs^by^t^h^e^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^ice.
^:^T^h^e^CSE^co^llectioⁿ^s^an^d^caselo^a^d^d^a^ta^h^a^v^e^b^een^dⁱ^sag^g^r^eg^atedⁱⁿ^to^tw^o^categ^o^r^{ies: T}^e^m^p^o^r^ar^y^A^ssistan^{ce f}^o^r^Need^y^Fam^ilies^(T^A^N^F)^cas^es^an^{d n}^oⁿ^-^T^A^{NF cas}^es^{. B}^e^f^o^re
^A^{NF cas}^es^w^e^{re A}ⁱ^{d to Fam}^ilies^w^ith^Depen^d^en^{t C}^h^ildren^(A^FDC⁾^cas^es^an^{d n}^oⁿ^-^T^A^{NF cas}^es^w^e^{re n}^oⁿ^-^AF^D^C^c^a^s^e^s^.^Als^o^{, n}^o^te^th^{at th}^{e tables}^th^{at dis}^p^lay^T^A^{NF cas}^es^,
^e^c^tⁱ^o^ns,^o^r^e^x^p^e^ndⁱ^t^u^r^e^{s i}ⁿ^c^l^ud^e^fo^st^e^r^c^a^r^e^c^a^s^e^s^a^s^w^e^l^l^,^e^v^eⁿ^t^h^o^{ugh t}^h^e^y^a^r^e^no^t^l^a^b^e^l^e^d^a^s^suc^h^.
^d^j^u^s^t^{ed f}^o^{r in}^f^l^ation^u^sⁱⁿ^g^th^{e C}^oⁿ^s^u^m^{er P}^r^{ice In}^dex^,^res^earch^s^e^ries^f^o^{r u}^r^ban^con^s^u^m^ers^(C^P^I^-^U^-^R^S).
^o^{re F}^Y^{2002, T}^A^N^F^col^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^are^di^vⁱ^dedⁱⁿ^t^o^s^t^at^e/^f^e^deral^s^h^ares^an^dⁱⁿ^cen^tⁱ^v^es^{are t}^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^t^h^{e f}^e^deral^s^h^{are t}^h^ere^by^redu^ciⁿ^g^t^h^{e f}^e^deral^am^ouⁿ^t^s^.^Begⁱⁿⁿⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^F^Y^2002,
^chⁱ^l^d^s^u^pportⁱⁿ^cen^tⁱ^v^{e pay}^m^en^t^s^{are pai}^d^wⁱ^t^h^appropri^a^t^e^{d f}^uⁿ^d^s^.
^–N^ot^av^ai^l^a^bl^e.

Figure 1. Child Support Enforcement Program: Collections and
Expenditures: FY1978-FY2003, Selected Years

²⁵^,⁰⁰⁰
²⁰^,⁰⁰⁰
¹⁵^,⁰⁰⁰^oⁿ^s
^l^lⁱ^T^o^ta^{l C}^S^E^c^o^lle^c^t^ioⁿ^s^{, in}²⁰⁰³^$
^Mⁱ
^sⁱⁿ^Tot^a^l^C^S^E^e^x^p^endⁱ^t^ur^es,ⁱⁿ²⁰⁰³^$
^lla^r
¹⁰^,⁰⁰⁰^D^o
^5,⁰⁰⁰
⁰
¹⁹⁷⁸¹⁹⁸²¹⁹⁸⁶¹⁹⁹⁰¹⁹⁹⁴¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³
^Yea^r
^S^o^urce:^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,^H^H^S^{, A}^nnua^l^Re^p^o^r^t^s^—^se^l^e^c^t^e^d^y^e^a^r^s^.^Fⁱ^g^u^r^e
^{prepared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^ice.
CSE Caseload
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.
Families who receive TANF cash benefits are required to assign their child
support rights to the state in order to receive TANF. In addition, such families must
cooperate with the state if necessary to establish paternity and secure child support.
Families receiving TANF cash benefits, Medicaid benefits, or whose children receive
Title IV-E foster care payments automatically are enrolled (free of charge) into the
CSE program.⁵ Collections on behalf of families receiving TANF cash benefits are
used to reimburse state and federal governments for TANF payments made to the
⁵ In addition, several states have opted to require food stamp households to cooperate with
the CSE agency in establishing paternity and establishing and enforcing child support
obligations. These food stamp households also receive CSE services automatically, free of
charge.

family (i.e., child support payments go to the state instead of the family, except for
amounts that states choose to “pass through” to the family as additional income that
does not affect TANF eligibility or benefit amount).⁶ Other families must apply for
CSE services, and states must charge an application fee that cannot exceed $25.
Child support collected on behalf of nonwelfare families goes to the family (usually
via a state child support disbursement unit).
The CSE program defines a current assistance case as one in which the children
are: (1) recipients of cash aid under TANF (Title IV-A of the Social Security Act)
or (2) entitled to Foster Care maintenance payments (Title IV-E of the Social Security
Act). In addition, the children’s support rights have been assigned by a caretaker to
the state, and a referral to the state CSE agency has been made. A former assistance
case is defined as a case in which the children were formerly receiving TANF or
foster care services. A never assistance case is defined as a case in which the
children are receiving services under the CSE program, but are not currently eligible
for and have not previously received assistance under TANF or foster care.
Figure 2 shows the trend in the CSE caseload, separated by TANF cases and
non-TANF cases. Table 2 shows that TANF cases comprised 85% of the CSE
caseload in FY1978, but dropped to 17% of the caseload in FY2003. By the same
token, non-TANF cases represented only about 15% of the CSE caseload in FY1978,
and increased to 83% of the caseload in FY2003. Available data show that non-
TANF cases increasingly are families that formerly received TANF.
In FY1999, OCSE started reporting data for the following categories: current
assistance, former assistance, and never received assistance rather than by TANF and
non-TANF. The data indicate that the number and percentage of CSE families who
currently receive TANF has decreased over time while the number and percentage
of CSE families who formerly received TANF has increased. The data also show
that the proportion of the CSE caseload comprised of families who had never
received TANF has remained relatively stable for the period FY1999-FY2003 (see
Figure 3). The decline in TANF families since 1994 (see Table 2), and the relative
stability of the segment of the caseload that had never been on the TANF rolls,
resulted in a smaller CSE caseload. Former TANF families represent the largest
portion of the total CSE caseload.
In FY2003, the largest group of families who were participating in the CSE
program were families who had left the TANF rolls (i.e., former TANF families —

⁶ While the family receives TANF cash benefits, the state is permitted to retain any current
support and any assigned arrearages it collects up to the cumulative amount of TANF
benefits which has been paid to the family. The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193)
repealed the then $50 required pass through and gave states the choice to decide how much,
if any, of the state share (some, all, none) of child support payments collected on behalf of
TANF families to send the family. States also decide whether to treat child support
payments as income to the family. P.L. 104-193 required states to pay the federal
government the federal government’s share of TANF collections. (As of Aug. 2004, 21
states were, on a monthly basis, providing a pass through and disregard up to $50 (higher
in a couple of states) of child support collected on behalf of TANF families.)

47%, see Figure 3).⁷ Families who had never been on TANF represented 36% of the
CSE caseload and families who were currently receiving TANF benefits comprised⁸
17% of the CSE caseload. Thus, although the majority of the CSE caseload is
comprised of non-TANF families, most of them at some point in their lives received
TANF/AFDC. This is consistent with the expanded mission of the CSE program.
The expectation is that as child support becomes a more consistent and stable income
source/support, these former TANF families will never have to return to the TANF
rolls, and families that never resorted to the TANF program will never have to do so.
In its strategic plan for the period FY2000-FY2004, the CSE agency stated:
It is our commitment to lead the child support program into the new century as
a key component to assist families to become self-sufficient or to remain self-
sufficient. It is our vision that child support is an important line of defense⁹
against children living in poverty.
Figure 2. Child Support Enforcement Caseload,
FY1978-FY2003

^20,⁰⁰^0,⁰⁰⁰
^18,⁰⁰^0,⁰⁰⁰
^16,⁰⁰^0,⁰⁰⁰
^14,⁰⁰^0,⁰⁰⁰
^12,⁰⁰^0,⁰⁰⁰
^T^o^t^a^{l CS}^E^Ca^s^e^lo^ad
^10,⁰⁰^0,⁰⁰⁰^Ca^ses^T^A^NF^Cas^e^s
^Non-^T^A^NF^Cas^e^s
^8,⁰⁰^0,⁰⁰⁰
^6,⁰⁰^0,⁰⁰⁰
^4,⁰⁰^0,⁰⁰⁰
^2,⁰⁰^0,⁰⁰⁰
^-⁸⁹⁰¹²³⁴⁵⁶⁷⁸⁹⁰¹²³⁴⁵⁶⁷⁸⁹⁰¹²³
¹⁹⁷¹⁹⁷¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹²⁰⁰²⁰⁰²⁰⁰²⁰⁰^Ye^a^r
^So^urce^:^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,^H^H^S^{, A}^nnua^l^Re^p^o^r^t^s^—^se^l^e^c^t^e^d^y^e^a^r^s.^Fi^g^u^r^e
^{prepared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^ice.
⁷ Under the old jargon former TANF families would have been included among non-TANF
families.
⁸ In FY2003, families currently receiving TANF comprised 17% of the CSE caseload and
received about 9% of CSE collections. In contrast, former TANF families comprised 47%
of the CSE caseload and received 40% of CSE collections. Families that have never been
on TANF comprised 36% of the CSE caseload and received almost 52% of CSE collections.
⁹ See [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/DCL/dcl-00-76.htm].

Table 2. Child Support Enforcement Caseload, FY1978-FY2003
(numbers in thousands)
Non-TANF
Total CSENon-TANFTANF as % ofas % of
FYcaseloadTANF casescasescaseloadcaseload

1978 4,146 3,542 604 85.4% 14.6%

1979 4,899 4,175 724 85.2% 14.8%

1980 5,442 4,584 858 84.2% 15.8%

1981 6,266 5,113 1,153 81.6% 18.4%

1982 7,024 5,545 1,479 78.9% 21.1%

1983 7,516 5,828 1,688 77.5% 22.5%

1984 7,999 6,136 1,863 76.7% 23.3%

1985 8,401 6,242 2,159 74.3% 25.7%

1986 9,724 5,749 3,975 59.1% 40.9%

1987 10,635 5,776 4,859 54.3% 45.7%

1988 11,078 5,703 5,375 51.5% 48.5%

1989 11,876 5,709 6,168 48.1% 51.9%

1990 12,796 5,872 6,925 45.9% 54.1%

1991 13,423 6,166 7,256 45.9% 54.1%

1992 15,158 6,752 8,406 44.5% 55.5%

1993 17,125 7,472 9,653 43.6% 56.4%

1994 18,610 7,986 10,624 42.9% 57.1%

1995 19,162 7,880 11,282 41.1% 58.9%

1996 19,319 7,380 11,939 38.2% 61.8%

1997 19,057 6,462 12,595 33.9% 66.1%

1998 19,419 5,658 13,761 29.1% 70.9%

1999 17,330 3,724 13,606 21.5% 78.5%

2000 17,374 3,299 14,075 19.0% 81.0%

2001 17,061 3,093 13,967 18.1% 81.9%

2002 16,066 2,807 13,259 17.5% 82.5%

2003 15,923 2,759 13,164 17.3% 82.7%

^So^urce^:^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,^H^H^S^{, A}^nnua^l^Re^p^o^r^t^s^,^se^l^e^c^t^e^d^y^e^a^r^s.^T^a^b^l^e^p^r^e^p^a^r^e^d
^by^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^ice.

Table 3. CSE Caseload, FY1999-FY2003
(numbers in thousands)
State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Alabama 313 305 290 259 249
Alaska 47 47 46 46 46
Arizona 266 246 238 238 259
Arka nsas 129 150 142 131 128
California 2,030 2,029 1,963 1,906 1,838
Colorado 169 146 138 134 138
Connecticut 199 186 196 207 213
Delaware 56 56 53 54 55
District of Columbia117128114108105
Florida 729 784 729 669 664
Georgi a 649 696 706 476 481
Guam1111121212
Hawaii 82 92 96 95 99
Idaho707274808
Illinois 980 1,069 951 866 724
Indiana 468 475 488 311 301
Io wa 162 165 166 171 175
K a nsas 145 152 151 141 134
K e ntucky 286 304 299 312 314
Louisiana 297 292 287 266 272
Maine6162636564
Maryland 343 346 321 310 313
Massachusetts 209 236 255 246 247
Michigan 887 1,013 1,005 978 1,041
Minnesota 224 229 235 240 245
Mississippi 256 266 283 290 302
Missouri 362 372 386 391 384
Monta3938394041
Nebraska 100 97 95 98 98
Neva da 103 105 89 94 118
New Hampshire4140373738
New Jersey372364344341345
New Mexico101107847070
New York997987979899887
North Carolina489504462426418
North Dakota3637353139
Ohio 799 767 857 901 915
Oklahoma 140 143 148 141 137
Oregon 229 240 241 247 247
Pennsyl va nia 681 624 636 590 591
Puerto Rico225235235237237
Rhode Island6463647068
South Carolina239225227225219
South Dakota3031314343
T e nnessee 487 436 443 350 359
T e xas 1,215 1,058 1,012 952 897
Utah8581767575
V e rmont 23 25 25 24 24

State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Virgin Islands13NANA1111
V i rginia 416 392 380 362 350
Washington 321 322 310 303 315
West Virginia127128131116110
Wisconsin 362 353 349 340 341
Wyoming 47444239 38
T otals 17,330 17,374 17,061 16,066 15,923
^So^urce^{: T}^a^{ble prepared by}^C^R^{S bas}^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^p^p^o^{rt En}^f^o^rcem^en^t,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.

Figure 3. Child Support Enforcement Caseload, FY1999-FY2003
^C^h^{ild S}^uppor^{t E}ⁿ^f^o^r^{cement C}^{aseload, FY}¹⁹⁹⁹
^T^A^NF^Ca^s^e^s²¹^%
^N^e^v^e^r-T^A^N^{F C}^a^se^s^36%
^Fo^rm^e^r-T^A^N^{F C}^a^se^s⁴³^%
^C^h^{ild S}^uppor^{t E}ⁿ^f^o^r^{cement C}^{aseload, FY}²⁰⁰³
^T^A^NF^Ca^s^e^s¹⁷^%
^N^e^ve^r-T^AN^F^C^a^se^s³⁶^%

^Fo^rm^e^r-T^AN^{F C}^a^se^s⁴⁷^%
^So^urce^{: Fig}^u^r^es^{prepared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^ice.

Paternity Establishment
A child born outside of marriage has a biological father but not a legal father.
Legally identifying the father of a child is a prerequisite for obtaining a child support
order. States generally follow a standard sequence of events in determining paternity.
In order to be part of the CSE program, states are required to have procedures which
permit the establishment of the paternity of a child at any time before the child
reaches age 18. Federal CSE law also requires states to have laws and procedures for
a simple civil process for voluntarily acknowledging paternity. Under such a process,
the state must ensure that the rights and responsibilities of acknowledging paternity
are explained to both parents and that due process safeguards are afforded to both
parents. The statute requires that voluntary acknowledgment procedures include
hospital-based programs that focus on the period immediately before or after the birth
of a child. FY2003 was the first year for which data are available in which more
fathers were legally identified through a voluntary paternity acknowledgment process
(862,000) than through the courts or administratively via the CSE agency (663,000).
In FY2003, paternity was established or acknowledged for 1.5 million children
in the CSE program. Table 4 shows that during the period FY1999-FY2003, the
number of paternities established or acknowledged fell 5% nationwide, from 1.6
million in FY1999 to 1.5 million in FY2003. Over that period, the number of
paternities established or acknowledged in Kansas increased by 218%, from 7,347
in FY1999 to 23,356 in FY2003. In contrast, in New Mexico the number of
paternities established or acknowledged decreased by 85%, from 52,380 in FY1999
to 7,639 in FY2003.
State performance on paternity establishment is calculated as a percentage of
either (1) all births in a given year for which paternity is established, or (2) all cases
in the state CSE program for which paternity is established. Table 5 uses all cases
in the state CSE program for which paternity is established as the base. Table 5
shows the paternity establishment performance measure for FY2003. For the nation
as a whole, the paternity establishment percentage (PEP) was 77%. In other words,
in FY2003, there were a little over 10 million children on the CSE rolls who had
been born outside of marriage, and the CSE agencies had determined paternity for 7.7
million of them. In FY2003, the PEP ranged from a low of 20% in the District of
Columbia to a high of 101% in Maine and Utah. The reader should note that Table
5 indicates that for some states the PEP was greater than 100%. This occurred
because paternity is established for more than just the children who were born outside
of marriage in the specified year. Most states acknowledge that while they have
made significant improvement in establishing paternity for newborns they are
performing poorly with respect to establishing paternity for older children.

Table 4. Paternities Established or Acknowledged,
FY1999-FY2003
Percent
change,
State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999-2003
Alabama 13,236 6,689 6,806 7,016 8,142 -38.5
Alaska 2,811 3,055 2,995 3,086 3,298 17.3
Arizona 39,105 43,515 48,287 43,648 48,135 23.1
Arka nsas 3,799 3,062 10,411 10,692 10,727 182.4
California 326,051 306,508 277,307 188,011 185,197 -43.2
Colorado 15,559 13,745 15,480 16,750 17,764 14.2
Connecticut 18,816 16,687 17,189 25,814 23,980 27.4
Delaware 5,821 4,611 3,881 7,931 4,689 -19.4
District of Columbia9,7107,8633,6308,6446,088-37.3
Florida 65,836 98,004 91,299 95,508 93,042 41.3
Georgi a 47,163 22,467 62,450 59,378 54,498 15.6
Guam 2,162 1,905 2,619 2,269 164 -92.4
Hawaii 3,710 3,937 5,198 5,671 9,800 164.2
Idaho 6,747 6,071 7,399 11,229 8,308 23.1
Illinois 49,336 71,696 82,706 81,302 78,899 59.9
Indiana 15,595 25,921 20,527 9,330 9,202 -41.0
Io wa 10,364 10,561 10,117 10,856 11,674 12.6
K a nsas 7,347 8,571 17,454 19,456 23,356 217.9
K e ntucky 14,600 16,000 16,318 19,929 19,735 35.2
Louisiana 26,851 20,496 15,206 18,591 19,703 -26.6
Maine 3,504 3,372 2,688 2,887 2,291 -34.6
Maryland 28,458 32,959 29,016 27,405 27,476 -3.5
Massachusetts 24,518 25,197 23,887 18,878 19,895 -18.9
Michigan 49,026 49,878 52,659 45,140 62,783 28.1
Minnesota 19,594 26,875 20,399 20,524 23,742 21.2
Mississippi 40,349 19,420 19,111 17,836 14,548 -63.9
Missouri 23,652 31,880 32,843 33,076 33,630 42.2
Montana 2,669 3,288 2,894 1,274 1,217 -54.4
Nebraska 6,446 5,886 6,028 6,147 6,879 6.7
Neva da 2,817 18,765 2,081 2,851 4,370 55.1
New Hampshire9361,4111,3981,2801,21429.7
New Jersey41,81136,98737,53836,18336,872-11.8
New Mexico52,38010,99211,8145,1867,639-85.4
New York90,711102,368102,104103,877104,48815.2
North Carolina23,43129,87536,30948,38345,68495.0
North Dakota8,1947,4786,8396,9328,2210.3
Ohio 96,813 67,223 53,602 53,739 52,965 -45.3
Oklahoma 17,961 13,694 13,995 13,415 13,865 -22.8
Oregon 14,567 16,239 13,496 14,824 13,482 -7.4
Pennsyl va nia 56,051 61,300 72,091 74,140 65,671 17.2
Puerto Rico599018626,13225,39842,947.5
Rhode Island3,1873,7473,3143,1755,49672.5
South Carolina17,86716,85318,90619,55317,343-2.9
South Dakota2,7012,9643,1003,3413,22019.2
T e nnessee 50,908 37,343 34,718 38,734 52,891 3.9
T e xas 126,187 126,940 144,468 150,537 141,321 12.0

Percent
change,
State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999-2003
Utah 7,892 7,869 9,234 8,714 8,267 4.8
V e rmont 731 737 754 1,871 1,442 97.3
Virgin IslandsNANANA1421NA
V i rginia 36,417 35,086 34,822 33,615 29,227 -19.7
Washington 27,901 27,700 30,083 29,411 27,930 0.1
West Virginia6,6537,2866,5937,2656,8893.5
Wisconsin 29,265 29,429 21,449 23,639 19,911 -32.0
Wyoming 1,704 1,945 1,811 2,014 1,880 10.3
T otal 1,599,979 1,554,440 1,567,509 1,527,103 1,524,569 -4.7
^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared by}^C^R^S^bas^e^{d on}^dat^a^f^r^om^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
Table 5. Paternity Establishment, FY2003
Children in CSE
cases for whom
Children in CSEpaternity wasPaternity
cases who were bornestablished orestablishment
Stateoutside of marriageacknowledgedpercentage, 2003
Alabama 160,742 117,441 73.1
Alaska 18,125 11,535 63.6
Arizona 180,934 116,054 64.1
Arka nsas 83,042 73,151 88.1
California 1,403,875 1,220,901 87.0
Colorado 77,118 68,873 89.3
Connecticut 139,353 113,177 81.2
Delaware 49,186 35,725 72.6
District of Columbia77,84115,33119.7
Florida 444,037 407,746 91.8
Georgi a 313,701 160,572 51.2
Guam 13,566 10,792 79.6
Hawaii 45,858 32,591 71.1
Idaho 48,670 42,497 87.3
Illinois 633,443 335,415 53.0
Indiana 176,497 130,723 74.1
Io wa 86,400 79,344 91.8
K a nsas 72,935 64,733 88.8
K e ntucky 170,559 137,933 80.9
Louisiana 221,929 170,269 76.7
Maine 36,702 37,011 100.8
Maryland 222,428 168,233 75.6
Massachusetts 134,654 104,229 77.4
Michigan 390,005 302,640 77.6
Minnesota 150,931 124,750 82.7
Mississippi 239,227 155,214 64.9
Missouri 251,126 214,931 85.6
Montana 22,071 22,033 99.8
Nebraska 47,670 38,327 80.4

Children in CSE
cases for whom
Children in CSEpaternity wasPaternity
cases who were bornestablished orestablishment
Stateoutside of marriageacknowledgedpercentage, 2003
Neva da 72,263 42,915 59.4
New Hampshire25,51324,79497.2
New Jersey192,377152,90779.5
New Mexico58,78040,53169.0
New York513,056380,01874.1
North Carolina304,858285,19093.5
North Dakota17,21314,91986.7
Ohio 570,957 409,952 71.8
Oklahoma 112,228 57,045 50.8
Oregon 86,816 65,864 75.9
Pennsyl va nia 287,835 235,623 81.9
Puerto Rico27,12025,73394.9
Rhode Island55,85337,42767.0
South Carolina182,326147,93681.1
South Dakota16,92716,82199.4
T e nnessee 253,637 189,128 74.6
T e xas 606,771 413,476 68.1
Utah 34,768 35,167 101.1
V e rmont 15,765 14,955 94.9
Virgin Islands5,4072,51646.5
V i rginia 229,065 186,168 81.3
Washington 167,357 155,980 93.2
West Virginia60,57453,52688.4
Wisconsin 213,300 202,990 95.2
Wyoming 12,000 9,970 83.1
T otals 10,035,391 7,713,722 76.9
^So^urce^:^Ta^b^l^e^p^r^e^p^a^r^e^d^b^y^C^R^S^b^a^s^e^d^oⁿ^d^a^t^a^f^r^o^m^t^h^e^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^o^f^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^Eⁿ^f^o^r^c^e^m^eⁿ^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
Establishment of Child Support Orders
A child support order legally obligates noncustodial parents to provide financial
support for their children and stipulates the amount of the obligation (current monthly
obligation plus arrearages, if any) and how it is to be paid.
Although the FY2003 national total is available for child support order
establishment, the data for the individual states and territories have not yet been
published. Therefore, data for the five-year period FY1998-FY2002 were used in the
following table. Table 6 shows that during the period FY1998-FY2002, the number
of cases with a child support order established dropped by 2% nationwide, from 11.5
million in FY1998 to 11.3 million in FY2002. During that period, the District of
Columbia established 40% fewer cases in FY2002 than it did in FY1998. In contrast,
Hawaii established 72% more cases in FY2002 than it did in FY1998.

Table 6. Number of Cases with Child Support Orders
Established, FY1998-FY2002
^Percent
^ch^an^ge,
^1998-
^S^t^ate¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰²
^A^l^abam^a^227,642^188,636^172,224^172,951^171,787^-^24.5
^A^l^as^k^a^48,588^36,318^36,892^36,532^38,452^-^20.9
^A^rⁱ^z^on^a^187,430^124,563^134,097^140,993^149,328^-^20.3
^A^r^k^aⁿ^s^as^114,700^91,420^100,993^103,633^102,961^-^10.2
^C^a^lⁱ^f^ornⁱ^a¹^,319,177^1,329,100^1,400,875^1,409,690^1,434,766^8.8
^C^o^l^o^rado^158,801^120,989^113,747^112,463^112,136^-^29.4
^C^oⁿⁿ^ectⁱ^c^u^t^166,060^122,186^119,327^125,622^132,409^-^20.3
^D^e^l^a^w^a^re^45,422^31,385^33,763^37,141^38,078^-^16.2
^Dⁱ^s^t^ri^ct^of^C^o^l^u^m^bⁱ^a^53,246^34,036^33,509^31,795^32,014^-^39.9
^F^l^ori^d^a^432,562^356,549^372,210^391,027^435,620^0.7
^G^e^orgⁱ^a^318,701^282,831^300,576^313,807^324,380^1.8
^G^u^am^5,520^5,594^5,707^5,909^6,054^9.7
^H^a^w^aⁱⁱ^32,689^41,938^43,495^55,424^56,088^71.6
^Idah^o^62,508^52,105^56,057^57,991^62,280^-⁰^.4
^Illin^ois^226,967^304,117^320,704^336,386^353,188^55.6
^In^di^an^a^164,696^243,134^244,849^244,552^219,561^33.3
^Iow^a^178,757^139,137^142,144^145,054^150,027^-^16.1
^K^aⁿ^s^as^87,643^69,896^74,802^85,602^90,210^2.9
^K^eⁿ^t^u^c^k^y^206,323^183,398^196,734^204,658^218,822^6.1
^L^o^uⁱ^sⁱ^an^a^147,627^140,883^145,990^166,596^178,942^21.2
^Maiⁿ^e^60,346^53,558^54,526^55,868^56,732^-⁶^.0
^Mary^l^aⁿ^d^207,674^218,139^211,721^211,504^212,566^2.4
^Mas^s^ach^u^s^et^t^s^197,262^145,714^158,352^166,329^174,559^-^11.5
^Mi^chⁱ^g^an^794,709^638,704^714,138^762,254^745,135^-⁶^.2
^Miⁿⁿ^e^s^o^t^a^201,766^163,264^170,980^180,678^187,587^-⁷^.0
^Mi^s^sⁱ^s^sⁱ^ppi^144,490^122,165^130,682^139,287^144,546^0.0
^Mi^s^s^o^u^rⁱ^306,242^257,504^274,548^294,127^308,247^0.7
^Mon^t^an^a^30,827^30,807^29,959^30,217^30,896^0.2
^N^e^bras^k^a^90,480^71,176^72,446^72,875^74,628^-^17.5
^N^e^v^a^da^53,396^51,375^58,282^56,635^56,983^6.7
^N^e^w^H^a^m^p^s^hⁱ^r^e^40,617^31,328^31,401^30,497^30,669^-^24.5
^N^e^w^Jers^ey^372,069^276,676^268,638^267,107^268,389^-^27.9
^N^e^w^Mexⁱ^co^18,714^26,871^28,183^29,837^31,140^66.4
^N^e^w^Y^o^rk^866,226^614,854^647,050^661,395^656,700^-^24.2
^N^o^rt^h^C^a^rolⁱⁿ^a^308,052^263,543^285,605^303,751^311,702^1.2
^N^o^rt^h^D^a^k^o^t^a^29,398^23,672^24,192^24,140^23,386^-^20.5
^O^hⁱ^o^700,456^573,827^596,813^625,300^643,410^-⁸^.1
^O^k^l^a^h^o^m^a^72,640^84,490^88,627^94,469^98,122^35.1
^O^r^eg^on^152,720^152,972^159,389^161,157^165,046^8.1
^Penⁿ^s^y^l^v^aⁿⁱ^a^568,975^489,564^487,389^489,726^489,368^-^14.0
^Pu^ert^o^Rⁱ^co^145,814^137,532^146,810^146,368^151,074^3.6
^R^h^{ode Is}^l^aⁿ^d^42,954^34,607^32,084^32,829^35,876^-^16.5
^S^o^u^t^h^C^a^rolⁱⁿ^a^119,945^144,198^147,969^149,464^150,078^25.1
^S^o^u^t^h^D^a^k^o^t^a^31,496^24,341^25,039^25,888^26,734^-^15.1
^T^eⁿⁿ^e^s^s^e^e^197,440^183,253^187,363^195,714^198,178^0.4
^T^e^x^a^s^475,657^547,806^590,232^633,327^656,579^38.0
^U^t^ah^82,885^64,132^64,016^63,862^63,617^-^23.2
^V^e^rm^on^t^24,010^20,198^21,067^21,557^20,853^-^13.1
^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿ^Is^l^aⁿ^d^s⁵^,262^5,761^N^A^N^A^4,250^-^19.2
^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿⁱ^a^269,272^266,841^265,869^283,587^289,918^7.7

^Percent
^ch^an^ge,
^1998-
^S^t^ate¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰²
^Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^361,391^283,666^287,283^278,674^275,559^-^23.8
^Wes^t^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿⁱ^a^62,485^76,477^78,545^85,450^86,703^38.8
^Wi^s^c^on^sⁱⁿ^278,228^264,487^269,970^266,665^268,455^-³^.5
^Wy^omⁱⁿ^g^41,111^30,378^30,152^31,246^30,813^-^25.0
^T^o^t^a^l^11,540,068^10,272,095^10,^688,015^11,049,610^11,275,601^-²^.3
^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepare}^d^b^y^CRS^b^a^s^e^{d on}^dat^a^f^r^om^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
CSE Collections
Child support collection methods used by CSE agencies include income
withholding, interception of federal and state income tax refunds, interception of
unemployment compensation, liens against property, security bonds, reporting child
support obligations to credit bureaus, regular billings, delinquency notices,
garnishment of wages, revocation of various types of licenses (drivers’, business,
occupational, recreational), attachment of lottery winnings and insurance settlements,
and seizure of assets held by public or private retirement funds and financial
institutions. Income withholding accounted for 66% of total collections received
(almost $16.7 billion) in FY2003. All jurisdictions also have civil or criminal
contempt-of-court procedures and criminal nonsupport laws.
Table 7 shows that during the period FY1999-FY2003, child support payments
collected by CSE agencies increased 33% for the nation as a whole, from $15.9
billion in FY1999 to $21.2 billion in FY2003. Child support collections increased
in all states during the FY1999-FY2003 period, ranging from a 1% increase in
Kansas to an 88% increase in Texas. Interestingly, child support collections
continued to increase even though the CSE caseload declined. During the period
FY1999-FY2003, the CSE caseload declined 8%, from 17.3 million in FY1999 to

15.9 million in FY2003 (See Table 1).

It appears that the broad array of child support collection/enforcement
techniques has enabled states to provide some help to the entire spectrum of CSE
families (i.e., current TANF families, former TANF families, and families that had
never been on TANF/AFDC). During the FY1999-FY2003 period, CSE collections
increased for each of the three segments of the CSE caseload. Table 8 shows
average monthly child support collections per CSE case,¹⁰ by category of family, for
FY1999 and FY2003. The greatest increase in collections occurred on behalf of
former TANF families.
Although the number and percent of CSE cases with collections have been
increasing over time, the average monthly child support payment for families that

¹⁰ The reader should note that not all of these families actually receive child support
payments; these numbers simply represent an average for each component of the entire CSE
caseload.

actually receive a payment has been decreasing over time. Table 9 shows that these
payments decreased by 46% over the period FY1978-FY2003, from $408 in FY1978
to $221 in FY2003 (if adjusted for inflation). Table 9 also shows that the average
monthly child support payment for families who actually received a payment was
relatively small, amounting to $221 in FY2003. Table 10 shows the variation by
state in average monthly child support payments for families that actually receive a
payment. In FY2003, average monthly child support payments for families who
received them ranged from a high of $300 in New Jersey to a low of $136 in
Mississippi. During the five-year period FY1999-FY2003, average monthly child
support payments increased 10%.
Table 7. CSE Total Collections, FY1999-FY2003
(dollars in millions)
^Percent
^ch^an^ge,
^S^t^ate¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³^1999-2003
^A^l^abam^a^$186^$192^$200^$211^$223^20.1
^A^l^as^k^a⁶⁷⁷¹⁷⁸⁸¹⁷⁹^18.2
^A^rⁱ^z^on^a¹⁶⁹¹⁹⁷²¹²²³⁰²³⁴^38.0
^A^r^k^aⁿ^s^as¹⁰⁸¹²⁰¹²²¹²⁹¹³⁵^24.8
^C^a^lⁱ^f^ornⁱ^a¹^,604^2,059^1,988^1,761^2,132^32.9
^C^o^l^o^rado¹⁶⁴¹⁷⁶¹⁹⁰²⁰³²⁰³^24.2
^C^oⁿⁿ^ectⁱ^c^u^t¹⁷⁵¹⁹¹²⁰³²¹⁷²²²^26.7
^D^e^l^a^w^a^re⁴⁵⁴⁹⁵³⁶⁰⁶²^36.8
^Dⁱ^s^t^ri^ct^of^C^o^l^u^m^bⁱ^a³⁵³⁵³⁸⁴¹⁴⁴^26.1
^F^l^ori^d^a⁵⁸⁰⁶⁴⁸⁷⁰⁰⁸⁰³⁸⁹¹^53.7
^G^e^orgⁱ^a³³¹³⁶²³⁸³⁴¹⁵⁴⁵⁴^37.2
^u^m⁸⁸⁷⁸⁸⁸^.⁶
^H^a^w^aⁱⁱ⁶¹⁶⁷⁶⁹⁷³⁷⁶^25.1
^Idah^o⁶⁴⁷⁵⁸⁷⁹⁶¹⁰³^60.4
^I^llin^oⁱ^s³²⁶³⁶¹⁴²⁴⁴⁶⁰⁴⁷¹⁴⁴^.⁷
^In^di^an^a²⁷¹³⁶⁶³⁶⁷⁴³⁰⁴¹⁷^53.8
^Iow^a²⁰¹²¹⁹²³⁷²⁵⁵²⁷⁰^34.2
^K^aⁿ^s^as¹³⁸¹³⁹¹²⁷¹³⁴¹³⁹^0.9
^K^eⁿ^t^u^c^k^y²⁰⁶²²⁶²⁴⁹²⁸¹²⁸¹^36.3
^L^o^uⁱ^sⁱ^an^a¹⁸⁸²¹⁴²³³²⁶⁰²⁷³^45.1
^M^aⁿ^e⁸¹⁸⁹⁹⁵⁹⁶⁹⁸²¹^.⁰
^Mary^l^aⁿ^d³⁵⁰³⁶⁸³⁷⁹³⁹⁶⁴⁰⁹^16.9
^Mas^s^ach^u^s^et^t^s²⁹¹³¹⁹³⁶³⁴⁰³⁴²⁵^45.8
^Mi^chⁱ^g^an^1,275^1,347^1,385^1,444^1,404^10.1
^Miⁿⁿ^e^s^o^t^a⁴⁴³⁴⁷⁷⁵¹²⁵³⁷⁵⁵⁹^26.2
^Mi^s^sⁱ^s^sⁱ^ppi¹²⁹¹⁴⁴¹⁵⁸¹⁶⁹¹⁷⁵^35.8
^Mi^s^s^o^u^rⁱ²⁸⁶³³⁹³⁷³⁴¹¹⁴³³^51.5
^Mⁿ^t^a³⁸⁴¹⁴¹⁴³⁴¹⁵^.⁹
^N^e^bras^k^a¹¹¹¹⁴²¹⁶⁰¹⁴³¹⁴⁷^32.7
^N^e^v^a^da⁹²⁷⁹⁸⁴⁹¹¹⁰⁰^8.2
^New^Ham^p^sh^ire⁶⁶⁷¹⁷³⁷⁶⁸⁰²⁰^.²
^N^e^w^Jers^ey⁶³⁵⁶⁷⁹⁷²⁵⁷⁷⁵⁸¹⁵^28.3
^N^e^w^Mexⁱ^co³⁵⁴⁰⁴⁴⁵²⁶⁰^71.4
^N^e^w^Y^o^rk⁹¹⁰^1,102^1,149^1,289^1,341^47.4
^N^o^rt^h^C^a^rolⁱⁿ^a³⁴⁸³⁹⁶⁴³⁰⁴⁶⁹⁴⁹⁶^42.6
^N^o^rt^h^D^a^k^o^t^a⁴¹⁴²⁴⁸⁵¹⁵⁵^33.4
^O^hⁱ^o^1,301^1,411^1,461^1,618^1,566^20.3
^O^k^l^a^h^o^m^a⁹⁶¹⁰⁷¹¹⁶¹³²¹⁴²^48.1

^Percent
^ch^an^ge,
^S^t^ate¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³^1999-2003
^O^r^eg^on²³²²⁴⁸²⁷¹²⁷⁶²⁸⁹^24.6
^Penⁿ^s^y^l^v^aⁿⁱ^a¹^,108^1,167^1,252^1,332^1,357^22.5
^Pu^ert^o^Rⁱ^co¹⁶⁶¹⁸³¹⁹⁶²¹²²³²^39.9
^R^h^{ode Is}^l^aⁿ^d⁴⁴⁴⁸⁴⁹⁵³⁵³^18.6
^S^o^u^t^h^C^a^rolⁱⁿ^a¹⁷⁴¹⁸⁸²⁰⁸²²⁴²³³^33.8
^S^o^u^t^h^D^a^k^o^t^a³⁸⁴⁴⁴⁷⁵¹⁵³^37.0
^T^e^nne^sse^e²²⁴²⁴⁸²⁷⁶³¹⁸³⁵⁴^57.7
^T^e^x^a^s⁸⁰³⁹⁶⁵^1,174^1,347^1,507^87.7
^U^t^ah¹⁰⁷¹¹⁸¹²⁷¹³³¹³⁷^27.7
^V^e^rm^on^t³⁵³⁹⁴¹⁴²⁴²^21.0
^Vi^rgⁱⁿ^Is^l^aⁿ^d^s⁶⁸⁷⁷⁸^23.8
^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿⁱ^a³¹³³⁴⁸⁴⁰³⁴³⁷⁴⁶⁷^49.5
^Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on⁵¹⁶⁵⁴⁹⁵⁷³⁵⁹¹⁵⁹⁷^15.8
^Wes^t^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿⁱ^a¹⁰⁹¹²⁰¹³⁷¹⁵¹¹⁵⁷^43.6
^Wi^s^c^on^sⁱⁿ⁵³³⁵⁶⁹⁵⁸⁴⁵⁷⁴⁵⁷⁸^8.5
^Wy^omⁱⁿ^g³⁸⁴²⁴⁵⁴⁷⁴⁷^23.1
^T^o^t^a^l^15,901^17,854^18,958^20,137^21,176^33.2
^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared by}^C^R^S^base^d^oⁿ^d^a^t^a^f^r^om^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
^No^te^{: P}^e^rcen^tag^e^s^{are im}^precis^e^du^{e to rou}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^of^data.
Table 8. Average Monthly CSE Collections per Case,
by Category of Family, FY1999-FY2003
Family categoryFY1999FY2003
TANF Families$33$55
Former TANF Families$54$96
Never TANF Families$129$157
^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared by}^C^R^S^bas^e^d^oⁿ^d^a^t^a^f^r^om^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
Table 9. Average Monthly Child Support Payments for Families
with Collections, Selected Years, FY1978-FY2003
FYCurrent dollarsConstant 2003 dollars^a
FY1978$159$408
FY1982$155$283
FY1986$177$283
FY1990$219$299
FY1996$253$295
FY1999$201$222
FY2000$206$220
FY2001$212$220
FY2002$215$220
FY2003 $221 $221

^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared by}^C^R^S^bas^e^{d on}^dat^a^f^r^om^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^c^e^o^f^Chi^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
^a.^A^d^j^u^s^t^ed^f^o^rⁱⁿ^f^l^ation^u^sⁱⁿ^g^th^{e C}^oⁿ^s^u^m^{er P}^r^{ice In}^dex^,^res^earch^s^e^ries^f^o^{r u}^r^ban^con^s^u^m^ers^(C^P^I^-
^U-^R^S^).
Table 10. Average Monthly Child Support Payments in Cases
with Collections, by State, FY1999-FY2003
^Percent
^ch^an^ge,
^S^t^ate¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³^1999-2003
^A^l^abam^a^$147^$149^$151^$154^$158^7.8
^A^l^as^k^a^$204^$209^$224^$228^$219^7.5
^A^rⁱ^z^on^a^$183^$193^$197^$208^$207^13.4
^A^r^k^aⁿ^s^as^$135^$145^$139^$151^$156^15.5
^C^a^lⁱ^f^ornⁱ^a^$174^$215^$212^$185^$220^26.2
^C^o^l^o^rado^$163^$191^$223^$269^$284^74.5
^C^oⁿⁿ^ectⁱ^c^u^t^$194^$199^$209^$214^$220^13.3
^D^e^l^a^w^a^re^$145^$150^$163^$180^$188^29.2
^Dⁱ^s^t^ri^ct^of^C^o^l^u^m^bⁱ^a^$181^$187^$200^$200^$217^19.5
^F^l^ori^d^a^$170^$177^$179^$189^$195^14.7
^G^e^orgⁱ^a^$138^$165^$171^$177^$187^34.8
^G^u^am^$199^$191^$109^$107^$103^-^48.1
^H^a^w^aⁱⁱ^$198^$198^$197^$200^$222^12.2
^Idah^o^$188^$158^$171^$176^$179^-⁴^.8
^Illin^ois^$167^$172^$183^$187^$193^15.7
^In^di^an^a^$173^$216^$214^$250^$233^34.5
^Iow^a^$172^$155^$160^$166^$166^-³^.2
^K^aⁿ^s^as^$254^$181^$165^$171^$174^-^31.4
^K^eⁿ^t^u^c^k^y^$165^$168^$165^$177^$172^4.0
^L^o^uⁱ^sⁱ^an^a^$144^$156^$164^$175^$180^24.9
^Maiⁿ^e^$169^$180^$188^$194^$199^17.5
^Mary^l^aⁿ^d^$203^$212^$214^$217^$224^10.1
^Mas^s^ach^u^s^et^t^s^$246^$256^$279^$304^$273^10.7
^Mi^chⁱ^g^an^$197^$236^$265^$265^$268^35.7
^Miⁿⁿ^e^s^o^t^a^$267^$273^$281^$292^$297^11.3
^Mi^s^sⁱ^s^sⁱ^ppi^$120^$125^$129^$135^$136^13.2
^Mi^s^s^o^u^rⁱ^$164^$181^$190^$199^$206^25.0
^Mon^t^an^a^$138^$141^$144^$150^$149^7.9
^N^e^bras^k^a^$216^$215^$234^$207^$207^-⁴^.1
^N^e^v^a^da^$271^$185^$185^$195^$200^-^26.0
^N^e^w^H^a^m^p^s^hⁱ^r^e^$212^$225^$229^$235^$249^17.5
^N^e^w^Jers^ey^$249^$259^$272^$284^$300^20.4
^N^e^w^Mexⁱ^co^$144^$170^$168^$181^$193^33.6
^N^e^w^Y^o^rk^$189^$208^$217^$241^$252^33.2
^N^o^rt^h^C^a^rolⁱⁿ^a^$187^$149^$153^$159^$163^-^12.8
^N^o^rt^h^D^a^k^o^t^a^$215^$184^$197^$200^$206^-⁴^.1
^O^hⁱ^o^$497^$270^$253^$275^$266^-^46.4
^O^k^l^a^h^o^m^a^$245^$143^$150^$155^$170^-^30.7
^O^r^eg^on^$180^$186^$201^$200^$205^14.1
^Penⁿ^s^y^l^v^aⁿⁱ^a^$234^$245^$252^$263^$263^12.4
^Pu^ert^o^Rⁱ^co^$161^$165^$172^$179^$191^18.8
^R^h^{ode Is}^l^aⁿ^d^$188^$199^$200^$209^$213^13.5
^S^o^u^t^h^C^a^rolⁱⁿ^a^$162^$168^$174^$184^$189^16.7
^S^o^u^t^h^D^a^k^o^t^a^$863^$170^$179^$182^$186^-^78.4
^T^eⁿⁿ^e^s^s^e^e^$158^$169^$179^$186^$196^23.7

^Percent
^ch^an^ge,
^S^t^ate¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³^1999-2003
^T^e^x^a^s^$266^$265^$282^$226^$234^-^11.8
^U^t^ah^$173^$177^$186^$192^$195^12.9
^V^e^rm^on^t^$192^$202^$208^$220^$222^15.6
^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿ^Is^l^aⁿ^d^s^N^A^N^A^N^A^$159^$165^N^A
^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿⁱ^a^$153^$159^$172^$182^$189^24.2
^Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^$200^$201^$205^$208^$210^5.0
^Wes^t^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿⁱ^a^$177^$192^$199^$213^$215^21.3
^Wi^s^c^on^sⁱⁿ^$217^$212^$220^$217^$220^1.3
^Wy^omⁱⁿ^g^$179^$176^$175^$174^$173^-³^.3
^T^o^t^a^l^$201^$206^$212^$215^$221^10.1
^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared by}^C^R^S^bas^e^{d on}^dat^a^f^r^om^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^ce^o^f^Chi^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
^No^te^{: P}^e^rcen^tag^e^s^{are im}^precis^e^du^{e to rou}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^of^data.
Child Support Collected on Behalf of TANF Families
The reader should note that the child support payments made on behalf of TANF
children are paid to the state for distribution rather than directly to the family. If the
child support collected is insufficient to lift the family’s income above the state’s
TANF eligibility limit, the family receives its full TANF grant and the child support
is collected by the state and distributed to the state treasury and the federal
government in proportion to their assistance to the family. If the family’s income,
including the child support payments, exceeds the state’s TANF limitations, the
family’s TANF cash benefits are ended and all child support payments are then sent
directly to the family (via the state’s child support disbursement unit).
When the CSE program was first enacted in 1975, welfare cost recovery was
one of the primary goals of the program. There has been movement away from this
goal, in part because of the changing nature of the CSE program. As discussed
earlier (in the Caseload Section), the size of the component of the caseload that is
comprised of TANF families is shrinking. Even though overall child support
collections increased by 33% over the five-year period FY1999-FY2003, child
support collections made on behalf of TANF families decreased by 27%. In FY2003,
only 17% of the CSE caseload was comprised of TANF families. Thus, the policy
shift from using the CSE program to recover welfare costs to using it as a mechanism
to consistently and reliably get child support income to families is not surprising. In
FY2003, only about 9% of CSE collections ($1.8 billion) were made on behalf of
TANF families; a little less than half of that amount (46%) actually went to the
families (pursuant to state child support “pass through” provisions), the rest was
divided between the state and federal governments to reimburse them for TANF
benefits to the families. This meant that in FY2003, 90% of CSE collections ($19.0
billion) went to the families on the CSE rolls. (See Table 11.)
According to the CSE Preliminary FY2003 Data Report, payments to families
increased 6% from FY2002 to FY2003, and 41% from FY1999 to FY2003. In
FY2003, the percent of child support payments that went to families was 86% or

more in 47 states; in seven states, the percentage that went to families exceeded

95%.¹¹

The CSE strategic plan for the period FY2005-FY2009 states:
Child support is no longer primarily a welfare reimbursement, revenue-producing
device for the Federal and State governments; it is a family-first program,
intended to ensure families’ self-sufficiency by making child support a more¹²
reliable source of income.
Table 11. Financial Overview of CSE Program, FY2003
^T^o^{tal CSE}^collections^{on be}^{half of fam}^ilies^{$21,176,389,882}^a
^C^o^llection^s^f^o^{r cu}^rren^t^T^A^{NF f}^a^m^ilies^{$1,815,261,394}
^—^S^t^at^{e an}^{d f}^e^deral^rei^m^bu^rs^em^en^t^$957,868,488
^—^Medi^cal^chⁱ^l^d^s^u^pport^$20,148,859
^{— P}^a^y^m^en^ts^{to f}^a^m^ilies^$837,244,047
^C^o^llection^s^f^o^{r f}^o^rm^{er T}^A^{NF f}^a^m^ilies^{$8,452,305,462}
^—^S^t^at^{e an}^{d f}^e^deral^rei^m^bu^rs^em^en^t^{$1,156,987,876}
^—^Medi^cal^chⁱ^l^d^s^u^pport^$56,716,916
^{— P}^a^y^m^en^ts^{to f}^a^m^ilies^{$7,238,600,670}
^C^o^llection^s^f^o^{r f}^a^m^ilies^w^h^{o n}^e^v^e^{r receiv}^e^{d T}^A^NF^{$10,908,823,026}
^—^Medi^cal^chⁱ^l^d^s^u^pport^$21,476,462
^{— P}^a^y^m^en^ts^{to f}^a^m^ilies^{$10,887,346,564}
^C^h^{ild s}^u^{pport paid to f}^a^m^ilies^{$18,963,191,281}
^R^eⁱ^m^bu^rs^em^en^t^t^o^s^t^at^es^&^f^e^deral^g^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^{$2,114,856,364}
^—^S^t^at^{e s}^h^are^$948,255,175
^—^F^e^deral^s^h^are^{$1,166,601,189}
^T^o^t^a^l^m^e^di^cal^chⁱ^l^d^s^u^pport^$98,342,237
^T^o^t^a^l^admⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^v^{e ex}^pen^dⁱ^t^u^res^{$5,212,570,124}
^—^F^e^deral^s^h^are³^,448,165,402
^—^S^t^at^{e s}^h^are¹^,764,404,722
^A^c^t^u^alⁱⁿ^cen^tⁱ^v^{e pay}^m^en^t^s^t^o^s^t^at^es^$461,000,000
^T^o^tal^p^r^ogram^s^aviⁿ^g^s^/^cos^t^s^b^{-$3,097,713,760}
^{— Fed}^e^{ral sh}^are^c^-^{$2,281,564,213}
^{— State s}^h^are^d^-^$355,149,547

¹¹ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Child Support Enforcement FY2003
Preliminary Data Report, June 2004, at [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/

2004/reports /preliminary_data/].

¹² See [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2004/Strategic_Plan_FY2005-2009.pdf].

^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared by}^C^R^S^bas^e^{d on}^dat^a^f^r^om^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^c^e^o^f^Chi^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
^a.^T^o^tal^CSE^co^llectioⁿ^s^ar^e^eq^u^a^{l to}^co^llectioⁿ^s^m^a^d^e^oⁿ^b^e^h^a^lf^o^f^T^A^{NF f}^a^m^ilies^p^l^u^s^co^llectioⁿ^s
^m^a^d^e^oⁿ^b^e^h^a^lf^o^f^f^o^r^m^er^T^A^{NF f}^a^m^{ilies p}^l^u^s^co^llectioⁿ^s^m^a^d^e^oⁿ^b^e^h^a^lf^o^f^f^a^m^ilies^w^h^o^h^a^d
^never^r^ecei^v^e^d^T^A^N^F^[^$1.^{815 b}^illion^{+ $8.452 billio}ⁿ^{+ $10.909 b}^illion^{= $21.176 billion}^]^.
^T^o^{tal C}^S^{E collection}^s^als^o^ar^{e equ}^a^{l to total ch}^{ild s}^u^pport^{paid to f}^a^m^ilies^p^l^us^total
^r^e^im^b^u^r^s^em^en^{t to}^{state an}^d^f^e^d^e^r^a^l^g^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^s^f^o^r^T^A^{NF cash}^b^eⁿ^e^f^{its p}^a^id^to^f^a^m^{ilies p}^l^u^s
^m^e^{dical ch}^{ild s}^u^{pport [$18.963 billion}⁺^{$2.115 billion}^{+ $98 m}^illioⁿ^{= $21.176}^billion^]^.
^b^.^T^o^{tal CSE p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^co^{sts ar}^{e eq}^u^a^{l to}^to^tal^r^e^im^b^u^r^s^em^en^t^to^th^e^states^an^d^f^e^d^e^r^a^l^g^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^s
^f^o^{r TA}^{NF cas}^h^ben^e^f^its^{paid to f}^a^m^ilies^mⁱⁿ^u^s^{total adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^{e ex}^pen^d^itu^res^{[$2.115 billion}^-
^{$5.213 billio}ⁿ^{= -}^$3.098^billion^]^.
^{c. T}^h^{e f}^e^{deral s}^h^{are of}^C^S^{E prog}^ram^cos^t^s^{are equ}^a^{l to th}^{e f}^e^{deral s}^h^{are of}^reim^bu^rs^em^en^{t f}^o^{r T}^A^NF
^cash^b^eⁿ^e^f^{its p}^aⁱ^d^t^o^f^a^m^{ilies m}ⁱⁿ^u^s^th^{e f}^e^d^e^r^a^{l sh}^ar^{e o}^f^ad^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tiv^{e ex}^p^eⁿ^d^itu^r^e^{s [}^$¹^.¹⁶⁷
^billion^-^{$3.448 billion}^{= -}^$2.281^billion^]^.
^{d. T}^h^{e s}^t^{ate s}^h^{are of}^C^S^{E prog}^ram^cos^t^s^are^equ^a^l^to^th^e^s^t^ate^s^h^are^of^reim^bu^rs^em^en^{t f}^o^{r T}^A^{NF cas}^h
^b^eⁿ^e^f^{its p}^a^id^to^f^a^m^{ilies p}^l^u^s^actu^a^{l in}^cen^tiv^{e p}^a^y^m^en^{ts to}^{states m}ⁱⁿ^u^s^th^{e state s}^h^ar^{e o}^f
^admⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^{e ex}^pen^d^itu^res^{[($948 m}^illion⁺^{$461 m}^illioⁿ⁾^-^$1.764^billion^{= -}^{$355 m}^illion^]^.
^Ta^ble¹²^s^h^ow^s^ch^{ild s}^u^{pport collected on}^beh^a^lf^of^T^A^{NF f}^a^m^ilies^f^o^{r th}^{e period FY1999-}
^F^Y^{2003, by}^s^t^at^e.^A^sⁿ^o^t^e^d^earlⁱ^e^r,^f^o^r^t^h^eⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^as^{a w}^h^ol^{e, ch}ⁱ^l^d^s^u^pport^col^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^m^a^{de on}^beh^a^l^f
^o^f^T^A^{NF f}^a^m^{ilies d}^ecr^eased^b^y²⁷^%^o^v^er^th^{at f}ⁱ^v^e^-^y^ear^p^e^rⁱ^o^d^.
Table 12. Child Support Collected on Behalf of TANF Families,
FY1999-FY2003
⁽ⁱⁿ^m^illioⁿ^s^o^f^d^o^llar^s⁾
Percent
change,
State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999-2003
Alabama $18 $12 $13 $13 $12 -32.1
Alaska 18 17 17 16 5 -68.9
Arizona 23 26 25 29 13 -43.3
Arka nsas 11 10 10 16 37 239.2
California 620 751 695 583 297 -52.1
Colorado 32 30 26 25 16 -51.2
Connecticut 54 50 59 63 36 -34.2
Delaware 7 7 10 7 4 -49.0
District of Columbia54453-39.5
Florida 73 75 70 296 296 305.4
Georgi a 48 44 41 43 32 -32.0
Guam21121-24.9
Hawaii 10 12 13 12 5 -50.3
Idaho44541-69.1
Illinois 73 81 56 50 15 -79.9
Indiana 25 24 24 28 15 -41.2
Io wa 44 44 51 87 75 70.4
K a nsas 29 28 17 20 10 -67.1
K e ntucky 36 34 34 36 17 -52.8
Louisiana 18 16 18 18 8 -54.1
Maine 33 34 33 30 17 -48.4
Maryland 25 25 22 22 10 -59.8
Massachusetts 54 47 44 47 27 -50.0
Michigan 129 130 97 140 56 -56.9

Percent
change,
State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999-2003
Minnesota 61 57 56 57 32 -47.6
Mississippi 11 8 8 8 5 -55.0
Missouri 37 47 46 51 20 -44.9
Montana 6 6 5 6 3 -47.0
Nebraska 13 12 16 15 10 -25.3
Neva da 7 8 6 6 3 -64.0
New Hampshire99886-32.3
New Jersey7366636330-58.4
New Mexico118893-68.1
New York18219317916869-62.2
North Carolina4445434119-56.5
North Dakota54652-52.0
Ohio 94 100 82 80 29 -69.4
Oklahoma 2 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 6 -72.5
Oregon 24 23 22 25 13 -46.6
Pennsyl va nia 97 95 99 99 54 -44.2
Puerto Rico23222-24.3
Rhode Island1817161511-39.8
South Carolina1513131410-33.1
South Dakota141619212153.9
T e nnessee 30 31 38 46 43 41.6
T e xas 108 82 103 174 149 37.3
Utah 20 19 21 21 11 -46.1
V e rmont 8 9 8 6 3 -59.1
Virgin Islands01110-76.8
V i rginia 38 36 139 148 144 282.5
Washington 95 93 88 85 32 -66.3
West Virginia616456663991.6
Wisconsin 38 43 44 35 13 -64.4
Wyoming 4 3 3 3 0 -92.3
T otals 2,482 2,593 2,592 2,893 1,815 -26.9
^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared by}^C^R^S^bas^e^{d on}^d^a^t^a^fr^o^m^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
^No^tes^{: P}^e^r^cen^tag^e^{s ar}^e^im^p^r^ecise^d^u^e^to^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^o^f^d^a^ta.^T^h^{e d}^a^{ta in}^th^{is tab}^l^{e d}^oⁿ^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e ch}^ild
^s^u^pport^col^l^ect^{ed by}^t^h^{e s}^t^at^{e t}^o^rei^m^bu^rs^eⁱ^t^s^el^f^an^d^t^h^{e f}^e^deral^g^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^{r T}^A^N^F^ben^e^fⁱ^t^s^m^a^de
^to^f^a^m^{ilies w}^h^o^ar^e^no^l^onger^{on T}^A^N^F^.^S^u^ch^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce pay}^m^en^t^s^am^ouⁿ^t^{ed t}^o^{$1,156,987,876 i}ⁿ
^{FY2003. T}^h^{e addition}^of^th^os^{e as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce pay}^m^en^ts^to^th^e^d^a^t^aⁱⁿ^th^is^{table is}^ref^l^{ected in}^th^e
^su^m^m^a^r^y^tab^l^{e (}^T^ab^{le 1}⁾^{as T}^o^{tal T}^A^{NF co}^llectioⁿ^s^.
Collections on Current Support Obligations and Arrearage
Payments
Table 13 shows that during the period FY1999-FY2003, CSE agencies
increased the amount they collected on current child support obligations for the
nation as a whole by 32%, from $11.9 billion in FY1999 to $15.7 billion in FY2003.
All but one jurisdiction (the District of Columbia) increased their collections on
current support during the period from FY1999 through FY2003. New Mexico

increased its collections by 93%. Collections on current child support obligations fell
in the District of Columbia by 9%.
In FY2003, $122.9 billion in child support obligations ($27.1 billion in current
support and $95.8 billion in past-due support) was owed to families receiving CSE
services, but only $22.2 billion was paid ($15.7 billion current, $6.5 billion past-due).
This meant that the CSE program only collected 18% of the child support obligations
for which it had responsibility. If current collections are examined separately, Table
14 indicates that the CSE program collected 58% of all current collections in
FY2003. If collections on past-due support (i.e., arrearages) are examined separately,
Table 15 shows that the CSE program collected only 7% of arrearage payments in
FY2003. Table 15 shows that the total amount of arrearages reported in FY2003 for
all previous fiscal years was $95.8 billion; however, $6.5 billion was collected in
FY2003.
The CSE FY2003 Preliminary Data report states:
In 1999, 53% of the child support cases had arrearages owed. In 2003, the
proportion was up to 68%. We obtained collections in 60% of these cases, so we
know that child support professionals are working hard on them and that obligors
are trying to work on their debts. But we collected an average of $600 per
arrearage case, while the average amount of arrears per arrearage case is $9,000.
So, even though we're collecting significant amounts of arrears, we don't seem¹³
to be making a dent in the problem, and the overall debt continues to grow.
Table 16 shows that there were 10.8 million cases with arrearages due in
FY2003 and collections were made in 6.4 million of those cases. This meant that
60% of noncustodial parents who owed past-due support made some payment toward
their arrearages in FY2003. Tables 13 and 14 indicate that although a majority of
noncustodial parents who owe arrearages make some payment toward those
arrearages, the percentages of all arrearages paid remains small.
Table 13. Collections on Current Child Support Obligations,
FY1999-FY2003
(in millions of dollars)
Percent
change,
State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999-2003
Alabama $105 $111 $148 $155 $169 60.6
Alaska 45 45 46 49 52 15.3
Arizona 128 146 154 156 161 26.2
Arka nsas 79 87 93 96 102 28.9
California 930 1,026 1,107 1,171 1,243 33.6
Colorado 114 125 135 146 155 36.3

¹³ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Child Support Enforcement FY2003
Preliminary Data Report, June 2004, at [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2004/
reports/ preliminary_data/].

Percent
change,
State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999-2003
Connecticut 122 138 150 157 164 34.4
Delaware 39 43 44 48 50 26.0
District of Columbia4033273537-9.1
Florida 442 479 517 624 691 56.5
Georgi a 263 281 305 331 359 36.6
Guam656666.4
Hawaii 48 51 55 58 59 24.8
Idaho 48 58 67 74 79 65.2
Illinois 289 222 255 300 318 10.1
Indiana 203 267 285 303 311 52.7
Io wa 133 176 173 188 201 50.9
K a nsas 84 87 89 91 94 11.8
K e ntucky 149 174 218 212 224 50.3
Louisiana 144 154 170 191 205 41.9
Maine 53 58 62 64 65 22.9
Maryland 273 296 311 325 339 23.9
Massachusetts 231 260 298 311 329 42.5
Michigan 909 905 1,033 1,053 978 7.6
Minnesota 318 353 379 442 446 40.5
Mississippi 95 107 119 124 133 39.8
Missouri 230 255 278 302 326 41.8
Montana 29 31 31 33 34 19.0
Nebraska 95 101 108 115 117 23.2
Neva da 62 64 73 77 76 21.6
New Hampshire535759616114.9
New Jersey52856259563967928.6
New Mexico212530354193.2
New York7978679269531,01627.6
North Carolina29532035238541139.1
North Dakota263437404471.4
Ohio 1,046 1,038 1,201 1,223 1,264 20.8
Oklahoma 6 3 7 0 7 6 8 6 9 3 47.2
Oregon 185 199 206 218 227 22.3
Pennsyl va nia 837 905 1,013 1,051 1,079 28.8
Puerto Rico13314815817319043.5
Rhode Island263539414260.5
South Carolina13012816216517232.7
South Dakota343437404121.8
T e nnessee 175 187 218 242 270 54.3
T e xas 556 785 826 943 985 77.1
Utah 74 82 90 96 102 38.0
V e rmont 28 31 33 34 35 23.2
Virgin Islands66718.3
V i rginia 257 289 322 346 367 42.6
Washington 380 407 427 447 458 20.5
West Virginia838510611411942.5
Wisconsin 429 458 471 454 447 4.2
Wyoming 27 30 32 33 34 27.0
T otals 11,895 12,914 14,151 15,063 15,704 32.0

^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared by}^C^R^S^bas^e^{d on}^dat^a^f^r^om^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^c^e^o^f^Chi^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
^No^te^{: P}^e^rcen^tag^e^s^{are im}^precis^e^du^{e to rou}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^of^data.
Table 14. Current Child Support Payments, FY2003
(in millions of dollars)
Current childCurrent child
support paymentssupport paymentsCurrent child
Statedue, FY2003collected, FY2003support percentage
Alabama $338 $169 49.9
Alaska925255.7
Arizona 374 161 43.2
Arka nsas 174 102 58.3
California 2,749 1,243 45.2
Colorado 281 155 55.2
Connecticut 300 164 54.8
Delaware 82 50 60.7
District of Columbia743749.7
Florida 1,226 691 56.4
Georgi a 705 359 51.0
Guam13644.6
Hawaii1165951.3
Idaho1467953.9
Illinois 675 318 47.0
Indiana 615 311 50.5
Iowa33420160.0
Kansas1699455.3
K e ntucky 418 224 53.6
Louisiana 360 205 56.9
Maine1176555.7
Maryland 536 339 63.2
Massachusetts 540 329 60.9
Michigan 1,755 978 55.7
Minnesota 639 446 69.9
Mississippi 255 133 52.0
Missouri 619 326 52.7
Montana583459.1
Nebraska 177 117 66.3
Nevada1857640.9
New Hampshire956164.3
New Jersey1,04467965.0
New Mexico834149.0
New York1,5701,01664.7
North Carolina66541161.8
North Dakota624471.3
Ohio 1,880 1,264 67.3
Oklahoma 193 93 48.4
Oregon 379 227 59.9
Pennsyl va nia 1,442 1,079 74.8
Puerto Rico36219052.6
Rhode Island684261.8

Current childCurrent child
support paymentssupport paymentsCurrent child
Statedue, FY2003collected, FY2003support percentage
South Carolina34917249.2
South Dakota624167.1
T e nnessee 503 270 53.7
T e xas 1,709 985 57.7
Utah17410258.6
Vermont533565.8
Virgin Islands12753.1
V i rginia 614 367 59.7
Washington 711 458 64.3
West Virginia18911962.8
Wisconsin 660 447 67.7
Wyoming563460.9
T otals 27,058 15,704 58.0
^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared b}^y^CRS^b^a^se^d^on^dat^a^f^r^om^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
Table 15. Child Support Arrearage Payments, FY2003
(in millions of dollars)
Arrearages due,Arrearages
StateFY2003collected, FY2003Percent collected
Alabama $2,340 $83 3.5
Alaska597406.7
Arizona 1,805 97 5.4
Arka nsas 702 45 6.4
California 18,386 1,007 5.5
Colorado 1,143 83 7.3
Connecticut 1,496 74 5.0
Delaware 228 18 8.0
District of Columbia342144.0
Florida 3,833 302 7.9
Georgi a 2,724 141 5.2
Guam9622.5
Hawaii533214.0
Idaho376349.2
Illinois 2,782 188 6.8
Indiana 513 119 23.3
Iowa1,015838.1
Kansas543488.8
K e ntucky 1,364 91 6.6
Louisiana 844 88 10.4
Maine545356.4
Maryland 1,429 101 7.1
Massachusetts 1,872 112 6.0
Michigan 8,012 429 5.3
Minnesota 1,368 123 9.0
Mississippi 714 53 7.4

Arrearages due,Arrearages
StateFY2003collected, FY2003Percent collected
Missouri 1,926 155 8.0
Montana186179.2
Nebraska 566 37 6.5
Nevada816374.5
New Hampshire1842111.2
New Jersey2,1211708.0
New Mexico581254.2
New York3,5683429.6
North Carolina1,6181318.1
North Dakota1531510.1
Ohio4,0603258.0
Oklahoma 798 59 7.4
Oregon 1,129 86 7.6
Pennsyl va nia 2,243 256 11.4
Puerto Rico827485.8
Rhode Island170148.1
South Carolina953707.4
South Dakota1301511.8
T e nnessee 1,729 114 6.6
T e xas 9,150 528 5.8
Utah3314513.6
V e rmont 100 12 12.3
Virgin Islands5234.9
V i rginia 2,005 146 7.3
Washington 1,783 178 10.0
West Virginia778435.6
Wisconsin 2,010 121 6.0
Wyoming227198.3
T otals 95,799 6,462 6.7
^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared by}^C^R^S^bas^e^{d on}^dat^a^f^r^om^t^h^e^O^ffi^c^e^of^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.

Table 16. Cases with Past-Due Child Support Payments
(Arrearages), FY2003
Child support
Arrearages due,Paying on arrearages,arrearage
StateFY2003 casesFY2003 casespercentage
Alabama 181,346 88,380 48.7
Alaska 38,027 25,721 67.6
Arizona 148,366 75,433 50.8
Arka nsas 107,541 60,318 56.1
California 1,225,178 679,167 55.4
Colorado 119,683 72,462 60.5
Connecticut 130,273 71,019 54.5
Delaware 35,386 22,917 64.8
District of Columbia30,92411,43737.0
Florida 471,012 304,128 64.6
Georgi a 306,676 195,038 63.6
Guam 5,641 2,584 45.8
Hawaii 53,681 21,614 40.3
Idaho 64,173 37,976 59.2
Illinois 311,531 160,238 51.4
Indiana 234,344 128,399 54.8
Io wa 152,213 96,445 63.4
K a nsas 92,038 57,024 62.0
K e ntucky 206,681 104,722 50.7
Louisiana 163,429 97,671 59.8
Maine 53,470 31,850 59.6
Maryland 194,177 121,088 62.4
Massachusetts 154,686 93,490 60.4
Michigan 630,563 371,962 59.0
Minnesota 190,023 129,273 68.0
Mississippi 139,625 82,187 58.9
Missouri 267,864 136,140 50.8
Montana 31,730 20,409 64.3
Nebraska 66,860 39,553 59.2
Neva da 61,741 37,793 61.2
New Hampshire30,20521,81072.2
New Jersey269,710177,04865.6
New Mexico34,62521,89063.2
New York584,733349,92059.8
North Carolina318,836186,27758.4
North Dakota26,06917,93268.8
Ohio 602,872 399,687 66.3
Oklahoma 101,983 58,527 57.4
Oregon 158,471 97,610 61.6
Pennsyl va nia 487,166 348,256 71.5
Puerto Rico139,21772,92052.4
Rhode Island28,95416,55057.2
South Carolina150,82477,42451.3
South Dakota28,91520,01169.2
T e nnessee 208,682 119,550 57.3
T e xas 692,905 431,701 62.3

Child support
Arrearages due,Paying on arrearages,arrearage
StateFY2003 casesFY2003 casespercentage
Utah 74,105 48,747 65.8
V e rmont 20,154 14,077 69.8
Virgin Islands6,0582,79946.2
V i rginia 286,999 165,009 57.5
Washington 285,355 196,503 68.9
West Virginia84,83650,35159.4
Wisconsin 255,785 158,649 62.0
Wyoming 28,689 18,126 63.2
T otals 10,775,030 6,447,812 59.8
^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared by}^C^R^S^bas^e^{d o}ⁿ^d^a^t^a^fr^o^m^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
CSE Administrative Expenditures
The CSE program is a federal-state matching grant program under which states
must spend money in order to receive federal funding. For every dollar a state spends
on CSE expenditures, it generally receives 66 cents from the federal government.
Although the actual dollars contributed by the federal government are greater, the
level of funding allocated by the state or local government determines the total
amount of resources available to the CSE agency. The federal government
reimburses each state 66% (more for paternity determination) of all allowable
expenditures on CSE activities. The federal government’s funding is “open-ended”
in that it pays its percentage of expenditures by matching the amounts spent by state
and local governments with no upper limit or ceiling. It also refunds to states 90%
of the laboratory costs of establishing paternity.
Table 17 shows that during the period FY1999-FY2003, total CSE
administrative expenditures increased 29%, from $4.0 billion in FY1999 to $5.2
billion in FY2003.
Although total administrative expenditure data are available for FY2003, the
disaggregation of the data by state for the federal and state share of administrative
costs is currently available only through FY2002. In FY1998, CSE administrative
costs amounted to $3.585 billion. The federal government paid 66% of those CSE
costs ($2.384 billion) and the states paid 34% of the costs ($1.201 billion). In
FY2002, total CSE administrative costs amounted to $5.183 billion (see Table 17).
The federal government paid 66% of those CSE costs ($3.432 billion) and the states
paid 34% of the costs ($1.752 billion). (See Tables 18 and 19.)
Table 18 shows that during the period FY1998-FY2002, the cost to the federal
government of CSE administrative expenditures for the nation as a whole increased
by 44% while the cost to states for CSE administrative expenditures increased by
46% (see Table 19). During that period, the cost to the federal government of the
CSE program in Nebraska increased by 104% (from $16.7 million in FY1998 to
$34.0 million in FY2002) and by 98% in Michigan (from $106 million in FY1998
to $210 million in FY2002). In contrast, the cost to the federal government of

Hawaii’s CSE program dropped by 49% (from $15.9 million in FY1998 to $8.1
million in FY2002). During the period from FY1998 through FY2002, the state
share of CSE administrative expenditures dropped in only two states (Hawaii, by

49%; and Mississippi, by 18%).

Table 20 shows CSE administrative expenditures per CSE case for selected
years during the period FY1978-FY2003. CSE expenditures per case increased from
$75 in FY1978 ($193 in 2003 dollars) to $327 in FY2003 (a 69% increase, adjusting
for inflation).
Table 17. Total CSE Administrative Expenditures,
FY1999-FY2003
(in millions of dollars)
Percent
change,
State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999-2003
Alabama $54 $57 $54 $63 $64 16.7
Alaska 18 22 22 21 22 20.7
Arizona 59 61 59 61 59 0.6
Arka nsas 37 41 48 53 48 29.5
California 613 676 809 968 972 58.7
Colorado 52 63 61 63 72 38.7
Connecticut 39 55 57 62 59 53.7
Delaware 18 19 22 18 23 25.8
District of Columbia131620182484.9
Florida 191 216 222 229 231 21.1
Georgi a 90 110 109 110 114 26.9
Guam4365415.8
Hawaii 20 16 12 12 16 -20.1
Idaho 10 20 22 20 20 89.5
Illinois 139 159 180 176 192 38.1
Indiana 39 51 61 57 55 42.3
Io wa 43 55 47 48 51 20.8
K a nsas 50 51 55 57 50 0.9
K e ntucky 56 60 64 63 61 8.6
Louisiana 47 47 57 57 57 20.6
Maine 19 20 17 24 21 10.8
Maryland 83 110 96 101 97 17.5
Massachusetts 75 96 74 73 82 8.9
Michigan 164 247 291 318 297 80.6
Minnesota 113 120 128 137 143 26.0
Mississippi 31 31 28 25 25 -19.5
Missouri 94 107 103 94 92 -2.4
Montana 12 13 12 12 14 23.4
Nebraska 32 38 49 51 47 48.1
Neva da 38 41 33 40 40 4.7
New Hampshire17161519187.1
New Jersey13915714617017022.4
New Mexico323445404332.5
New York21324024130728734.9

Percent
change,
State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999-2003
North Carolina130112116115108-17.2
North Dakota101012121217.0
Ohio 274 302 359 345 335 22.2
Oklahoma 3 2 4 3 4 5 5 2 5 0 56.5
Oregon 42 50 45 52 53 24.9
Pennsyl va nia 184 199 185 200 206 12.1
Puerto Rico303037354343.3
Rhode Island111212131212.9
South Carolina37394840395.6
South Dakota7777714.4
T e nnessee 52 56 60 77 70 34.1
T e xas 203 207 239 265 289 42.2
Utah 36 37 37 37 36 -1.8
V e rmont 9 10 11 11 12 31.0
Virgin Islands3575587.6
V i rginia 76 79 73 76 79 4.4
Washington 118 129 134 127 140 18.7
West Virginia293132333727.9
Wisconsin 97 90 99 97 101 4.0
Wyoming 9 11 12 10 9 7.2
T otals 4,039 4,526 4,835 5,183 5,213 29.1
^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared by}^C^R^S^bas^e^{d on}^d^a^t^a^fr^o^m^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
^No^te^{: P}^e^rcen^tag^e^s^{are im}^precis^e^du^{e to rou}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^of^data.

Table 18. Federal Share of CSE Administrative Expenditures,
FY1998-FY2002
(in millions of dollars)
Percent
change,
State 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998-2002
Alabama $34 $36 $38 $37 $42 23.3
Alaska 12 12 14 15 14 14.9
Arizona 36 39 40 39 41 12.9
Arka nsas 23 24 28 31 35 54.4
California 341 405 447 536 640 87.6
Colorado 30 34 42 40 42 41.3
Connecticut 32 26 37 38 41 28.4
Delaware 11 12 12 15 12 11.8
District of Columbia1191113129.0
Florida 110 126 143 150 152 37.2
Georgi a 56 60 74 73 73 29.2
Guam3324322.7
Hawaii 16 14 11 8 8 -49.0
Idaho 10 7 13 15 13 36.9
Illinois 79 92 105 119 117 47.1
Indiana 27 26 34 42 38 41.5
Io wa 26 29 36 31 32 22.2
K a nsas 27 33 35 36 38 41.8
K e ntucky 32 37 40 44 42 31.8
Louisiana 28 32 31 39 38 34.5
Maine 11 12 13 12 16 35.8
Maryland 55 55 73 64 67 22.2
Massachusetts 40 50 64 49 48 21.2
Michigan 106 109 165 194 210 98.2
Minnesota 70 75 80 85 90 29.3
Mississippi 20 20 21 19 17 -17.7
Missouri 56 62 71 70 62 10.7
Montana889886.7
Nebraska 17 21 25 33 34 104.0
Neva da 16 25 27 22 27 67.9
New Hampshire91111101340.4
New Jersey83921049711234.8
New Mexico152122312669.4
New York13314115916020352.6
North Carolina73867477764.0
North Dakota5768850.7
Ohio 140 182 201 240 228 63.0
Oklahoma 1 9 2 1 2 9 3 0 3 5 86.6
Oregon 26 28 33 30 34 30.4
Pennsyl va nia 98 123 132 122 132 34.7
Puerto Rico182020242329.9
Rhode Island7788826.4
South Carolina222426332723.7
South Dakota4455529.4
T e nnessee 34 35 38 40 51 50.7

Percent
change,
State 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998-2002
T e xas 121 136 138 159 176 46.1
Utah 21 24 24 25 24 13.9
V e rmont 5 6 7 8 7 46.0
Virgin Islands22453129.9
V i rginia 41 50 53 49 50 24.3
Washington 84 78 85 89 84 -0.0
West Virginia161921212233.9
Wisconsin 60 65 60 66 64 7.1
Wyoming667879.0
T otals 2,384 2,680 3,006 3,222 3,432 43.9
^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared}^b^y^CRS^b^a^s^e^{d on}^dat^a^f^r^om^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
^No^te^{: P}^e^rcen^tag^e^s^{are im}^precis^e^du^{e to rou}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^of^data.
Table 19. State Share of CSE Administrative Expenditures,
FY1998-FY2002
(in millions of dollars)
Percent
change,
State 199819992000200120021998-2002
Alabama $17 $18 $19 $18 $21 24.6
Alaska6677715.0
Arizona 18 20 20 20 21 14.5
Arka nsas 12 12 13 16 18 54.4
California 174 208 229 273 327 88.1
Colorado 15 18 21 21 21 39.0
Connecticut 16 13 19 19 21 33.4
Delaware 6 6 6 7 6 12.8
District of Columbia5457615.0
Florida 56 64 73 72 77 37.2
Georgi a 29 30 37 36 37 29.3
Guam1112223.4
Hawaii 8 6 6 4 4 -49.2
Idaho5477737.2
Illinois 41 47 54 61 59 45.3
Indiana 15 13 17 18 19 30.8
Io wa 13 14 19 16 16 26.3
K a nsas 13 17 17 19 19 43.7
K e ntucky 16 19 20 21 21 32.3
Louisiana 14 16 15 18 19 35.5
Maine6675836.2
Maryland 28 28 37 32 34 22.5
Massachusetts 20 25 32 25 25 23.7
Michigan 54 56 82 97 108 98.4
Minnesota 32 38 41 43 46 42.7
Mississippi 10 10 10 9 8 -16.9
Missouri 29 32 36 33 31 7.7

Percent
change,
State 199819992000200120021998-2002
Montana444446.6
Nebraska 8 11 13 16 17 106.7
Neva da 8 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 4 68.5
New Hampshire5555633.9
New Jersey424753495837.3
New Mexico81111151369.6
New York6872818110453.1
North Carolina36443839398.3
North Dakota2334465.1
Ohio 63 93 101 119 116 85.2
Oklahoma 9 11 14 15 17 88.3
Oregon 13 14 17 15 17 30.5
Pennsyl va nia 49 61 68 63 68 37.6
Puerto Rico91010121228.6
Rhode Island3344427.2
South Carolina111213151422.8
South Dakota2222337.7
T e nnessee 19 17 18 20 26 37.0
T e xas 61 67 69 80 89 44.9
Utah 11 12 13 13 12 16.7
V e rmont 3 3 3 4 4 46.2
Virgin Islands11222131.9
V i rginia 20 25 26 24 26 26.1
Washington 43 40 44 46 43 0.9
West Virginia81010101135.0
Wisconsin 31 32 30 34 33 6.7
Wyoming 3 3 3 4 3 28.7
T otals 1,201 1,359 1,519 1,613 1,752 45.8
^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared by}^C^R^S^bas^e^{d on}^dat^a^f^r^om^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^eⁿ^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
^No^te^{: P}^e^rcen^tag^e^s^{are im}^precis^e^du^{e to rou}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^of^data.

Table 20. CSE Expenditures per CSE Case, Selected Years,
FY1978-FY2003
FYCurrent dollarsConstant 2003 dollars^a
FY1978$75$193
FY1982$87$159
FY1986$97$155
FY1990$126$172
FY1994$137$168
FY1996$158$184
FY1999$233$257
FY2000$261$279
FY2001$283$294
FY2002$323$330
FY2003$327$327
^So^urce^:^T^a^bl^{e prepared by}^C^R^S^bas^e^{d on}^dat^a^fr^o^m^t^h^e^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
^{a. A}^d^j^u^s^t^ed^f^o^rⁱⁿ^f^l^ation^u^sⁱⁿ^g^th^e^C^oⁿ^s^u^m^{er P}^r^{ice In}^dex^,^res^earch^s^e^ries^f^o^{r u}^r^ban^con^s^u^m^ers^(C^P^I^-
^U-^R^S^).
Cost-Effectiveness of the CSE Program
The CSE cost-effectiveness rate is the amount of child support collected for
each dollar expended (as defined in P.L. 105-200, the Child Support Performance
and Incentive Act of 1998). Table 21 shows that in FY2003, $4.33 in child support
was collected for every $1 spent on CSE activities, for an increase of 5% over the
FY1999 cost-effectiveness rate of $4.11. During the period FY1999-FY2003, the
cost-effectiveness rate fell by 39% in Michigan, from $7.81 in FY1999 to $4.79 in
FY2003. In contrast, the cost-effectiveness rate rose by 56% in Hawaii, from $3.25
in FY1999 to $5.08 in FY2003.
The collection-to-cost ratio is not the sole measure of an effective program. In
the late 1990s, the CSE incentive payment system was revamped and Congress
designated four additional indicators as reliable performance measures. The five
performance measures in the CSE program currently are related to establishment of
paternity (see Table 5), establishment of child support orders (this performance
measure is not shown in this report), collections of current child support payments
(see Table 14), collections of past-due child support payments (see Table 14), and
cost-effectiveness (see Table 16).
Table 22 shows the difference between income and expenditures generated by
the CSE program for both state and federal governments for FY1987-FY2003 (the
dollars have been adjusted for inflation — i.e., converted to constant 2003 dollars).
The reader should note that state “savings” or “costs” were computed by subtracting
from total administrative expenses, the federal share of CSE administrative expenses,

actual incentive payments to states, hold harmless payments to states, and the state
share of CSE collections. Similarly, federal “costs” were computed by adding
together the federal share of CSE administrative expenses, actual incentive payments,
and hold harmless payments and then subtracting the federal share of CSE
collections.¹⁴ Table 22 shows that the CSE program is no longer a “money-maker”
for states. Since FY2000, the states, in the aggregate, have not incurred a “savings”
on the CSE program; instead in aggregate states incurred a cost of $40 million on the
program in FY2000, $193 million in FY2001, $359 million in FY2002, and $355
million in FY2003. In contrast, the federal government has always “lost” money on
the CSE program. In FY1987, the federal government incurred a cost of $823
million on the CSE program and in FY2003 the CSE program cost the federal
government almost $2.3 billion.
Part of the reason that the CSE program has been consistently “losing” money
is because non-welfare collections are growing at a faster rate than welfare
collections. While the state and federal governments share in a portion of welfare
collections, non-welfare collections go to the custodial parent via the state’s
disbursement unit.
Table 21. Cost-Effectiveness Performance Level, FY1999-
FY2003
State F Y 1999 F Y 2000 F Y 2001 F Y 2002 F Y 2003
Alabama 3.78 3.66 4.01 3.64 3.78
Alaska 4.41 3.89 4.14 4.49 4.24
Arizona 3.29 3.72 4.12 4.25 4.47
Arka nsas 3.28 3.28 2.83 2.66 3.12
California 2.78 3.23 2.61 1.91 2.31
Colorado 3.65 3.23 3.58 3.66 3.22
Connecticut 4.96 3.75 3.86 3.76 4.04
Delaware 2.97 3.19 2.93 3.66 3.03
District of Columbia3.272.642.262.692.09
Florida 3.53 3.45 3.60 4.03 4.39
Georgi a 4.16 3.72 3.96 4.24 4.47
Guam 2.25 2.67 1.33 1.64 2.10
Hawaii 3.25 4.54 6.16 6.53 5.08
Idaho 7.09 4.32 4.62 5.29 5.70
Illinois 2.52 2.42 2.50 2.80 2.64
Indiana 7.45 7.69 6.34 7.80 7.91
Io wa 5.01 4.24 5.27 5.63 5.52
K a nsas 2.98 2.91 2.51 2.61 3.12

¹⁴ Beginning in FY2002, child support incentive payments are no longer paid out of the
federal share of child support collections made on behalf of TANF families. Instead, federal
funds have been specifically appropriated out of the U.S. Treasury for CSE incentive
payments.

State F Y 1999 F Y 2000 F Y 2001 F Y 2002 F Y 2003
K e ntucky 3.90 4.02 4.08 4.71 4.88
Louisiana 4.41 4.92 4.38 4.87 5.11
Maine 4.87 4.90 6.01 4.28 4.99
Maryland 4.42 3.60 4.22 4.19 4.53
Massachusetts 4.07 3.50 5.14 5.77 5.46
Michigan 7.81 5.52 4.82 4.59 4.79
Minnesota 4.06 4.11 4.13 4.05 4.05
Mississippi 4.53 4.92 5.96 7.12 7.50
Missouri 3.26 3.37 3.81 4.63 4.95
Montana 3.87 3.58 3.91 4.10 3.63
Nebraska 3.61 3.78 3.35 2.87 3.22
Neva da 3.08 2.52 3.24 2.87 3.12
New Hampshire4.244.825.404.374.72
New Jersey4.864.605.274.835.06
New Mexico1.181.311.071.461.57
New York4.584.905.074.495.00
North Carolina2.933.864.044.434.99
North Dakota4.424.614.194.715.10
Ohio 4.91 4.82 4.23 4.81 4.92
Oklahoma 3.37 2.83 2.90 2.80 3.12
Oregon 6.08 5.54 6.63 5.85 5.93
Pennsyl va nia 6.21 6.05 6.98 6.85 6.80
Puerto Rico5.776.315.516.275.67
Rhode Island4.364.444.234.524.63
South Carolina5.065.084.605.876.32
South Dakota6.756.957.727.597.80
T e nnessee 4.69 4.85 4.99 4.50 5.47
T e xas 4.23 4.96 5.23 5.41 5.63
Utah 3.24 3.47 3.69 3.89 4.13
V e rmont 4.15 4.02 3.90 3.93 3.78
Virgin Islands2.861.631.121.581.84
V i rginia 4.74 5.00 6.12 6.34 6.52
Washington 4.68 4.53 4.55 4.95 4.54
West Virginia4.094.154.644.874.54
Wisconsin 5.64 6.51 6.06 6.11 5.95
Wyoming 4.84 4.33 4.09 5.00 5.57
T otals 4.11 4.23 4.21 4.13 4.33
^So^urce^{: T}^a^{ble prepared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^ice.

Table 22. State and Federal “Savings” and “Costs” from
Income and Expenditures Generated by the Child Support
Enforcement Program
(in millions of constant 2003 dollars)
YearFederal costsState savings/costs
1987-823544
1988-863569
1989-1,024534
1990-1,074455
1991-1,160529
1992-1,213610
1993-1,384610
1994-1,661552
1995-1,990490
1996-1,817478
1997-1,962564
1998-2,055325
1999-2,38096
2000-2,606-40
2001-2,858-193
2002-2,304-359
2003-2,282-355
^So^urce^{: T}^a^{ble prepared by}^th^{e C}^o^ngres^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, bas}^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}
^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^,^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^H^eal^t^h^an^{d H}^u^m^aⁿ^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^.
Conclusion
The CSE program is a very complex, multi-faceted program. Its
purpose/mission has been evolving over the years, from welfare cost recovery and
income producer for the states, to delivery of services to custodial parents and
promotion of personal responsibility among noncustodial parents. This is not
surprising given the changing composition of the CSE caseload, which is reflected
in the decline in cash welfare families and the rise in former cash welfare families.
So far, it seems that the multiple purposes or broadened mission has not had a
negative effect on the effectiveness of the CSE program.
The data highlighted in this report bring the CSE program into focus. The data
indicate that the program has grown tremendously. During the 25-year period
FY1978-FY2003, CSE collections increased almost seven-fold to $21.2 billion
(adjusting for inflation), program expenditures increased more than five-fold to $5.2
billion (adjusting for inflation), the number of children whose paternity was
established or acknowledged (through the CSE program) increased almost 13-fold
to 1.5 million, the number of child support obligations established increased three-
fold to about 1.2 million, and the CSE caseload increased nearly three-fold to 15.9
million. From this viewpoint the CSE program is seen as very successful.
The data presented also show that even though the CSE agency is second only
to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in terms of its collection/enforcement

apparatus, it has consistently collected only a small fraction of the child support
obligations for which it has responsibility — 18% in FY2003. Although this
percentage is higher if past-due child support payments (i.e., arrearages, which
generally are hard to collect) are not considered in the equation, it is still relatively
low at 58% — that is, in FY2003, the CSE program collected only 58% of current
child support payments/obligations. CSE data indicate that the program is collecting
child support for a greater number and higher percentage of families, but the average
monthly child support payment for families that actually receive a payment is still
relatively small, $221 per month in FY2003.
For the 10 million children in the CSE program in FY2003 who were born
outside of marriage, the establishment of paternity is the first step in obtaining a child
support obligation. FY2003 was the first year in which more fathers were legally
identified through a voluntary paternity acknowledgment process (862,000) than
through the courts or administratively via the CSE agency (663,000). Most states
acknowledge that while they have made significant improvement in establishing
paternity for newborns (primarily through voluntary paternity acknowledgment at
hospitals when the child is born) they are performing poorly with respect to
establishing paternity for older children. In FY2003, the CSE program had
established paternity for only 77% of its caseload.
So, although the CSE program exhibits improved performance, there is much
more to be achieved. Congress has consistently had high expectations for the CSE
program. There was widespread congressional support for the CSE provisions that
were incorporated into the controversial 1996 welfare reform legislation and there is
agreement that more progress in the program is possible when all states are in full
compliance with the automated systems requirements enacted in 1996 and 1998.
This report points out that in FY2003, only about 9% of CSE collections ($1.8
billion) were made on behalf of TANF families; about half of that amount actually
went to the families and the rest was divided between the state and federal
governments to reimburse them for TANF benefits to the families. This meant that
in FY2003, 90% of CSE collections ($19.0 billion) went to the families on the CSE
rolls. Thus, the data confirm that the “family first” policy that was begun with the
1996 welfare law (P.L. 104-193) is being effectively implemented. P.L. 104-193
required states to pay a higher fraction of child support collections on arrearages to
families that have left welfare (i.e., former TANF families) by making these
payments to the family first. The order of payment of the child support collection is
of tremendous importance because in many cases past-due child support, i.e.,
arrearages, are never fully paid. The 1996 welfare reform law also gave states the
option to pass through and disregard some, all, or none of the child support collected
on behalf of TANF families (about half of the states currently pass-through and
disregard some child support for TANF families).
If the currently pending TANF reauthorization legislation (H.R. 240, S. 667)
becomes law, states will have new choices to make about how far to proceed with the
service-delivery, stable income source/support perspective of the program. There
will be more federal money available for states that decide to pass through and
disregard more child support collected on behalf of families who are still receiving
TANF cash benefits and there will be new options for states to distribute more child

support collections to families who are former TANF cash benefit recipients. Thus,
it is possible that in the near future even more child support collected by states on
behalf of TANF families and former TANF families actually would go to families
(rather than be kept by the states and the federal government to reimburse them for
TANF cash benefits that were paid to the family).
A slightly different examination of the preceding discussion shows how pending
CSE legislation could severely restrict the ability of the CSE program to recover cash
welfare costs. The data in this report indicated that in FY2003, 17% of the CSE
caseload was comprised of TANF families, 47% of the caseload was comprised of
former TANF families, and 36% of the caseload had no TANF connection. This
meant that in effect 64% of the CSE caseload had some TANF connection. Another
viewpoint shows TANF families representing 17% of the caseload and non-TANF
families representing 83% of the CSE caseload. Under current law, the state and
federal governments can potentially receive reimbursements from 64% of the
caseload. If pending welfare reauthorization legislation is passed, the state and
federal governments would be able to receive reimbursements from only 17% of the
CSE caseload.
Although sometimes overlooked, the CSE program is an integral component of
welfare reform. It is not surprising that child support payments are now widely
recognized as a very significant income source for single-parent families. The data
presented in this report indicate that the CSE program is making great strides in
ensuring that children get the support they are owed from their noncustodial parents.