Child Support Enforcement: $25 Annual User Fee

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

P.L. 109-171, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, required states to impose a $25 annual user fee
for Child Support Enforcement (CSE) services provided to families with no connection to the
welfare system. The user fee is to be assessed if the state CSE agency collects at least $500 in
child support payments on behalf of the family in a given fiscal year. The law gives the states four
options on how to obtain the user fee. According to a survey of the 54 jurisdictions with CSE
programs, 26 jurisdictions impose the user fee on the custodial parent, 20 jurisdictions pay the fee
with state funds, 2 jurisdictions get the fee from the noncustodial parent, 1 jurisdiction charges
half of the fee to the noncustodial parent and the other half to the custodial parent, and 3
jurisdictions retain the fee from the family’s child support payment (after $500 per year has been
collected on behalf of the family); the other 2 jurisdictions did not respond to the survey or the
issue is still unresolved. This report will be updated as new information becomes available.

Backgr ound ..................................................................................................................................... 1
New Annual CSE User Fee.............................................................................................................2
Implementation of CSE User Fee....................................................................................................3
Table 1. Method By Which $25 CSE Annual User Fee Is Imposed................................................4
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................6

The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program
(Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) to help strengthen families by securing financial support
for children from their noncustodial parent on a consistent and continuing basis and by helping
some families to remain self-sufficient and off public assistance by providing the requisite CSE
services.
The CSE program provides seven major services on behalf of children: (1) parent location, (2)
paternity establishment, (3) establishment of child support orders, (4) review and modification of
child support orders, (5) collection of child support payments, (6) distribution of child support
payments, and (7) establishment and enforcement of medical child support. Collection methods
used by state CSE agencies include income withholding, intercept of federal and state income tax
refunds, intercept of unemployment compensation, liens against property, reporting child support
obligations to credit bureaus, intercept of lottery winnings, sending insurance settlement
information to CSE agencies, authority to withhold or suspend driver’s licenses, professional
licenses, and recreational and sporting licenses of persons who owe past-due support, and
authority to seize assets of debtor parents held by public or private retirement funds and financial
institutions.
All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operate CSE
programs and are entitled to federal matching funds. The federal government and the states share
CSE program costs at the rate of 66% and 34%, respectively. The CSE program serves both ¹
welfare and non-welfare families. Families receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) assistance (Title IV-A), foster care payments (Title IV-E), Medicaid coverage (Title
XIX), or food stamp recipients who, at state option, are required by law to cooperate with the
CSE agency, automatically qualify for CSE services free of charge. Other families must apply for ²
CSE services, and states must charge an application fee that cannot exceed $25.

¹^{In FY}²⁰^07,^of^the^ne^a^r^ly^{15.8 m}^illion^{CSE c}^a^s^e^s^{, 1}³^.6%⁽²^.1^m^{illion) w}^e^re^{in the}^T^A^{NF prog}^ra^m^,^45.7%⁽⁷^.2
^m^{illion) ha}^d^f^o^rm^e^r^l^y^be^eⁿ^{in t}^h^e^TA^{NF prog}^ra^m^,^a^{nd 4}⁰^.8%⁽⁶^.⁴^m^{illion) ha}^d^ne^v^e^{r be}^eⁿⁱⁿ^the^T^{ANF prog}^ra^m^.
²^T^h^e^{CSE pr}^og^ra^m^eⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^{in 1}⁹⁷⁵⁽^P^.L^{. 9}³^-6⁴⁷^{) a}^t^fⁱ^{rst pe}^rm^itte^{d, a}^{nd t}^h^eⁿⁱⁿ¹⁹⁸⁴⁽^P^.L^{. 98-}³⁷^{8) re}^quire^d^,^t^h^e^CSE
^a^g^eⁿ^c^y^{to c}^h^a^r^g^e^a^one^-tim^e^a^ppli^c^a^{tion f}^e^e^f^o^r^f^a^m^ilie^{s not on}^w^e^l^f^a^r^e^.^{In 1}⁹⁷⁵^{, t}^h^e^la^w^re^quire^{d t}^h^a^t^the^a^p^plic^a^tioⁿ
^f^e^{e b}^e^reasoⁿ^a^b^l^e,^{as d}^e^t^e^rmⁱⁿ^ed^b^y^f^e^d^e^ral^regu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^.^In¹⁹⁸⁴^,^t^h^{e l}^a^w^sp^eci^fⁱ^ed^t^h^at^t^h^{e f}^{ee co}^u^l^dⁿ^o^t^exceed^$²⁵^.
^T^h^{e CS}^E^agen^c^y^m^a^{y ch}^arg^e^t^hⁱ^s^f^e^{e t}^o^t^h^{e app}^lⁱ^can^t⁽ⁱ^.^e^.^,^t^h^{e cu}^st^odⁱ^a^l^p^a^ren^t⁾^o^r^t^h^eⁿ^oⁿ^c^u^s^t^o^dⁱ^al^paren^t^,^o^r^p^a^y^t^h^e
^f^e^e^out^of^s^t^a^t^e^f^unds^{. I}ⁿ^a^d^diti^on^,^a^s^t^a^t^e^m^a^y^a^t^its^optio^{n r}^e^c^o^v^e^r^c^o^s^t^s^{in e}^x^c^e^s^s^of^the^a^pplic^a^tioⁿ^f^e^e^.^Suc^h^r^e^c^o^v^e^r^y
^of^c^o^s^t^s^m^a^y^be^e^ithe^r^f^r^o^m^the^c^u^s^t^odia^l^pa^r^e^nt^or^t^h^e^no^nc^us^t^odia^l^pa^r^e^{nt. A}^ltho^u^g^h^t^h^e^a^ppl^ic^a^tion^f^e^e^is^m^a^nda^tor^y^,
^f^e^de^r^a^{l law}^a^llo^w^s^the^s^t^a^t^e^{to c}^h^a^r^g^e^aⁿ^am^{ount t}^h^a^t^c^aⁿ^r^a^ng^e^f^r^om^{1 c}^eⁿ^{t to $}²⁵^.^Ma^ny^of^the^s^t^a^t^e^s^tha^t^c^h^a^r^g^e^a^$1
^or^le^s^s^a^ppl^ic^a^tion^f^e^e^{do s}^o^t^o^m^a^xⁱ^mⁱ^z^e^non-^T^A^N^F^c^lie^nts^’^a^c^c^e^s^{s to C}^S^{E s}^e^r^v^ic^e^s^{. Ma}^ny^s^t^a^t^e^C^S^E^of^fⁱ^cⁱ^a^l^s^vⁱ^ew
^ap^p^lⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^f^{ees as a b}^a^rri^{er t}^o^clⁱ^eⁿ^t^{s w}^h^o^d^o^no^t^h^a^{ve t}^h^{e f}ⁱⁿ^aⁿ^cⁱ^a^l^m^e^an^{s t}^o^app^l^y^f^o^{r ser}^vⁱ^ces.^T^h^ey^al^so^cl^ai^m^t^h^at
^f^e^{es an}^d^o^t^h^e^{r ch}^arges^m^a^y^dⁱ^sco^u^r^{age cl}ⁱ^eⁿ^t^{s f}^r^o^m^see^kⁱⁿ^{g servi}^c^es,^b^ecau^{se t}^h^{e f}^{ee i}^s^p^aⁱ^d^regard^l^e^{ss o}^f^w^h^et^h^e^{r an}^y
^c^h^{ild s}^u^p^port^is^c^o^lle^c^t^e^d^on^be^ha^lf^of^the^f^a^mⁱ^l^y^{. O}^t^he^rs^vⁱ^ew^a^pplic^a^{tion f}^e^e^s^f^o^{r non-T}^A^N^F^f^a^m^ilies^a^s^a^w^a^y^to
^r^e^duc^e^C^S^E^pr^og^r^a^m^c^o^s^t^s^.^T^h^e^le^gⁱ^s^l^a^tiv^e^his^t^or^y^of^P^.^L^.⁹⁸^-³^{78 (}^S^.R^e^p^t.^98-³⁸^7,^p.^30-³¹^{; A}^p^r^{il 9,}¹⁹⁸⁴⁾^s^a^y^s^{: “}^T^he
^C^o^m^m^itte^e^be^lie^ve^s^tha^t^this^mⁱⁿⁱ^m^a^{l f}^e^e^r^e^quir^e^m^e^{nt r}^e^pr^e^s^eⁿ^ts^a^r^e^a^s^ona^ble^w^a^y^{to he}^{lp de}^f^r^ay^s^o^m^e^of^the^c^o^s^t^s
^inc^u^rre^{d in proc}^e^ssing^the^a^pplic^a^tioⁿ^aⁿ^dⁱⁿ^provⁱ^d^ing^su^pp^{ort e}ⁿ^f^o^rc^e^m^eⁿ^{t se}^rv^ic^e^s^.^T^h^{is f}^e^e^w^{ould still}^be
^si^gnⁱ^fⁱ^can^t^l^y^l^e^{ss co}^st^l^y^t^o^t^h^{e no}^n-A^F^{DC ap}^p^lⁱ^can^tⁿ^e^t^h^aⁿ^t^h^{e co}^st^o^f^p^u^r^suⁱⁿ^{g su}^pp^o^r^t^en^f^o^rcemen^t^t^h^rou^g^h^{a p}^rⁱ^v^at^e
^a^ttorne^y^.”

P.L. 109-171 (Section 7310), the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (enacted February 8, 2006),
required families that have never been on the TANF program to pay a $25 annual user fee when
the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program collects at least $500 in child support annually ³
(from the noncustodial parent) on their behalf.
P.L. 109-171 provides the state with four options on how to collect the fee. The $25 user fee may
be (1) retained by the state from child support collected on behalf of the family (but the $25
cannot be part of the first $500 collected in any given federal fiscal year); (2) paid by the
custodial parent; (3) recovered/recouped from the noncustodial parent; or (4) paid by the state out ⁴
of state funds.
The intent of the $25 user fee is to recoup in part the costs of the CSE program to the federal and ⁵
state governments by decreasing CSE program expenditures. The $25 user fee (from custodial
and noncustodial parents) is considered income to the CSE program. The federal and state
governments share income to the CSE program (sometimes referred to as cost recovery) at the
same rate that they share program costs (i.e., 66% federal and 34% state). The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the $25 CSE annual user fee provision would save the
federal government $172 million and the state governments $93 million over the four-year period
FY2007-FY2010.
After the $25 user fee was enacted, there was a lot of interest in how it would be implemented.
Most of the arguments about the user fee (for and against) concerned the option that permitted
states to charge the custodial parent.
Persons in favor of the mandatory $25 annual user fee maintain that it will, to a limited extent,
compensate the federal government and the states for operating a CSE program. They claim that
even on top of the CSE application fee, the CSE program is still a bargain for custodial parents.
They argue that there is no comparison between the nominal fees that the CSE program charges
and the much higher fees that a private attorney or collection agency would charge for obtaining
child support payments. They say that unlike the CSE application fee, it only applies to those who
have received a certain amount of child support payments. They also point out that 75% of
custodial parents had income above the poverty level (2005 Census data) and that on the basis of ⁶
earlier data, a significant percentage of families (16%) had income above 300% of poverty level

³^P^r^ov^is^io^{n of}^a^m^a^nda^tory^{$25 a}ⁿ^nua^l^us^e^r^f^e^e^f^o^{r non-w}^e^lf^a^r^e^CS^{E f}^a^m^ilie^s^ha^s^be^eⁿ^dis^c^us^s^e^{d f}^o^r^m^aⁿ^y^y^e^a^r^s^.^Suc^h
^a^pr^op^os^a^l^w^a^s^inc^l^ude^dⁱⁿ^the^G^e^or^g^e^H^.^W^.^B^u^s^h^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tion’^s^FY¹⁹⁹²^bu^dg^e^t^pr^op^os^a^l^s^a^{nd i}ⁿ^the^G^e^or^g^e^W^.
^{Bush A}^d^mⁱ^nistra^{tion’s FY}²⁰⁰³^b^udg^e^t^pr^op^osa^l^{s. For}^a^d^d^itio^na^{l i}ⁿ^f^o^r^m^a^{tion, se}^e^S^t^at^{es’ P}^r^a^c^tⁱ^{ces an}^d^P^e^rsp^ectⁱ^ves
^fo^{r Assessin}^g^{Fees f}^o^{r Ch}^il^d^S^u^p^p^o^r^{t S}^e^{rvices to}^A^p^p^lic^aⁿ^t^sⁿ^o^{t Receivin}^g^Ai^d^t^o^F^a^{milies wit}^h^Dep^eⁿ^d^eⁿ^t^Ch^il^d^r^en^.
^De^pa^rtm^e^{nt of}^He^a^{lth a}^{nd H}^u^m^aⁿ^Se^rv^ic^e^s^{, Off}ⁱ^c^e^of^Inspe^c^t^{or G}^e^ne^ra^{l. July}^{8, 1}⁹⁹²^http^://oig^.^hhs.^g^ov^/oa^s^/re^ports/
^r^e^gⁱ^on6/⁶⁹¹⁰⁰⁰^48.^pdf^{. A}^l^s^o^s^e^e^Fe^asibili^ty^{of C}^o^lle^c^tin^{g Fe}^e^s^for^Child^S^u^p^port^Se^rv^ic^e^s^{, by}^C^a^r^o^{l W}^e^lc^{h. W}^a^s^h^ing^t^on
^Sta^t^e^.^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^Socⁱ^a^l^a^nd^H^e^a^{lth Se}^r^v^ic^e^s^{, D}ⁱ^vⁱ^sⁱ^{on of}^C^h^il^{d S}^u^p^por^t,^Fis^c^a^l^Ma^na^g^e^m^e^{nt. J}^une²⁰⁰¹
^http:^//w^w^w^1.ds^hs^.w^a^.^g^o^v^/^pdf^/^e^s^a^/dc^s^/r^e^por^ts^/^f^e^e^s^t^udy^.pdf^.
⁴^I^f^the^$2^{5 a}ⁿ^nua^l^us^e^r^f^e^e^is^pa^id^by^the^s^t^a^t^e^out^of^s^t^a^t^e^f^unds^{, it i}^s^{not c}^onsⁱ^d^e^r^e^d^aⁿ^a^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tiv^e^c^o^s^t^of^the^C^S^E
^pr^og^r^a^m^a^{nd thus}^isⁿ^o^{t e}^lig^ible^f^o^r⁶⁶^%^f^e^de^r^a^l^m^a^tc^hing^f^unds^.
⁵^{In FY}²⁰^07,^CSE^prog^ra^m^e^x^peⁿ^d^iture^s^a^m^ounte^d^to^ne^a^r^ly^$5.6^b^illio^{n; c}^hⁱ^l^{d s}^u^p^port^pa^y^m^eⁿ^ts^c^o^lle^c^t^e^d^f^r^o^m
^nonc^us^to^dia^l^pa^reⁿ^t^s^by^{CSE a}^g^encⁱ^e^s^tota^le^d^$2^4.^{9 bi}^llio^n.
⁶^Char^ac^te^ristic^{s of F}^a^milie^{s Usin}^{g Tit}^l^e^{IV-D Se}^rv^ic^e^sⁱⁿ¹⁹⁹⁵^,^by^Ma^tthe^w^Ly^{on. May}¹⁹⁹^{9. A}^c^c^o^r^d^ing^t^o^the^r^e^por^t^,
^16%^of^{CSE f}^a^m^ilie^{s ha}^{d inc}^o^m^e^a^bov^e³⁰^0%^of^the^p^o^v^e^rty^le^v^e^{l in 1}⁹⁹⁵^{; se}^e^htt^p^://a^spe^.^hhs.g^ov^/^h^sp/^C^SE-Cha^r99/
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

and thereby could probably afford to pay the user fee without it negatively affecting their standard
of living. In addition, they assert that it is normal practice to charge a fee or user charge for
services rendered.
Persons opposed to the mandatory $25 annual user fee (that is imposed on the custodial parent)
contend that it treats similarly situated families in an unequal manner. They argue that a low-
income custodial parent who has not had to go on welfare needs child support just as much as a
custodial parent who formerly was on welfare (i.e., the TANF program). They contend that the
$25 annual fee would impose a new surcharge on working poor families who were previously
successful in remaining self-sufficient. They contend that fees generally take away funds that
otherwise could be available to the child and the family. They also point out that because the $25
user fee is considered CSE program income, the state gets 34% of the $25 fee ($8.50) and the
federal government gets the remaining 66% ($16.50). They claim that the administrative cost of
reprogramming a state’s automated computer system to account for the fee would outweigh the
financial benefit of the fee’s increased income to the state. They also say that the financial benefit, ⁷
if any, to the federal government would be negligible.
According to the Lewin Group/ECONorthwest report entitled Anticipated Effects of the Deficit
Reduction Act Provisions on Child Support Program Financing and Performance Summary of
Data Analysis and IV-D Director Calls (July 20, 2007):
^M^aⁿ^y^dⁱ^r^e^c^t^o^r^sⁿ^o^t^e^d^p^o^t^eⁿ^tⁱ^a^l^b^eⁿ^e^fⁱ^t^s^o^f^t^h^e^f^e^e^,ⁱⁿ^c^l^u^dⁱⁿ^g^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^r^e^v^eⁿ^u^e^an^dⁱⁿ^stillⁱⁿ^g^a
^s^e^ns^{e of}^o^wⁿ^e^rshⁱ^{p i}ⁿ^on^e^’^s^chⁱ^l^{d s}^u^pport^cas^{e. D}ⁱ^rec^t^o^r^s^,^t^h^o^ugh,ⁱ^d^eⁿ^tⁱ^fⁱ^e^d^m^o^r^e^d^r^a^w^b^a^c^k^s
^{to th}^e^f^ee.^A^{ll directors}^e^x^p^ect^{ed th}^{e cos}^t^o^f^prog^ra^m^mⁱ^ng^t^h^{e s}^t^ate^w^{ide a}^u^to^m^a^{ted s}^y^s^t^e^m
^w^o^u^l^{d ex}^{ceed t}^h^{e rev}^e^nu^{e g}^e^{nerated f}^r^o^m^t^h^e^f^{ee, at leas}^{t i}ⁿ^t^h^{e s}^h^ort-^ter^m^{. T}^h^is^occ^u^rs^{at a}
^ti^m^e^w^h^eⁿ^th^e^y^{are alread}^y^f^a^cin^g^b^u^dg^{et c}^u^ts^{or f}^o^reg^oⁱ^{ng oth}^e^{r pro}^j^{ect en}^h^aⁿ^c^e^m^eⁿ^ts^.
^So^m^e^ex^p^r^essed^coⁿ^cerⁿ^t^h^{at it}^w^{ill ta}^k^e^m^oⁿ^e^y^f^r^o^m^lo^w^-ⁱⁿ^c^o^m^e^f^a^m^ilie^{s; o}^t^h^e^r^s^f^ear^it^w^ill
^dri^v^{e cu}^s^t^o^m^ers^—^l^a^r^g^el^y^co^nsⁱ^s^t^eⁿ^t^pa^y^e^rs—^f^ro^m^t^h^{e prog}^ra^m^,^h^u^r^tⁱ^ngⁿ^o^t^on^l^y^chⁱ^l^d
^s^u^{pport prog}^ram^perf^or^m^aⁿ^c^e^bu^{t f}^a^m^ilies^as^w^e^{ll. O}ⁿ^e^-^f^o^u^r^th^of^t^h^{e s}^u^rv^e^y^{ed directors}
^s^t^{ated th}^a^t^t^h^{eir prog}^ra^m^s^w^o^{uld n}^o^{t ch}^ar^g^e^t^h^e^f^{ee a}ⁿ^d^w^o^u^l^{d pay}^th^e^f^e^{deral s}^h^{are ou}^t^of⁸
^prog^ram^res^o^u^r^ces^.

The provision mandating a $25 annual user fee became effective on October 1, 2006. However,
some states had to enact the provision into state law before they could impose the mandatory $25 ⁹
user fee. The proposed regulations on the user fee were published in January 2007. Final
regulations are expected to be published in the summer of 2008.
Table 1 is based on a survey of the states by the National Council of Child Support Directors and
information from state CSE agencies. Table 1 indicates that of the 54 jurisdictions with CSE

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^CSE-Ch^ar9⁹^.h^tm^.
⁷^Na^tiona^{l C}^h^il^{d S}^u^p^port^Enf^o^rc^e^m^eⁿ^{t A}^ssocⁱ^a^{tion (NCSEA}^).^Re^s^o^lutio^{n on $2}⁵^Aⁿⁿ^u^a^l^Fe^e^{. J}^u^ne¹⁷^{, 2}⁰⁰²^.^Se^e
^http:^//w^w^w^.nc^s^e^a^.^or^g^/^f^ile^s^/^R^e^s^o^l^u^tio^n-^A^nnua^lFe^e^.^p^d^f^.
⁸^Se^e^htt^p^://w^w^w^.nc^c^s^d^.ne^t^/^doc^um^eⁿ^ts^/nc^c^s^d_f^ina^l^_re^p^ort^_^re^vⁱ^s^e^d_2_4³⁷⁷⁸^2.^pdf^.
⁹^Fe^de^{ral Re}^gⁱ^ste^r^{, v}^o^l.^72,ⁿ^o^.^15.^J^a^nua^r^y^{24, 2}⁰⁰⁷^{. C}^h^il^{d S}^u^p^por^t^Enf^o^r^c^em^eⁿ^{t P}^r^og^r^a^m^,^{p. 30}^93-³¹⁰²^{. T}^h^e
^pr^o^pos^e^d^r^e^g^u^la^ti^ons^c^aⁿ^be^f^oun^{d a}^t^h^ttp:^//w^w^w^.a^cf^.dhhs^.g^ov^/pr^o^g^r^am^s^/^c^s^e^/^pol^/^A^T^/²⁰⁰^7/^a^t^-^07-⁰¹^.^h^tm^.

programs, 26 jurisdictions impose the user fee on the custodial parent, 20 jurisdictions pay the fee
with state funds, 2 jurisdictions get the fee from the noncustodial parent, 1 jurisdiction charges
half of the fee to the noncustodial parent and the other half to the custodial parent, and 3
jurisdictions retain the fee from the family’s child support payment (after $500 per year has been
collected on behalf of the family). The other 2 jurisdictions did not respond to the survey or the
issue is still unresolved.
Table 1. Method By Which $25 CSE Annual User Fee Is Imposed
^{Fee Paid by}^{Fee Paid by}^{Fee Paid by}^{Fee Paid Out of}
^Implementa-^{State Out of}^Noncustodial^Custodial^{Child Suppo}^rt
^State^{tion Date}^{State Funds}^Parent^Parent^Payment^a
^{Alabama 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Alaska 10/1/}⁰⁶^X
^{Arizona 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Arkansas 10/1/}^{07 X}
^{California 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^Colorad^{o 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Connecticut 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Delaware 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{District of}^10/1/^{07 X}
^Columbia
^{Florida 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^Georgia^10/1/⁰⁷^{X (split)}^{X (split)}
^{Guam 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Hawaii 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Idaho 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Illinois 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Indiana 01/1/}⁰⁸^X
^{Iowa 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^Kansas^pending
^{Kentucky 7/1/2}⁰⁰⁸^X
^{Louisiana 10/1/}⁰⁶^X
^{Maine 10/1/}⁰⁶^X
^{Maryland 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^Massach^{usetts 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Michigan 09/1/}⁰⁸^X
^{Minnesota 9/30/}⁰⁷^X
^{Mississippi 10/1/}⁰⁶^X
^{Missouri 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Montana 10/1/}⁰⁷^X

^{Fee Paid by}^{Fee Paid by}^{Fee Paid by}^{Fee Paid Out of}
^Implementa-^{State Out of}^Noncustodial^Custodial^{Child Suppo}^rt^a
^State^{tion Date}^{State Funds}^Parent^Parent^Payment
^Nebras^{ka 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Nevada 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^New^12/1/⁰⁷^X
^Hamps^hire
^{New Jers}^ey^7/1/0⁸^X
^{New Me}^xico^10/1/⁰⁷^X
^{New York}^b^10/0^1/0⁸^X
^{North Carolina}^10/1/⁰⁷^X
^{North Dakota}^10/1/⁰⁷^X
^{Ohio 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Oklahoma 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Oregon 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^Pennsylvania^c^03/3^1/0⁸^X
^Puerto^Rico^pending
^{Rhode Island}^10/1/⁰⁷^X
^{South Carolina}^10/1/⁰⁷^X
^{South Dakota}^10/1/⁰⁷^X
^{Tennessee 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Texas 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Utah 7/1/0}⁷^X
^{Vermont 10/1/}⁰⁶^X
^{Virgin Islands}^d^X
^{Virginia 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{Washington 10/1/}⁰⁷^X
^{West Virginia}^10/1/⁰⁷^X
^{Wisconsin 10/1/}⁰⁸^X
^{Wyoming 11/1/}⁰⁷^X
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service}^{on the}^{basis of information collected by the}
^{National Council of Child Support Directors and from state}^{CSE a}^gencies.
^a.^{The $2}^{5 CSE a}ⁿⁿ^{ual user}^{fee may}^{be retained}^{by t}^{he state}^{from th}^{e child sup}^{port paym}^{ent made to}^the
^{custodial parent b}^{ut only afte}^{r $}⁵⁰⁰^{has b}^{een collected (in a given}^{fiscal year) from the}^nonc^ustodial^pare^nt
^{on that family’s be}^half.
^b.^{New York will pay the $}^{25 CS}^{E a}^nnual^user^{fee from}^{state f}^{unds d}^{uring t}^{he pe}^{riod from April 1, 20}^08,
^through^Septem^ber^{30, 2}⁰⁰^8.
^c.^Pennsylvania^{pays th}^{e $}^{25 CSE a}ⁿ^{nual use}^{r fee o}^{ut of state f}^unds^f^{or cases in whic}^{h the}^an^{nual child sup}^port
^collecti^{on is between}^$5^{00 a}^{nd $}^1,99^{9.99. If t}^{he a}ⁿⁿ^{ual child sup}^p^{ort collecti}^{on is $2,00}^{0 or more,}^{the $}²⁵
^annual^user^{fee is collected from the cu}^{stodial parent.}
^d.^{The documentation for t}^{he Virgin Islands (Of}^{fice of Child Support}^Enforc^{ement, Virgin Islands State}^Profile
^{at http://ocse.acf.hhs.gov/ext/irg/s}^{ps/selectastate.cfm) does not incl}^{ude the impleme}^{ntation date.}

^Car^m^eⁿ^So^lo^m^o^n-^Fear^s
^Specialis^{t i}ⁿ^{Social P}^o^lic^y
^cs^ol^o^m^onf^ears@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,⁷^-⁷³⁰⁶