Child Support Enforcement

By: Asiana Smith

Research Question?

• Is it worth it for local governments to go after child support or is it just a waste of time and money?

• Are the states that are spending more on Child Support Collection Programs actually collecting more money in Child Support?

Literature Review

• Child support has become a crucial source of income for single-parent families(Cancian 1).

• To increase child support collections, both the earning power of noncustodial parents and the stringency of the enforcement system should be increased(Bartfeld 219).

• A substantial body of research suggest that the use of specific enforcement techniques is associated with increased compliance(Bartfeld 222).

• Strict child support legislation and high child support expenditures have been found to be associated with high paternity establishment and child support award rates and payments(Huang 37).

• States with high child support expenditures were more likely to be able to hire a greater number of full-time staff, which was expected to have effects on the implementation of child support enforcement(Huang 41).

Expected Outcome!

• What I expected from reviewing the literature was to see that increasing expenditures will increase child support collections by state.

WORK CITED

• Bartfeld, Judi, and Daniel Meyer. "Are They Really Deadbeat Dads? The Relationship between Ability to Pay, Enforcement, and Compliance in Non martial Child Support Cases." Social Service Review (1994): 219-235. Print.

• Cancian, Maria, and Daniel Meyer. "Child Support and the Economy." (2005): 1-37. Print.

• Cullen, Francis, Karl Heiner, and Pasquale Sullo. "Child Support Collection: A Stick-and-carrot Approach." National Association of Social Workers (1980): 397-402. Print.

• Huang, Chien-Chung. "Trends in Child Support from 1994 to 2004: Does Child Support Enforcement Work?" Journal of Policy Practice 9 (2008): 36-53. Print.

• Hunag, Chien-Chung, Richard L. Edwards, and Robert B. Nolan. "State Performance on Child Support Enforcement under CSPIA." Journal of Policy Practice 7.4 (2008): 280-97. Print.

• Jones, Jackie, and Claire Perrin. "Third Time Lucky? the Third Child Supoort Reforms Replace the Child Support Agency with the New C-MEC." Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law 31.3 (2009): 333-42. Print.

DATA SOURCE USED

• National Conference of State Legislatures• http://

www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-by-state-data-on-child-support-collecti.aspx

• My data is from 2011 State by State Child Support Collections.

• It includes the total Distributed Collections, Total Amount of Arranges Due, Amount of Current Support Due, Total Caseload, Total Administrative Expenditures for 2011

Data Analysis

1. Highlighted the Data (from the website)

2. Copied it

3. Pasted it inside spreadsheet

4. I moved the variables I wanted to look at into a new sheet.

5. Made a chart using C1( Total Distributed Collections) and B1( Total Administrative Expenditures) to show the relationship between the two.

6. Then I made a new column for the amount of return on the investment of the expenditures. I used a formula of C1(Total Distributed Collections/ B1(Total Administrative Expenditures=Return on Investment

State/ District/ TerritoryTotal Distributed Collections 20111

Total Amount of Arrerages Due for

20112

Amount of Current Support Due for

20113

Total Caseload for 20114

Amount Due Per Person

Total Administrative Expenditures for

20115 Alabama $280,431,731 $2,841,536,743 $410,358,487 230,993 1,776 $69,257,811

Alaska $97,483,308 $574,841,984 $105,201,039 47,037 2,237 $27,558,105

Arizona $322,358,501 $1,745,547,809 $424,942,866 193,536 2,196 $60,680,616

Arkansas $211,058,254 $611,400,944 $258,711,216 119,614 2,163 $54,351,286

California $2,161,572,162 $18,772,688,795 $2,376,122,277 1,404,211 1,692 $985,334,186

Colorado $289,106,557 $1,091,367,574 $357,423,093 147,522 2,423 $72,023,534

Connecticut $248,731,241 $1,541,332,542 $313,617,219 196,507 1,596 $72,971,296

Delaware $73,803,807 $280,485,903 $100,066,630 76,055 1,316 $36,685,264

District of Columbia $50,832,080 $265,472,026 $67,513,922 51,350 1,315 $26,846,039

Florida $1,508,852,871 $6,329,053,734 $2,080,158,754 869,817 2,391 $301,647,654

Georgia $632,448,613 $2,507,630,709 $827,524,817 404,273 2,047 $99,783,596

Guam $11,188,297 $56,931,413 $11,455,920 6,444 1,778 $5,193,148

Hawaii $95,093,455 $453,430,869 $113,287,657 82,308 1,376 $17,141,315

Idaho $146,138,843 $462,566,201 $191,717,878 119,574 1,603 $22,704,063

Illinois $824,409,921 $3,021,858,270 $943,194,076 510,366 1,848 $190,441,679

Indiana $572,813,539 $2,317,892,554 $737,808,527 351,805 2,097 $113,803,740

Iowa $318,741,380 $897,315,993 $342,906,574 183,029 1,874 $53,675,088

Kansas $183,157,867 $600,382,935 $228,699,770 132,812 1,722 $59,602,238

Kentucky $391,856,211 $1,352,962,753 $499,447,376 499,447,376 1 $68,747,116

Louisiana $367,505,563 $1,243,115,039 $479,007,455 479,007,455 1 $78,228,126

Maine $101,125,421 $461,171,254 $118,296,170 118,296,170 1 $27,603,905

Maryland $491,863,607 $1,522,678,826 $623,470,098 623,470,098 1 $128,328,833

Massachusetts $593,132,960 $2,465,004,502 $710,819,807 710,819,807 1 $65,556,965

Michigan $1,302,822,773 $8,990,647,506 $1,538,633,866 1,538,633,866 1 $216,048,395

Minnesota $582,918,142 $1,647,775,692 $644,340,668 644,340,668 1 $167,490,168

Mississippi $286,492,777 $1,071,779,019 $390,771,806 390,771,806 1 $30,693,642

Missouri $562,254,612 $2,033,874,371 $754,827,178 754,827,178 1 $79,412,552

State/ District/ TerritoryTotal Administrative

Expenditures for 2011 Total Distributed Collections 2011

South Dakota $8,560,325 $81,662,890

Montana $12,976,575 $58,110,726

Wyoming $13,261,454 $62,857,790

Vermont $14,885,683 $46,483,138

North Dakota $14,893,954 $85,908,604

Rhode Island $16,665,966 $63,842,716

Hawaii $17,141,315 $95,093,455

New Hampshire $20,787,727 $83,861,937

Idaho $22,704,063 $146,138,843

District of Columbia $26,846,039 $50,832,080

Alaska $27,558,105 $97,483,308

Maine $27,603,905 $101,125,421

Mississippi $30,693,642 $286,492,777

Utah $34,847,399 $182,972,269

Nebraska $36,464,135 $198,289,243

Delaware $36,685,264 $73,803,807

Puerto Rico $40,943,317 $342,402,735

West Virginia $42,916,144 $190,074,463

New Mexico $43,314,248 $106,437,786

Nevada $49,336,503 $165,757,160

Iowa $53,675,088 $318,741,380

Arkansas $54,351,286 $211,058,254

South Carolina 56,560,153$ 247,263,227$

Kansas $59,602,238 $183,157,867

Arizona $60,680,616 $322,358,501

Massachusetts $65,556,965 $593,132,960

Oregon $68,377,114 $344,717,355

Kentucky $68,747,116 $391,856,211

Alabama $69,257,811 $280,431,731

Oklahoma $71,073,760 $300,859,429

Colorado $72,023,534 $289,106,557

Connecticut $72,971,296 $248,731,241

Louisiana $78,228,126 $367,505,563

Tennessee

Missouri

Virginia

Wisconsin

Georgia

Indiana

Maryland

North Carolina

Washington

Minnesota

Illinois

Michigan

Pennsylvania

New Jersey

Ohio

Florida

New York

Texas

California

Tennessee $78,625,646 $539,348,423

Missouri $79,412,552 $562,254,612

Virginia $93,661,010 $597,903,773

Wisconsin $97,675,730 $606,831,741

Georgia $99,783,596 $632,448,613

Indiana $113,803,740 $572,813,539

Maryland $128,328,833 $491,863,607

North Carolina $128,391,290 $662,975,022

Washington $145,656,303 $641,015,036

Minnesota $167,490,168 $582,918,142

Illinois $190,441,679 $824,409,921

Michigan $216,048,395 $1,302,822,773

Pennsylvania $241,456,655 $1,351,340,919

New Jersey $250,952,270 $1,111,624,272

Ohio $256,304,436 $1,694,857,119

Florida $301,647,654 $1,508,852,871

New York $334,123,065 $1,705,428,336

Texas $350,739,326 $3,106,894,956

California $985,334,186 $2,161,572,162

This show the raw number that are being display by the two previous charts. For example: South Dakota

The Chart shows that the amount of money spent on Expenditures and the amount collected.

Findings..

This chart is the same as first expect the X- axis is organized by state expenditure, and show the relationship a little clearer, the more money invested the higher amount collected.

This Chart has States on the X-axis, and both Total Administrative Expenditure(RED) and Total Distributed Collections(BLUE) to farther show the relationship.

This line chart shows the amount of return on the invest into the child support expenditures by state. For example Alabama Collected 4x the amount of expenditures.

This bar graph show the same return on investment as the previous chart, but in a more organized way.

Findings

State/ District/ Territory

Total Administrative Expenditures for

20115

Total Distributed Collections 20111

Return On Investment

Total Amount of Arrerages Due for

20112Alabama $69,257,811 $280,431,731 4 $2,841,536,743

Alaska $27,558,105 $97,483,308 4 $574,841,984

Arizona $60,680,616 $322,358,501 5 $1,745,547,809

Arkansas $54,351,286 $211,058,254 4 $611,400,944

California $985,334,186 $2,161,572,162 2 $18,772,688,795

Colorado $72,023,534 $289,106,557 4 $1,091,367,574

Connecticut $72,971,296 $248,731,241 3 $1,541,332,542

Delaware $36,685,264 $73,803,807 2 $280,485,903

District of Columbia $26,846,039 $50,832,080 2 $265,472,026

Florida $301,647,654 $1,508,852,871 5 $6,329,053,734

Georgia $99,783,596 $632,448,613 6 $2,507,630,709

Hawaii $17,141,315 $95,093,455 6 $453,430,869

Idaho $22,704,063 $146,138,843 6 $462,566,201

Illinois $190,441,679 $824,409,921 4 $3,021,858,270

Indiana $113,803,740 $572,813,539 5 $2,317,892,554

Iowa $53,675,088 $318,741,380 6 $897,315,993

Kansas $59,602,238 $183,157,867 3 $600,382,935

Kentucky $68,747,116 $391,856,211 6 $1,352,962,753

Louisiana $78,228,126 $367,505,563 5 $1,243,115,039

Maine $27,603,905 $101,125,421 4 $461,171,254

Maryland $128,328,833 $491,863,607 4 $1,522,678,826

Massachusetts $65,556,965 $593,132,960 9 $2,465,004,502

Michigan $216,048,395 $1,302,822,773 6 $8,990,647,506

Minnesota $167,490,168 $582,918,142 3 $1,647,775,692

Mississippi $30,693,642 $286,492,777 9 $1,071,779,019

In Conclusion !