Child Support Enforcement
More Focus on Labor Costs and Administrative Cost Audits Could Help Reduce Federal Expenditures Gao ID: GAO-06-491 July 6, 2006Congress established federal standards for the child support enforcement program (CSE) in 1975. State agencies administer the program and the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees it. The CSE program provides several services, including collecting child support payments from noncustodial parents--those who are not the primary caregivers--and distributing these payments to families. Generally, the federal government reimburses state agencies 66 percent of their costs for administering the CSE program. GAO determined (1) how total net federal expenditures for administrative costs changed from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004; (2) the categories of costs that contributed most to administrative costs in recent years; and (3) steps state agencies have taken to manage costs, and steps OCSE has taken to help state agencies and ensure federal funds have been used appropriately. GAO analyzed program data, surveyed all 54 state agencies and visited 6, interviewed program officials, and reviewed laws, policies, and reports.
From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004, total net federal expenditures for administrative costs (the cost after deducting child support collections for families receiving benefits from other government programs) increased by about 23 percent. After adjusting for inflation, total net federal expenditures increased from about $2.2 billion to $2.8 billion. Also, during this period, collections increased by about 12 percent from about $19 billion to $22 billion, and the program's cost effectiveness measure (the ratio of collections to total administrative expenditures) increased about 4 percent. Personnel costs were cited as a major contributor to federal expenditures for administrative costs in fiscal years 2002 to 2004 by the 49 state agencies that responded to the relevant question in our survey. Most state agencies also cited as major costs cooperative agreements under which staff from other state agencies are paid to perform CSE program duties, automated data systems, and contracts with private firms. Several of these categories involve labor costs, and from fiscal years 2000 to 2004, the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) employees funded by the CSE program increased about 2,200. Yet, OCSE has not developed guidelines to help state agencies manage their FTEs and related labor costs. State agencies reported implementing cost-saving initiatives, and while OCSE has helped state agencies manage costs, it has conducted a limited number of administrative cost audits to help ensure the appropriate use of federal funds. At least one-half of the state agencies reported implementing 7 of the 10 cost-saving initiatives listed in our survey, and many reported cost savings. To help state agencies manage their programs, OCSE issued guidance, created federal/state work groups, and sponsored conferences. OCSE is required to conduct audits of state agencies' administrative costs, and from March 2004 to March 2006, OCSE issued eight administrative cost audit reports. All of these audit reports raised questions about inappropriate expenditures. Although OCSE expects to have more resources available to conduct audits, it does not plan to use these resources to conduct more administrative cost audits.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-491, Child Support Enforcement: More Focus on Labor Costs and Administrative Cost Audits Could Help Reduce Federal Expenditures
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-491
entitled 'Child Support Enforcement: More Focus on Labor Costs and
Administrative Cost Audits Could Help Reduce Federal Expenditures'
which was released on July 6, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on
Ways and Means, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2006:
Child Support Enforcement:
More Focus on Labor Costs and Administrative Cost Audits Could Help
Reduce Federal Expenditures:
GAO-06-491:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-491, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Congress established federal standards for the child support
enforcement program (CSE) in 1975. State agencies administer the
program and the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees it. The CSE
program provides several services, including collecting child support
payments from noncustodial parents”those who are not the primary
caregivers”and distributing these payments to families. Generally, the
federal government reimburses state agencies 66 percent of their costs
for administering the CSE program. GAO determined (1) how total net
federal expenditures for administrative costs changed from fiscal year
2000 to fiscal year 2004; (2) the categories of costs that contributed
most to administrative costs in recent years; and (3) steps state
agencies have taken to manage costs, and steps OCSE has taken to help
state agencies and ensure federal funds have been used appropriately.
GAO analyzed program data, surveyed all 54 state agencies and visited
6, interviewed program officials, and reviewed laws, policies, and
reports.
What GAO Found:
From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004, total net federal
expenditures for administrative costs (the cost after deducting child
support collections for families receiving benefits from other
government programs) increased by about 23 percent. After adjusting for
inflation, total net federal expenditures increased from about $2.2
billion to $2.8 billion. Also, during this period, collections
increased by about 12 percent”from about $19 billion to $22 billion,
and the program‘s cost effectiveness measure (the ratio of collections
to total administrative expenditures) increased about 4 percent.
Personnel costs were cited as a major contributor to federal
expenditures for administrative costs in fiscal years 2002 to 2004 by
the 49 state agencies that responded to the relevant question in our
survey. Most state agencies also cited as major costs cooperative
agreements under which staff from other state agencies are paid to
perform CSE program duties, automated data systems, and contracts with
private firms. Several of these categories involve labor costs, and
from fiscal years 2000 to 2004, the number of full-time-equivalent
(FTE) employees funded by the CSE program increased about 2,200. Yet,
OCSE has not developed guidelines to help state agencies manage their
FTEs and related labor costs.
Figure: Median Percentage of Administrative Costs for Most Frequently
Cited Categories, Fiscal Years 2002-2004:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO survey.
[End of Figure]
State agencies reported implementing cost-saving initiatives, and while
OCSE has helped state agencies manage costs, it has conducted a limited
number of administrative cost audits to help ensure the appropriate use
of federal funds. At least one-half of the state agencies reported
implementing 7 of the 10 cost-saving initiatives listed in our survey,
and many reported cost savings. To help state agencies manage their
programs, OCSE issued guidance, created federal/state work groups, and
sponsored conferences. OCSE is required to conduct audits of state
agencies‘ administrative costs, and from March 2004 to March 2006, OCSE
issued eight administrative cost audit reports. All of these audit
reports raised questions about inappropriate expenditures. Although
OCSE expects to have more resources available to conduct audits, it
does not plan to use these resources to conduct more administrative
cost audits.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that HHS direct OCSE to conduct a study to develop
staffing guidelines, direct resources to completing more administrative
cost audits, and develop audit plans that consider expenditures. HHS
stated that OCSE would consider doing a study, and OCSE has an audit
plan.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-491.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia M. Ashby at
(202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Net Federal Expenditures, Collections, and the Nationwide Cost-
Effectiveness Ratio Increased:
All State Agencies Reported Personnel as a Major Cost Category, but
OCSE Has Not Developed Staffing Guidelines:
State Agencies Reported Implementing Cost-Saving Initiatives, and While
OCSE Has Helped State Agencies, It Has Not Conducted Administrative
Cost Audits in Most States:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Annual Percentage Changes in Net Federal Expenditures, by
State Agency, for Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004:
Appendix III: Annual Percentage Changes in Collections, by State
Agency, for Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004:
Appendix IV: Percentage Changes in the Cost-Effectiveness Ratio by
State Agency and Nationwide:
Appendix V: Percentages Reported by State Agencies for Most Frequently
Cited Cost Categories:
Appendix VI: State Agencies' Implementation of Certain Cost-Saving
Initiatives:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Percentage of Incentive Payments and Cost-Effectiveness Ratios
Established in the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998:
Table 2: Total Number of Cases and Median Net Federal Cost per Case,
Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004.
Table 3: Nationwide Cost-Effectiveness Ratio, Fiscal Years 2000 to
2004:
Table 4: Total FTEs for State Child Support Enforcement Programs,
Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004:
Table 5: Comparison of Information for Selected State Agencies for
Fiscal Year 2004:
Table 6: Cost-Saving Initiatives State Agencies Reported Implementing
and Estimated Cost Savings Reported by State Agencies, as of February
2006:
Table 7: States Agencies' Views about OCSE's Efforts to Help Them
Manage Program Costs:
Table 8: OCSE's Administrative Cost Audits Completed from March 2004 to
March 2006:
Figures:
Figure 1: Major Services of the Child Support Enforcement Program:
Figure 2: Total Net and Median Net Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2000 to
Fiscal Year 2004:
Figure 3: Percentage Change in Net Federal Expenditures by State
Agency, from Fiscal Year 2000 to Fiscal Year 2004:
Figure 4: Median Percentage of Total Administrative Costs for the Most
Frequently Cited Administrative Cost Categories, Fiscal Year 2002 to
Fiscal Year 2004:
Abbreviations:
ACF: Administration for Children and Families:
CBO: Congressional Budget Office:
CLASP: Center for Law and Social Policy:
CSE: Child Support Enforcement:
CSPIA: Child Support Performance and Incentive Act:
FTE: full-time-equivalent:
GATES: Grants Application and Tracking and Evaluation System:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
OCSE: Office of Child Support Enforcement:
PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act:
TANF: Temporary Assistance For Needy Families:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 6, 2006:
The Honorable Wally Herger:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Human Resources:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In 1975, Congress established federal standards for state child support
enforcement (CSE) programs to ensure that parents financially support
their children. The CSE program was authorized by Title IV-D of the
Social Security Act as a federal and state partnership.[Footnote 1] The
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) within the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) is responsible for establishing program
policies and overseeing state agencies and is required to conduct
audits of state agencies' performance data and administrative costs.
OCSE is also responsible for providing assistance to help state
agencies manage their programs. For example, OCSE has developed and
disseminated to state agencies information on best practices and cost-
saving initiatives. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam administer a CSE
program.[Footnote 2] In most places, a single state agency performs the
day-to-day operations, but in others, counties operate the CSE program
and states administer it. CSE program responsibilities include locating
noncustodial parents--those who are not the primary caregivers for or
do not have custody or control of their children; establishing
paternity and support orders; and collecting and distributing child
support payments. All costs incurred to carry out these
responsibilities are considered administrative costs. The federal
government funds most of the program by matching a percentage of the
allowable administrative costs. These matching funds are not capped.
Also, the federal government provides incentive payments to state
agencies for meeting certain performance measures, including the
program's measure of cost effectiveness.
Over the years, Congress has authorized various enforcement tools, such
as garnishment of wages and revocation of licenses, to help increase
collections, and Congress has provided funds for systems to automate
many CSE program operations and make them more efficient. According to
OCSE's annual reports, from fiscal years 1995 to 2004, the net federal
share of expenditures for the CSE program increased by one-third, in
nominal dollars, and the program's critical measure of cost
effectiveness--the ratio of dollars collected divided by total
administrative expenditures--did not change significantly.[Footnote 3]
These increased expenditures raise questions about the factors that
affect program costs and the extent to which state agencies are
effectively managing the cost of their CSE programs. In an effort to
provide information about more recent federal expenditures and the
issues associated with the cost of administering the CSE program, this
report addresses the following questions: (1) How have total net
federal expenditures for administrative costs changed from fiscal year
2000 to fiscal year 2004? (2) What categories of costs have contributed
most to federal expenditures for administrative costs in recent years?
(3) What steps have state agencies taken to manage costs, and what
steps has OCSE taken to help state agencies and ensure federal funds
have been used appropriately?
We obtained information from several sources in conducting this review.
To address how federal expenditures for administrative costs have
changed from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004, we obtained and
analyzed the net federal share of expenditure data for each state
agency for each of these years. We also examined collections, number of
cases, cost-effectiveness ratios, and the number of full-time-
equivalent (FTE) employees to gain some perspective about changes in
expenditures. We performed procedures to assess the reliability of the
system that maintains data related to funds administered by HHS'
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), including funds
provided to state agencies for the CSE program. We found these data to
be sufficiently reliable for our review. For some analyses, we adjusted
these data for inflation to get a truer picture of changes over several
years. Also, we calculated the median amounts for expenditures and
collections because of the wide variation among state agencies. To
obtain information for the other objectives, we conducted a survey,
site visits, and interviews and reviewed related documents. We sent an
e-mail survey to the 54 state agencies and received responses from all
of them. The survey asked state agencies to (1) identify the five cost
categories that contributed most to their administrative costs during
fiscal years 2002 to 2004 and estimate the percentage that each
category comprised, (2) provide information on selected cost-saving
initiatives identified by OCSE as best practices, and (3) rate the
extent to which various OCSE assistance efforts had been helpful. We
did not assess the reliability of the data state agencies reported in
response to our survey, but we reviewed their responses for
completeness and reasonableness. Also, we conducted site visits in the
following six states: California, Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio, South
Carolina, and Utah. We selected these states because they represented
diversity in changes in the amounts of federal expenditures for fiscal
years 2002 to 2004; geographical location; and operational structure,
that is state-or county-operated programs. In addition, we interviewed
federal and state agency officials and child support experts, reviewed
related reports, and analyzed applicable laws and regulations. We
conducted our work between June 2005 and June 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. See appendix I for
more details on our objectives, scope, and methodology.
Results in Brief:
From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004, total net federal
expenditures for administrative costs increased about 23 percent.
During this same period, child support collections and the program's
cost-effectiveness ratio also increased. Total net federal expenditures
for administrative costs, adjusted for inflation, increased from about
$2.2 billion to nearly $2.8 billion. Collections, adjusted for
inflation, increased about 12 percent from about $19 billion to $22
billion. From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004, the program's cost-
effectiveness ratio--total collections divided by total administrative
expenditures--increased about 4 percent.
Personnel costs were cited as a major contributor to federal
expenditures for administrative costs from fiscal years 2002 through
2004 by all state agencies that responded to this question in our
survey. Of the 54 state agencies, 49 responded to this question, and we
determined that the median of the percentages state agencies provided
was 44 percent of the administrative costs. Personnel costs include
salaries and benefits for all CSE program employees in the state. State
officials said that personnel costs were a large percentage of their
administrative costs for several reasons, including higher salaries for
experienced staff, terms of collective bargaining agreements, and
increasing health benefit costs. In addition, child support officials
from two state agencies said that although many child support
operations are automated, the program remains labor-intensive. Most
state agencies also cited, as major cost categories, cooperative
agreements under which state CSE agencies pay other state and local
agencies to perform child support enforcement functions, automated data
systems, and contracts with private companies. Each of these cost
categories lagged far behind personnel costs. Overall, state agencies
reported that several major cost categories involved labor costs, at
least in part. About 2,200 more FTEs for state agency personnel, as
well as staff providing services under cooperative agreements and
contracts, were funded by the CSE program in fiscal year 2004 than in
fiscal year 2000. OCSE officials said they had not conducted a study of
the FTEs per state agency or developed guidelines to help state
agencies manage related costs.
The 54 state agencies reported implementing cost-saving initiatives,
and, while OCSE has helped state agencies manage their costs, its use
of administrative cost audits to help ensure that federal funds have
been used appropriately has been limited. At least one-half of the
state agencies reported implementing 7 of the 10 cost-saving
initiatives identified as best practices by OCSE and listed in our
survey. These initiatives included electronic transmittal of wages
withheld by employers (50 state agencies), automated voice response
systems (48 state agencies), and direct deposit of child support
payments to parents' checking or savings accounts (48 state agencies).
State agencies also reported cost savings for nearly all of the 10
initiatives. For example, the New York agency reported saving $4.5
million since fiscal year 1993, when it began receiving funds
electronically from employers that withheld wages for child support
payments. Most state agencies (38) also reported that money saved from
these initiatives was reinvested in the CSE program. To help state
agencies manage their costs, OCSE has provided a range of assistance,
and, generally, state agencies viewed OCSE's assistance favorably.
Nearly all of the state agencies reported that OCSE's efforts--such as
creating federal/state work groups, holding conferences or sponsoring
training, and issuing guidance--were very or moderately helpful. On the
other hand, OCSE has not conducted administrative cost audits of most
state agencies. From March 2004 to March 2006, OCSE issued eight
administrative cost audit reports; all of which raised questions about
inappropriate expenditures. For example, one audit of costs claimed for
one quarter found about $670,000 in unallowable charges, and another
audit that examined expenses claimed for one quarter determined that
one state agency had inappropriately claimed about $603,000 in
expenditures. OCSE officials said they did not have plans to conduct
more administrative cost audits in the future, even though they expect
that more audit resources will be available since OCSE reduced the
frequency of its data reliability audits. Furthermore, OCSE officials
did not cite the level of expenditures for administrative costs as a
factor that was considered in planning administrative cost audits.
We are recommending that the Secretary of Health and Human Services
direct the Commissioner of the Office of Child Support Enforcement to
conduct a study of and develop guidelines for the number of FTEs for
the CSE program, direct resources gained from conducting fewer data
reliability audits to completing more administrative cost audits, and
develop an audit plan that considers total expenditures as one of the
factors used to select state agencies for administrative cost audits.
HHS provided written comments on a draft of this report. HHS did not
explicitly agree or disagree with our recommendations. In response to
our recommendation to conduct a study of and develop guidelines for the
number of full-time-equivalent employees, HHS stated that OCSE will
consider doing such a study. In response to our recommendation to
develop a plan to conduct administrative cost audits, HHS noted that
OCSE has developed plans to conduct administrative cost audits in the
past, has conducted those audits, and will continue to develop plans in
the future. We revised the report to acknowledge that OCSE has a plan
for conducting administrative cost audits and we modified our
recommendation to better reflect our intent to encourage OCSE to
complete more administrative cost audits than it completed during the
2004 to 2006 time period. The HHS comments are discussed in the report
and are reprinted in appendix VII. In addition, HHS provided technical
comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
The CSE program makes services available to any parent or other person
with custody of a child who has a parent living outside of the home.
These services are available automatically for families receiving
assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
Medicaid, and Foster Care programs.[Footnote 4] Other families seeking
government child support services can apply through their state agency
or one of the tribes running the program. For these families, there is
an application fee. Figure 1 illustrates the major services provided by
the CSE program.
Figure 1: Major Services of the Child Support Enforcement Program:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[A] The locate process includes steps taken to find a noncustodial
parent or putative father. In addition, state agencies can help locate
custodial parents.
[B] Paternity is the legal determination of fatherhood and must be
established before child or medical support can be ordered.
[C] A support order is a judgment, decree, or order--whether temporary,
final, or subject to modification--that is usually issued by a court or
an administrative agency for the support and maintenance of a child.
Support orders can incorporate the provision of monetary support;
health care/medical support; payment of arrearages (past due, unpaid
child support owed by the noncustodial parent); or reimbursement of
costs and fees, interest and penalties, and other forms of relief. The
noncustodial parent is required to provide medical support whenever
health care coverage is available at a reasonable cost. A provision for
such coverage is required as part of all child support orders
established or enforced by state agencies.
[D] Child support payments are collected through various methods such
as income withholding; state or federal income tax refund offsets; and
other remedies,(e.g. seizure of assets).
[E] Child support collections are distributed to custodial families,
states, or federal agencies via a check, an electronic transfer, or
other means.
[F] State agencies must review and, if necessary, adjust child support
orders at least once every 3 years for TANF cases involving the
assignment of support rights or upon the request of either the
custodial or noncustodial parent for any case.
The CSE program is financed by federal and state funds. Federal funds
come from three funding streams--the federal match, also known as the
federal financial participation; incentive payments; and grants.
Generally, federal matching funds reimburse state agencies 66 percent
of the administrative costs for their CSE programs. In addition to
matching funds, the federal government pays state agencies incentive
funds to encourage them to achieve program goals. Incentive funds are
capped, and in fiscal year 2004, $454 million were allocated for
incentive payments.[Footnote 5] State agencies must reinvest their
incentive funds in the CSE program. Federal funds also are available
through grants. Grants for special improvement projects, demonstration
projects, and child access and visitation programs are generally
awarded annually. OCSE has received an annual appropriation of $1.8
million for special improvement project grants or demonstration
projects to promote the program's overall objectives. Additionally,
since fiscal year 1997, OCSE has distributed approximately $10 million
per year to state agencies to support child access and visitation
grants for activities such as mediation, counseling, education,
development of parenting plans, noncustodial parent visitation
enforcement (including monitoring and supervision), and development of
noncustodial parent visitation and alternative custody guidelines.
According to a November 2005 report, state agencies used a number of
funding sources to finance their share of CSE program administrative
costs.[Footnote 6] These funding sources included federal incentive
payments, child support collected for parents receiving assistance
through the TANF program, state general funds, state general funds paid
as incentives, county general funds, and fees, along with several other
sources that were mentioned less often by state agencies.[Footnote 7]
While state agencies generally used more than one revenue source, they
also varied in the combination of the revenue sources they used.
For the CSE program, federal and state expenditures are generally
offset by certain collections as well as fees and interest
payments.[Footnote 8] Child support collections for families that
receive benefits from the TANF and Foster Care programs are deducted
from the total federal and state expenditures and paid to these
programs as reimbursements. For example, in fiscal year 2004 about $2
billion in child support collections for families that received TANF
benefits were deducted from total CSE expenditures--the federal
government was reimbursed $1.1 billion, and state agencies were
reimbursed about $900 million. In addition, some state agencies collect
fees from parents for their services, and such fees are also deducted
from total expenditures. Also, expenditures are reduced by interest
income that accrues to state agencies for collections deposited in
interest-bearing accounts.
Over the years, Congress has passed numerous laws that have had an
impact on the CSE program, including the following:
* The Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980 included a
provision that gave state agencies 90 percent matching funds for the
cost of developing, installing, and enhancing approved automated data
systems.[Footnote 9] In 1997, we reported that state agencies had spent
over $2.6 billion since the early 1980s to develop their systems, and
the federal government had paid from 66 to 90 percent of the systems'
costs, which amounted to more than $2 billion.[Footnote 10]
* The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 addressed many
aspects of the program.[Footnote 11] For example, this act required
that all states provide for the use of mandatory wage withholding
procedures and expedited processes for establishing and enforcing
support orders.[Footnote 12] The act made available federal matching
funds at the 90 percent rate for the development and installation of
automated data systems to facilitate income withholding and other
procedures. The act reduced the overall federal matching rate to 68
percent for fiscal years 1988 and 1989, and to 66 percent for fiscal
year 1990 and thereafter. Also, the act established procedures for
intercepting state income tax refunds, imposing liens against real and
personal property, and reporting delinquency information to consumer
reporting agencies.
* The Family Support Act of 1988 established several
requirements.[Footnote 13] For instance, the Secretary of HHS was
required to set time limits within which collections must be
distributed to families, and state agencies were required to meet
federal standards for the establishment of paternity and to provide for
wage withholding in accordance with child support orders. Also, this
act made it mandatory for states to computerize their CSE programs and
required states to have their automated data systems certified by
October 1, 1995.[Footnote 14]
* The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (PRWORA) included many provisions related to the CSE
program.[Footnote 15] For example, PRWORA reinstated the 90 percent
matching rate through September 30, 1997, to enable state agencies to
complete the development and implementation of their automated data
systems and extended the deadline for implementation to October 1,
1997. PRWORA also provided a matching rate of 80 percent, capped at
$400 million for fiscal years 1996 to 2001, for system development and
implementation costs related to automated data processing requirements.
In addition, PRWORA provided state agencies with new enforcement tools,
such as suspension of licenses, denial of passports, and financial
institution data matches, and included procedures for the periodic
review and adjustment of support orders by state agencies.[Footnote 16]
Furthermore, PRWORA required audits to assess the completeness,
reliability, and security of the data used in calculating performance
indicators and audits of the financial management of states' programs,
including assessments of whether federal and other funds were being
appropriately expended and properly accounted for.
* The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act (CSPIA) of 1998
established several new procedures and changed the method for
calculating incentive payments.[Footnote 17] Since 1975, the federal
government has paid incentives to state agencies to encourage program
improvement. The new incentive system established by CSPIA links
incentive payments to performance in five areas: paternity
establishment, order establishment, collections of current child
support, collections of child support in arrears, and cost
effectiveness. CSPIA specifies the percentage of incentive funds that a
state agency can receive on the basis of the state agency's level of
performance in each of these areas. For example, the applicable
percentage of incentive funds for cost-effectiveness ratios is shown in
table 1.
Table 1: Percentage of Incentive Payments and Cost-Effectiveness Ratios
Established in the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998:
If the cost-effectiveness ratio is: At least: 5.00;
If the cost- effectiveness ratio is: But less than: [Empty];
The applicable percentage is: 100.
If the cost-effectiveness ratio is: At least: 4.50;
If the cost- effectiveness ratio is: But less than: 4.99;
The applicable percentage is: 90.
If the cost-effectiveness ratio is: At least: 4.00;
If the cost- effectiveness ratio is: But less than: 4.50;
The applicable percentage is: 80.
If the cost-effectiveness ratio is: At least: 3.50;
If the cost- effectiveness ratio is: But less than: 4.00;
The applicable percentage is: 70.
If the cost-effectiveness ratio is: At least: 3.00;
If the cost- effectiveness ratio is: But less than: 3.50;
The applicable percentage is: 60.
If the cost-effectiveness ratio is: At least: 2.50;
If the cost- effectiveness ratio is: But less than: 3.00;
The applicable percentage is: 50.
If the cost-effectiveness ratio is: At least: 2.00;
If the cost- effectiveness ratio is: But less than: 2.50;
The applicable percentage is: 40.
If the cost-effectiveness ratio is: At least: 0.00;
If the cost- effectiveness ratio is: But less than: 2.00;
The applicable percentage is: 0.
Source: 42 U.S.C. § 658(b)(6)(E)(ii).
[End of table]
* The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 included provisions that will
affect CSE program funds.[Footnote 18] The act reduced the match rate
for paternity testing from 90 percent to 66 percent effective October
1, 2006; eliminated the federal match for incentive payments effective
October 1, 2007; and required states to impose an annual fee of $25 on
each family that never received TANF benefits and for which the program
collects $500 a year.[Footnote 19] The Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) estimated that by 2010 the federal share of administrative costs
would be reduced by $1.8 billion from eliminating the federal match for
incentive payments and by $28 million from the lower match rate for
paternity testing. CBO also estimated that the federal government would
receive an additional $172 million from the annual fee. Further, CBO
estimated that total funding for the program could fall 15 percent by
2010 if states did not adjust their own spending for CSE programs. This
act also included provisions that will reduce federal expenditures for
several other programs.
We have expressed concern about the federal government's financial
condition and the nation's growing fiscal imbalance. Also, we have
reported that if the federal government is to effectively address this
concern, it cannot accept all of the existing programs, policies, and
activities as givens, and that rethinking the base of existing federal
spending is an important step.[Footnote 20]
As the federal partner, OCSE has several responsibilities. OCSE sets
policies and standards, provides technical assistance, and evaluates
state agency performance.[Footnote 21] OCSE also collects and reviews
expenditure data that state agencies submit using OCSE's Quarterly
Report of Expenditures and Estimates. OCSE maintains these data in the
Grants Application Tracking and Evaluation System (GATES) operated by
ACF. [Footnote 22] Furthermore, OCSE is responsible for helping state
agencies administer their programs. Routinely OCSE has developed and
disseminated to state agencies a compendium of what it considers best
practices. Each compendium describes several best practices, provides
information on the results of implementing the practices, and
identifies a contact person. In transmitting the compendium, OCSE
stated that it does not endorse any particular practice, but believes
that by providing the state agencies with solutions undertaken at the
state and local levels, general program performance can be improved.
Net Federal Expenditures, Collections, and the Nationwide Cost-
Effectiveness Ratio Increased:
Overall from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004, total net federal
expenditures for administrative costs increased about 23 percent. Net
federal expenditures increased in more than one-half of the state
agencies, and the net federal cost per case increased about 36 percent.
Also, collections and the nationwide cost-effectiveness ratio have
increased.
Total Net Federal Expenditures and Total Collections Increased:
Total net federal expenditures for administrative costs increased about
23 percent, and the net federal median expenditure increased more than
2 percent.[Footnote 23] From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004,
total net federal expenditures increased from about $2.2 billion to
nearly $2.8 billion.[Footnote 24] While total net federal expenditures
increased each year, the largest increase, in nominal dollars, was
about 14 percent from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001. Overall,
the median net federal expenditure increased from about $25 million to
about $26 million between fiscal years 2000 and 2004. However, the
median net federal expenditure for state agencies with state-operated
programs decreased about 4 percent from about $20 million in fiscal
year 2000, to $19 million in fiscal year 2004, while the median net
federal expenditure for state agencies with county-operated programs
increased about 11 percent--from about $59 million to about $66
million. According to a CSE program expert and a state agency official
from a state we visited, expenditures for county-operated programs may
be higher because of possible duplication in administrative functions
at the state and county levels. Figure 2 shows the trends in total net
and median net federal expenditures.
Figure 2: Total Net and Median Net Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2000 to
Fiscal Year 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Source: OCSE data.
Note: In addition to the state-and county-operated programs, 5 states-
-Arizona, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, and Oregon--reported having a
combination of state-and county-operated programs. For example, in
Arizona, 10 of its 15 counties are operated by the state agency; 4 are
operated by counties; and 1 is operated by a private contractor. Data
for these state agencies are included in the overall net expenditures
and the median expenditures for all programs, but not in the medians
for either the state-or county-operated programs.
[End of figure]
Overall, total net federal expenditures from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal
year 2004 increased for more than one-half of the state agencies;
however, the percentages varied. From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year
2004, total net federal expenditures increased in 30 of the 54 state
agencies. These increases ranged from about 1 percent to over 400
percent, and the median for these state agencies was 14.8 percent.
According to comments from HHS on a draft of this report, many of the
large increases and decreases are a result of adjustments for under or
over reporting expenditures in a previous quarter. Total net federal
expenditures increased most in Maine and California, reflecting special
circumstances in both states. According to Maine's state agency
director, the agency made adjustments over several quarters to correct
its reporting of interest income earned. In California, state agency
officials explained that most of the increase was attributable to costs
associated with developing and implementing its statewide automated
data system.[Footnote 25] Nearly all state agencies (51) had at least 1
year when net federal expenditures decreased. For example, net federal
expenditures for Alabama's program decreased from fiscal year 2000 to
fiscal year 2001 and increased in other fiscal years, while net federal
expenditures for Mississippi's program decreased in each of the fiscal
years from 2000 to 2003. Figure 3 shows the percentage change in net
federal expenditures by state agency during fiscal year 2000 to fiscal
year 2004. Appendix II provides data on annual percentage changes in
net federal expenditures, using nominal numbers, for each state agency
for fiscal years 2000 to 2004.
Figure 3: Percentage Change in Net Federal Expenditures by State
Agency, from Fiscal Year 2000 to Fiscal Year 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Source: OCSE data.
Note: parentheses indicate a decrease in net federal expenditures.
[End of figure]
For fiscal years 2000 to 2004, the median net federal cost per case
increased 36 percent, as measured in nominal dollars, and the number of
cases declined about 1.5 million; however, the median net federal cost
per case generally increased, even when the number of cases remained
about the same. From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001, the number
of cases remained at about 17 million, and the median net federal cost
per case increased from $121 to $138, in nominal dollars. During fiscal
years 2002 to 2004, the program managed about 16 million cases per year
and the median net federal cost per case continued to increase. Table 2
summarizes the number of cases and median net federal cost per case.
Table 2: Total Number of Cases and Median Net Federal Cost per Case,
Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Total cases: 17,374,041;
Median net federal cost per case (nominal dollars): $121.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Total cases: 17,060,501;
Median net federal cost per case (nominal dollars): 138.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Total cases: 16,065,728;
Median net federal cost per case (nominal dollars): 158.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Total cases: 15,923,353;
Median net federal cost per case (nominal dollars): 156.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Total cases: 15,854,475;
Median net federal cost per case (nominal dollars): 165.
Source: OCSE data.
Note: We used nominal dollars when comparing data from year to year in
order to be consistent with data previously reported to Congress.
[End of table]
Total and median collections increased, and the CSE program is
collecting from a larger percentage of its cases. From fiscal year 2000
to fiscal year 2004, total collections increased about 12 percent from
$19 billion to about $22 billion.[Footnote 26] During the same period,
collections increased for most state agencies, but the percentage of
increase varied among the state agencies and from year to year. For
example, from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001, collections in
Vermont increased about 5 percent and collections in Illinois increased
about 17 percent. From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004,
collections in Vermont increased about 15 percent, while Illinois'
collections increased about 9 percent. Appendix III provides data on
annual percentage changes in total collections for each state agency
for fiscal years 2000 to 2004. According to comments from HHS on a
draft of this report, many of the large increases and decreases in
collections are a result of adjustments for under or over reporting in
a previous quarter. Overall, median collections also increased, and the
median collections for state agencies with county-operated programs
were higher than for state agencies with state-operated programs. The
median collection for county-operated programs was about $519 million
in fiscal year 2000 and $567 million in fiscal year 2004, while the
median collection for state-operated programs increased from about $141
million to $156 million during this period. Also, OCSE data indicate
that the program has received collections for a larger percentage of
the cases. In fiscal year 2000, OCSE reported the program received
collections for about 42 percent of the cases, and, in fiscal year
2004, the program received collections for about 52 percent of the
cases.
The Nationwide Cost-Effectiveness Ratio Also Increased:
From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004, the nationwide cost-
effectiveness ratio--the ratio of collections divided by total federal
and state administrative expenditures--increased about 4
percent.[Footnote 27] As shown in table 3, the nationwide cost-
effectiveness ratio from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004 ranged
from 4.13 to 4.38 and decreased during fiscal years 2000 to 2002.
Furthermore, the percentage change in the nationwide cost-effectiveness
ratio has varied from a decrease of 1.9 percent from fiscal year 2001
to fiscal year 2002 to an increase of 4.6 percent from fiscal year 2002
to fiscal year 2003. Percentage changes in the cost-effectiveness ratio
by state agency and nationwide are listed in appendix IV. According to
comments from HHS on a draft of this report, many of the large
increases and decreases in the cost effectiveness ratios are a result
of adjustments for under or over reporting expenditures and/or
collections in a previous quarter.
Table 3: Nationwide Cost-Effectiveness Ratio, Fiscal Years 2000 to
2004:
Fiscal year: 2000;
Nationwide cost-effectiveness ratio: 4.23.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Nationwide cost-effectiveness ratio: 4.21.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Nationwide cost-effectiveness ratio: 4.13.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Nationwide cost-effectiveness ratio: 4.32.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Nationwide cost-effectiveness ratio: 4.38.
Source: OCSE data.
[End of table]
On a state agency basis, the cost-effectiveness ratios varied. For
example, for fiscal year 2004, the cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from
8.70 for Hawaii to 1.83 for the Virgin Islands. During each of the
fiscal years 2000 to 2004, four state agencies had a cost-effectiveness
ratio below 2.0--the minimum to receive an incentive payment.[Footnote
28] Also, during fiscal years 2000 to 2004, the annual performance of
more than 80 percent of the state agencies declined at least once. For
example, for fiscal years 2000 to 2004, Delaware's cost-effectiveness
ratios were 3.19, 2.93, 3.66, 3.03, and 3.01, respectively. Due to the
way that the incentive program is structured, states with declining
cost-effectiveness performance have received incentive funds for these
years because they were over the 2.0 minimum ratio.
All State Agencies Reported Personnel as a Major Cost Category, but
OCSE Has Not Developed Staffing Guidelines:
Of the 54 state agencies, 49 responded to this question and cited
personnel costs as a major cost category during fiscal years 2002 to
2004. These costs represented the largest share of administrative costs
cited by 38 state agencies. In addition to personnel costs, most state
agencies identified the following as major cost categories: cooperative
agreements under which state CSE agencies reimburse other agencies to
perform child support enforcement functions, automated data systems,
and contracts with private vendors. As shown in figure 4, these
categories represented smaller percentages of state agencies' costs
than personnel costs. Appendix V provides more information about the
range of percentages reported by state agencies for the most frequently
cited cost categories. Overall, state agencies reported that several
major cost categories involved labor costs--state personnel, staff from
other state and local agencies, and contractors--and reflect an
increase in the number of FTE employees over the last several years.
While OCSE regulations address general staffing requirements, OCSE has
not developed staffing guidelines to help state agencies manage their
labor costs.
Figure 4: Median Percentage of Total Administrative Costs for the Most
Frequently Cited Administrative Cost Categories, Fiscal Year 2002 to
Fiscal Year 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey.
Note: This figure includes responses from 49 of the 54 state agencies.
We excluded 5 county-operated state agencies from this analysis because
they did not include county costs in their responses to this survey
question.
[End of figure]
All State Agencies Reported That Personnel Costs Were a Major
Contributor to Their Administrative Costs, and Most State Agencies Also
Cited Cooperative Agreements, Automated Data Systems, and Contracts as
Major Costs:
All 49 state agencies cited personnel costs as one of their largest
cost categories during fiscal years 2002 to 2004.[Footnote 29] The
median of the percentages state agencies provided for personnel costs
was 44 percent of total administrative costs. Officials from 38 state
agencies ranked personnel as their largest cost category and estimated
that this category represented from 30 percent to 80 percent of their
total administrative costs during fiscal years 2002 to 2004. Personnel
costs include salaries and benefits for all state agency employees. In
fiscal year 2002, the CSE program nationwide had about 43,000 FTEs, and
in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the program had about 42,000 FTEs. State
agency officials with whom we spoke said that personnel costs represent
a large percentage of the total administrative costs for several
reasons. State agency officials explained that personnel costs are
affected by higher salaries for experienced staff and increasing health
benefits costs. According to a representative of a national child
support organization, for state agencies with collective bargaining
agreements, the terms of these agreements can affect personnel costs.
Also, officials from county-operated states that we visited commented
that the state agency has limited control over how the counties
compensate their personnel.
Cooperative agreements were cited by 37 of 49 state agencies as among
their largest administrative cost categories, and the median of the
percentages state agencies provided for this category was 15 percent.
Cooperative agreements were the largest cost category for 3 state
agencies, where these costs represented 40 percent to 70 percent of
total administrative costs. Under the cooperative agreements that we
reviewed, state CSE agencies reimbursed other state or local agencies
for services critical to the CSE program. For example, in California,
the CSE agency has cooperative agreements with the state tax agency, in
order to use certain enforcement tools. Additionally, the Nebraska and
South Carolina CSE agencies have cooperative agreements with county
clerks of the court, and the Iowa agency has cooperative agreements
with local sheriffs to serve court papers to noncustodial parents.
According to OCSE data, state agencies used about 16,400 FTEs under
cooperative agreements to provide CSE program services in fiscal year
2004, an increase of about 1 percent since fiscal year 2002. According
to state agency officials, it can be challenging for CSE agencies to
manage the costs charged by other agencies under cooperative
agreements. In an attempt to manage such costs, CSE agency officials in
Utah told us that after they detected increased charges from the
Attorney General's office to cover attorneys' pay increases, they
capped the payments to that office.
Automated data systems costs were included among the largest cost
categories by 35 of 49 state agencies, and the median of the
percentages these state agencies provided for this cost category was 13
percent. Automated data systems were the largest cost category for 5
state agencies, where these costs represented 25 percent to 65 percent
of total administrative costs. These included costs for ongoing
maintenance as well as for enhancements. According to an OCSE official,
automated systems continuously require enhancements to meet new
requirements and operational changes to keep up with technology.
Moreover, according to a state CSE agency official from Utah, the state
periodically raises the costs for processing data and accessing the
mainframe for all state agencies, and in 1 year, the cost for the state
CSE agency increased by 38 percent.
Contract costs were included by 41 of 49 state agencies among their
largest cost categories, and the median of the percentages these state
agencies provided for this cost category was 11 percent of total
administrative costs. Contracts were the largest cost category for 3
state agencies, where these costs represented 49 percent to 68 percent
of total costs. According to several state agency officials with whom
we spoke, state agencies have contracted with private sector companies
for a wide range of services, including testing blood to establish
paternity, obtaining information from credit bureaus to help locate
noncustodial parents, operating call centers, identifying assets, and
processing payments. State agencies may combine multiple services in a
single contract. For example, state agency officials in Connecticut
told us that the agency uses a single contract to obtain many services
such as processing payments, handling clients' inquiries, providing
outreach services to clients, managing a Web site that provides
information on case status, and automating certain notices. In
addition, some state agencies have hired contractors to operate the CSE
program at the local level. For example, Tennessee relies on
contractors for all local services in 24 of the state's 95 counties,
and an agency official estimated that contract costs represented about
52 percent of the state agency's administrative costs during fiscal
years 2002 to 2004. According to OCSE data, state agencies contracted
for about 2,300 FTEs in fiscal year 2004, a decrease of about 11
percent since fiscal year 2002. According to a state agency director,
contracting can be an option for state agencies when the state has
placed a cap on personnel levels.
Additionally, some of the 49 state agencies reported that other costs
were among their largest cost categories during fiscal years 2002 to
2004. Twenty-four state agencies cited rent among their largest cost
categories, postage was cited by 15 state agencies, and 12 state
agencies included telecommunications costs. The medians of the
percentages that state agencies provided for each of these categories
ranged from 2.3 percent to 3.9 percent of total administrative costs.
Several Major Cost Categories Reflected Increased FTEs Funded by the
CSE Program, but OCSE Has Not Developed Staffing Guidelines:
State and local CSE personnel, staff working under cooperative
agreements, and individuals hired through contracts contributed to
three of the categories that state agencies said were among the major
contributors to federal expenditures for administrative costs. As shown
in table 4, the number of FTEs funded for state CSE programs increased
by about 2,200 from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004.
Table 4: Total FTEs for State Child Support Enforcement Programs,
Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004:
Fiscal Year: 2000;
Total FTEs: 58,171;
Year-to-year change: n/a;
Cumulative: change: n/a.
Fiscal Year: 2001;
Total FTEs: 60,535;
Year-to-year change: +2,364;
Cumulative: change: 2,364.
Fiscal Year: 2002;
Total FTEs: 61,797;
Year-to-year change: +1,262;
Cumulative: change: 3,626.
Fiscal Year: 2003;
Total FTEs: 60,756;
Year-to-year change: -1,041;
Cumulative: change: 2,585.
Fiscal Year: 2004;
Total FTEs: 60,354;
Year-to-year change: -402;
Cumulative: change: 2,183.
Source: OCSE data.
Note: FTEs include CSE personnel, staff from other state and local
agencies working under cooperative agreements, and contractors.
[End of table]
Furthermore, among selected state agencies with similar numbers of
cases, the number of FTEs varied widely as did the percentage of cases
with collections and the cost-effectiveness ratios. Table 5 shows that
for 7 state agencies with about 150,000 to 249,000 cases, the number of
FTEs in fiscal year 2004 ranged from 460 in Connecticut to 1,559 in
Minnesota.[Footnote 30] Also, table 5 shows that the number of cases
per FTE varied from 457 in Connecticut to 158 in Minnesota.
Additionally, the Iowa CSE program, with 293 cases per FTE, had the
highest percentage of cases with collections, and the Puerto Rico CSE
program, with 272 cases per FTE, had the highest cost-effectiveness
ratio.
Table 5: Comparison of Information for Selected State Agencies for
Fiscal Year 2004:
State agency: Alabama;
Number of cases: 237,442;
Total FTEs: 756;
Cases per FTE: 314;
Percentage of cases with collections: 69;
Cost- effectiveness: ratio: 3.93.
State agency: Connecticut;
Number of cases: 210,311;
Total FTEs: 460;
Cases per FTE: 457;
Percentage of cases with collections: 61;
Cost- effectiveness: ratio: 3.20.
State agency: Iowa;
Number of cases: 179,759;
Total FTEs: 613;
Cases per FTE: 293;
Percentage of cases with collections: 89;
Cost- effectiveness: ratio: 5.59.
State agency: Minnesota[A];
Number of cases: 246,408;
Total FTEs: 1,559;
Cases per FTE: 158;
Percentage of cases with collections: 79;
Cost-effectiveness: ratio: 4.10.
State agency: Oklahoma;
Number of cases: 151,410;
Total FTEs: 590;
Cases per FTE: 257;
Percentage of cases with collections: 71;
Cost- effectiveness: ratio: 3.64.
State agency: Oregon[A];
Number of cases: 249,048;
Total FTEs: 741;
Cases per FTE: 336;
Percentage of cases with collections: 69;
Cost- effectiveness: ratio: 5.76.
State agency: Puerto Rico;
Number of cases: 240,878;
Total FTEs: 887;
Cases per FTE: 272;
Percentage of cases with collections: 66;
Cost- effectiveness: ratio: 7.88.
Source: OCSE data.
[A] Minnesota's CSE program is county-operated, and Oregon's program is
a combination of state-and county-operated.
Note: FTEs include CSE personnel, staff from other state and local
agencies working under cooperative agreements, and contractors.
[End of table]
According to two state agency officials and a CSE expert, although many
state agency operations are automated, the program's processes remain
labor-intensive. For example, one state agency official noted that
automation has helped facilitate the processes of locating noncustodial
parents and enforcing child support orders. However, this official also
said that the additional information obtained through automation, such
as data to help identify assets, can involve due process considerations
that give noncustodial parents the right to a hearing. Agency staff may
need to talk to these parents about their rights and responsibilities
and to attend hearings--services that cannot be automated.
Additionally, this official commented that while new program
requirements established by federal law have created new enforcement
tools, they have also led to processes that can be very labor-
intensive. Another state agency official said that even with
automation, caseworkers still need to work closely with families to
ensure that data reflect families' current situations.
Furthermore, while OCSE has issued regulations that address minimum
organizational and staffing requirements, OCSE officials said they have
not reviewed the number of FTEs per state agency or issued specific
guidelines. The OCSE regulations state the IV-D agency is to have an
organizational structure and sufficient staff to fulfill various
program functions and sufficient resources to meet performance and time
standards. Also, the regulations include a provision under which the
Secretary of HHS may set resource standards for a state if it is
determined as a result of an audit that the state is not in substantial
compliance with program performance standards and the Secretary
determines that inadequate resources were a major contributing factor.
OCSE officials said that it is more appropriate for state agencies to
determine their resource needs because of the many differences in the
operations among the state agencies, such as whether they are state-or
county-operated. OCSE officials also stated that OCSE has not reviewed
state agencies' FTEs or developed guidelines to help state agencies
manage the number of FTEs and the related costs. Furthermore, OCSE
officials said that given the demands on the program, they do not
expect staffing levels to ever decline.
State Agencies Reported Implementing Cost-Saving Initiatives, and While
OCSE Has Helped State Agencies, It Has Not Conducted Administrative
Cost Audits in Most States:
State agencies reported they had implemented cost-saving initiatives
identified in our survey, and while OCSE has provided assistance to
help state agencies, it has not conducted administrative cost audits in
most states to help ensure that federal funds have been used
appropriately. Most state agencies reported that savings from
implementing cost-saving initiatives were reinvested in the program.
OCSE has provided a range of assistance to help states manage costs,
and state agencies have generally found that assistance helpful.
However, OCSE has completed a limited number of administrative cost
audits from March 2004 to March 2006, even though all of the completed
audits raised questions about inappropriate expenditures.
State Agencies Reported Implementing Many Cost-Saving Initiatives and
Reinvesting the Savings in the Program:
Nearly all state agencies reported they had implemented 4 of the 10
cost-saving initiatives identified in our survey. Also, at least one-
half of the state agencies reported they had implemented 3 other
initiatives, while fewer than one-half of the state agencies reported
implementing the remaining 3 initiatives. Of the 10 initiatives, 6 have
been implemented by some state agencies for a decade or more, while
others have been implemented more recently. For example, 9 state
agencies reported having implemented voice response systems before
fiscal year 1995. By contrast, electronic distribution of collections
via debit cards did not begin to be implemented by any state agency
until fiscal year 2000, and most of the state agencies with debit cards
reported they implemented them in or after fiscal year 2004. State
agencies reported several reasons for not implementing initiatives,
including lack of funds or staff to perform the work, issues related to
protecting program and client data, and the need to meet other state or
CSE program priorities. Table 6 provides more information about the
cost-saving initiatives in our survey, and appendix VI identifies the
initiatives that state agencies reported they had implemented.
For many state agencies, participation in certain initiatives has been
voluntary, and the extent of participation has varied. According to an
OCSE November 2005 update of a survey of all state agencies conducted
by the Massachusetts state agency, most state agencies offered direct
deposit as an option, with the percentage of payments made via direct
deposit ranging from 10 percent to 73 percent. Also, according to the
results of this survey, some state agencies--such as Illinois and
Nebraska--offered debit cards to custodial parents on a voluntary
basis, and the percentage of payments made via debit cards in a state
ranged from about 3 percent to 70 percent. The survey data are
consistent with what we found in the states we visited. In Utah and
Connecticut, for example, direct deposit is voluntary and officials
said that 41 percent and 46 percent of payments, respectively, were
made through direct deposit. Electronic transmittal of wages withheld
by employers for child support payments is another example of an
electronic payment method that is voluntary, in this case for the
employer. For example, in Alaska, a state agency official told us that
about 53 percent of payments withheld from wages are received
electronically. According to state agency officials with whom we spoke
in Utah and Connecticut, as well as an OCSE official, participation in
electronic payment initiatives has not been higher for several reasons,
such as the initial start-up costs employers incur and the clients'
lack of familiarity with these methods and preference for cash. Also,
according to an official from the Utah state agency, debit card fees,
such as ATM fees that clients may be charged to access their funds,
have affected participation. Officials in Connecticut and Utah said
that their agencies have tried to increase participation through
repeated educational efforts, such as periodically distributing
brochures and letters. In Utah, officials said these efforts typically
increase participation 10 percent to 15 percent after each campaign.
Similarly, Connecticut officials also described outreach efforts to
increase participation and estimated that about 30 custodial parents
had enrolled in direct deposit each week in state fiscal year 2005.
Other state agencies, such as North Dakota and Puerto Rico, have sought
to attain the maximum participation possible by requiring clients to
choose either direct deposit or debit cards. [Footnote 31]
State agencies reported savings and other benefits after implementing
the 10 initiatives listed in our survey. For example, New York reported
saving $4.5 million since fiscal year 1993 after implementing
electronic transfer of wages withheld by employers for child support
payments, and Texas estimated that by providing online training for its
staff, the state agency had saved $650,000 since fiscal year 2001.
Also, officials in Connecticut stated that direct deposit costs them 17
cents per payment, while issuing a paper check costs about 61 cents to
produce and mail.[Footnote 32] In addition to cost savings, states can
realize other benefits from implementing these initiatives, such as
time savings from quicker processes, enhanced customer service, or the
opportunity to use staff for other program needs. Our 2004 report found
that debit cards can help states avoid or minimize the problem of
undistributed collections--funds that were delayed or never reached
families.[Footnote 33] Also, debit cards ensured receipt of child
support payments during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, according to
agency and federal officials. Additionally, payments that are
transferred electronically can be credited to multiple cases
simultaneously, according to Utah state agency officials.
Table 6: Cost-Saving Initiatives State Agencies Reported Implementing
and Estimated Cost Savings Reported by State Agencies, as of February
2006:
Initiative name and description: Electronic fund transfers between
states for interstate cases;
Year first implemented by any state agency: 1991;
Number of state agencies that reported implementing this initiative:
52; [Empty];
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Minimum: $30,000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 2001;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Maximum: $650,000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 2001; [Empty].
Initiative name and description: Automated voice response systems to
handle child support inquiries 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without
personalized service;
Year first implemented by any state agency: 1990;
Number of state agencies that reported implementing this initiative:
48[B]; [Empty];
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Minimum: 200,000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 2000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Maximum: 72,000,000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 1996; [Empty].
Initiative name and description: Direct deposit of child support
payments to custodial parents' checking or savings accounts;
Year first implemented by any state agency: 1989;
Number of state agencies that reported implementing this initiative:
48[B]; [Empty];
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Minimum: 15,000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 2004;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Maximum: 7,000,000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 2003; [Empty].
Initiative name and description: Electronic methods for noncustodial
parents to transmit payments;
Year first implemented by any state agency: 1989;
Number of state agencies that reported implementing this initiative:
38[B]; [Empty];
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Minimum: 600;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 2003;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Maximum: 30,000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 2001; [Empty].
Initiative name and description: Electronic receipt of wages withheld
by employers;
Year first implemented by any state agency: 1990;
Number of state agencies that reported implementing this initiative:
50[B]; [Empty];
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Minimum: 325,000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 1998;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Maximum: 4,500,000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 1993; [Empty].
Initiative name and description: Web site that permits custodial or
noncustodial parents to access or update their file information;
Year first implemented by any state agency: 1999;
Number of state agencies that reported implementing this initiative:
29; [Empty];
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Minimum: 24,000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 2002;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Maximum: 10,000,000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 2002; [Empty].
Initiative name and description: Debit cards that allow custodial
parents to access their child support payments electronically;
Year first implemented by any state agency: 2000;
Number of state agencies that reported implementing this initiative:
27; [Empty];
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Minimum: 5,700;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 2005;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Maximum: 3,000,000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 2005; [Empty].
Initiative name and description: Child support training conducted via
the Internet/intranet for child support staff;
Year first implemented by any state agency: 1993;
Number of state agencies that reported implementing this initiative:
22; [Empty];
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Minimum: 10,000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 2002;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Maximum: 650,000;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 2001; [Empty].
Initiative name and description: Automated address change service
available through the U.S. Postal Service;
Year first implemented by any state agency: 1996;
Number of state agencies that reported implementing this initiative:
11;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Maximum: 100,000[C];
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: 2004.
Initiative name and description: Contracts for management of non-IV-D
cases[D];
Year first implemented by any state agency: 1996;
Number of state agencies that reported implementing this initiative: 9;
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Maximum: $0[E];
Cumulative savings (minimum and maximum) estimated by any state agency
and implementation year[A]: Year: [Empty].
Source: GAO survey.
[A] A few state agencies reported zero cost savings for certain
initiatives, but expected future cost savings. In addition, many state
agencies reported that cost savings were unknown for several
initiatives.
[B] California is included in the total number of state agencies
implementing these initiatives; however, at the time our survey was
administered, implementation was limited to certain counties.
[C] Only 1 state agency provided an estimate of cost savings for this
initiative.
[D] Non-IV-D cases are those for which the state agency is not
providing, or has not previously provided, services under the state's
TANF, child support, foster care, or Medicaid programs.
[E] Two state agencies provided an estimate for this initiative, and,
in both cases, the estimated cost savings was zero.
[End of table]
Most state agencies (38) reported that they reinvested the savings from
implemented initiatives in the CSE program. For example, state agency
officials we interviewed in Connecticut and Utah told us that once
resources are no longer needed for developing and implementing a new
initiative, they reallocate these resources to other tasks. In Utah, a
state agency official with whom we spoke estimated that by implementing
an automated voice response system and a customer service Web site and
by providing training on how to answer clients' inquiries efficiently,
the state agency was able to shift four full-time staff who formerly
handled customer service calls to other projects. Conversely, five
state agencies reported that they did not reinvest their savings. For
example, the Nevada state agency reported that savings were returned to
the state general fund per state requirements, and the Vermont state
agency reported that in some cases state funding for the program was
reduced by the amount of the savings.
Additionally, state agency officials told us about other practices that
they implemented to reduce costs, beyond the initiatives specified in
our survey. For example, in Connecticut, the state agency has adopted
practices as varied as using videoconference facilities to allow
caseworkers to attend hearings that can help reduce travel costs and
printing double-sided notices to clients. In Utah, the state agency has
automated notices to noncustodial parents regarding pending wage
withholding. In Virginia, the state agency automated intercept of
unemployment insurance payments in fiscal year 2003 and reported total
costs savings of $240,000 as a result. The Georgia state agency
reported implementing Internet-enabled voice communication to reduce
telephone costs.
OCSE Has Taken Steps to Help State Agencies Manage Costs:
OCSE issued guidance and awarded grants to state agencies to help them
manage costs. OCSE issued guidance on a wide range of topics addressing
program operations that may directly or indirectly lead to cost
savings. For example, OCSE has issued guidance on electronic
disbursement of payments, criteria for closing cases, multistate
financial institution data matches, and review and adjustment of
support orders.[Footnote 34] In addition, OCSE has awarded grants to
help state agencies develop and implement certain initiatives. For
example, in fiscal year 2002, OCSE awarded Indiana a $100,000 grant to
investigate the use of debit cards to reduce undistributed collections,
Texas a $71,630 grant to develop electronic payment methods for
noncustodial parents, North Carolina a $200,000 grant for an outgoing
automated voice response system to send reminders to clients, and
Colorado a $100,000 grant for Web-site technology to increase customer
services.
OCSE has created several work groups consisting of federal and state
agency officials to address specific issues of concern to all state
agencies. Some examples of these federal/state work groups are
discussed as follows:
* Work group on a Standardized Electronic Wage Withholding Order: OCSE
convened a work group in 2004 to develop a standardized method for the
electronic transmission of wage withholding orders to employers. The
work group was composed of representatives from state and tribal child
support enforcement agencies, employers, federal agencies (Social
Security Administration, Department of Defense, and the United States
Postal Service), and a large payroll processing company. This work
group developed, among other things, a draft electronic wage
withholding order for state agencies to notify employers of a wage
withholding action. According to OCSE, electronic transmission of wage-
withholding orders will increase processing efficiency and improve the
speed with which payments are made to families and also reduce the cost
of postage and processing paper documents.
* The National Judicial/CSE Collaboration Work Group: OCSE convened
this work group in 2004 to help improve collaboration between child
support enforcement agencies and courts. This work group's goals
include improving case processing and facilitating electronic data and
document exchange between state agencies and courts.
* National Child Support Enforcement Training Work Group: This work
group met in 2005 to identify training needs and resources available to
address strategies in the Strategic Plan. The goal is to develop a
strategy for meeting training needs in order to improve program results
and customer services at all levels.
Also, OCSE has facilitated information exchanges in other ways. OCSE
has sponsored conferences and invited representatives from state
agencies who have experience with specific initiatives to appear on
panels to share ideas with representatives from other state agencies.
According to an OCSE official, OCSE is working with state agencies to
add information about various initiatives to its existing automated
systems certification guide. State agencies interested in implementing
certain initiatives will be able to consult the guide to learn from
what others have done. The guide will also have information about the
availability of grants to help states implement the initiatives.
According to this official, the first draft of the amended guide will
be available to the state agencies for comment in June 2006. In
addition, OCSE held telephone conferences with state agencies on
specific subjects. For example, according to an OCSE official, OCSE
arranged a teleconference in February 2006 to enable state agencies
that had implemented debit cards to share their experiences and
expertise with state agencies interested in implementing them. OCSE
officials noted that they also distributed CD-ROMs to state agencies
with information on the Web-based customer service practices of 6 state
agencies.
Generally, state agencies responding to our survey viewed OCSE
assistance favorably. In particular, as shown in table 7, nearly all of
the state agencies reported that OCSE's efforts to create federal/state
work groups, hold conferences or sponsor training, issue guidance, and
facilitate information exchange were very or moderately helpful.
Table 7: States Agencies' Views about OCSE's Efforts to Help Them
Manage Program Costs:
OCSE efforts: Creating federal/state work groups (such as the medical
support, interstate, or undistributed collections work groups);
Number of state agencies rating OCSE's assistance as very or moderately
helpful: 49.
OCSE efforts: Holding or sponsoring conferences or training;
Number of state agencies rating OCSE's assistance as very or moderately
helpful: 48.
OCSE efforts: Issuing guidance;
Number of state agencies rating OCSE's assistance as very or moderately
helpful: 47.
OCSE efforts: Facilitating the sharing and exchange of information
(e.g. the Compendium of Best Practices, the OCSE Web site, or the
newsletter);
Number of state agencies rating OCSE's assistance as very or moderately
helpful: 44.
OCSE efforts: Leading special projects (such as projects in the area of
interstate case reconciliation, medical support, and other projects);
Number of state agencies rating OCSE's assistance as very or moderately
helpful: 41.
OCSE efforts: Conducting annual planning document reviews for system
modifications/upgrades;
Number of state agencies rating OCSE's assistance as very or moderately
helpful: 36.
OCSE efforts: Providing special technical assistance (e.g. performance
reviews to help states automate, reviews to help assess cost savings
associated with certain enforcement tools, and other reviews);
Number of state agencies rating OCSE's assistance as very or moderately
helpful: 31.
OCSE efforts: Awarding grants for state projects (e.g. Special
Improvement Projects);
Number of state agencies rating OCSE's assistance as very or moderately
helpful: 27.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of table]
OCSE Has Conducted a Limited Number of Administrative Cost Audits:
Although OCSE is required to perform audits to determine whether
federal and other funds made available to carry out the state program
are being appropriately expended, OCSE has not conducted administrative
cost audits in most states. From March 2004 to March 2006, OCSE issued
eight administrative cost audit reports--an average of 4 per year. The
issued reports show that all of the audits were limited in scope and
all raised questions about inappropriate expenditures. For example, one
audit of costs claimed for one quarter found that the federal
government paid approximately $670,000 for unallowable collection costs
and litigation settlements claimed by the Texas state agency. Another
audit that examined expenses claimed for one quarter recommended that
the Vermont state agency reimburse the federal government $603,057 for
failing to properly report interest income and abandoned property as
program income and claiming costs not related to the CSE program. Table
8 summarizes the administrative cost audits completed as of March 2006.
Table 8: OCSE's Administrative Cost Audits Completed from March 2004 to
March 2006:
State Agency: Florida;
Date of report: March 2, 2004;
Scope of audit: Analysis of cooperative agreement costs charged by the
CSE program;
Major findings: The audit recommended that all cooperative agreement
costs claimed, in the amount of $75.3 million, be questioned until
further studies are conducted.
State Agency: Arkansas;
Date of report: February 16, 2005;
Scope of audit: Salary, fringe benefits, automated data processing
costs, fund transfers, and genetic testing fees claimed on the state
agency's expenditure report for one quarter covering April 1, 2004, to
June 30, 2004;
Major findings: The state agency had claimed salary and fringe benefit
costs for personnel not working for the CSE program, claimed fund
transfers to the state treasurer that were not CSE expenditures, and
incorrectly reported recouped genetic testing fees in the amount of
$614,861 that the agency later refunded to the federal government.
State Agency: Texas;
Date of report: July 20, 2005;
Scope of audit: Non-IV-D costs and settlement charges claimed on the
state agency's expenditure report for the quarter ended June 30, 2004;
Major findings: The state agency incorrectly claimed non-IV-D costs for
processing collections and claimed costs of a lawsuit settlement
totaling $670,253 that were not associated with the normal activities
of the CSE program.
State Agency: Vermont;
Date of report: February 7, 2006;
Scope of audit: Expenses claimed for one quarter on the state agency's
expenditure report under the category of program income as well as
other selected costs;
Major findings: The state agency failed to properly report interest
income and abandoned property as program income and included costs not
related to the CSE program totaling $603,057. In addition, $92,000 was
being questioned.
State Agency: Connecticut;
Date of report: February 8, 2006;
Scope of audit: Expenses claimed for one quarter on the state agency's
expenditure report under the category of cooperative agreement and
other selected costs;
Major findings: The audit found that the state agency improperly
claimed funds totaling $525,605 for payments to employees either
retiring or terminating employment and for contractual services and
commodities. The audit recommended that $346,899 be refunded to the
federal government.
State Agency: New Jersey;
Date of report: February 22, 2006;
Scope of audit: Costs claimed on the state agency's expenditure report
for the period of April 1, 2003, through March 30, 2004;
Major findings: The audit found that $1,423,288 of costs claimed by the
state agency was either not allocable or allowable under federal cost
principles and regulations and recommended that $939,370 be refunded to
the federal government.
State Agency: Alabama;
Date of report: March 1, 2006;
Scope of audit: Certain costs claimed on the state agency's expenditure
report for the quarter ended June 30, 2005;
Major findings: The audit found the state agency claimed advertising
and legal services costs that did not benefit the CSE program and,
thus, was not allowable. As a result, the state agency refunded $17,010
to the federal government.
State Agency: New Mexico;
Date of report: March 13, 2006;
Scope of audit: Selected costs claimed by the state agency for the
quarters ended June 30, 2002, through March 31, 2005;
Major findings: The audit identified $270,316 in overcharges by the
state agency and recommended that the agency refund $140,983 to the
federal government.
Source: GAO analysis of OCSE cost audit reports.
[End of table]
An OCSE official explained that OCSE completed a limited number of
administrative costs audits because most of its resources were devoted
to completing data reliability audits associated with the federal
incentive payments. In fiscal year 2004, OCSE notified state agencies
that it would not perform data reliability audits annually but would
conduct audits every 2 or 3 years, based on prior audit results. In
addition, the notice indicated that this approach would increase the
resources available to conduct other audits. According to an OCSE
official, additional administrative cost audits have not been planned
and that unless OCSE gets more audit resources, it is likely that few
administrative cost audits will be conducted. This official also
explained that OCSE has added reviews related to medical support in
anticipation of a medical support incentive payment measure and this
effort has taken resources from other audit work. [Footnote 35] In
commenting on a draft of this report HHS informed us that OCSE's
approach for conducting fewer data reliability audits has not yet
increased available audit resources.
OCSE's audit plan identifies several types of audits and reviews and
shows that most of the planned audits are not administrative cost
audits. The plan lists 16 administrative cost audits--also referred to
as limited cost audits, as well as 37 data reliability audits, 17 data
reliability reviews, 4 paternity audits, and 36 medical support
reviews.[Footnote 36],[Footnote 37] According to an OCSE official, the
audit plan needs to be updated to reflect current information and
status of the assignments.
While OCSE has conducted few administrative cost audits, others have
conducted audits of the CSE programs, and although some of these audits
addressed administrative cost issues, generally they had a broader
focus. For example, at the federal level, the CSE program is audited as
part of the annual financial statement audit of HHS. Financial
statement audits of federal entities are intended to provide decision
makers with assurance as to whether the financial statements are
reliable, internal control is effective, and laws and regulations are
complied with. In addition, statewide single audits assess whether
states have complied with requirements in up to 14 managerial or
financial areas, including allowable activities, cash management, and
eligibility. However, in our review of TANF and Child Care programs, we
found that single audits were limited in scope and varied in how they
were conducted, state by state.[Footnote 38] Furthermore, the HHS
Office of Inspector General (IG) and state auditors have completed
audits of the CSE program. From fiscal years 2000 to 2005 the IG issued
13 audit reports that focused on the CSE program, and 2 of these
reports focused on administrative cost issues. For example, 1 audit of
Ohio's CSE program found contracting deficiencies and overcharges. We
reviewed selected state auditors' reports of CSE programs from 5 of the
6 states we visited, and found that 3 of these reports included some
findings related to administrative costs, automated data systems, or
internal control.[Footnote 39],[Footnote 40] For example, the audit of
the Connecticut program found that the state had not properly allocated
all related costs. An OCSE official stated that, as part of its
standard procedures for planning administrative cost audits, its
auditors consider the significance and materiality of findings
disclosed in previous audit reports, both OCSE and other sources, such
as the State Auditor, IG, as well as any single audit reports that may
have been performed. Also, according to comments from HHS on a draft of
this report, OCSE develops an audit plan that first considers staff
availability and then prioritizes which state agencies to audit based
on several factors such as requests from the ACF regional offices,
issues identified during data reliability audits, knowledge of possible
problems from other sources and how long it has been since the prior
audit. OCSE officials did not cite the level of expenditures for
administrative costs as a factor that was considered in planning
administrative cost audits.
Conclusions:
In addition to the changes made by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
that will affect federal expenditures for the CSE program, there may be
other opportunities to reduce the federal expenditures for the CSE
program. Although many state agencies reported implementing several
initiatives that have resulted in savings, most state agencies reported
that they have reinvested funds in other CSE program areas. As such,
state agencies have not used savings from implemented initiatives to
reduce administrative costs. State agencies also reported that several
of the cost categories that were major contributors to federal
expenditures for administrative costs were related, at least in part,
to the number of FTEs devoted to the program, including state and local
CSE agency personnel; staff from other state and local agencies that
provide services under cooperative agreements; and contractors.
Although OCSE has established minimum organizational and staffing
requirements, OCSE has not conducted a study to establish FTE or
staffing guidelines to determine whether there are additional
opportunities to improve the efficiency of the CSE program and reduce
administrative costs.
Furthermore, OCSE has not conducted administrative cost audits in most
states. Of the administrative cost audits recently completed by OCSE,
all have raised questions about inappropriate expenditures or
unallowable costs. Nonetheless, most of the completed and planned
audits are focused on incentive payment data and indicators, and
although OCSE expects to have more resources available to conduct
audits, it does not plan to use these resources to conduct more
administrative cost audits. The audits related to the incentive
payments are important, however many more federal dollars have been
spent for administrative costs, and the federal expenditures for
administrative costs have been increasing and are not capped. From the
federal government's perspective, more focus on administrative cost
audits would be a prudent use of resources. Also, in developing its
plans for administrative cost audits, OCSE officials did not cite total
expenditures for administrative costs as a factor in determining which
state agencies to audit. Without conducting administrative cost audits
in more states, and without a plan for conducting audits based in part
on the level of expenditures, OCSE cannot ensure that federal funds
have been appropriately spent.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help manage the administrative costs for the child support
enforcement program and ensure federal funds are being appropriately
spent, we are making three recommendations. We recommend that the
Secretary of Health and Human Services direct the Commissioner of OCSE
to:
* conduct a study of and develop guidelines for the number of full-
time-equivalent employees,
* direct resources gained from conducting fewer data reliability audits
for the incentive payments to completing more administrative cost
audits, and:
* develop an audit plan that considers total expenditures as one of the
factors used to select state agencies for administrative cost audits.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received written comments on a draft of this report from HHS. These
comments are reproduced in appendix VII. HHS also provided technical
comments, which we incorporated when appropriate.
HHS did not explicitly agree or disagree with our recommendations. In
response to our recommendation to conduct a study of and develop
guidelines for the number of full-time-equivalent employees, HHS stated
that OCSE will consider doing such a study. HHS also noted that OCSE
issued a report that reviewed collections, expenditures, caseload, and
other data by full-time-equivalent employees for the 1997 and 1998 time
frame. We reviewed this report and determined that while it summarizes
these data, it does not address guidelines.
In response to our recommendation to develop a plan to conduct
administrative cost audits, HHS commented that OCSE has developed plans
to conduct administrative cost audits in the past, has conducted those
audits, and will continue to develop plans in the future. We revised
the report to acknowledge that OCSE has a plan for conducting
administrative cost audits as well as other audits and to incorporate
information from the technical comments about the plan. Additionally,
we modified this recommendation to better reflect our intent to
encourage OCSE to complete more administrative cost audits than it
completed during the 2004 to 2006 time period and to consider total
expenditures for administrative costs when planning these audits. In
light of our finding that all of the completed administrative cost
audits have identified inappropriate or unallowable expenditures,
additional audits are needed to help ensure that federal funds are used
appropriately.
HHS also identified several areas that needed further clarification.
HHS suggested that we explain that the CSE program locates custodial
parents and that custodial as well as noncustodial parents may apply
for services. We modified the report to include these facts. HHS also
said that the report does not note that staffing declined since fiscal
year 2003. We did not make any changes in response to this comment
since data in the report show this decline. In addition, HHS commented
that we did not discuss the relationship between spending and
performance and referred to the findings in a report done by the Lewin
Group, Inc. We did not include an analysis of the relationship between
spending and the performance measures because that analysis was beyond
the scope of our work for this review. As for the Lewin report, we did
not include findings from this report because they were based on fiscal
year 1997 data, and the report includes a statement that the findings
should be interpreted carefully because of several problems associated
with measures that are proxies for performance, data quality, missing
variables, and other factors. Additionally, the HHS comments pointed
out that our report did not include certain provisions in the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 or mention estimated income or savings related to
this act. We added this information to the report.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, Directors of state child support enforcement agencies
in the states we visited, and other interested parties. In addition, we
will make copies available to others upon request. Also, this report
will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about his report, please
contact me at 202-512-7215 or AshbyC@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix VIII.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Objectives:
The objectives of this study were to determine (1) how total net
federal expenditures for administrative costs have changed from fiscal
year 2000 to fiscal year 2004, (2) the categories of cost that have
contributed most to federal expenditures for administrative costs in
recent years, and (3) steps state agencies have taken to manage costs
and steps the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has taken to
help state agencies and to ensure federal funds have been used
appropriately.
Scope and Methodology:
In conducting our review, we used multiple methodologies. We (1)
analyzed program data for all 54 state agencies for fiscal years 2000
to 2004; (2) conducted a survey of state agencies; (3) visited 6 state
agencies; (4) interviewed OCSE and state agency officials as well as
child support experts; and (5) reviewed relevant laws and regulations,
pertinent reports and studies, and applicable OCSE policy and guidance
documents. We conducted our work between June 2005 and June 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Analyses of Program Data:
To determine how net federal expenditures for administrative costs have
changed, we obtained data from the system that maintains information
related to funds administered by Health and Human Services' (HHS)
Administration for Children and Families, including funds provided to
state agencies. This system is known as the Grants Application Tracking
and Evaluation System (GATES). Before analyzing the data, we took
several steps to assess its reliability. We interviewed HHS officials
responsible for managing GATES and obtained information about the
system such as its purpose, the procedures to ensure that it captures
all records, and tests or edit checks to assure that data are accurate.
We also obtained copies of the system manual and system audit reports.
Because the state agencies are the sources for the GATES data, we also
interviewed state agency officials and asked them about reviews and
routine audits of the data, and we obtained copies of system audit
reports as well as documents that summarized the procedures for
ensuring data accuracy. Additionally, we compared expenditure data from
several state agencies with data from GATES and found they were nearly
identical. Furthermore, we reviewed results of OCSE's data reliability
audits of state agencies' data related to the performance incentive
measures, including collections, and cost-effectiveness ratios. On the
basis of these steps, we determined the data from GATES were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
We obtained and analyzed several sets of state CSE program data for
fiscal years 2000 to 2004. We analyzed the net federal share of state
expenditures and calculated the percentage change and the median
amounts. Additionally, we examined other program data to gain some
perspective about changes in the net federal expenditures for
administrative costs. Specifically, for fiscal years 2000 to 2004, we
examined collections, number of cases, the cost-effectiveness ratios,
and the number of full-time-equivalent employees. To determine the cost
per case, we used the total number of cases at the end of each fiscal
year and the nominal net expenditures for each year. We calculated the
median amounts for expenditures and collections because of the wide
variation among state agencies. Since the data span a 5-year period, we
considered it appropriate to adjust the expenditure and collection data
for inflation, using the price index for the U.S gross domestic product
when the analysis covered a period of years. These data, in 2004
dollars, were used in discussing trends in net federal expenditures for
administrative costs and collections. However, when we calculated
percentage changes from year to year, we used nominal dollars to be
consistent with data previously reported to Congress.
Survey of State Agencies:
We designed and administered a survey to all 54 state agencies. The
survey asked state agencies to identify the administrative cost
categories in which they incurred costs during fiscal years 2002 to
2004 and to estimate the percent of the state's administrative costs
for the five categories that accounted for the largest percentages. The
survey also asked state agencies whether they had implemented 10 cost-
saving initiatives and, if so, when each was implemented and what the
cost savings had been, if any. We selected these 10 cost-saving
initiatives after reviewing OCSE's Compendium of State Best Practices
and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement for 2001, 2002, and 2003--
the most recent years available at the time of our review. We selected
initiatives that had demonstrated dollar savings or the potential for
dollar savings. The last section of the survey asked state agencies to
rate how helpful certain OCSE efforts had been in reducing or
minimizing their administrative costs and if there were other actions
OCSE could take to help state agencies reduce or minimize
administrative costs. Surveys were sent via an e-mail as a MSWord
attachment in November 2005, and all 54 state agencies sent in
responses by February 2006.
Because we received responses from all of the state agencies, our
results are not subject to sampling error. However, the practical
difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce other types of
errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,
differences in how a particular question is interpreted and the sources
of information available to respondents in answering a question can
introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We included
steps in both the data collection and data analysis stages to minimize
such nonsampling errors. For example, the survey instrument was
developed by a GAO survey specialist in collaboration with staff
knowledgeable about the CSE program. In addition, the survey was
reviewed by another GAO survey specialist and pretested telephonically
with two state agencies to develop a survey instrument that was
relevant, easy to comprehend, unambiguous, and unbiased. We made
changes to the content and format of the survey instrument based on the
review and the results of the pretests. To further reduce nonsampling
error, respondents entered their responses directly into the survey
instrument and returned them electronically. Responses were then
reviewed by GAO staff for completeness and internal consistency, and
when data seemed questionable, we followed up with state agency
officials for clarification.
Survey responses were then keypunched into the database used for
analysis and these data were 100 percent verified for accuracy of data
entry. When the data were analyzed, a second, independent analyst
checked all computer programs.
Visits to State Agencies:
We visited state agencies in 6 states--California, Connecticut,
Maryland, Ohio, South Carolina, and Utah. We selected these states
because they represented diversity in changes in federal expenditures
during fiscal years 2002 to 2004, geographical location, and
operational structure (state-or county-operated). During these visits,
we interviewed state officials and obtained their opinions and
perspectives about key issues. We discussed administrative cost trends
for their state, the categories of cost that contributed most to their
total administrative costs, and steps taken to reduce costs, including
implementing the cost-saving initiatives. We also collected
administrative cost data for fiscal years 2002 to 2004, state agency
policies and procedures, and relevant reports.
Interviews of officials, representatives, and experts:
We interviewed many CSE program officials and representatives from
various organizations to learn more about each of the objectives. We
interviewed several key OCSE officials, including the Commissioner,
Director of the Office of Audits, Director of State and Tribal Systems,
and the Director of the Planning, Research and Evaluation Division.
Several of these interviews focused on OCSEís efforts to help states
manage their administrative costs and their efforts to help ensure that
federal funds were used appropriately. In addition, we obtained their
views on reasons the expenditures have increased and the factors that
have contributed most to these increases. We also discussed our
objectives with representatives from the National Child Support
Enforcement Association and the National Council of Child Support
Directors. These discussions covered each of the objectives and the
participants shared their views and insights. For example, the
participants expressed their opinions about personnel costs as a major
contributor to administrative costs, various cost-saving initiatives,
and OCSEís efforts to help state agencies. In addition, we interviewed
experts and professionals with extensive knowledge of the child support
program. Specifically, we discussed the objectives with professionals
from the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) and the Urban
Institute.
Reviews of laws, policies, and reports:
During the course of this work, we obtained and reviewed numerous
documents. We reviewed provisions in several laws that affected the CSE
program, including, among others, the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the Child Support Performance
and Incentive Act, and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. We examined
OCSEís policies and guidance, strategic plans, forms and instructions
for reporting administrative costs as well as other OCSE reports and
documents related to administrative costs. We obtained and reviewed
documents and reports prepared by state agencies, the Congressional
Budget Office, CLASP, the Congressional Research Service, the Urban
Institute, and the Lewin Group and ECONorthwest. In addition, we
reviewed several prior GAO reports.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Annual Percentage Changes in Net Federal Expenditures, by
State Agency, for Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004:
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Alabama;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (8.4);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 16.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 4.7.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Alaska;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (3.0);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (1.8);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (9.3).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Arizona;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (3.6);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (2.2);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (6.0);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 7.7.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Arkansas;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 17.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 18.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (11.8);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (9.9).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: California;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 77.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 53.5;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (5.2);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 19.1.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Colorado;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 6.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 16.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (1.5).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Connecticut;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 1.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 17.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (3);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 49.0.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Delaware;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 21.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (16.3);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 31.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 7.6.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: District of Columbia;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 25.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (12.0);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 39.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (38.3).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Florida;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 10.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (1.4);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 2.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 8.6.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Georgia;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 1.0.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Guam;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 193.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (29.8);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (27.1);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 22.1.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Hawaii;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (51.4);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 5.5;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 79.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (58.2).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Idaho;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 12.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (8.4);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 3.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 6.0.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Illinois;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 26.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 4.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 10.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (8.1).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Indiana;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 33.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (26.9);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (20.3);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 66.2.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Iowa;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (19.9);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 9.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 9.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 8.7.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Kansas;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 36.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (8.1);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (18.8);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 4.6.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Kentucky;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 16.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (15.4);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (14.2).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Louisiana;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 30.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (5.0);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (7.0);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 8.7.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Maine;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (355.0);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 242.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (93.3);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 829.8.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Maryland;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (12.5);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 6.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (4.3);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 4.6.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Massachusetts;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (27.2);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (1.2);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 16.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 27.1.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Michigan;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 36.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (5);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (3.2);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (12.8).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Minnesota;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 14.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 13.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.5;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 1.8.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Mississippi;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (19.1);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (7.2);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (2.4);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 1.9.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Missouri;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (5.3);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (19.2);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (1.2).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Montana;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (8.0);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (20.7);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 21.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (2.7).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Nebraska;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 28.5;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 9.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (6.7);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (4.2).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Nevada;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (14.4);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 15.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (8);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (1.4).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: New Hampshire;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (1.8);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 45.5;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (15.7);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (5.2).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: New Jersey;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (3.3);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 24.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (8);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 13.3.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: New Mexico;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 36.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (19.3);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 9.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (16.5).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: New York;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 6.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 48.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (2.1);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 21.8.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: North Carolina;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 4.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 7.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (5);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 8.1.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: North Dakota;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 16.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (1.2);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (3.9);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 9.4.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Ohio;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 28.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (4.9);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (9);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (10.4).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Oklahoma;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 6.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 30.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (6.0);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (10.2).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Oregon;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (11.5);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 17.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 12.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (6.7).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Pennsylvania;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (10.4);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 11.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 14.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (5.1).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Puerto Rico;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 23.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (4.5);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 22.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (23.7).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Rhode Island;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 37.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 23.5;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (10.5);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (9.3).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: South Carolina;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 26.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (18.7);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (2.4);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (8.8).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: South Dakota;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 1.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (13.3);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 10.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 5.6.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Tennessee;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (2.9);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 23.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (8.7);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 10.1.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Texas;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 13.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 28.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 13.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (3.7).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Utah;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 4.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (1.6);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (1.8);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 12.2.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Vermont;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 26.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 8.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 13.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (57.0).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Virgin Islands;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 63.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (33.3);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (9.6);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 17.3.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Virginia;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (16.7);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 8.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 9.3.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Washington;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 14.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (4.7);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 21.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 3.3.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: West Virginia;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (21.6);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 2.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 17.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 12.7.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Wisconsin;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 17.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 3.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 11.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 3.1.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Wyoming;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 13.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (17.7);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (4.3);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 18.8.
Source: OCSE data.
Note: Nominal dollars were used when comparing data from year to year
in order to be consistent with data previously reported to Congress.
Parentheses indicate a decrease.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Annual Percentage Changes in Collections, by State
Agency, for Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004:
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Alabama;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 4.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 5.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 1.4.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Alaska;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 9.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 4.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (2.4);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 3.5.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Arizona;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 7.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 8.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 1.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 6.1.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Arkansas;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 1.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 5.5;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 6.9.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: California;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (3.5);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (11.4);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 21.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 2.1.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Colorado;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 7.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 6.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 0.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 6.9.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Connecticut;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 6.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 6.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 2.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 1.9.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Delaware;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 9.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 11.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 3.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 3.5.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: District of Columbia;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 7.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 7.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 9.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 9.0.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Florida;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 8.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 14.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 10.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 10.3.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Georgia;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 6.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 8.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 9.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 2.6.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Guam;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (3.3);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 6.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 4.7.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Hawaii;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 4.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 6.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 3.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 6.8.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Idaho;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 16.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 9.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 7.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 7.6.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Illinois;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 17.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 8.5;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 2.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 8.5.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Indiana;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 2.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 17.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (3.0);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 6.1.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Iowa;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 8.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 7.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 3.9.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Kansas;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (8.6);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 5.5;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 3.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 2.5.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Kentucky;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 9.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 12.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 1.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 14.6.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Louisiana;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 9.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 11.5;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 2.4.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Maine;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 6.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 1.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 1.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 2.0.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Maryland;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 3.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 4.5;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 3.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 4.5.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Massachusetts;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 14.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 10.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 3.5.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Michigan;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 2.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 4.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (2.8);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 7.0.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Minnesota;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 7.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 4.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 1.6.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Mississippi;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 9.5;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 6.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 3.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 4.0.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Missouri;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 9.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 10.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 3.9.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Montana;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 7.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 5.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 1.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 1.6.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Nebraska;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 12.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (10.4);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 2.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 4.7.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Nevada;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 6.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 8.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 9.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 8.1.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: New Hampshire;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 2.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 3.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 1.0.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: New Jersey;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 6.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 6.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 5.8.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: New Mexico;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 10.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 19.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 15.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 11.0.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: New York;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 4.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 12.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (2.2).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: North Carolina;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 8.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 8.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 6.3.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: North Dakota;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 13.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 6.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 7.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 5.8.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Ohio;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 3.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 10.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (3.2);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 4.5.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Oklahoma;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 8.5;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 13.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 8.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 8.1.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Oregon;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 9.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 1.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 3.2.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Pennsylvania;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 7.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 6.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 1.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 1.1.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Puerto Rico;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 7.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 8.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 9.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 3.5.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Rhode Island;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 1.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 8.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (1.4);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 4.0.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: South Carolina;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 10.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 7.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 3.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 1.4.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: South Dakota;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 9.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 6.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 3.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 6.2.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Tennessee;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 11.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 15.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 11.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 8.1.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Texas;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 21.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 14.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 11.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (3.0).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Utah;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 7.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 4.5;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 3.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 2.5.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Vermont;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 5.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 2.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 1.7;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 15.3.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Virgin Islands;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: (4.8);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 2.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.8;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 11.6.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Virginia;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 15.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 8.3;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 7.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 5.9.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Washington;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 4.4;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 3.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 1.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (1.0).
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: West Virginia;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 14.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 10.2;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 3.9;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 9.0.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Wisconsin;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 2.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (1.6);
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 6.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 1.9.
Percentage change, by fiscal year: State Agency: Wyoming;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2000 to 2001: 7.0;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 7.1;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.6;
Percentage change, by fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 4.5.
Source: OCSE data.
Note: Nominal dollars were used when comparing data from year to year
in order to be consistent with data previously reported to Congress.
Parentheses indicate a decrease.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Percentage Changes in the Cost-Effectiveness Ratio by
State Agency and Nationwide:
State Agency: Alabama;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (9.23);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 3.85;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 4.50.
State Agency: Alaska;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 8.45;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (5.57);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 6.13.
State Agency: Arizona;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 3.16;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.18;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (1.12).
State Agency: Arkansas;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (6.01);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 17.29;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 24.36.
State Agency: California;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (26.82);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 20.94;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (8.23).
State Agency: Colorado;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 2.23;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (12.02);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 10.25.
State Agency: Connecticut;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (2.59);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 7.45;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (20.79).
State Agency: Delaware;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 24.91;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (17.21);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (0.66).
State Agency: District of Columbia;
Percentage change in the cost- effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 19.03;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (22.30);
Percentage change in the cost- effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 50.24.
State Agency: Florida;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 11.94;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 8.93;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 2.51.
State Agency: Georgia;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 7.07;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.42;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 4.47.
State Agency: Guam;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 23.31;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 28.05;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 7.62.
State Agency: Hawaii;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 6.01;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (22.21);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 71.26.
State Agency: Idaho;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 14.50;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 7.75;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 4.21.
State Agency: Illinois;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 12.00;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (5.71);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 21.97.
State Agency: Indiana;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 23.03;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 1.41;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (11.00).
State Agency: Iowa;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 6.83;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (1.95);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 1.27.
State Agency: Kansas;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 3.98;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 19.54;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 0.96.
State Agency: Kentucky;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 15.44;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 3.61;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 21.93.
State Agency: Louisiana;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 11.19;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.93;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (1.37).
State Agency: Maine;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (28.79);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 16.59;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (12.83).
State Agency: Maryland;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (0.71);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 8.11;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 0.88.
State Agency: Massachusetts;
Percentage change in the cost- effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 12.26;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (5.37);
Percentage change in the cost- effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (10.62).
State Agency: Michigan;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (4.77);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.36;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 13.15.
State Agency: Minnesota;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (1.94);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 0.00;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 1.23.
State Agency: Mississippi;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 19.46;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 5.34;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 6.13.
State Agency: Missouri;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 21.52;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 6.91;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 9.09.
State Agency: Montana;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 4.86;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (11.46);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 8.54.
State Agency: Nebraska;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (14.33);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 12.20;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 12.73.
State Agency: Nevada;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (11.42);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 8.71;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 6.09.
State Agency: New Hampshire;
Percentage change in the cost- effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (19.07);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 8.01;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 11.65.
State Agency: New Jersey;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (8.35);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.76;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (3.36).
State Agency: New Mexico;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 36.45[A];
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 7.53;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 19.11.
State Agency: New York;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (11.44);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 11.36;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (13.80).
State Agency: North Carolina;
Percentage change in the cost- effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 9.65;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 12.64;
Percentage change in the cost- effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 0.40.
State Agency: North Dakota;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 12.41;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 8.28;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 5.29.
State Agency: Ohio;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 13.71;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 2.08;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 11.20.
State Agency: Oklahoma;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (3.45);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 11.43;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 16.67.
State Agency: Oregon;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (11.76);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (4.27);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 10.18.
State Agency: Pennsylvania;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (1.86);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (0.73);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 3.09.
State Agency: Puerto Rico;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 13.79;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (9.57);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 38.98.
State Agency: Rhode Island;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 6.86;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 2.43;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 8.21.
State Agency: South Carolina;
Percentage change in the cost- effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 27.61;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 7.67;
Percentage change in the cost- effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 10.76.
State Agency: South Dakota;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (1.68);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 2.77;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (3.97).
State Agency: Tennessee;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (9.82);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 21.56;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (5.67).
State Agency: Texas;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 3.44;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.07;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 5.68.
State Agency: Utah;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 5.42;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 6.17;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (1.21).
State Agency: Vermont;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 0.77;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (3.82);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 11.64.
State Agency: Virgin Islands;
Percentage change in the cost- effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 41.07;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 16.46;
Percentage change in the cost- effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (0.54).
State Agency: Virginia;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 3.59;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 2.84;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (2.91).
State Agency: Washington;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 8.79;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (8.28);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (0.44).
State Agency: West Virginia;
Percentage change in the cost- effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 4.96;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (6.78);
Percentage change in the cost- effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (2.64).
State Agency: Wisconsin;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 0.83;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: (2.62);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (0.67).
State Agency: Wyoming;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: 22.25;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 11.40;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: (7.36).
State Agency: NATIONWIDE;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2001 to 2002: (1.90);
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2002 to 2003: 4.60;
Percentage change in the cost-effectiveness ratio from the previous
fiscal year: 2003 to 2004: 1.39.
Source: OCSE.
Note: Parentheses indicate a decrease.
[A] OCSE reported the data for 2001 as not reliable:
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Percentages Reported by State Agencies for Most Frequently
Cited Cost Categories:
Administrative cost category: Personnel;
Category reported as largest cost category: Number of state agencies:
38;
Category reported as largest cost category: Highest percentage: 80;
Category reported as largest cost category: Lowest percentage: 30;
Category reported as one of five largest categories: Number of state
agencies: 49;
Category reported as one of five largest categories: Highest
percentage: 80;
Category reported as one of five largest categories: Lowest percentage:
3.
Administrative cost category: Cooperative agreements;
Category reported as largest cost category: Number of state agencies:
3;
Category reported as largest cost category: Highest percentage: 70;
Category reported as largest cost category: Lowest percentage: 40;
Category reported as one of five largest categories: Number of state
agencies: 37;
Category reported as one of five largest categories: Highest
percentage: 70;
Category reported as one of five largest categories: Lowest percentage:
2.
Administrative cost category: Automated data systems;
Category reported as largest cost category: Number of state agencies:
5;
Category reported as largest cost category: Highest percentage: 65;
Category reported as largest cost category: Lowest percentage: 25;
Category reported as one of five largest categories: Number of state
agencies: 35;
Category reported as one of five largest categories: Highest
percentage: 65;
Category reported as one of five largest categories: Lowest percentage:
1.
Administrative cost category: Contracts;
Category reported as largest cost category: Number of state agencies:
3;
Category reported as largest cost category: Highest percentage: 68;
Category reported as largest cost category: Lowest percentage: 49;
Category reported as one of five largest categories: Number of state
agencies: 41;
Category reported as one of five largest categories: Highest
percentage: 68;
Category reported as one of five largest categories: Lowest percentage:
1.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: State Agencies' Implementation of Certain Cost-Saving
Initiatives:
Initiatives: State: AL;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: [Empty];
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: AK;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: check;
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: AZ;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: AR;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: check;
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: CA;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check
[A];
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check [A];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check [A];
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check [A];
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: [Empty].
Initiatives: State: CO;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: CT;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: ¸;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: DE;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: [Empty];
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: [Empty];
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: DC;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: FL;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: check;
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: GA;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: GU;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: [Empty];
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: HI;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: ID;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers:
[Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: [Empty];
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: check;
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: [Empty].
Initiatives: State: IL;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: check;
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: check;
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: IN;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: IA;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: check;
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: KS;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: [Empty];
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: check;
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: check;
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: KY;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: [Empty];
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: check;
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: LA;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: [Empty];
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: ME;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: MD;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: MA;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: check;
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: MI;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: check;
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: MN;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: MS;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: [Empty];
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: MO;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: MT;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers:
[Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: NE;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: NV;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: NH;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: NJ;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: NM;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: check;
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: NY;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: check;
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: check;
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: ¸.
Initiatives: State: NC;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: ND;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: OH;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: [Empty];
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: check;
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: OK;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: check;
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: [Empty].
Initiatives: State: OR;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: PA;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers:
[Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: PR;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: RI;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: [Empty];
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: SC;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers:
[Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: [Empty];
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: [Empty].
Initiatives: State: SD;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: TN;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: check;
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: TX;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: check;
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: UT;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: VT;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: VI;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: [Empty];
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: VA;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: WA;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: WV;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: [Empty];
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: check;
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: check;
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: WI;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: check;
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: check;
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: check;
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Initiatives: State: WY;
Initiatives: Electronic receipt of wages withheld by employers: check;
Initiatives: Electronic methods for noncustodial parents to transmit
payments: check;
Initiatives: Direct deposit: check;
Initiatives: Debit cards: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated voicemail systems: [Empty];
Initiatives: Web site to access or update case information: [Empty];
Initiatives: Automated address change service: [Empty];
Initiatives: Child support training via internet/ intranet: [Empty];
Initiatives: Contracting non-IV-D case registry: [Empty];
Initiatives: Electronic fund transfers for interstate cases: check.
Source: GAO survey.
[A] Implementation of this initiative was limited to certain counties
as of the time of our survey, December 2005.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Office of Inspector General:
Washington, D.C. 20201:
Jun 20 2006:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appreciates the
opportunity to review and comment on the U.S. Government Accountability
Office's (GAO) draft report entitled, "Child Support Enforcement: More
Focus on Labor Costs and Administrative Audits Could Help Reduce
Federal Expenditures" (GAO-06-491), before its publication.
The Department provided several technical comments directly to your
staff.
These comments and the concurrence of the recommendation represent the
tentative position of the Department and are subject to reevaluation
when the final version of the report is received.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Daniel R. Levinson Inspector General:
Enclosure:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's
designated focal point and coordinator for U.S. Government
Accountability Office reports. OIG has not conducted an independent
assessment of these comments and therefore expresses no opinion on
them.
Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services On The U.S.
Government Accountability Office Draft Report Entitled, "Child Support
Enforcement: More Focus On Labor Costs And Administrative Audits Could
Help Reduce Federal Expenditures" (GAO-06-491):
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's
(GAO) draft report.
GAO Recommendations:
To help improve program cost effectiveness, manage costs, and ensure
federal funds are being appropriately spent, we are making two
recommendations. We recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human
Services direct the Commissioner of the Office of OCSE to:
* conduct a study of and develop guidelines for the number of full-time
equivalent employees; and:
* develop a plan to conduct administrative cost audits that target
state agencies based on total expenditures and findings from prior
audits conducted by OCSE, the HHS OIG, or state auditors.
HHS Response:
HHS's Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) appreciates GAO's work
in this area and we will consider doing such a study.
GAO may wish to note that OCSE issued full-time equivalent (FTE)
reports that reviewed collections, expenditures, caseload, etc. by FTEs
under DCL-00-25, which applied to the 1997 and 1998 timeframe. This
document is located on OCSE's Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/DCL/dcl-00-25.htm].
OCSE developed plans to conduct administrative cost audits in the past,
has conducted those audits, and will continue to develop plans to
conduct administrative cost audits in the future.
HHS General Comments on the Report:
GAO should clarify throughout the report that the title IV-D program
locates custodial parents as well as noncustodial parents and putative
fathers because noncustodial and custodial parents may apply for
services. For example, a noncustodial parent may apply for service if
he/she seeks to establish paternity or request a review and adjustment.
GAO points out that personnel costs are a large expenditure for States,
but it is not noted that staffing in States has declined since fiscal
year (FY) 2003.
GAO also does not discuss the relationship between spending and
performance. If child support expenditures substantially decrease, so
will services to families. The Lewin Group, Inc., report on the
"Associations between Performance and Financing" found that staffing
levels were positively associated with strong performance on paternity
and order establishment. GAO does not include these two measures on the
chart on page 23. The study also found that there were tradeoffs
between cost-effectiveness and other performance measures.
GAO mentions the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) legislation, but not the
fact that the $25.00 fee and no match on incentives (as well as several
other provisions) will impact program financing. Per the Congressional
Budget Office, the fee will raise $405 million for the Federal
Government from FYs 2007 through 2015 and the no match will save the
Federal Government over $5.3 billion from FYs 2008 through 2015.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Cornelia M. Ashby 202-512-7215:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the person named above, Carolyn M. Taylor, Assistant
Director; Susan Higgins, Analyst in Charge; Tim Hall; Sheila McCoy,
Chris Morehouse; Vernette Shaw; Wilfred Holloway; Cathy Hurley; Stu
Kaufman; and James Rebbe made key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669b.
[2] In addition to these 54 CSE agencies, some American Indian tribes
administer CSE programs. In this report we refer to the 54 CSE agencies
as "state agencies."
[3] The expenditures include the net federal share of state agency
expenditures but not costs for OCSE staff and operations or CSE program
costs at HHS/ACF regional offices.
[4] The TANF program provides assistance and work opportunities to
needy families by granting states federal funds and wide flexibility to
develop and implement their own welfare programs. When families apply
for the TANF program, the custodial parent assigns to the state the
right to child support collected while the family is receiving TANF
benefits. The Medicaid program provides medical benefits to groups of
low-income people, some who may have no or inadequate medical
insurance. Although the federal government establishes general
guidelines for the program, the Medicaid program requirements are
established by each state. The Foster Care program provides open-ended
matching payments to states for the costs of maintaining certain
children in foster care and for the associated administrative, child
placement, and training costs. Several eligibility criteria apply to
the children on whose behalf federal reimbursement is available to
states.
[5] The incentive pool is capped at $446 million for fiscal year 2005,
$458 million for fiscal year 2006, $471 million for fiscal year 2007,
and $483 million for fiscal year 2008. For years thereafter, the
incentive pool is increased to account for inflation.
[6] The Lewin Group and ECONorthwest, State Financing of Child Support
Enforcement Programs, Final Report (Nov. 15, 2005).
[7] States retain a share of the TANF-related child support collections
and return a share of these collections to the federal government.
States may use retained collections for the CSE program or for other
purposes.
[8] 42 U.S.C. § 657.
[9] Pub. L. No. 96-265 (1980).
[10] GAO, Child Support Enforcement: Strong Leadership Required to
Maximize Benefits of Automated Systems, GAO/AIMD-97-72 (Washington,
D.C.: June 30, 1997).
[11] Pub. L. No. 98-378 (1984).
[12] Wage withholding, also known as income withholding, is a procedure
by which scheduled deductions are automatically made from wages or
income to pay a debt, such as child support. Wage withholding often is
incorporated into the child support order and may be voluntary or
involuntary. The provision dictates that an employer must withhold
child support from a noncustodial parent's wages and transfer that
withholding to the appropriate agency (the state Centralized Collection
Unit or State Disbursement Unit).
[13] Pub. L. No. 100-485 (1988).
[14] Certified CSE systems must be comprehensive, operate statewide,
and meet established standards of efficiency and effectiveness and
principles of an integrated system. In addition, these systems must
perform certain key functions including case initiation, case
management, financial management, and reporting.
[15] Pub. L. No. 104-193 (1996).
[16] With the financial institution data match, state agencies match
information on delinquent noncustodial parents with the records of
their financial accounts and may seize funds in those accounts.
[17] Pub. L. No. 105-200 (1998).
[18] Pub. L. No. 109-171 (2006).
[19] Prior to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, the incentive payments
that state agencies received from the federal government were
reinvested in the CSE program and then reimbursed at the appropriate
federal matching rate.
[20] GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005).
[21] Staff members in the 10 HHS/ACF regional offices also oversee the
administration of the CSE program as well as other programs. The
regions guide the programmatic and financial management of ACF programs
in their jurisdictions and provide assistance, resources, and
information to the various entities responsible for administering these
programs. Regional offices represent ACF to state, county, city and
tribal governments, grantees, and public and private organizations.
[22] GATES is ACF's primary grants administration system. This system
is designed to automate the process of awarding discretionary, formula,
block, and entitlement grants; maintain a nationwide database of grant
program and fiscal information; provide an easy method for viewing and
printing management reports; compile post-award monitoring information
and assist with planning for monitoring; safeguard federal funds
through management of funding limits; and facilitate the closeout of
grants and the archiving of program and fiscal performance information.
[23] The total net expenditure amounts shown in the report have been
rounded. We calculated the total percentage changes based on the exact
net federal expenditure amounts--$2,245,016,243 for fiscal year 2000
and $2,770,020,216 for fiscal year 2004.
[24] Unless otherwise noted, expenditure data have been adjusted for
inflation based on 2004 dollars. In nominal dollars, the expenditures
were about $2 billion in fiscal year 2000 and about $2.8 billion in
fiscal year 2004.
[25] During our review, California and South Carolina were the only
state agencies without certified automated data systems.
[26] All collections data have been adjusted for inflation in 2004
dollars. (In nominal dollars, the collections were about $18 billion in
fiscal years 2000 and $22 billion in fiscal year 2004.) The total
collection amounts shown in the report have been rounded. However, we
calculated the total percentage changes based on the exact collection
amounts--$19,447,826,418 in fiscal year 2000 and $21,861,258,876 in
fiscal year 2004.
[27] We calculated the percentage change for the nationwide cost
effectiveness ratio by comparing the cost effectiveness ratio in fiscal
year 2000 (4.23) to the cost effectiveness ratio in fiscal year 2004
(4.38). The cost effectiveness ratio is equal to the total amount
collected during the fiscal year divided by the total amount expended-
-federal as well as state expenditures.
[28] The February 1997 HHS report to the House of Representatives
Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance on
child support enforcement incentive funding explained that the upper
and lower thresholds for performance for each of the incentive measures
were based on analysis of state performance data and projections.
[29] We excluded five county-operated state agencies from this analysis
because they did not include the county costs in their responses to
this survey question.
[30] While South Carolina's state agency had about 223,000 cases in
fiscal year 2004, we did not include it in this table because of
concerns about the accuracy of the FTE data. Specifically, the data do
not include any FTEs for cooperative agreements, yet as noted earlier
in this report, South Carolina has cooperative agreements with county
clerks of the court.
[31] States that require the use of debit cards or direct deposit
generally allow exemptions for various reasons, according to an OCSE
official. For example, in some states, exemptions to the use of direct
deposit may be granted for clients with language barriers and for
certain international cases. Reasons cited by an OCSE official for
exemptions to the requirement for debit cards include situations where
some minor parents are denied debit cards by private vendors hired to
administer the process, or some parents that have difficulty using a
debit card because they live in a remote location or have disabilities,
and for some cases that involve limited payments such as cases in which
a payment is made once a year when a tax refund is intercepted.
[32] According to state agency officials from Connecticut, the state
agency has a single contract for the implementation of multiple
initiatives and estimated savings of about $100,000 a month, but did
not provide cost saving estimates for each initiative. Also, the
officials estimated additional costs savings of another $100,000 a
month after full implementation of the initiatives.
[33] GAO, Child Support Enforcement: Better Data and More Information
on Undistributed Collections Are Needed, GAO-04-377 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 19, 2004).
[34] 69 Fed. Reg. 77659 (Dec. 28, 2004) and OCSE's Policy
Interpretation Question 04-02.
[35] Under the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, HHS was
required to issue regulations to require state agencies to petition for
the inclusion of medical support as part of any child support order
whenever health care coverage is available to the noncustodial parent
at a reasonable cost. Over the years other legislation has been enacted
to facilitate state agencies' attempts to secure and enforce medical
coverage for children. A medical child support working group was
established and issued a report that contains 76 recommendations,
including one that Congress amend Federal law to require that the
medical support incentive measure is developed in conjunction with the
implementation of certain requirements established in CSPIA. In
addition, OCSE's strategic plan for 2005 to 2009 identifies medical
support as a possible future incentive measure.
[36] In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS stated that OCSE is
required to perform a data reliability review each year for those state
agencies that are not receiving a data reliability audit and that while
reviews consume less time than an audit, reviews require a significant
amount of time and resources.
[37] According to an agency official, the paternity audits are done
when a state agency's data fails the data reliability audit and then
resubmits the data in a subsequent fiscal year.
[38] GAO, TANF and Child Care Programs: HHS Lacks Adequate Information
to Assess Risk and Assist States in Managing Improper Payments, GAO-04-
723 (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2004).
[39] According to agency officials, a statewide review of Ohio's CSE
program was not available because audits are done at the county level.
[40] The five standards for internal control are (1) control
environment--management and employees should establish and maintain an
environment throughout the organization that sets a positive and
supportive attitude toward internal control and conscientious
management; (2) risk assessment--internal control should provide for an
assessment of the risks the agency faces from both external and
internal sources; (3) control activities--activities that help ensure
management's directives are carried out--should be effective and
efficient in accomplishing the agency's control objectives; (4)
information and communications--information should be recorded and
communicated to management and others within the entity who need it and
in a form and within a time frame that enables them to carry out their
internal control and other responsibilities; and (5) monitoring--
internal control monitoring should assess the quality of performance
over time and ensure that the findings of audits and other reviews are
promptly resolved.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
