|Vol. 6, No. 7 October 2002|
to Help Low-Income Noncustodial Parents Manage Their Child Support Debt
Michelle Ganow Jones
Noncustodial parents can owe
child support arrears for several reasons, including a failure to pay current
support. Arrears can also arise if, at the time the order is entered,
retroactive support, medical expenses, attorneys’ fees, genetic testing costs,
and/or interest are included in the award. In that case, arrears exist from the
time the order is entered. If the noncustodial parent’s children receive cash
assistance, current support and accumulated arrears¾up
to the amount of assistance provided¾are
assigned to the state. If the children are not receiving assistance, current
support goes to the family. If the children never received cash assistance, they
will also benefit from any arrears collected. If the children have received cash
assistance in the past, the family’s claim to arrears depends on a few
noncustodial parents do not make child support payments because they are
unwilling to do so. Yet many low-income noncustodial parents do not meet their
child support obligations because they do not earn enough to pay what is
ordered. For more information on the characteristics of noncustodial parents who
do not pay child support, see Elaine Sorensen and Chava Zibman, Poor
Dads Who Don't Pay Child Support: Deadbeats or Disadvantaged? (Washington,
D.C.: Urban Institute, April 2001), at http://newfederalism.urban.org/html/series_b/b30/b30.html.
policymakers acknowledge that some parents do not make regular child support
payments because they are “dead broke” rather than “deadbeat,” they have
increased their understanding of the burden child support arrears can place on
some noncustodial parents. Some states have begun to explore options for helping
low-income noncustodial parents avoid the accumulation of child support arrears
or, for those who have accrued arrears, manage their debt. This Issue Note provides
an overview of the issue of child support arrears, discusses strategies that
states and localities can consider to help noncustodial parents avoid and reduce
arrears and make current child support payments, and suggests sources for more
information. More information on child support and on noncustodial
parent/fatherhood issues can be found on the Welfare Information Network (WIN)
web pages on Child Support, at
are child support arrears and how much do noncustodial parents owe?
Child support arrears are payments owed to the custodial parent and/or the
state. They can include unpaid current support, unpaid retroactive support and,
in some states, court and attorney fees, paternity testing costs, and
birth-related medical costs. The state has a claim to arrears that accrue when a
family is receiving welfare. Federal law requires families that receive welfare
cash assistance to assign the state the right to claim child support as
reimbursement for the cost of providing public assistance; the state may collect
up to the amount of cash assistance provided. The rules for assigning and
distributing child support after a family leaves welfare are complex and depend
on factors such as a family’s welfare status when the arrearage occurred and
the method of collection; generally, however, once a family has left welfare,
child support payments go to the family first. For a discussion of child support
assignment and distribution rules, see the Center for Law and Social Policy fact
sheet series, Reauthorization Issues: Child Support Distribution, at
fiscal 2000 nearly 10 million noncustodial parents owed a total of $84 billion
in arrears, with arrears per case ranging from approximately $4,000 per case in
Louisiana to $16,000 per case in Alaska. Of the $84 billion owed, which includes
cumulative arrearages from previous fiscal years, states collected only $6
billion—or less than 7 percent—of the total amount owed [see U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Annual
Statistical Report for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 (Washington, D.C.:
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement,
2000), at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2000/datareport/].
are child support arrears a concern for states? The child support program has made incredible
strides in demonstrating effectiveness. Since the passage of the 1996 welfare
reform law, which strengthened the enforcement tools available to states,
collections have increased nearly 50 percent. In 2000 states made collections in
67 percent of all cases with orders, a dramatic increase over 1994 when only 38
percent of cases with orders had collections. Yet, despite these successes,
program administrators worry that the more than $80 billion in arrearages will
prompt perceptions of inefficacy.
are concerned about child support arrears for several reasons. Most
fundamentally, child support enforcement agencies want to collect child support
debt because it is part of their mission. Collected arrears benefit the
custodial family to which they are owed or reimburse the state for the cost of
providing welfare. The federal government even evaluates state performance and
uses as a performance indicator the number of cases in arrears with collections.
also worry that having a significant amount of outstanding arrears will create a
perception of poor program performance among state citizens and legislators. As
the welfare caseload has fallen, the percentage of child support cases that are
current welfare recipients has similarly declined. Because of the fall in
current assistance cases, the state and federal governments retain fewer child
support collections as reimbursement for the cost of providing welfare, and
legislators are increasingly being asked to provide more state funds to operate
the child support program. For more information on child support financing
issues, see the WIN Issue Note “New
Challenges for States in Financing Child Support” by Michelle Ganow Jones, at
addition, some states have begun to realize that large arrears can drive
noncustodial parents away from the child support system and dissuade them from
making any child support payments. Some noncustodial parents are overwhelmed by
the amount of arrears they owe and even work in the underground economy to avoid
having child support payments withheld from their paychecks. Strategies to help
noncustodial parents make regular child support payments could lead to their
paying more current support and being more involved in their children’s lives.
the same time, many states are hesitant to address the issue of child support
arrears. Some see arrears as rightfully owed to the state or to the family of
the children the noncustodial parent was ordered to support. These states do not
want to be perceived as rewarding noncustodial parents for nonpayment,
particularly when many other noncustodial parents are working hard and making
sacrifices to remain current on their child support. In addition, states want to
ensure that any policies to help noncustodial parents manage arrears benefit
only those parents who have been unable rather than unwilling to pay child
strategies can states consider to prevent the accumulation of arrears? States
can consider prevention strategies to keep arrears from reaching unmanageable
amounts. These strategies could include changing the calculation of retroactive
child support, ensuring that child support orders accurately reflect earnings,
engaging in regular review and modification of orders, revising policies on how
interest and payments are calculated, and providing more job services programs
to noncustodial parents.
a support order is established, the noncustodial parent can be ordered to pay
retroactive child support, which, depending on the custodial parent’s welfare
status, would be owed to the custodial parent or the state. All states have
retroactive support policies, but these policies vary; for example, some states
do not charge for retroactive support as standard practice, while other states
routinely charge for support retroactive to the date of the child’s birth.
Some states also include other charges when a support order is established, such
as court and attorney fees, paternity testing costs, and birth-related medical
consideration for states is to determine the amount of child support to be paid.
In cases where the noncustodial parent is willfully or voluntarily unemployed,
fails to appear at a hearing, or does not provide documentation of income,
income is often imputed in order to calculate support. States use different
methods to impute income, basing the amount, for example, on the minimum wage,
average wage, or welfare benefit in the state. This approach can prove
problematic, particularly when the imputed income is higher than the
noncustodial parent’s actual income and leads to a support order that a
noncustodial parent finds difficult or impossible to pay.
to address this problem include ensuring the a noncustodial parent appears at
his or her hearing (e.g., by sending a hearing notice that reads, “YOU MUST
APPEAR”); using appropriate sources of income data, such as the National
Directory of New Hires, to estimate actual income; and, when no income data are
available, basing the order on as much case-specific information as possible
(e.g., occupation, past work history, assets, etc.) rather than setting a
default order based on imputed income. At the same time, states must be
concerned about setting orders too low for higher-income noncustodial parents
who fail to appear because they are “gaming” the system and know the default
order will be set lower than if they provided proof of income. Some states issue
provisional default orders for a limited period during which the noncustodial
parent can provide current income information and have the order adjusted.
strategy states can consider is regular review and modification of support
orders. Review and modification can be helpful in cases where income has fallen
or risen since the order was established. Noncustodial parents may not always
understand their right to have an order reviewed and modified. Currently, either
parent can request that an order be reviewed once every three years, or sooner
in some states. Either parent can also request that an order be reviewed if
circumstances change significantly, as defined by the state. States could
consider initiatives to make noncustodial parents more aware of their rights to
review and modification, particularly when they become unemployed. Information
about review and modification is especially important for noncustodial parents
who are incarcerated and accruing arrearages while in jail or prison. Some
states view incarceration as voluntary unemployment, however, and do not permit
modification of orders for this reason.
its reauthorization proposal, the Bush administration proposed that states be
required every three years to review child support orders for families receiving
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Both the House-passed bill and
Senate Finance Committee proposals contain a similar provision. For more
information, see Vicki Turetsky, Side-by-Side
Comparison of Child Support Provisions in House and Senate TANF Reauthorization
Legislation (Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, July 1,
can also consider changing how they calculate interest and record child support
payments. Many states charge interest on unpaid child support. States also
decide whether to credit payments first to the principal or to interest;
clearly, recording payments against outstanding interest first will lead to
larger debt over time than if payments were first applied to the principal. On
the one hand, some argue that states should reconsider interest policies to make
child support debt easier for noncustodial parents to pay off. On the other
hand, state officials worry that not charging interest or relaxing policies will
lead to noncustodial parents paying down all other debt before child support
many advocates argue that noncustodial parents need greater access to employment
supports, job training programs, and responsible parenthood services. They point
to research showing that many noncustodial fathers of low-income children are
just as poor and disadvantaged as the children’s mothers, but the noncustodial
fathers do not have the same access to services as the custodial mothers.
Congressional recognition of this inequity in access led to the expansion of
eligibility under the Welfare-to-Work grants program to include noncustodial
parents whose children receive TANF or are eligible for TANF. Some states and
localities have initiated programs to provide services to low-income men, and
Congress is considering additional funds for such programs during the current
TANF reauthorization debate. For more information, see Shawn Fremstad, Zoe
Neuberger, and Vicki Turetsky, Revised
Side-by-Side Comparison of Family Formation Provisions in TANF Reauthorization
Legislation (Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and
Center for Law and Social Policy, June 5, 2002), at http://www.centeronbudget.org/6-5-02tanf3.pdf.
How can states address arrears that have already
State strategies to reduce arrears or help noncustodial parents manage their
child support debt include carrying out tougher enforcement, suspending
enforcement tools within the state’s control, and enacting policies to reduce
the arrears owed to the state.
To collect more from parents with child support
arrears, states can use several new and strengthened enforcement techniques. The
National Directory of New Hires matches child support orders to employment
records, enabling states to identify parents who are working but not paying
child support. The Financial Institution Data Match Program matches the records
of delinquent parents with those of financial institutions, enabling states to
“freeze and seize” the dollars. Other tools match delinquent parents with
federal tax refunds. Revoking or suspending driver’s licenses, occupational
licenses, and recreational licenses can also be effective in increasing
Yet tougher enforcement policies may not be effective
when applied to noncustodial parents who are unable to make child support
payments because they are “dead broke.” Such policies could unintentionally
discourage economically disadvantaged noncustodial parents from cooperating with
child support enforcement agencies and could further distance them from their
Alternatively, some states have found that suspending
enforcement tools that are within the state agency’s control can encourage
noncustodial parents to make child support payments. For example, in exchange
for a noncustodial parent’s cooperation with a payment plan, the state could
agree not to pursue hunting and fishing license suspension, driver’s license
revocation, and other policies at the discretion of the state agency. (Of course
some policies, such as wage withholding, are mandated by federal or state law
and cannot be negotiated.)
Finally, some states have contemplated or
experimented with policies to reduce the arrears that a noncustodial parent owes
the state; only a custodial parent can forgive arrears owed to that custodial
parent. States could consider reducing arrears for successful participation in a
service program for noncustodial parents. Another strategy is to forgive
interest on arrears in exchange for a lump-sum payment. States could also create
payment plans for noncustodial parents and offer debt forgiveness as an
incentive to keep current with payments.
What challenges do states face in pursuing these
Not all policymakers agree that noncustodial parents should receive assistance
from the state to manage their child support arrears. Some believe the
strategies described in this Issue Note are inconsistent with the child
support program’s objectives. Some view these policies as rewarding past bad
behavior. Further, it might be difficult for program administrators to ensure
that the intended population (i.e., “dead broke” dads) is the one benefiting
from the policies.
In addition, some of the policies described might
require legislative changes, making them more difficult to implement. State
legislatures might be unwilling to take action that reduces arrearages owed to
the state at a time when many states are facing budget shortfalls and could
benefit from child support collections. Finally, some strategies, such as job
services programs for noncustodial parents, might require new or additional
investments that states would be hard-pressed to find resources for in their
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG)
examined the policies used in 10 states to determine noncustodial parents’
child support obligations and analyzed the relationship between those policies
and payment compliance (July 2000). The OIG review looked at policies ordering
retroactive support, imputing income, and setting minimum orders. It also looked
at the treatment of debt owed to the state and the use of job services programs
for noncustodial parents. The agency found that none of these policies appear to
be effective at generating child support payments. The OIG concluded that
systematic experimentation is needed to test the effects of different policies.
The agency suggested strategies that combine realistic support orders with
employment services might be most effective.
OIG made several recommendations about the policies that could be tested. First,
states could test the payment effects of using different periods of
retroactivity. Second, states could experiment with negotiating arrears owed to
the state in return for compliance with payments. Third, states could test
alternative means of identifying the actual income of low-income noncustodial
parents and rely less on income imputation. Finally, the OIG recommended that
state child support agencies experiment with formalizing ties to job services
programs for unemployed noncustodial parents.
Elaine Sorensen of the Urban Institute is analyzing
child support arrears in California on behalf of the state Department of Child
Support Services after state legislators directed the state to conduct a study
of the collectibility of child support arrears. The Department of Child Support
Services contracted with the Urban Institute to review the data on arrears and
determine who owes child support arrears, why they owe arrears, and what is
collectible. Sorensen’s preliminary analysis found that 835,000 noncustodial
parents in California owe a total of $14.5 billion; of those arrears, 70 percent
is owed to the state.
Sorensen’s analysis reveals that the average debt
held by a debtor, who may have more than one child support case, is $17,000, and
the median debt is almost $9,500. Of the debtors, no recent income is reported
for 25 percent; these noncustodial parents with no reported income account for
34 percent of the $14.5 billion owed. Sorensen found an inverse correlation
between amount of income and debt owed (i.e., the higher the income, the lower
the debt). Her analysis also included an examination of the award-to-net
earnings ratio; on average, those with any reported income have child support
orders that require payment of 35 cents in child support per dollar earned. A
subgroup analysis revealed that the highest income group has child support
orders that require payment of 10 cents per dollar earned, while the lowest
income group has child support orders that require payment of $2.11 per dollar
Sorensen performed a microsimulation analysis to
determine the collectibility of the $14.5 billion owed. Assuming no new
noncustodial parents enter the child support system and an annual payment rate
of 10 percent of arrears owed, over 10 years the state would collect $2.2
billion in arrears payments. Due to accumulating interest¾in California payments are first applied to
outstanding interest and then to the principal¾total
arrears would reach $33.5 billion for the same period.
The Department of Child Support Services is preparing
a final report of Sorensen’s findings, including reasons for accrual of the
arrears. Scheduled for release at the end of 2002, this report will recommend
ways to maximize collections and prevent future build-up of arrears and will
include strategies for arrears management. For information on the study, contact
Elaine Sorensen, Urban Institute, at 202/833-7200 or ESorense@ui.urban.org.
For more information on the final report, contact Leora Gershenzon, California
Department of Child Support Services, at 916/464-5195 or email@example.com.
Jessica Pearson, Lanae Davis, and Nancy Thonnes
conducted an evaluation of an experiment in Colorado to determine whether
suspension of debt and retroactive support orders would lead to better child
support payment behaviors among noncustodial parents (2001). Two counties in
Colorado participated in the experiment, in which noncustodial parents from new
intrastate child support cases that needed an order established were randomly
assigned to two groups. The control group received normal treatment, while debt
and retroactive support obligations were dropped for the experimental treatment
group. Noncustodial parents were not aware of the different treatments between
the two groups, and the two groups were statistically equivalent.
A review of the groups was conducted at six, 12, and
24 months to determine whether their payment patterns differed. The researchers
found no evidence that the treatment led to better payment patterns. The two
groups paid statistically equivalent amounts of child support. However, the
researchers recommend that future studies should be large enough to examine
effects on subgroups of noncustodial parents. They also question whether payment
behavior would have been different if noncustodial parents knew about the debt
and retroactive support order forgiveness.
has adopted several innovative practices to help low-income noncustodial parents
manage their child support arrears. Officials believe the state’s high
debt-to-case ratio could be the result of its former policy of setting default
orders based on imputed income at the state median annual income when
noncustodial parents did not appear at support hearings or did not furnish
information about their income. The imputed income could have been much higher
than the noncustodial parent’s actual income.
To reduce the amount of debt owed by noncustodial
parents, the state child support agency encourages noncustodial parents who have
accrued child support arrears as a result of high default orders to provide
documentation of their actual income at the time the order was set to have their
arrears recalculated. In addition, Alaska uses its computer system to compare
current orders with imputed income to actual income data to look for mismatches.
The state also has a program for noncustodial parents who are experiencing times
of economic hardship. Case managers can work with these parents to temporarily
reduce income withholding for child support payments, especially when those
payments are for state-owed arrears. For more information on these initiatives,
contact Richard Romero, Operations Manager, Alaska Division of Child Support
Enforcement, at 907/269-6803 or Richard_Romero@revenue.state.ak.us.
aims to prevent the growth of arrears owed by low-income noncustodial parents
through several policies. These include setting low minimum orders, not charging
interest on arrears that are owed to the state, and forgiving debt owed to the
state in exchange for participation in a fatherhood program and making current
child support payments. For more information, contact Doris Taylor at
515/242-6098 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
State-Owed Debt Leveraging Program began in July 2000 and targets low-income
noncustodial parents, typically defined as noncustodial parents with incomes
below the poverty level. Those who participate in a community-based job training
program and make their current child support payments may qualify for
forgiveness of their accrued child support arrears. Forgiveness can be granted
up to the full amount of their arrears depending on the length of their
successful participation in the program. Currently the program is being piloted
in Baltimore City. Maryland recently received a Section 1115 grant to add a
research component and expand the program to another county. For more
information, contact John Langrock, Assistant Director, Maryland Child Support
Enforcement Agency, at 410/767-3642.
Northeast Hub Meeting on Managing Arrears¾The Northeast Hub partnership of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and
Families (ACF) includes states and other jurisdictions from three ACF regions¾Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and West Virginia. State child support directors and managers and their private
and federal partners have convened in April 2001, November 2001, and September
2002 to discuss child support arrears management. The Northeast Hub partnership
developed a framework for thinking about arrears and divided policies into four
categories: prevention, order establishment, early intervention, and accrued
arrears management. The partnership intends to continue to meet to evaluate
state policies and identify best practices. Summaries of the first two Northeast
Hub meetings cover the entire realm of arrears management issues and are
available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/arrears/index.html.
For more information, contact Jens Feck, Region II program specialist, at email@example.com.
Pennsylvania—Goodwill Industries of Pittsburgh recently
completed a pilot project in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to help low-income,
noncustodial parents with at least one child on welfare become gainfully
employed and responsible for the support of their children. The program used a
career development-based model and paid a percentage of arrears, up to a maximum
of $5,000, owed by parents who went to work and paid consistent child support.
Participants received services such as parenting education, life skills
training, driver’s education, and postemployment career development.
Participants completing the project achieved earnings and employment gains. For
more information, contact Eric Yenerall at 412/390-2212 or YENERALL@goodwillpitt.org.
1987 Virginia’s KidsFirst Campaign has successfully used the threat of
enforcement action against noncustodial parents with child support arrears to
encourage payment of their child support debt. The state issues arrest warrants
and gives noncustodial parents an amnesty period during which to pay their
arrearages or enter into repayment agreements. In exchange for cooperation, the
state quashes the arrest warrant. For more information on the KidsFirst
Campaign, contact Phyllis Sisk at 804/692-1506 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
addition, Virginia has implemented a study to assess the barriers faced by
low-income noncustodial parents with arrears and to provide services to address
those barriers and improve their ability to pay child support. The case manager
refers noncustodial parents to services such as job training, job placement, and
substance abuse treatment; in Spotsylvania County, where the project began,
parents who received services paid twice as much child support as parents who
did not. The program is now being replicated in two more counties. Virginia also
recently completed an arrears study, for which preliminary data are available.
The study analyzed cases with arrears to identify enforcement tools that seem to
be effective in reducing arrears and to better understand arrears caseload
characteristics and dynamics. For more information on the barriers study or
arrears study, contact Todd Areson, Ph.D., at 804/692-1463 or email@example.com.
has received a federal grant to study different outreach strategies to
incarcerated noncustodial parents. The Division of Child Support is working with
two other state agencies—the Washington Department of Corrections and the
Employment Security Division—to determine whether a more expensive high-effort
strategy is more effective than a less expensive low-effort strategy in
generating child support payments. In the low-effort strategy, incarcerated
noncustodial parents are shown a video that provides basic child support
information. Parents are encouraged to be proactive about their child support
cases and to work with child support to create manageable orders. The video also
encourages parents to connect with employment resources once they are released.
Child support forms are made available to incarcerated parents and, once the
forms are submitted, child support case managers make recommendations based on
each case’s circumstances. In the high-effort strategy, case managers meet one
on one with incarcerated parents to work with them on their child support cases.
Over time a comparison will be made of the two strategies to determine whether
the high-effort strategy makes a difference in payment history. For more
information, contact Dawn DeLong at 360/664-5064 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Public Human Services Association, contact Justin Latus at 202/682-0100; or
for Law and Social Policy, contact Paula Roberts or Vicki Turetsky at
202/906-8000; or visit http://www.clasp.org/.
for Policy Research, contact Jessica Pearson at 303/837-1555; or visit
Association of Counties, contact Marilina Sanz, 202/393-6226; or visit
Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership, contact
Barbara Cleveland at 202/822-6725; or visit http://www.npcl.org/.
Child Support Enforcement Association, contact 202/624-8180; or visit
Conference of State Legislatures, contact Sheri Steisel at 202/ 624-5400; or
Studies Inc., contact Jane Venohr at 303/863-0900; or visit http://www.policy-studies.com/.
Institute, contact Elaine Sorensen at 202/833-7200; or visit http://www.urban.org/.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, visit http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse.
Janet K., and Barbara C. Cleveland. Managing
Arrears: Child Support Enforcement and Fragile Families. Washington, D.C.:
National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership, May
2001. Available at
Theresa J. Low-Income Noncustodial
Fathers: A Child Advocate’s Guide to Helping Them Contribute to the Support of
Their Children. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Child Advocates,
February 2000. Available at http://www.childadvocacy.org/dads.pdf.
Michelle Ganow. “Child Support Issues in Welfare Reform Reauthorization.” Issue Note (May 2002). Washington, D.C., Welfare Information
Network. Available at
Cynthia, and Virginia Knox. The Challenge
of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children: Final Lessons from
Parents’ Fair Share. New York, N.Y.: Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation, November 2001. Available
Women’s Law Center and Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy. Dollars and Sense: Improving the Determination of Child Support
Obligations for Low-Income Mothers, Fathers and Children. Washington, D.C.,
and Madison, Wis.: National Women’s Law Center and Center on Fathers,
Families, and Public Policy, 2002. Available at
Jessica, and Esther Ann Griswold. New
Approaches to Child Support Arrears: A Survey of State Policies and Practices.
Denver, Colo.: Center for Policy Research, March 2001. Available at http://www.centerpolicyresearch.org/pub.htm.
Jessica, Lanae Davis, and Nancy Thoennes. Dropping
Debt: An Evaluation of Colorado’s Debt and Retroactive Child Support
Initiative. Denver, Colo.: Center for Policy Research, April 30, 2001.
Available at http://www.centerpolicyresearch.org/pub.htm.
Prillaman, Grant, and Jerry Tracy. Barriers
to the Payment of Court-Ordered Child Support: A Pilot Project to Design a Case
Management Model to Improve the Regularity of Payment. Richmond, Va.:
Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, December 2001. Contact Todd
Areson, Ph.D., at 804/692-1463 or email@example.com.
Paula. An Ounce of Prevention and a Pound
of Cure: Developing State Policy on the Payment of Child Support Arrears by
Low-Income Parents. Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, May
2001. Available at
Paula. Pursuing Justice: A Strategic
Approach to Child Support Arrears in California. Washington, D.C.: Center
for Law and Social Policy, May 2002. Available at
David Gray. State IV-D Program Flexibility
with Respect to Low-Income Obligors¾Imputing
Income; Setting Child Support Orders and Retroactive Support; Compromising
Arrearages; Referral to Work-Related Programs and Other Nontraditional
Approaches to Securing Support. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office
of Child Support Enforcement, September 14, 2000. Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/PIQ/piq-00-03.htm.
Elaine. Helping Poor Nonresident Dads Do
More. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, May
Nancy, and Jessica Pearson. Understanding
Child Support Arrears in Colorado: An Empirical Analysis Based on a Random
Sample of Cases with Arrears. Denver, Colo.: Center for Policy Research,
March 2001. Available at http://www.centerpolicyresearch.org/pub.htm.
Vicki. Realistic Child Support Policies
for Low-Income Fathers. Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy,
March 2000. Available at
Department of Health and Human Services. The
Establishment of Child Support Orders for Low-Income Noncustodial Parents.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Inspector General, July 2000. Available at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-05-99-00390.pdf.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. State Policies Used to Establish Child Support Orders for Low-Income Noncustodial Parents. Washington, D.C.: Office of Inspector General, July 2000. Available at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-05-99-00391.pdf
Welfare Information Network is supported by grants form the Annie E. Casey
Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and
the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and