Demographic Survey Results from
Nine-State IV-D Programs
December 18, 2007
Prepared for:
Office of Child Support Enforcement
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Under Contract with:
Courtland Consulting
120 N. Washington, Suite 280
Lansing, MI 48933
With a Subcontract to:
The Urban Institute
2100 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Report Written by:
Elaine Sorensen and Tess Tannehill
The Urban Institute
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not
reflect the views of the Urban Institute, its board, or its funders.
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... III
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................1
II. SURVEY DESIGN................................................................................................................................................3
III. DATA AVAILABILITY ....................................................................................................................................6
A. DATA REQUESTED................................................................................................................................................6
B. DATA RECEIVED ...................................................................................................................................................7
IV. FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY.................................................................................................................14
A. TOTAL NUMBER OF CUSTODIAL AND NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS .......................................................................14
B. AGE .....................................................................................................................................................................18
C. RACE/ETHNICITY ................................................................................................................................................22
D. GENDER ..............................................................................................................................................................26
E. CHILDREN’S LIVING ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................................................................28
F. NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS WHO LIVE OUT-OF-STATE ......................................................................................29
G. EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................................................30
H. EMPLOYMENT.....................................................................................................................................................31
I. EARNINGS ............................................................................................................................................................32
J. PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE ............................................................................................................................33
K. FAMILY INCOME .................................................................................................................................................34
L. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ...........................................................................................................................................35
M. INTERSTATE CASES ............................................................................................................................................38
N. INTERNATIONAL CASES ......................................................................................................................................39
O. TRIBAL CASES ....................................................................................................................................................40
V. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................................41
VI. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................44
APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT ...........................................................................................................45
APPENDIX B. METHOD USED TO IDENTIFY IV-D POPULATION IN CPS-CSS BY ASPE ..............52
APPENDIX C. DETAILED INFORMATION ON DATA RECEIVED ........................................................54
APPENDIX D: DETAILED RACE/ETHNICITY COMPOSITION OF IV-D CLIENTS..........................57
APPENDIX E: DETAILED INFORMATION ON MISSING DATA .............................................................60
i
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. DATA RECEIVED FOR THE 2007 DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY ................................................................................8
TABLE 2. NUMBER OF CUSTODIAL AND NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS IN NINE-STATE IV-D PROGRAMS (2007), NUMBER
OF IV-D CASES IN NINE-STATE IV-D PROGRAMS (2006), AND NUMBER OF CUSTODIAL PARENTS ACCORDING
TO ASPE (2001) .................................................................................................................................................15
TABLE 3. AGE COMPOSITION OF CUSTODIAL AND NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS IN EIGHT-STATE IV-D PROGRAMS
(2007).................................................................................................................................................................19
TABLE 4. AGE COMPOSITION OF CHILDREN IN EIGHT-STATE IV-D PROGRAMS (2007) ...............................................20
TABLE 5. NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN EIGHT STATE IV-D PROGRAMS (2007), NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN
EIGHT STATE IV-D PROGRAMS ACCORDING TO OCSE (2006)...........................................................................22
TABLE 6. RACIAL/ETHNICITY COMPOSITION OF CUSTODIAL AND NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS IN NINE-STATE IV-D
PROGRAMS (2007) AND ACCORDING TO ASPE (2001) .......................................................................................24
TABLE 7. GENDER COMPOSITION OF CUSTODIAL AND NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS IN EIGHT-STATE IV-D PROGRAMS
(2007) AND ACCORDING TO ASPE (2001) ..........................................................................................................27
TABLE 8. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF CHILDREN WHO LIVE WITH THEIR BIOLOGICAL MOTHER, BIOLOGICAL FATHER,
OR THIRD PARTY IN FIVE-STATE IV-D PROGRAMS (2007) .................................................................................28
TABLE 9. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS WHO LIVE OUT OF STATE IN EIGHT-STATE IV-D
PROGRAMS (2007) AND ACCORDING TO ASPE (2001) .......................................................................................29
TABLE 10. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF CUSTODIAL AND NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS WHO ARE EMPLOYED IN SEVENSTATE IV-D PROGRAMS (2007)..........................................................................................................................32
TABLE 11. AVERAGE MONTHLY EARNINGS OF EMPLOYED CUSTODIAL AND NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS IN THREESTATE IV-D PROGRAMS (2007)..........................................................................................................................32
TABLE 12. PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR CHILDREN IN FIVE-STATE IV-D PROGRAMS (2007) AND THE NUMBER
OF CASES WHERE HEALTH INSURANCE IS PROVIDED AS ORDERS (2006)............................................................34
TABLE 13. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECEIPT AMONG CHILDREN AND CUSTODIAL PARENTS IN SEVEN-STATE IV-D
PROGRAMS (2007) AND ACCORDING TO ASPE (2001) .......................................................................................37
TABLE 14. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS WITH AN INTERSTATE CASE (2007) AND THE
NUMBER AND PERCENT OF INTERSTATE CASES (2006) IN EIGHT-STATE IV-D PROGRAMS ................................39
TABLE 15. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS WITH AN INTERNATIONAL CASE IN SIX-STATE IV-D
PROGRAMS (2007) ..............................................................................................................................................40
APPENDIX A. TABLE 1. WHETHER WE RECEIVED DATA FROM STATES BY SURVEY QUESTION ....................................55
APPENDIX D. TABLE 1. RACIAL COMPOSITION OF CUSTODIAL PARENTS, CHILDREN, AND NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS
IN NINE-STATE IV-D PROGRAMS (2007) AND ACCORDING TO ASPE (2001) .....................................................59
APPENDIX E. TABLE 1. MISSING DATA FROM STATES BY SURVEY QUESTION .............................................................62
ii
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In FY 2006, the national IV-D program served nearly 16 million cases and collected
nearly $24 billion, yet little is known about the underlying demographic and socioeconomic
characteristics of the individuals it serves. Every other year, the U.S. Census Bureau reports the
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of families with children who are potentially
eligible for child support based on a nationally representative household survey called the
Current Population Survey-Child Support Supplement (CPS-CSS). However, this survey cannot
accurately identify families in the child support enforcement program. Analysts at the United
States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS/ASPE) have developed an indirect
method of identifying IV-D clients in the CPS-CSS, but the accuracy of this indirect method is
unknown (Mellgren, Burnszynski, Douglas, and Sinclair-James 2004).
Given the limitations of the CPS-CSS for examining the characteristics of families served
by the IV-D program, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) decided to
examine an alternative method of obtaining these data. OCSE decided to ask the nine states with
the largest IV-D caseloads in FY 2006 whether they could provide demographic and
socioeconomic data on their IV-D clients. OCSE contracted with Courtland Consulting and its
subcontractor, the Urban Institute, to conduct this survey and to analyze the data that the states
provide.
Data collected from the 2007 Demographic Survey are different from other data sources
in three ways. First, data are collected directly from state IV-D programs (rather than individual
program participants), which yielded a very high response rate. In fact, all nine states that were
asked to participate agreed and completed the survey. They are: California, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Secondly, the Demographic
Survey provides this information by state, while the DHHS/ASPE report, which uses the CPSiii
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CSS, provides information on IV-D participants nationally. Lastly, unlike OCSE data, which
collects information on IV-D cases, data collected in this survey gathers information on custodial
parents, children and non-custodial parents.
The results of this survey are significant in that they provide quantitative data on the
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of custodial parents, children, and non-custodial
parents in nine states that together serve nearly 50 percent of IV-D clients nationally. The
Demographic Survey finds that 22.5 percent of the children under 18 years of age in the
surveyed states are participants of the IV-D program. While the IV-D programs serve a large
number of children under 18 years of age, they also serve some “children” who are 18 years old
or older. Specifically, 22 percent of the “children” in IV-D programs in the surveyed states are
18 years old or older.
Five of the nine surveyed states provided information on private health insurance for
children in the IV-D program. Among these five states, 11 percent of custodial parents and 18
percent of non-custodial parents had private health insurance for their children, but only 22
percent of the children in these IV-D programs had private health insurance.
The percent of
children with private health insurance varied among the state IV-D programs, from a high of 35
percent in Pennsylvania to a low of 14 percent in New York.
Across seven of the surveyed states, 57 percent of custodial parents and 64 percent of
non-custodial parents were employed at the time of the survey. Average monthly earnings for
custodial and non-custodial parents who were employed were about the same when averaged
across the three states that provided this information; average monthly earnings were $1,811 for
employed custodial parents and $1,834 for employed non-custodial parents.
Several of the key results of the Demographic Survey are quite different from those found
by analysts at DHHS/ASPE as reported in the ASPE report (Mellgren et al 2004).
iv
Some of
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
these differences can be explained, while others cannot. For example, the ASPE report finds that
55 percent of custodial parents in the IV-D program received Medicaid during 2001, while the
Demographic Survey finds that 26 percent of custodial parents are receiving Medicaid at the time
of the survey. This difference is largely due to the different time frames used when inquiring
about Medicaid use. The ASPE report measured annual Medicaid participation rates while the
Demographic Survey provides point-in-time estimates of Medicaid participation. In addition, the
Demographic Survey finds that 32 percent of custodial parents in the surveyed states are AfricanAmerican and 19 percent are Hispanic while the ASPE report found a significantly lower percent
of custodial parents were African-American and Hispanic nationwide. This difference can be
explained by the racial/ethnic composition of the states that participated in the Demography
Survey, which have a much higher percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics than the
nation as a whole.
Other differences between the Demographic Survey and the ASPE report cannot be so
easily explained. For example, according to the Demographic Survey, the nine surveyed states
have 6.6 million custodial parents in their active caseload. Since these states have nearly half of
the nation’s IV-D caseload, if they also have nearly half of the nation’s custodial parents, then
this suggests that there are approximately 13.2 million custodial parents with active cases in the
IV-D program. In contrast, the ASPE report estimated that the IV-D program served just 8
million custodial parents nationwide in 2001. While some of this difference can be explained by
differences in the definition of custodial parents, which we discuss in the report, considerable
differences in the estimates of the number of custodial parents served by the IV-D program still
remain.
v
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Demographic Survey was successful in obtaining considerable amounts of
information from most of the surveyed states. However, the following items proved difficult to
obtain from the state IV-D programs:
•
Marital status of custodial and non-custodial parents;
•
Educational attainment of custodial and non-custodial parents;
•
Family income and poverty status of custodial families;
•
Use of food stamps, subsidized or public housing, or subsidized child care; and
•
The extent to which non-custodial parents have a tribal case.
If OCSE decides to conduct this type of survey in the future, we recommend that they
utilize a web-based survey. All of the nine participating states chose this method to submit their
data and they needed little technical assistance in completing the web-based questionnaire. In
addition, we recommend a number of changes to the survey questions that were used in the first
Demographic Survey to ensure that OCSE captures the information that it desires. Further, we
recommend that more of the questions in the survey explicitly allow states to report the amount
of information that is missing or unknown. We neglected to offer this option on all of the
questions and states used the comments sections to note missing information. Undoubtedly,
OMB approved race/ethnicity categories will be used in a future survey, but we should note that
none of the nine surveyed states actually used these categories.
vi
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: INTRODUCTION
I. INTRODUCTION
Little is known about the underlying demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of
the individuals served by the child support enforcement program. While the federal Office of
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) regularly collects information from the state child support
enforcement programs about the child support characteristics of their cases, they do not ask
about the demographic or socioeconomic characteristics of the individuals being served.
Every other year, the U.S. Census Bureau reports the demographic and socioeconomic
characteristics of families with children who are potentially eligible for child support. For
example, in 2005, the most recent year for which data are available, the Census Bureau reported
that 16 percent of custodial parents identified as Hispanic and 25 percent of custodial families
lived in poverty (Grall 2007). The data for this report are from the Current Population SurveyChild Support Supplement (CPS-CSS), a large nationally representative household survey
conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau and funded in part by OCSE.
The CPS-CSS asks custodial parents whether they have contacted the child support
enforcement program (also known as the IV-D program), but these questions yield very low
participation rates. For example, in 2005, less than one third of custodial parents in the CPSCSS responded that they had ever contacted a child support enforcement or IV-D office (See
Appendix B for the exact wording of the question). Yet, it is generally believed that well over
half of all child-support eligible children are in the IV-D program (U.S. House of
Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means 2004). Thus, using the CPS-CSS to describe
the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of IV-D participants is not accurate.
Analysts at the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS/ASPE) have
developed an indirect method of identifying IV-D participants in the CPS-CSS, but as we discuss
1
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: INTRODUCTION
in Appendix B, the accuracy of this indirect method for identifying custodial parent families in
the IV-D system is unknown (Mellgren, Burnszynski, Douglas, and Sinclair-James 2004).
Given the limitations of the CPS-CSS for examining the characteristics of families served
by the IV-D program, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) decided to
examine an alternative method of obtaining these data.
OCSE decided to ask the nine states
with the largest IV-D caseloads in FY 2006 whether they could provide demographic and
socioeconomic data on the families that they serve and if they could, to provide that data for
analysis. OCSE contracted with Courtland Consulting and its subcontractor, the Urban Institute,
to conduct this survey and to analyze the data that the states provide. All nine states agreed to
participate and complete the survey. The participating states are: California, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The survey was completed
between February 1, 2007 and May 6, 2007.
We should note that for this analysis no data sources were available to fully compare the
results of the 2007 Demographic Survey.
The best data sources available were the 2004
DHHS/ASPE report as well as data collected by the Federal Office of Child Support
Enforcement (OCSE). However, unlike the 2007 Demographic Survey, the 2004 DHHS/ASPE
report highlighted characteristics of IV-D clients nationally. Data collected by OCSE provides
state-specific results, but it uses case-counts as the unit of analysis rather than custodial and noncustodial parents and children. We report results from the DHHS/ASPE report and OCSE
administrative data, but only to provide a frame of reference for data collected through the 2007
Demographic Survey.
2
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: SURVEY DESIGN
II. SURVEY DESIGN
To collect data for the 2007 Demographic Survey, Courtland Consulting and the Urban
Institute designed a survey that was placed on the web for participating states to complete. The
survey was distributed electronically and in hardcopy form. All nine states completed the webbased version of the survey (See Figure 1).
Figure 1 – OCSE Demographic Survey Website Home Page
The survey was designed to capture state-level demographic, social, and economic
characteristics of custodial parents, children and non-custodial parents in nine state IV-D
3
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: SURVEY DESIGN
programs. It was also programmed for each state to independently log in with a secure username
and password to protect all of the highly sensitive survey data. The first section of the survey
contained twelve questions and collected information on custodial parents. The second section
contained five questions and collected information on children. The third section asked fourteen
questions about non-custodial parents. The exact questions are given in Appendix A, which is a
copy of the survey instrument.
All nine states, except California, provided population counts when answering questions
in the survey, which they obtained from their statewide administrative data systems or their data
warehouses. California reported data from a survey that it conducted in 2001 of its IV-D clients
to answer the questions in this survey. In the analysis below, we weight the California data to
reflect the population of custodial and non-custodial parents in their IV-D program in 2007 (this
method is explained in footnote 1).
Each question in the survey had at least one data entry form field for the states to use to
submit their answer; many of the questions had multiple data entry form fields, one for each
subcategory that was asked about. Each form field also had a drop-down field beneath it. If a
state did not have a number to put in the form field, they were instructed to use the drop-down
field to indicate one of four possible reasons for not providing the data:
1) They did not collect the data;
2) The data was not reliable;
3) They could not tabulate the data; or
4) They did not understand the question.
At the end of each section of the survey, a comment section was provided. States were
instructed to use the comment section to enter any additional information about the questions or
answers in that section of the survey. Every state used the comment sections. It was used most
often to report missing values for questions in each section. The comments that states provided
4
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: SURVEY DESIGN
in this section of the survey are given in Appendix F, which is an exact copy of the completed
surveys submitted by each state.
5
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: DATA AVAILABILITY
III. DATA AVAILABILITY
As noted above, there are three sections in the survey: one for custodial parents, one for
children, and one for non-custodial parents. Below, we list the information requested in each of
these sections and then discuss the extent to which states provided this information.
A. Data Requested
Section A of the survey asks the nine participating states to provide the following
information about custodial parents in their IV-D programs:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The number with active cases;
The race/ethnicity composition;
The age distribution;
Gender;
Marital status;
Educational attainment;
Participation in five public assistance programs;
Poverty status;
Average family income;
Number employed;
Average monthly earnings among the employed; and
Number with private health insurance for their children.
Section B of the survey collects information on children in the nine study states’ IV-D
programs and includes questions on the following:
•
•
•
•
•
The race/ethnicity composition;
The age distribution;
Living arrangements;
Participation in five public assistance programs; and
Number with private health insurance.
Section C of the OCSE demographic survey asks states about non-custodial parents in
their IV-D programs and specifically addresses the following:
6
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: DATA AVAILABILITY
The number who have an active case;
Number who live out of state;
The race/ethnicity composition;
The age distribution;
Gender;
Marital status;
Educational attainment;
Interstate case;
International case;
Tribal case;
Average family income;
Number employed;
Average monthly earnings among those employed; and
Number with private health insurance for their children.
B. Data Received
In the discussion that follows, we divide the data received into four broad categories:
demographic characteristics, social and economic characteristics, public assistance receipt, and
case characteristics.
Demographic Characteristics
In general, nearly all of the states were able to provide the demographic information
requested in the Demographic Survey. Marital status is the only demographic characteristic for
which none of the states (except California) could provide reliable data.
7
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: DATA AVAILABILITY
Table 1. Data Received for the 2007 Demographic Survey
Demographic Characteristics
Age
Custodial Parent
Children
Non-custodial Parent
Race
Custodial Parent
Children
Non-custodial Parent
Gender
Custodial Parent
Non-custodial Parent
Marital Status
Custodial Parent
Non-custodial Parent
Living Arrangements
Children
Lives out of State
Non-custodial Parent
Total
Number
CA
FL
GA
IL
MI
NY
OH
PA
TX
7
8
8
ND
ND
ND
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
NR
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
9
8
9
√
ND
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
NR
NR
NR
NR
√
√
NR
√
NR
√
√
NR
√
8
8
ND
ND
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
1
1
√
√
NR
NR
NR
ND
NR
NR
NR
NR
ND
ND
NR
NR
ND
ND
NR
NR
5
ND
√
√
√
NR
ND
√
ND
√
8
ND
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
√
√
ND
ND
√
√
NR
√
ND
NR
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
ND
ND
√
√
NR
NR
ND
NR
ND
ND
√
√
ND
NR
ND
√
ND
ND
√
√
ND
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
ND
NR
ND
ND
√
√
ND
NR
ND
ND
ND
NR
ND
ND
NR
ND
Social and Economic Characteristics
Education
√
Custodial Parent
1
√
Non-custodial Parent
1
Employment Status
√
Custodial Parent
6
√
Non-custodial Parent
7
Monthly Earnings
Custodial Parent
3
ND
Non-custodial Parent
3
ND
Private Health Insurance Coverage for Children
Custodial Parent
5
ND
Children
8
ND
Non-custodial Parent
7
ND
Family Income
Custodial Parent
2
ND
Non-custodial Parent
2
ND
Poverty Status
Custodial Parent
0
ND
8
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: DATA AVAILABILITY
Table 1. Data Received for the 2007 Demographic Survey (continued)
Questions and Customer
Total
Number
CA FL GA
Public Assistance and Foster Care Characteristics
TANF
Custodial Parent
7
ND
Children
7
ND
Medicaid
Custodial Parent
5
ND
Children
6
ND
Food Stamps
Custodial Parent
0
ND
Children
0
ND
Subsidized or Public Housing
Custodial Parent
0
ND
Children
0
ND
Subsidized Child Care
Custodial Parent
0
ND
Children
0
ND
Foster Care
Children
4
ND
Case Characteristics
Interstate
Non-custodial Parent
8
ND
International
Non-custodial Parent
6
ND
Tribal
Non-custodial Parent
1
ND
IL
MI NY OH PA TX
ND
ND
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
ND
ND
ND
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
ND
ND
√
√
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
√
√
ND
ND
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
ND
ND
√
√
ND
√
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
Note: "Total Number" indicates the number of states that sent data and the data were considered reliable. For
further discussion regarding the availability and reliability of the data received, see Appendix B and D.
√ = Data were received (and the state did not indicate that the data were unreliable and the authors did not view
the data as unreliable).
ND = No data were received. NR = Either the state or the authors considered the data not reliable. If more than 25
percent of the date were missing, the authors considered the data not reliable.
9
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: DATA AVAILABILITY
All of the states, except California, provided information on the age and gender of
custodial and non-custodial parents. In its 2001 survey, California did not ask respondents about
their age and gender. Michigan provided data on the age of custodial parents but informed the
authors of this report that these data were not reliable. All of the states, except California,
provided information on the age of children in the IV-D program. California did not provide any
data on children in the IV-D program in the Demographic Survey.
While all of the states provided information on the race/ethnicity composition of
custodial and non-custodial parents, these data are not as reliable as the age and gender
characteristics of custodial and non-custodial parents described above. In three states (Michigan,
New York, and Ohio), over 25 percent of the non-custodial parents were missing their
race/ethnicity. Furthermore, over 25 percent of custodial parents in New York were missing
their race/ethnicity (see Appendix E for further details on missing information for race/ethnicity).
All of the states, but California, provided race/ethnicity information on the children in the
IV-D program. However, as shown in Appendix E, a high percent of these data were missing
from the states and the information was somewhat redundant of the findings for the
race/ethnicity composition of custodial and non-custodial parents. Thus, we do not discuss the
race/ethnicity composition of children in the text. This information is presented in Appendix D.
As noted above, none of the states, except California, provided reliable information on
marital status.
Since these data were not reliable, we do not discuss them in the report.
However, the data received from the states are presented in Appendix F.
We received information on the living arrangements of the children in the IV-D program
from five states: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas. We received information on the
extent to which non-custodial parents live out of state from all states, except California.
10
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: DATA AVAILABILITY
Social and Economic Characteristics
Very few of the nine study states provided the social and economic information requested
in the Demographic Survey. Only two of the six questions asked about the social and economic
characteristics of custodial and non-custodial parents were answered by the majority of the study
states. The first question answered by most study states asked about the employment status of
custodial and non-custodial parents. Six states provided information about the employment
status of custodial parents; seven states provided information about the employment status of
non-custodial parents. The second question that most states answered in this area was whether
children had private health insurance. All of the states, except California, provided information
on the extent to which children in the IV-D program had private health insurance. Five states
provided information on whether the custodial parent had private health insurance for his/her
children and seven states provided information on whether the non-custodial parent had private
health insurance for his/her children.
Questions about educational attainment, monthly earnings, family income, and poverty
status were answered by very few states.
None of the states, except California, provided
information about the educational attainment of custodial and non-custodial parents.
Three
states provided information on the monthly earnings of custodial and non-custodial parents. Two
states provided information on the family income of custodial parents. None of the states
provided reliable information on the poverty status of custodial families.
Public Assistance Receipt and Foster Care Services
The Demographic Survey asked about five different types of public assistance receipt and
foster care services. The majority of states provided information about TANF and Medicaid
receipt, but none of the states provided information on the receipt of other public assistance
11
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: DATA AVAILABILITY
programs — food stamps, subsidized and public housing, and subsidized child care. Only four
states provided information about the extent to which children in the IV-D program received
foster care services.
Case Characteristics
The Demographic Survey asked three questions about non-custodial parents’ case
characteristics: how many had an interstate case; how many had an international case; and how
many had a tribal case. All of the states, except California, provided information on the number
of non-custodial parents with an interstate case. The majority of states provided information on
the number of non-custodial parents with an international case.
Only one state, Georgia,
provided information on the number of non-custodial parents with a tribal case.
Summary
In sum, most of the study states provided information on:
•
Age, race/ethnicity, and gender of IV-D clients (although the race/ethnicity data were not
always reliable, especially for children);
•
Living arrangements of children in the IV-D program;
•
Whether non-custodial parents live out of state;
•
Employment status of custodial and non-custodial parents,
•
Whether children have private health insurance;
•
TANF and Medicaid receipt of custodial parents and their children;
•
The extent to which non-custodial parents have an interstate case; and
•
The extent to which non-custodial parents have an international case.
12
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: DATA AVAILABILITY
On the other hand, most study states did not provide information on:
•
Marital status of custodial and non-custodial parents;
•
Educational attainment of custodial and non-custodial parents;
•
Monthly earnings of custodial and non-custodial parents;
•
Family income and poverty status of custodial families;
•
Public assistance use of programs other than TANF and Medicaid; and
•
The extent to which non-custodial parents have a tribal case.
13
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
IV. FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY
The following sections provide an overview of the information that we received from the
states in response to the Demographic Survey.
We have organized these results in the same
manner as the section above, however we start by discussing the total number of clients in the
survey states.
A. Total Number of Custodial and Non-custodial Parents
The Demographic Survey asked states to provide the total number of custodial and noncustodial parents with active IV-D cases. All of the states, except California, provided this
information. As noted earlier, California used the results of a survey that it conducted in 2001 to
answer the questions in the Demographic Survey. For this question, it reported the number of
custodial and non-custodial parents who responded to its survey. At the request of OCSE, we
weighted these data so that they would reflect the population of custodial and non-custodial
parents at the time of the Demographic Survey. 1
Custodial Parents
Including California, the surveyed states had a total of 6,616,339 custodial parents in
their IV-D programs (See Table 2). Based on the 2007 Demographic Survey, California had the
largest number of custodial parents with at least one active IV-D case (1,433,461), while Georgia
1
To create weights for the California data, we used data from the OCSE FY 2006 Preliminary Statistics Report to
calculate the ratio of cases in California relative to the cases in the eight other study states as of September 2006.
Then, to determine the number of custodial parents in California at the time of the Demographic Survey, we
summed the number of custodial parents in the eight other states as reported in our study and multiplied that number
by the aforementioned ratio. To determine the appropriate weight to use when examining sub-samples of custodial
parents in California, we divided our estimated number of custodial parents in California determined above by the
total number of custodial parents who were surveyed in 2001. The resulting weight was 230.3118. We followed a
similar procedure to determine the number of non-custodial parents in California at the time of the Demographic
Survey and the appropriate weight to use when examining sub-samples of non-custodial parents. The weight for
non-custodial parents was 368.4243. California did not provide data on children and thus we did not develop a
weight for them.
14
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
had the smallest (383,424). New York, Texas, Ohio, and Michigan also reported large numbers
of custodial parents with active cases at 893,260; 859,175; 769,683; and 768,200 respectively.
Since these nine states have about half of the IV-D caseload, they probably also have about half
of the custodial parents in the IV-D program. This suggests that there are about 13.2 million
custodial parents nationwide in 2007.
Table 2. Number of Custodial and Non-custodial Parents in Nine-State IV-D Programs
(2007), Number of IV-D Cases in Nine-State IV-D Programs (2006), and Number of
Custodial Parents According to ASPE (2001)
State
Number of
Custodial
Parents
Number of
Non-custodial
Parents
Number of
IV-D Cases
(9/06)a
California
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Michigan
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Total
OCSE
ASPE
1,433,461
616,133
383,424
458,004
768,200
893,260
769,683
434,999
859,175
6,616,339
-8,027,892b
1,432,065
630,263
372,744
454,024
780,696
893,260
735,117
441,688
866,154
6,606,011
---
1,705,561
742,584
482,495
602,533
958,128
893,768
956,541
550,150
980,497
7,872,257
15,844,238
--
Note: -- =Not Available.
Note: California data were gathered from a survey of CP/NCP clients in 2001.
These data are weighted to reflect the population of IV-D clients in California in
September 2006.
a
Source: OCSE FY 2006 Preliminary Report. Table 4 (column 1).
b
Source: Mellgren, Linda, Jennifer Burnszynski, Sarah Douglas, and Brian
Sinclair-James, “Characteristics of Families Using Title IV-D Services in 1999 and
2001.” DHHS/ASPE (2004).
We compared the number of custodial and non-custodial parents reported in the
Demographic Survey to the caseload figures in the Fiscal Year 2006 OCSE Preliminary Data
Report. We found that the nine states in the Demographic Survey reported, on average, 84
15
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
percent as many custodial parents as cases reported in the FY 2006 OCSE Preliminary Data
Report. Of course, we did not expect a one-to-one correspondence between the number of cases
and custodial parents in a state. A case, as defined by OCSE is, “A parent (mother, father, or
putative father) who is now or eventually may be obligated under law for the support of a child
or children receiving services under the title IV-D program.” 2 Thus, it measures something
slightly different than a count of custodial parents.
The total number of custodial parents in the IV-D program nationwide estimated by the
nine-state Demographic Survey (13.2 million) is considerably larger than that reported by
analysts at DHHS/ASPE in the ASPE report (Mellgren et al 2004). The ASPE report estimated
that there were 8 million custodial parents with children under 21 years old in the IV-D program
in 2001. As we discuss below, many of the custodial parents in the nine surveyed states do not
have children under 21 years of age. We do not know the exact percent of custodial parents with
children over 21 in the nine surveyed states, but we do know that 22 percent of children in the
IV-D programs in the surveyed states were 18 years old and older. Thus, a rough estimate of the
number of custodial parents in the IV-D program with minor children would be about 78 percent
of 13.2 million, or 10.3 million custodial parents, which is still considerably higher than the
estimate in the ASPE report.
Another possible explanation for the larger estimate of custodial parents from the
Demography Survey is that states reported the number of custodians rather than the number of
custodial parents when responding to the survey question about the number of custodial parents
in their IV-D program. 3 Although the survey specifically asked for the number of custodial
2
Definition of a IV-D case is from OCSE’s document titled “Instructions for Completing Form OCSE-157”.
After we realized that the total number of custodial parents in the nine surveyed states was considerably larger than
what we would have expected given the results in the ASPE report, we asked the surveyed states if they had
provided the number of custodians or custodial parents when responding to Question 1 in Section A of the
3
16
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
parents, states may have interpreted the question to mean custodians.
Child support
administrative systems often refer to custodians as “custodial parents” even though some of them
are not parents. We show below that approximately 11 percent of children in the five state IV-D
programs lived with a third party rather than their parents. If the nine states who participated in
the Demography Survey reported the number of custodians rather than custodial parents, then a
rough estimate of the number of custodial parents with children under 18 based on the
Demography Survey would be 9.2 million (i.e. 89% of 10.3 million). This number is still larger
than the 8 million custodial parents with children under 21 estimated by the ASPE report.
Another possible explanation for the larger estimate of custodial parents in the
Demography Survey than found in the ASPE report is that the Demography Survey was
conducted in 2007 while the results from the ASPE report are from 2001. This explanation,
however, is unlikely to explain the different estimates because the IV-D caseload actually
declined slightly between 2001 and 2006. Thus, we would expect a slightly smaller number of
custodial parents in 2006 than in 2001.
Non-Custodial Parents
Including California, surveyed states reported a total of 6,606,011 non-custodial parents
in their IV-D programs (See Table 2), which is almost the same as the number of custodial
parents reported by these states. New York, in fact, reported the same number of total custodial
and non-custodial parents (893,260).
Ohio had the largest discrepancy between custodial and
non-custodial parents, but that discrepancy was very small -- for every 100 custodial parents in
Ohio there were 95 non-custodial parents.
We were surprised by these results. We had
Demographic Survey. Four of the states (Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas) said that they had provided
data on custodians, not custodial parents.
17
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
expected to find more non-custodial parents than custodial parents since custodial parents can
name more than one non-custodial parent as a putative father.
B. Age
Custodial and Non-custodial Parents
The 2007 Demographic Survey asked states to provide the total number of custodial and
non-custodial parents who were under the age of 18, between the ages of 18 and 39; and 40 or
older. Among the seven states that provided age data on custodial parents:
•
1.3 percent of custodial parents were under 18 years of age;
•
59.6 percent of custodial parents were between the ages of 18 and 39; and
•
39.2 percent were 40 or older.
New York had the highest percent of custodial parents who were under 18 years of age at 3.6
percent. Ohio had the highest percent of custodial parents who were 40 or older at 43.4 percent.
The age distribution of non-custodial parents was very similar to that of custodial parents,
except that non-custodial parents were more likely than custodial parents to be 40 or older.
Among the eight states that provided age data on non-custodial parents:
•
0.5 percent of non-custodial parents were under 18 years of age;
•
53.6 percent of non-custodial parents were between the ages of 18 and 39; and
•
45.9 percent were 40 or older.
In contrast to custodial parents, Ohio had the highest percent of non-custodial parents who were
under 18 years old at 2.5 percent and New York had the highest percent of non-custodial parents
who were 40 or older at 51.6 percent.
18
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
Table 3. Age Composition of Custodial and Non-custodial Parents in Eight-State IV-D
Programs (2007)
State and Customer
Florida
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Georgia
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Illinois
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Michigan
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
New York
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Ohio
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Pennsylvania
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Texas
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Total
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Under 18
Number
%
18-39
Number
%
40 or Over
Number
%
8,859
535
1.44
0.09
365,118
350,245
59.46
56.83
240,112
265,552
39.10
43.09
837
1,055
0.22
0.28
218,508
194,748
56.99
52.25
164,079
176,941
42.79
47.47
601
504
0.13
0.11
269,980
237,012
59.98
53.35
179,567
206,713
39.89
46.53
NR
1,235
NR
0.16
NR
380,549
NR
48.74
NR
398,913
NR
51.10
29,477
772
3.57
0.09
452,882
405,540
54.81
48.36
343,905
432,337
41.62
51.55
11,618
18,150
1.51
2.47
423,926
371,100
55.08
50.48
334,139
345,867
43.41
47.05
395
443
0.09
0.10
276,814
256,140
63.82
58.52
156,505
181,114
36.08
41.38
2,761
1,345
0.32
0.16
573,847
530,743
67.15
62.03
277,924
323,568
32.52
37.82
54,548
24,039
1.26
0.47
2,581,075
2,726,077
59.58
53.65
1,696,231
2,331,005
39.16
45.88
Note: NR =Not Reliable.
19
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
Children
States were also asked to provide the total number of children in their IV-D caseloads
that were under the age of 6, between the ages of 6 and 17, and 18 or older.
States that provided this information indicated that:
•
19.4 percent of children were under the age of 6;
•
59.0 percent were between the ages of 6 and 17; and
•
21.7 percent were 18 or older.
Table 4. Age Composition of Children in Eight-State IV-D Programs (2007)
State
Under 6
Number
%
6-17
Number
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Michigan
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Eight-State Total
183,010
123,845
177,963
221,364
190,962
263,968
131,924
307,428
1,600,464
594,547
342,102
583,905
645,727
740,190
684,244
441,387
846,768
4,878,870
17.96
18.93
21.79
18.55
17.27
20.09
18.71
21.00
19.35
%
58.33
52.28
71.49
54.10
66.94
52.08
62.61
57.83
58.98
18 or Older
Number
%
241,672
188,441
54,863
326,426
174,603
365,738
131,657
310,027
1,793,427
23.71
28.80
6.72
27.35
15.79
27.84
18.68
21.17
21.68
The percent of children in the IV-D program under the age of 6 did not vary much among
the eight states that provided this information. Illinois had the highest percent of children in this
category at 21.8 percent; New York had the lowest percent at 17.3 percent. In contrast, the
percent of children between the ages of 6 and 17 varied by nearly 20 percentage points among
the eight states. Ohio and Georgia had the lowest percent of children in this category at 52
percent, while Illinois had the highest at 71 percent.
20
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
The percent of children who were 18 years or older is nearly 22 percent across the eight
states that provided this information. It exceeds 20 percent in five of the eight study states. This
finding is consistent with other research that examined the percent of non-custodial parents who
no longer had a current support order (Sorensen, Sousa, and Schaner 2007). In eight large states,
22 percent of non-custodial parents with an order had arrears-only cases.
We summed the number of children under 18 for each state and compared that number to
the figures found in the FY 2006 OCSE Preliminary Report for the number of children in each
state’s IV-D program. OCSE asks states to report the number of children under 18, but states
have the option of reporting all children that they serve regardless of their age. 4 Thus, we were
not surprised to find discrepancies between the numbers of children under 18 as reported in the
Demographic Survey and the numbers of children reported in the OCSE FY 2006 Preliminary
Report. Table 5 shows that the number of children reported in the OCSE FY 2006 Preliminary
report was about 6.5 percent higher than the number of children that were reported to be under
18 years of age in the Demographic Survey.
We also compared the number of children under the age of 18 in the IV-D program to the
total number of children under the age of 18 in the state. Table 5 shows that 22.5 percent of the
children in the eight states in the Demographic Survey were in the IV-D program. This figure
varied from a low of 17.8 percent in Texas to a high of 35 percent in Michigan.
4
Instructions for Completing Form OCSE-157 say that states should report children under the age of 18, but we
were told by OCSE that states have the option to report all children served.
21
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
Table 5. Number of Children Under 18 in Eight State IV-D Programs (2007), Number of
Children in Eight State IV-D Programs According to OCSE (2006),
and the Total Number of Children Under 18 in Eight States (2006)
State
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Michigan
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
otal
a
Children
under 18
in the
IVD
Program
(A)
777,557
465,947
761,868
867,091
931,152
948,212
573,311
1,154,196
6,479,334
Children
in the
IVD
Programa
(B)
847,928
455,961
693,918
980,163
997,197
1,021,282
722,198
1,183,953
6,902,600
%
(B/A)
109.05
97.86
91.08
113.04
107.09
107.71
125.97
102.58
106.53
All
Children
under 18 in
the Stateb
(C)
4,021,409
2,454,886
3,215,194
2,478,349
4,514,269
2,770,017
2,804,859
6,493,697
28,752,680
%
(A/C)
19.34
18.98
23.70
34.99
20.63
34.23
20.44
17.77
22.53
Data from OCSE FY2006 Preliminary Report (table 4).
b
Data from U.S. Census Bureau, State Single Year of Age and Sex Population Estimates, July
1, 2006 (civilian).
C. Race/Ethnicity 5 Below we discuss the race/ethnicity composition of custodial and non-custodial parents.
As noted above, we do not discuss the race/ethnicity composition of children in the nine state IVD programs because of the large percentage of children whose race/ethnicity was missing in the
data that we received.
Appendix D provides the information that we received on the
race/ethnicity of the children from the seven states that provided this information.
5
The Demography Survey asked states to provide the total number of custodial and non-custodial parents and the
number of children who identify as Hispanic, Black, White, Asian, American Indian, and Other Race. In order to be
comparable to the race/ethnicity categories used in the ASPE report, we have combined Asian, American Indian,
and Other Race into one category, called “Other” in table 6. We have not reported children’s race/ethnicity in table
6 because of the large percentages of missing data for this variable. Information on children’s race and ethnicity and
a more detailed table on the distribution of custodial and non-custodial parents by race and ethnicity are in Appendix
D. Table 1.
22
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
Custodial Parents
Based on information received from all nine study states, we found that:
•
45 percent of custodial parents were identified as White (see table 6);
•
32.1 percent of custodial parents were identified as Black;
•
19.3 percent of custodial parents were identified as Hispanic; and
•
3.6 percent of custodial parents were classified as Other Race category, which consisted
of those who were identified as Asian, American Indian, and Other Race.
The race/ethnicity composition varied among the nine study states. Ohio had the largest
percent of custodial parents who were identified as White at 66 percent. Three states – Georgia 6 ,
Texas, and New York – had the lowest percent of custodial parents who identified as White at 31
percent. The percent of custodial parents who were identified as Black varied from a low of 15
percent in California to a high of 66.5 percent in Georgia. Only 2 percent of custodial parents
identified as Hispanic in Georgia, the lowest of any state. Over 40 percent of custodial parents in
Texas identified as Hispanic, the highest of any state. The percent of custodial parents who were
placed in the Other Race category ranged from 0.3 percent in Ohio to 10.4 percent in California.
While all states had some missing information regarding the race/ethnicity of custodial
and non-custodial parents, the amount of missing information varied among the states (see
Appendix E for details regarding the amount of missing information for race/ethnicity). For
example, in Florida and Texas, less than 10 percent of the race/ethnicity information was missing
for custodial and non-custodial parents. New York, on the other hand, had 31 percent of the
race/ethnicity information missing for non-custodial parents and 54 percent of the race/ethnicity
6
We should note that Georgia allows its clients to report more than one race or ethnicity category and if the client
does this, the state records multiple race/ethnicity categories for that person. Thus, the sum of their race/ethnicity
categories is larger than the total number of custodial and non-custodial parents reported by Georgia. However, the
number of clients who report more than one race or ethnicity is very small. Only 7,666 custodial parents (1.9
percent), 29 non-custodial parents, and none of the children reported more than one race/ethnicity. Thus, we use the
slightly inflated number of custodial and non-custodial parents as the denominator in our percentage calculations for
Georgia discussed below. The percentage calculations for children’s race and ethnicity in Appendix D. Table 1 are
unaffected.
23
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
Table 6. Racial/Ethnicity Composition of Custodial and Non-Custodial Parents in NineState IV-D Programs (2007) and According to ASPE (2001)
State and Customer
California
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Florida
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Georgia
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Illinois
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Michigan
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
New York
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Ohio
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Pennsylvania
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Texas
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Nine-State Total
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
ASPEa
Custodial Parents
White (nonHispanic)
Number
%
Black (nonHispanic)
Number
%
Other (nonHispanic)
Number
%
Number
%
618,387
601,637
43.61
42.60
212,347
252,739
14.97
17.90
146,709
137,054
10.35
9.71
440,586
420,741
31.07
29.79
246,602
252,726
43.35
41.16
226,389
249,772
39.79
40.68
2,485
2,958
0.44
0.48
93,420
108,482
16.42
17.67
120,149
113,197
30.72
30.37
260,194
249,723
66.53
66.99
3,090
2,222
0.79
0.60
7,657
7,631
1.96
2.05
157,798
132,819
38.18
35.92
201,072
191,494
48.65
51.79
3,405
2,423
0.82
0.66
51,062
43,029
12.35
11.64
364,057
343,829
61.62
60.64
197,528
194,755
33.43
34.35
9,271
9,852
1.57
1.74
19,996
18,571
3.38
3.28
128,370
191,025
31.41
31.19
166,251
248,573
40.68
40.58
3,452
6,991
0.84
1.14
110,577
165,931
27.06
27.09
386,978
343,086
66.28
64.00
179,761
175,578
30.79
32.75
1,986
1,717
0.34
0.32
15,088
15,669
2.58
2.92
227,887
219,936
59.42
55.29
119,681
131,835
31.20
33.14
19,227
14,287
5.01
3.59
16,756
31,722
4.37
7.97
240,235
242,465
30.92
29.72
212,116
238,159
27.30
29.20
9,472
10,839
1.22
1.33
315,019
324,246
40.55
39.75
2,490,463
2,440,720
44.99
42.84
1,775,339
1,932,628
32.07
33.92
199,097
188,343
3.60
3.31
1,070,161
1,136,022
19.33
19.94
4,286,476
53.40
2,209,864
27.50
270,524
3.40
1,261,028
15.70
Hispanic
Note: Missing data are not included in this table. See Appendix E for information regarding the amount of data that are
missing race/ethnicity.
Note: Georgia allows clients to report multiple races and ethnicities, but the number of individuals who report more than one
race/ethnicity is very small. Thus, when calculating percentages for Georgia above, we use the slightly higher total in the
denominator. Georgia also has a category called "mixed race." Individuals who identify as "mixed race" are included in the
table as "Other."
Note: California data were gathered from a survey of CP/NCP clients. These data are weighted to reflect the population of
custodial and non-custodial parents in California's IV-D program at the time of the Demographic Survey.
a
Source: Mellgren, Linda, Jennifer Burnszynski, Sarah Douglas, and Brian Sinclair-James, “Characteristics of Families
Using Title IV-D Services in 1999 and 2001.” DHHS/ASPE (2004).
24
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
information missing for custodial parents.
According to the ASPE analysis of the 2001 CPS-CSS, 53.4 percent of custodial parents
nationwide identified as White, which is 8.4 percentage points higher than found in the nine-state
Demographic Survey. This difference is not surprising since, in general, the nine states who
participated in the Demographic Survey have significantly smaller white populations than the
nation as a whole. For example, in 2006, 59 percent of the population in the nine study states
identified as white alone, while 66 percent of the national population identified as white alone, a
seven percentage point difference. 7
Given that the ASPE report estimates that a larger percent of custodial parents are white
than the nine-state Demography Survey, it is not surprising that it also estimates that a smaller
percentage of custodial parents are Black and Hispanic.
As noted above, this difference
undoubtedly reflects the difference in the racial and ethnic composition of the nation as a whole
versus the nine study states. Specifically, the ASPE report estimated that 27.5 percent of
custodial parents nationwide were identified as Black, 4.5 percentage points lower than found in
the Demography Survey. Custodial parents who identified as Hispanic represented 15.7 percent
of the custodial parent population in the ASPE report, 3.6 percentage points lower than found in
the Demography Survey. The ASPE report and the Demography Survey had about the same
percent of custodial parents in the Other Race category (3.4 percent versus 3.6 percent,
respectively).
7
U.S. Census Bureau. Table 4: Estimates of the Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin for the United
States and States: July 1, 2006 (SC-EST2006-04).
25
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
Non-custodial Parents
In general, the racial composition of non-custodial parents is very similar to that of
custodial parents. The nine survey states reported that:
•
42.8 percent of non-custodial parents were White (see table 6);
•
33.9 percent of non-custodial parents were Black;
•
19.9 percent of non-custodial parents were Hispanic; and
•
3.3 percent of non-custodial parents were Other Race.
As with custodial parents, non-custodial parents in Ohio were most likely to be identified
as White, at 64 percent. Non-custodial parents in Georgia and Texas were the least likely to be
identified as White, where 30 percent of non-custodial parents were identified as White. Georgia
had the highest percent of non-custodial parents who identified as Black at 67 percent. California
had the lowest percent of non-custodial parents who identified as Black at 17.9 percent. The
percent of non-custodial parents who identified as Hispanic ranged from 2 percent in Georgia to
39.8 percent in Texas. Non-custodial who identified as Other Race ranged from 0.3 percent in
Ohio to nearly 10 percent in California.
D. Gender
Of the eight states that provided the distribution of custodial and non-custodial parents by
gender, they reported that 94.6 percent of custodial parents were female (See Table 7). Nearly
all custodial parents in New York were female, 99.6 percent, the highest of any state. In
Michigan, 91.0 percent of custodial parents fit into this same category, the lowest of any state.
The ASPE report found a lower percentage of female custodial parents than the
Demographic Survey. According to the ASPE report, 89.4 percent of custodial parents were
female, 5.2 percentage points less than that found in the Demographic Survey.
26
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
Table 7. Gender Composition of Custodial and Non-Custodial Parents in Eight-State IV-D
Programs (2007) and According to ASPE (2001)
State and Customer
Florida
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Georgia
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Illinois
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Michigan
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
New York
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Ohio
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Pennsylvania
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Texas
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
Eight State Total
Custodial Parents
Non-custodial Parents
ASPEa
Custodial Parents
Female
Number
%
Male
Number
%
578,164
63,289
94.56
10.05
33,242
566,626
5.44
89.95
363,297
35,486
94.75
9.52
20,127
337,258
5.25
90.48
434,788
22,872
96.97
5.16
13,608
420,215
3.03
94.84
668,572
80,116
91.03
11.22
65,849
633,902
8.97
88.78
889,240
68,782
99.55
7.70
4,020
824,478
0.45
92.30
701,590
96,757
91.60
13.24
64,366
633,868
8.40
86.76
393,841
47,374
93.35
10.99
28,060
383,691
6.65
89.01
811,142
66,400
94.71
7.70
45,293
795,757
5.29
92.30
4,840,634
481,076
94.63
9.48
274,565
4,595,795
5.41
90.52
7,174,718
89.37
853,174
10.63
a
Source: Mellgren, Linda, Jennifer Burnszynski, Sarah Douglas, and Brian SinclairJames, “Characteristics of Families Using Title IV-D Services in 1999 and 2001.”
DHHS/ASPE (2004).
The Demographic Survey found greater variation in the gender distribution among noncustodial parents than among custodial parents. In the eight states that provided the gender
composition of non-custodial parents, 90.5 percent of non-custodial parents were male. Noncustodial parents were most likely to be male in Illinois, at 94.8 percent, while 86.8 percent of
non-custodial parents were male in Ohio, the least of any state.
27
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
E. Children’s Living Arrangements
The Demographic Survey asked states to indicate the total number of children who lived
with their biological or adoptive mother, biological or adoptive father; or a third party.
Among the five states that provided this information:
•
83.8 percent of children lived with their biological or adoptive mother (see table 8),
•
5.3 percent lived with their biological or adoptive father, and
•
11 percent lived with a third party.
Table 8. Number and Percent of Children who Live with their Biological Mother,
Biological Father, or Third Party in Five-State IV-D Programs (2007)
State
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Ohio
Texas
Total
Biological Mother
Number
%
838,820
82.30
417,421
63.79
719,483
88.02
1,069,443 83.18
1,340,348 91.93
4,385,515 83.78
Child Lives with:
Biological Father
Number
%
41,136
4.04
57,012
8.71
23,923
2.93
82,662
6.43
70,837
4.86
275,570
5.26
Third Party
Number
%
139,285
13.67
179,955
27.50
74,014
9.05
133,533
10.39
46,866
3.21
573,653
10.96
Georgia reported that only 63.8 percent of children in their caseload lived with their
biological or adoptive mother, the lowest of any state. On the other hand, Georgia reported the
highest percent of children living with their biological or adoptive father at 8.7 percent, and the
highest percent living with a third party at 27.5 percent. In contrast, Texas reported the highest
percent of children in their IV-D program living with their biological or adoptive mother at 92
percent. Furthermore, it reported that 3.2 percent of the children in their IV-D program lived
with a third party, the lowest of any state. Illinois reported the fewest percent of children living
with their biological or adoptive father at 2.9 percent.
28
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
F. Non-custodial Parents Who Live Out-of-State
The Demographic Survey asked states, “What is the total number of non-custodial
parents who live out of state?” Results from the survey indicate that among the eight states that
submitted data for this question, 14.6 percent of non-custodial parents lived out of state (see
Table 9). Georgia reported the highest percentage of non-custodial parents who lived out of state
at 25.0 percent, and Michigan reported the lowest at 6.4 percent.
Table 9. Number and Percent of Non-Custodial Parents who Live Out of State in EightState IV-D Programs (2007) and According to ASPE (2001)
State
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Michigan
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Eight-State Total
ASPEa
Number
%
91,234
93,217
73,997
50,060
151,411
111,109
77,699
107,506
756,233
14.48
25.01
16.30
6.41
16.95
15.11
17.59
12.41
14.62
2,050,560
25.54
a
Source: Mellgren, Linda, Jennifer Burnszynski, Sarah
Douglas, and Brian Sinclair-James, “Characteristics of
Families Using Title IV-D Services in 1999 and 2001.”
DHHS/ASPE (2004).
The average value of 14.6 percent is substantially lower than that found by ASPE in its
analysis of the 2001 CPS-CSS. The authors of that study found that 25.5 percent of custodial
parents in the IV-D program nationally indicated that the non-custodial parent lived in another
state. This difference may be the result of two factors. First, it may be that nationally more noncustodial parents live out-of-state than in the nine largest states. States like Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, and Connecticut probably have a higher proportion of non-custodial parents who
29
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
live out of state than California, Texas, and Michigan. Second, in Table 9, we divided the
number of non-custodial parents who lived out of state in each state by the total number of noncustodial parents in that state. By doing so, we have assumed that all of the non-custodial
parents who are not identified as living out of state are, in fact, in-state residents. However, other
research finds that about 9 percent of non-custodial parents in six large states (Florida, Michigan,
New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas) did not have a valid address and thus the states did
not know whether or not the non-custodial parent lived out of state. (Sorensen et al. 2007) We
did not ask states to report the number of non-custodial parents for whom the states did not know
whether or not the non-custodial parent lived out of state. Thus, we cannot identify this third
group of non-custodial parents in the Demographic Survey. If all of the non-custodial parents
without a valid address live in-state, then the 14.6 percent figure accurately reflects the percent
of non-custodial parents who live out-of-state. On the other hand, if some of the non-custodial
parents who do not have a valid address live out-of-state, then the 14.6 percent figure
underestimates this phenomenon.
G. Education
The survey asked states to provide the total number of custodial and non-custodial
parents who received less than twelve years of education, exactly twelve years of education, and
more than twelve years of education. Of the nine participating states, California is the only state
that collected information on educational attainment among custodial and non-custodial parents
in their IV-D program. These data show that custodial parents were slightly more educated than
non-custodial parents. While about 23 percent of both custodial and non-custodial parents
dropped out of high school, more custodial parents than non-custodial parents obtained some
post-secondary education. In California:
30
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
•
23 percent of custodial and non-custodial parents had less than a high school education;
•
30 percent of custodial parents and 35 percent of non-custodial parents had 12 years of
education; and
•
46 percent of custodial parents, but only 42 percent of non-custodial parents, had more
than a high school education.
H. Employment
States were asked to provide the total number of custodial and non-custodial parents who
were currently employed at the time that the survey was received. The six states that provided
this information reported that:
•
57.2 percent of custodial parents were employed at the time of the survey (see table 10);
and
•
64.2 percent of non-custodial parents were employed at the time of the survey.
Custodial parents in Illinois were most likely to be employed, at 79.8 percent, while those
in Florida were least likely to be employed, at 42.0 percent.
California had the highest
employment rate for non-custodial parents among the seven states; 70.4 percent of non-custodial
parents were employed in California.
Michigan had the lowest employment rate for non-
custodial parents among the states; 55.4 percent of non-custodial parents were employed in
Michigan.
Custodial parents were, on average, 11 percent less likely to be employed than noncustodial parents. Illinois was the only state in which custodial parents were more likely to be
employed than non-custodial parents, with employment rates of 79.8 percent and 65.1 percent
respectively.
31
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
Table 10. Number and Percent of Custodial and Non-Custodial Parents Who are Employed
in Seven-State IV-D Programs (2007)
State and
Customer
Number
of
Custodial
Parents
%
California
Florida
Illinois
Michigan
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Total
906,047
258,887
365,269
NR
397,104
201,690
485,896
2,614,893
63.21
42.02
79.75
NR
51.59
46.37
56.55
57.20
Number
of Noncustodial
Parents
%
1,008,746
428,997
295,439
432,559
460,532
278,593
524,232
3,429,098
70.44
68.07
65.07
55.41
62.65
63.07
60.52
64.22
Note: NR = Not Reliable.
Note: California data were gathered from a survey of CP/NCP clients, however,
data presented here are weighted to reflect the population of custodial and noncustodial parents in California's IV-D program at the time of the Demographic
Survey.
I. Earnings
Only three states, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, provided data on the average
monthly earnings of custodial and non-custodial parents who were employed. Across these three
states, the average monthly earnings for custodial parents who were employed were $1,811 (See
Table 11). Custodial parent earnings were the highest in Illinois, at $2,693 per month, and the
lowest in Florida, at $1,088 per month.
Table 11. Average Monthly Earnings of Employed Custodial and Non-Custodial Parents in
Three-State IV-D Programs (2007)
State
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Average
Custodial
parents
Non-custodial
parents
$1,088
$2,693
$1,651
$1,811
$1,441
$2,765
$1,297
$1,834
32
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
Across these three states, the average monthly earnings of non-custodial parents were
only $23 higher than the average monthly earnings of custodial parents. Employed non-custodial
parents in Illinois had the highest monthly earnings at $2,765 per month, and those in
Pennsylvania had the lowest, at $1,297 per month.
J. Private Health Insurance
The Demographic Survey asked states to provide the number of custodial and noncustodial parents who have private health insurance for their children.8 In addition, the survey
asked states to provide the number of children in the IV-D program who have private health
insurance. Five states provided all three numbers – Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Texas. These five states reported that:
•
11.3 percent of custodial parents provide private health insurance for their children
(See Table 12);
•
17.7 percent of non-custodial parents provide private health insurance for their
children; and
•
22.1 percent of children in the IV-D program have private health insurance.
Pennsylvania reported the highest percent of children with private health insurance at 35
percent. Thirty seven percent of both custodial and non-custodial parents in Pennsylvania had
private health insurance for their children, the highest of any surveyed state. New York reported
that smallest percent of children in the IV-D program with private health insurance at 13.6
percent. Only 2.0 percent of the custodial parents and 7.4 percent of non-custodial parents in
8
The exact survey question was: “What is the total number of custodial (non-custodial) parents who have private
health insurance available for their children?” While it is possible to interpret this question as asking about whether
parents have access to private health insurance for their children, our understanding is that states reported the
number of custodial and non-custodial parents who actually provide health insurance for their children. A future
survey will want to include the word “provide” in this question.
33
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
New York had private health insurance for their children, the smallest percentages of any
surveyed state.
Table 12. Private Health Insurance for Children in Five-State IV-D Programs (2007) and
the Number of Cases where Health Insurance is Provided as Orders (2006)
Provided by
Custodial
Parents
State
Michigan
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Five-State Total
a
Provided by
Non-custodial
Parents
Provided to
Children
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
138,726
17,485
38,301
160,868
66,878
422,258
18.06
1.96
4.98
36.98
7.78
11.33
150,532
66,283
99,136
163,902
178,315
658,168
19.28
7.42
13.49
37.11
20.59
17.71
227,796
152,962
278,565
247,854
369,298
1,276,475
19.37
13.64
21.20
35.13
25.21
22.08
Number of
Cases where
Health
Insurance is
Provided as
Ordereda
148,145
NA
158,702
102,584
189,795
OCSE FY2006 Preliminary Report (table 11). NA= not available.
We compared the numbers of non-custodial parents who provide private health insurance
to data from the OCSE 2006 Preliminary Report on the number of cases where health insurance
is provided as ordered. We had thought that these numbers would be similar because most noncustodial parents who provide private health insurance are probably ordered to do so. As table
12 shows, these numbers are similar in Michigan and Texas, but different in Ohio and
Pennsylvania.
K. Family Income
The survey asked states to report the average family income of custodial and noncustodial parents in their IV-D programs. Only two states, Florida and Pennsylvania, reported
that they had reliable data with regard to these questions. Custodial parents in both states had
average family incomes less than those of non-custodial parents. Florida reported that custodial
34
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
parents, on average, had monthly incomes of $1,312, which are $306 less than non-custodial
parents at $1,618. Similarly, custodial parents in Pennsylvania had average monthly incomes of
$874 less than non-custodial parents, at $1,377 and $2,251 respectively.
L. Public Assistance
The Demographic Survey asked states to provide the total number of custodial parents
and children who were receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid,
food stamps, subsidized child care, and subsidized or public housing at the time of the survey.
As noted earlier, none of the states provided information on food stamps, subsidized child care or
subsidized or public housing. Of the states that provided responses to TANF and Medicaid, they
reported:
•
10.1 percent of custodial parents and 11.7 percent of children in the IV-D program were
receiving TANF at the time of the survey (see Table 13); and
•
26.4 percent of custodial parents and 31.6 percent of children in the IV-D program were
receiving Medicaid at the time of the survey.
Texas had the lowest TANF participation rates for both custodial parents and children in
the IV-D program at 6.4 percent and 8.5 percent respectively. Michigan had the highest TANF
participation rate among children in the IV-D program at 16.1 percent. Georgia had the highest
TANF participation rate among custodial parents at 14 percent.
Illinois reported the highest Medicaid participation rates for custodial parents and
children in the IV-D program at 43 percent and 48 percent, respectively. Michigan reported the
lowest Medicaid participation rate among custodial parents at 14.2 percent. New York reported
the lowest Medicaid participation rate among children in their IV-D program at 18.2 percent.
We compared these survey results to those in the ASPE report, which reported that 12.8
percent of IV-D custodial parent clients were receiving TANF and 55 percent were receiving
35
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Medicaid in 2001 nationally.
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
We expected that the ASPE report would present larger TANF
and Medicaid participation rates for custodial parents because the CPS-CSS asks about
participation in these programs over a calendar year. In contrast, the Demographic Survey asked
states to report the number of custodial parents and children in the IV-D program who received
TANF or Medicaid at the time of the survey.
In other words, the CPS-CSS captures annual
participation rates while the Demographic Survey captures point-in-time estimates. Given that
people go on and off Medicaid throughout the year, annual participation rates are bound to be
higher than point-in-time estimates.
We wanted to know whether the overall Medicaid participation rate found by the
Demography Survey was low compared to the ASPE report because of the specific mix of states
that provided the information. We examined the Medicaid participation rates among children 18
years and younger in the six states that provided Medicaid participation rates among children in
the IV-D program and found that 35.5 percent of the children in these states received Medicaid
during FY 2004. 9 This figure was slightly higher than the national Medicaid participation rate
among children 18 years and younger in FY 2004, which was 35 percent. Thus, the low rate of
Medicaid participation rate among children in the survey states compared to the ASPE report
does not appear to be the result of the particular states in the survey.
The Demographic Survey also asked states to report the number of children in the IV-D
program who received foster care services.
Among the four states that responded to this
question, they reported:
•
1.8 percent of children in the IV-D program received foster care services, with percents
ranging from 3.2 percent in Pennsylvania to 1.3 percent in Michigan and Texas (see table
13).
9
Data on the number of children 18 years and younger receiving Medicaid during FY 2004 is from the Medicaid
Statistical Information System State Summary FY 2004, Table 12. The number of children 18 years and younger in
each state is from the U.S. Census Bureau, State Single Year of Age and Sex Population Estimates, July 1, 2004
(Civilian estimates).
36
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
Table 13. Public Assistance Receipt Among Children and Custodial Parents in Seven-State
IV-D Programs (2007) and According to ASPE (2001)
TANF
Medicaid
Foster Care
Current Assistanceb
State and
Customer
Number
%
Number
%
Number %
% of IV-D Cases
Georgia
Children
Custodial Parents
Illinois
82,701
53,504
12.64
13.95
241,890
--
36.96
--
--
--
Children
Custodial Parents
Michigan
73,079
72,594
8.94
12.91
392,342
242,256
48.00
43.09
15,933
1.95
13.32
Children
Custodial Parents
New York
183,665
85,373
16.10
11.11
385,435
109,024
32.78
14.19
15,386
1.31
12.09
Children
Custodial Parents
Ohio
140,026
99,904
12.49
11.18
204,402
156,870
18.23
17.56
--
--
Children
Custodial Parents
Pennsylvania
144,172
58,609
10.97
7.61
338,630
243,634
25.77
31.65
--
--
Children
Custodial Parents
Texas
93,787
48,739
13.29
11.20
---
---
22,374
3.17
18.20
Children
Custodial Parents
State Totals
124,753
54,840
8.52
6.38
493,577
264,420
33.69
30.78
19,244
1.31
8.30
Children
Custodial Parents
ASPE
842,183
473,563
11.67
10.14
2,056,276
1,016,204
31.57
26.38
72,937
1.77
Custodial Parentsa
1,024,125
12.80
4,443,901
55.40
Note: -- =Not Available. Blank=Not Applicable.
Note: After the completion of the OCSE Preliminary Draft Report, we asked states to clarify the original data submitted
regarding the number of custodial parents and children receiving TANF and Medicaid benefits. At this time, Illinois
revised the number of custodial parents and children in their IV-D caseload who receive TANF and Medicaid benefits
and the total number of custodial parents (the numbers reported here reflect July 2007). Because of this, the percent of
custodial parents receiving TANF and Medicaid reported here is calculated using 562,203 as the denominator.
a
Source: Mellgren, Linda, Jennifer Burnszynski, Sarah Douglas, and Brian Sinclair-James, “Characteristics of
Families Using Title IV-D Services in 1999 and 2001.” DHHS/ASPE (2004).
b
Source: FY 2006 OCSE Preliminary Data Report . We report the percent of cases that are on current assistance.
OCSE defines a current assistance case as one in which children are: (1) recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) or; (2) entitled to Foster Care maintenance payments. In addition, the children’s support rights have
been assigned by a caretaker to the State and a referral to the State IV-D agency has been made.
37
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
Table 13 reports the percent of IV-D cases that are on current assistance as of September
2006 for the four states that provided foster care and TANF information. OCSE defines a
current assistance case as any case one in which a child receives TANF or is entitled to Foster
Care maintenance payments. Thus, we anticipated that if a state provided both the percent of
children receiving TANF and the percent of children receiving Foster Care, then the sum of those
two percents would be similar to the percent of cases on current assistance. However, the sum of
these two percents is fairly different from the percent of cases on current assistance.
In
Michigan, for example, the sum of the percent of children receiving TANF and Foster Care is
17.4 percent, while the percent of cases on current assistance is 12.1 percent.
M. Interstate Cases
Section C of the survey asked states to provide the total number of non-custodial parents
who have an interstate case. State IV-D programs classify a case as “interstate” if two or more
states are involved in case activity. Not all cases in which a child and non-custodial parent live
in two different states are classified as interstate. Thus, non-custodial parents with an interstate
case are different than non-custodial parents who live out of state.
Among the eight states that provided this information, the percent of non-custodial
parents with an interstate case was 11 percent, ranging from 5.2 percent in New York to 24.8
percent in Georgia (See Table 14). For comparative purposes, we summed the number of
initiating and responding interstate cases in each of these eight states, using unpublished tables
from the FY 2006 OCSE Annual Report to Congress. According to these data, 11.4 percent of
cases in these states are interstate cases. Although this average value looks very similar to the
average found in the Demography Survey (11.0 percent), these averages mask discrepancies
between the results from the 2006 OCSE tables and the 2007 Demography Study at the state
38
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
level. The largest discrepancy in the percent of interstate cases was in New York. In 2006,
OCSE tables indicated that 11.1 percent of New York’s cases were interstate. In the 2007
Demography Survey, New York reported that 5.2 percent of non-custodial parents had an
interstate case. Michigan and Texas are the only states that had less than a 1 percentage point
difference between the 2006 OCSE tables and the 2007 Demography Survey.
Table 14. Number and Percent of Non-Custodial Parents with an Interstate Case (2007)
and the Number and Percent of Interstate Cases (2006) in Eight-State IV-D Programs
State
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Michigan
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Total
Number
%
Number of
Interstate
Casesa
%
90,679
92,422
68,051
52,070
46,457
65,484
68,437
85,302
14.39
24.80
14.99
6.67
5.20
8.91
15.49
9.85
11.00
146,696
98,164
70,609
58,351
99,421
62,847
73,180
93,266
702,534
19.75
20.35
11.72
6.09
11.12
6.57
13.30
9.51
11.39
568,902
a
Interstate cases include both responding and initiating cases.
Source for Interstate Cases is FY 2006 OCSE Unpublished tables.
N. International Cases
The Demography Survey also asked states, “What is the total number of non-custodial
parents who have an international case?” Among the six states that provided this information,
they reported that 1.3 percent of non-custodial parents had an international case (See Table 15).
Michigan reported that 5.7 percent of non-custodial parents had an international case, the highest
of any state, while Georgia reported that none of its non-custodial parents fit into this category,
the lowest of any state.
39
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: FINDINGS
Table 15. Number and Percent of Non-Custodial Parents with an
International Case in Six-State IV-D Programs (2007)
State
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Texas
Total
Number
%
555
0
684
44,260
260
633
46,392
0.09
0.00
0.15
5.67
0.06
0.07
1.31
Due to the disparity in the percent of non-custodial parents with international cases across
these six states, we asked states to provide additional information regarding the original data
submitted. In response to this request, we received additional information from Michigan,
Pennsylvania, and Texas. Michigan confirmed that the information submitted on international
cases was correct. They said that they have a large number of international cases due to the
state’s proximity to Canada. Pennsylvania and Texas also confirmed that the data they initially
submitted was correct.
O. Tribal Cases
Of the nine study states, Georgia was the only one to report the total number of noncustodial parents with a tribal case. However, at the time of the survey, there were no noncustodial parents in their caseload who had a tribal case.
40
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS
V. CONCLUSIONS
The 2007 OCSE Demographic Survey collected data on the demographic, economic and
social characteristics of IV-D clients in nine state IV-D programs that together serve nearly half
of IV-D clients nationally. The aim of this survey was to ascertain the extent to which state IVD programs collected these data and to report the findings from the survey. With regard to the
first aim, the nine states with the largest caseloads all agreed to participate in the survey and all
of them responded to the survey in a timely manner. The survey was successful in collecting
most of the information that was requested from the states. However, key questions in the
survey were not answered by most states, including questions about the family income and
poverty status of custodial parents, and the monthly earnings, educational attainment, and marital
status of custodial and non-custodial parents.
With regard to the second aim of the survey, the 2007 Demographic Survey provides
information on a number of characteristics of IV-D clients that are not readily known. For
example, the survey finds that 19 percent of custodial parents and 20 percent of non-custodial
parents across the participating states were identified as Hispanic. In fact, custodial and noncustodial parents in Texas were more likely to identify as Hispanic than any other race/ethnic
category. Results from the Demographic Survey also indicate that over 20 percent of children in
IV-D programs across the surveyed states are 18 years or older. In other words, many of the
“children” in these IV-D programs are, in fact, adults.
Five of the nine surveyed states provided information on private health insurance for
children in the IV-D program. Among these five states, 11 percent of custodial parents and 18
percent of non-custodial parents had private health insurance for their children, but only 22
percent of the children in these IV-D programs had private health insurance.
41
The percent of
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS
children with private health insurance varied among the state IV-D programs, from a high of 35
percent in Pennsylvania to a low of 14 percent in New York.
Across seven of the surveyed states, 57 percent of custodial parents and 64 percent of
non-custodial parents were employed at the time of the survey. Average monthly earnings for
custodial and non-custodial parents who were employed were about the same when averaged
across the three states that provided this information; average monthly earnings were $1,811 for
employed custodial parents and $1,834 for employed non-custodial parents.
Several of the key results of the Demographic Survey are quite different from those found
by analysts at DHHS/ASPE as reported in the ASPE report (Mellgren et al 2004).
Some of
these differences can be explained, while others cannot. For example, the ASPE report finds that
55 percent of custodial parents in the IV-D program received Medicaid during 2001, while the
Demographic Survey finds that 26 percent of custodial parents are receiving Medicaid at the time
of the survey. This difference is largely due to the different time frames used when inquiring
about Medicaid use. The ASPE report measures annual Medicaid participation rates while the
Demographic Survey provides point-in-time estimates of Medicaid participation.
Other differences between the Demographic Survey and the ASPE report cannot be so
easily explained. For example, according to the Demographic Survey, the nine surveyed states
have 6.6 million custodial parents in their active caseload. Since these states have nearly half of
the nation’s IV-D caseload, if they also have nearly half of the nation’s custodial parents, then
this suggests that there are approximately 13.2 million custodial parents with active cases in the
IV-D program. In contrast, the ASPE report estimated that the IV-D program served just 8
million custodial parents nationwide in 2001. While some of this difference can be explained by
differences in definitions of custodial parents, considerable differences in the estimates of the
number of custodial parents served by the IV-D program still remain.
42
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS
If OCSE decides to conduct this type of survey in the future, we recommend that they
utilize a web-based survey. All of the nine participating states chose this method to submit their
data and they needed little technical assistance in completing the questionnaire. In addition, we
recommend the following changes to questions in the Demographic Survey:
1) Ask IV-D programs to count the number of custodial parents, being careful to explain
to states that they should only include parents, not third parties who have custody of
children;
2) Ask about annual participation in Medicaid and TANF rather than participation at the
time of the survey to gain a broader (and more comparable) perspective on program
participation;
3) Use the OMB approved categories for race and ethnicity to be consistent with federal
guidelines even though states rarely use these categories; and
4) Ask about the provision of private health insurance rather than whether parents “have”
private health insurance so that the question clearly asks about the provision of private
health insurance rather than access to private health insurance.
In addition, we recommend that more of the questions in the survey explicitly allow states to
report the amount of information that is missing or unknown. We neglected to offer this option
on all of the questions and states used the comments sections to note missing information.
43
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS: REFERENCES
VI. REFERENCES
Grall, Timothy S. (2007) “Custodial Mothers and Fathers and their Child Support: 2005.”
Current Population Reports. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau).
Mellgren, Linda, Jennifer Burnszynski, Sarah Douglas, and Brian Sinclair-James. (2004)
“Characteristics of Families Using Title IV-D Services in 1999 and 2001.” (Washingon,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Evaluation)
Sorensen, Elaine, Liliana Sousa, and Simone Schaner. (2007). “Assessing Child Support Arrears
in Nine Large States and the Nation.” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and
Office of Child Support Enforcement)
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. (2004). 2004 Green Book
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office)
44
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
OCSE Demographic Survey
(Printable Version)
Welcome and thank you for your participation in the OCSE Demographic Survey Project. This
document serves as a printable version of the OCSE online survey. In order to participate in this
survey, you need to have been contacted by Courtland Consulting and provided a secure login
account. Should you have any questions regarding the OCSE Demographic Survey or if you do
not have a user name and login account, please contact the Project Director, Sharon Pizzuti at
pizzutis@courtlandconsulting.com or via cell at 248-797-3759.
The purpose of the OCSE Demographic Survey is to develop and conduct a survey of nine states
that captures state-level demographic, social, and economic characteristics of their child support
population and generate a report that summarizes the results of this survey.
------------------------------- SURVEY QUESTIONS ------------------------------State Information
(Contact Information for Individual Completing the Survey)
First Name:
Last Name:
Phone Number:
E-mail Address:
Survey State Name:
Date of the Data Used to Answer the Survey Questions:
(e.g., 01/29/2007) NOTE: We are
seeking point in time data and not a summary of data over a period of time. Please be sure and
provide the actual date that this data was captured.
Data Source(s) Used:
45
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
SECTION A. Questions About Custodial Parents
Overall State Statistics
1. What is the total number of custodial parents in your IV-D program who have an
active case?
Demographic Characteristics
2. What is the total number of custodial parents in each of the following ethnicity / race
categories:
i) Hispanic
ii) Black
iii) White
iv) Asian
v) American Indian
vi) Other Race?
(description)
(number)
3. What is the total number of custodial parents in each of the following age
categories:
i) under 18
ii) 18-39
iii) 40 or older
4. What is the total number of custodial parents in each of the following gender
categories:
i) female
ii) male
5. What is the total number of custodial parents in each of the following marital
statuses:
i) never married
ii) married
iii) divorced
iv) widowed
46
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Program Participation
6. What is the total number of custodial parents who are currently receiving:
i) TANF
ii) Medicaid
iii) Food Stamps
iv) Subsidized Child Care
v) Subsidized or Public Housing
Education, Poverty Status, and Family Income
7. What is the total number of custodial parents in the following educational
categories:
i) less than 12 years of education
ii) exactly 12 years of education
iii) more than 12 years of education
8. What is the total number of custodial parents who have family incomes that fall
below the national poverty threshold for their family size (i.e. their family is
poor)?
9. What is the average family income of custodial parents? $
Employment
10. What is the total number of custodial parents who are currently employed?
11. Of those who are currently employed, what is their average monthly earnings?
$
Health Insurance
12. What is the total number of custodial parents who have private health insurance
available for their children?
47
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Comments for Section A:
(Use this section to enter any additional explanation regarding the questions/answers found in
this section.)
SECTION B. Questions About Children
Demographic Characteristics
1. What is the total number of children in each of the following ethnicity / race
categories:
i) Hispanic
ii) Black
iii) White
iv) Asian
v) American Indian
vi) Other Race?
(description)
(number)
2. What is the total number of children in each of the following age categories:
i) under 6
ii) 6-17
iii) 18 or older
3. What is the total number of children who currently live with:
i) their biological (or adoptive) mother
ii) their biological (or adoptive) father
iii) a third party
Program Participation
4. What is the total number of children who are currently receiving:
i) TANF
ii) Medicaid
iii) Food Stamps
iv) Subsidized Child Care
v) Subsidized or Public Housing
48
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
vi) Foster Care Services
Health Insurance
5. What is the total number of children who have private health insurance?
Comments for Section B:
(Use this section to enter any additional explanation regarding the questions/answers found in
this section.)
SECTION C. Questions About Non-custodial Parents
Overall State Statistics
1. What is the total number of non-custodial parents in your IV-D program who have
an active case?
2. What is the total number of non-custodial parents who live out of state?
Demographic Characteristics
3. What is the total number of non-custodial parents in each of the following ethnicity /
race categories:
i) Hispanic
ii) Black
iii) White
iv) Asian
v) American Indian
vi) Other Race?
(description)
(number)
4. What is the total number of non-custodial parents in each of the following age
categories:
i) under 18
ii) 18-39
iii) 40 or older
49
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
5. What is the total number of non-custodial parents in each of the following gender
categories:
i) female
ii) male
6. What is the total number of non-custodial parents in each of the following marital
statuses:
i) never married
ii) married
iii) divorced
iv) widowed
Case Characteristics
7. What is the total number of non-custodial parents who have an interstate case?
8. What is the total number of non-custodial parents who have an international case?
9. What is the total number of non-custodial parents who have a tribal case?
Education and Family Income
10. What is the total number of non-custodial parents in the following educational
categories:
i) less than 12 years of education
ii) exactly 12 years of education
iii) more than 12 years of education
11. What is the average family income of non-custodial parents?
Employment
12. What is the total number of non-custodial parents who are currently employed?
13. Of those who are currently employed, what are their average monthly earnings?
$
50
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Health Insurance
14. What is the total number of non-custodial parents who have private health
insurance available for their children?
Comments for Section C:
(Use this section to enter any additional explanation regarding the questions/answers found in
this section.)
51
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
APPENDIX B. METHOD USED TO IDENTIFY IV-D POPULATION IN CPS-CSS BY ASPE
In this appendix, we explain how ASPE identifies the IV-D population in the Current
Population Survey-Child Support Supplement (CPS-CSS).
As noted earlier, the direct
questions in the CPS-CSS that ask parents whether they have ever contacted or been
contacted by a IV-D office yield very low participation rates in the IV-D program.
Thus,
ASPE has developed the following indirect method to identify IV-D program participants in
the CPS-CSS. To explain this methodology, we first describe how the U.S. Census Bureau
creates the CPS-CSS.
The Current Populations Survey (CPS) is a monthly survey and respondents are
interviewed in four-month rotations. Thus, the U.S. Census Bureau can combine questions
from two months of the survey into one public use file as long as they are within four
months of one another. The CPS-CSS consists of information from both the March and
April Current Population Surveys. Combining months of information, however, reduces the
sample size of the matched file. If two consecutive months, like March and April are
combined, then the resulting matched data file contains roughly three-quarters of the
original sampled households (i.e. about one-quarter of the April households are not
interviewed in March).
ASPE uses the following four questions from the April CPS to help identify IV-D
participants:
1. Have you ever contacted a child support enforcement or IV-D office, a department of
social services, a welfare office, or any state or local government agency about
anything to do with child support? If the respondent replies yes, then he/she is
identified as a IV-D participant.
2. Have you ever been contacted by a child support enforcement or IV-D office, a
department of social services, a welfare office, or any state or local government
agency about anything to do with child support? If the respondent says yes, then
he/she is identified as a IV-D participant.
3. Was the non-custodial parent supposed to make any payments for these children in
the last calendar year? If the respondent reports that they do not know because the
52
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Child Support Enforcement Office had filed the paperwork, then he/she is considered
a IV-D participant.
4. How were payments supposed to be sent? If the respondent replies that payments
were supposed to be sent by a child support, welfare, or other public agency, then
he/she is considered a IV-D participant.
In addition to these questions, ASPE also uses the following questions from the
March CPS to help identify IV-D participants:
1. Did anyone in your family receive income from public assistance or other welfare
programs last year? If the respondent says yes, then he/she is identified as a IV-D
participant.
2. Were you or the child in question covered by Medicaid last year? If the respondent
replies yes, then he/she is identified as a IV-D participant.
Although the CPS-CSS is the only on-going nationally representative survey with the
ability to provide insight into the characteristics of IV-D recipients, there are several
problems with this approach for identifying the IV-D population. First, ASPE does not
distinguish between imputed data and actual responses to these questions.
Imputation
occurs when individuals do not respond to questions in the survey. If an individual does not
respond to a question in the survey, the U.S. Census Bureau imputes a response for the
person based on that person’s demographic and geographic characteristics.
In general,
about one third of the responses to the questions in the April CPS are imputed.
This means
that the individuals that ASPE is using as “IV-D participants” never actually answered these
questions. This is a serious problem that not only affects the identification of the IV-D
population, but also affects the identification of the child-support eligible population as a
whole.
Another problem with ASPE’s method for identifying the IV-D population is that the
March variables that are used in this process are probably identifying people as IV-D
participants who are, in fact, not in the IV-D program. ASPE uses the receipt of public
53
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
assistance income by the family and Medicaid coverage by the respondent and/or child to
identify IV-D participants because, in general, these two programs require recipients to
cooperate with the IV-D program.
There are two basic problems, however, with this
approach.
According to the ASPE methodology, if anyone in the respondent’s “family”
received public assistance income, then the respondent is a IV-D participant. The Census
definition of “family” includes the respondent’s immediate family as well as any individuals
in the household who are related to the respondent.
Thus, the respondent could live with
his/her sister who received public assistance. According to the ASPE methodology, this
respondent would be considered a IV-D participant.
In addition, while most people who receive cash public assistance or Medicaid are
required to cooperate with the IV-D program, many are not.
For example, if the only
recipient of public assistance is the child, then custodial parents do not have to cooperate
with the IV-D program.
If the custodial parent is receiving Medicaid because she is
disabled, or because one of her other children is receiving Medicaid, then he/she does not
have to cooperate with the IV-D program. Furthermore, while it is true that most TANF and
Medicaid recipients are supposed to cooperate with the IV-D program, these requirements
are not always enforced.
Another limitation of the CPS-CSS for analyzing the IV-D population is that it is not
large enough to provide state-level estimates for most states. In addition, it does not cover
children who live with a third party guardian rather than their parents. In the five states that
reported the living arrangements of the children in their IV-D program, 11 percent lived
with a third party.
APPENDIX C. DETAILED INFORMATION ON DATA RECEIVED
54
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
The table below shows which states provided information on each of the data
elements in the 2007 Demographic Survey.
Appendix C. Table 1. Whether we Received Data from States by Survey Question
Total
Custodial Parent Questions
CA FL GA IL MI NY OH PA TX
Count
A1: Number
A2i: Race – Hispanic
A2ii: Race – Black
A2iii: Race - White
A2iv: Race - Asian
A2v: Race - American Indian
A2: Race - Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander
A2vi: Race - Other
A3i: Age - Less than 18
A3ii: Age - 18-39
A3iii: Age - 40 or older
A4i: Female
A4ii: Male
A5i: Never Married
A5ii: Married
A5iii: Divorced
A5iv: Widowed
A6i: TANF
A6ii: Medicaid
A6iii: Food Stamps
A6iv: Subsidized Child Care
A6v: Subsidized or Public Housing
A7i: Less than 12 years education
A7ii: Exactly 12 years education
A7iii: More than 12 years education
A8: Fam. Inc < Nat. Poverty Thresh.
A9: Average Family Income
A10: Currently Employed
A11: Avg. Monthly Earn. Among Emp.
A12: w/priv. health ins. For kids
Children Questions
B1i: Race - Hispanic
B1ii: Race - Black
B1iii: Race - White
B1iv: Race - Asian
B1v: Race - American Indian
B1: Race - Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander
B1vi: Race - Other
B2i: Under 6
B2ii: 6-17
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
CA FL GA
IL
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
MI NY OH PA TX
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
9
9
9
9
9
9
2
5
8
8
8
8
8
6
6
6
5
7
5
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
3
7
3
5
Total
Count
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
8
8
8
8
8
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
2
4
8
8
Appendix C. Table 1. Whether we Received Data from States by Survey Question (continued)
B2iii: 18 or older
B3i: live biological/adop. Mother
√
√
√
√
55
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
8
6
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
B3ii: live biological/adop. Father
B3iii: live third party
B4i: Tanf
B4ii: Medicaid
B4iii: Food Stamps
B4iv: Subsidized Child Care
B4v: Subsidized/Public housing
B4vi: Foster Care Services
B5: Private health insurance
Non-custodial Parent Questions
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
CA FL GA
IL
√
√
√
√
5
5
7
6
0
0
0
4
8
Total
MI NY OH PA TX Count
C1: Number
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
C2: Lives outside state
√
√
√
√
√
√
C3i: Race - Hispanic
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
C3ii: Race - Black
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
C3iii: Race - White
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
C3iv: Race - Asian
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
C3v: Race - American Indian
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
C3: Race - Native Hawaiian or Other
√
√
Pacific Islander
C3vi: Race - Other
√
√
√
C4i: Age - under 18
√
√
√
√
√
√
C4ii: Age - 18-39
√
√
√
√
√
√
C4iii: Age - 40 or older
√
√
√
√
√
√
C5i: Female
√
√
√
√
√
√
C5ii: Male
√
√
√
√
√
√
C6i: Never Married
√
√
√
√
√
C6ii: Married
√
√
√
√
√
C6iii: Divorced
√
√
√
√
√
C6iv: Widowed
√
√
√
√
C7: Interstate case
√
√
√
√
√
√
C8: International case
√
√
√
√
C9: Tribal case
√
C10i: Less than 12 years education
√
C10ii: Exactly 12 years education
√
C10iii: More than 12 years education
√
C11: Average family income
√
√
C12: Currently employed
√
√
√
√
√
C13: Avg. monthly earn. among employ.
√
√
C14: W/private health ins. for kids
√
√
√
√
√
Total Number of Questions Answered
10
24
18
24
26
16
21
Total Number of Data Elements Answered
30
54
48
58
59
39
55
Note: Checks indicate that we received the data; Blanks indicate that we did not receive the data
56
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
25
48
√
√
23
57
9
8
9
9
9
9
9
2
5
8
8
8
8
8
6
6
6
5
8
6
1
1
1
1
3
7
3
7
21
50
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
APPENDIX D: DETAILED RACE/ETHNICITY COMPOSITION OF IV-D CLIENTS
The Demographic Survey did not use the exact race/ethnicity categories approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB has established the following categories on
race and ethnicity that federal programs are expected to use when collecting this information:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hispanic or Latino;
Black or African American;
White;
Asian;
American Indian or Alaska Native; and
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.
The Demographic Survey used the following categories:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hispanic;
Black;
White;
Asian;
American Indian;
Other Race.
Thus, two of the survey categories were exactly the same as the OMB categories (White
and Asian) and two others were very similar (Hispanic and Black). These four categories
represent nearly all of the IV-D customers in the states surveyed. However, the survey omitted
one category, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Another category, American Indian,
did not mention Alaska Native. In addition, the survey included a category “Other Race,” which
is not included as an OMB category.
After the distribution of the survey, we asked states to submit additional data in the
comment sections of the survey, indicating the number of custodial parents, children, and noncustodial parents who are “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.” Only two states, Georgia
and Michigan, provided additional information beyond the categories that were explicitly
mentioned in the survey. Georgia referred to the additional group mentioned in the comments as
57
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
“Pacific/Alaskan Native,” which suggests that it includes Alaskan Natives in addition to Native
Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders.
Thus, the Georgia category is broader than that
delineated by OMB.
When conducting this survey in the future, OCSE will undoubtedly use the categories for
race and ethnicity that are approved by OMB. However, we suspect that collecting information
from states on race and ethnicity will be a challenge regardless of the categories used in the
survey, because none of the states that we surveyed appear to use the OMB categories. States
seem to use what is useful or required in their state. For example: Georgia appears to include
Alaskan Natives with Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders. In addition, Georgia has a
mixed race category and if a client reports multiple races, Georgia records multiple races for that
person. On the other hand, Michigan has many more race/ethnicity categories than the minimum
OMB categories. They use a multitude of categories because that is what law enforcement uses
in Michigan.
Below, we show the results of the detailed categories for the race/ethnicity question in the
Demographic Survey for custodial parents, non-custodial parents, and children in the IV-D
programs that were received by the states.
58
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Appendix D. Table 1. Racial Composition of Custodial Parents, Children, and NonCustodial Parents in Nine-State IV-D Programs (2007) and According to ASPE (2001)
White
State and
Customer
Number
Black
%
Number
Hispanic
%
Number
%
Native Hawaiian
American Indian or Other Pacific
Islander
Asian
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Other
Number
%
California
--------------Children
--60,111
618,387
212,347
440,586
47,444
39,153
4.24
43.61
14.97
31.07
3.35
2.76
Custodial Parents
21,649
26,025
--38,001
376,099
157,994
263,016
42.60
17.90
29.79
2.45
2.95
4.30
Non-custodial Parents
Florida
2,676
590
--374,602
416,941
157,519
--39.34
43.78
16.54
0.28
0.06
Children
--246,602
226,389
93,420
2,069
416
--43.35
39.79
16.42
0.36
0.07
Custodial Parents
2,336
622
----252,726
249,772
108,482
41.16
40.68
17.67
0.38
0.10
Non-custodial Parents
Georgia
1,401
300
2,779
181,852
454,405
13,507
27.79
69.44
2.06
0.21
0.05
144
0.02
0.42
Children
1,311
120,149
260,194
7,657
1,225
344
30.72
66.53
1.96
0.31
0.09
210
0.05
0.34
Custodial Parents
831
198
966
113,197
249,723
7,631
30.37
66.99
2.05
0.22
0.05
227
0.06
0.26
Non-custodial Parents
Illinois
4,387
1,392
----251,831
373,165
91,472
34.87
51.67
12.66
0.61
0.19
Children
----157,798
201,072
51,062
2,583
822
38.18
48.65
12.35
0.62
0.20
Custodial Parents
1,850
573
----132,819
191,494
43,029
35.92
51.79
11.64
0.50
0.15
Non-custodial Parents
Michigan
3,721
5,133
312
529,090
375,524
36,375
55.47
39.37
3.81
0.39
0.54
3,628
0.38
0.03
Children
364,057
197,528
19,996
3,008
3,146
192
61.62
33.43
3.38
0.51
0.53
2,925
0.50
0.03
Custodial Parents
2,778
3,368
1,162
343,829
194,755
18,571
60.64
34.35
3.28
0.49
0.59
2,544
0.45
0.20
Non-custodial Parents
New York
1,911
1,317
----93,670
126,779
108,414
28.21
38.18
32.65
0.58
0.40
Children
----128,370
166,251
110,577
1,679
1,773
31.41
40.68
27.06
0.41
0.43
Custodial Parents
3,358
3,633
----191,025
248,573
165,931
31.19
40.58
27.09
0.55
0.59
Non-custodial Parents
Ohio
2,474
749
----612,352
356,211
27,792
61.26
35.64
2.78
0.25
0.07
Children
----386,978
179,761
15,088
1,566
420
66.28
30.79
2.58
0.27
0.07
Custodial Parents
1,180
537
----343,086
175,578
15,669
64.00
32.75
2.92
0.22
0.10
Non-custodial Parents
Pennsylvania
2,305
353
--37,484
263,019
184,463
21,039
51.71
36.26
4.14
0.45
0.07
7.37
Children
--227,887
119,681
16,756
2,120
409
16,698
59.42
31.20
4.37
0.55
0.11
4.35
Custodial Parents
2,039
489
--11,759
219,936
131,835
31,722
55.29
33.14
7.97
0.51
0.12
2.96
Non-custodial Parents
Texas
2,903
2,526
--8,062
238,327
282,478
439,075
24.48
29.02
45.11
0.30
0.26
0.83
Children
--4,024
240,235
212,116
315,019
3,243
2,205
0.52
30.92
27.30
40.55
0.42
0.28
Custodial Parents
3,326
2,209
--5,304
242,465
238,159
324,246
29.72
29.20
39.75
0.41
0.27
0.65
Non-custodial Parents
Averages
Children Average
39.99
42.49
14.82
0.38
0.20
0.20
2.14
CP Average
44.61
36.67
15.37
0.75
0.50
0.27
1.88
NCP Average
43.00
38.22
15.64
0.63
0.54
0.25
1.66
ASPEa
------Custodial Parents
4,286,476
53.40
2,209,864
27.50
1,261,028
15.70
270,524
3.40
Note: -- =Not Available.
Note: Georgia allows clients to report multiple races and ethnicities, but the number of individuals who report more than one race/ethnicity is very small. Thus, when calculating
percentages for Georgia above, we use the slightly higher total in the den
Note: The individuals listed in "other race" in Georgia are, in fact, in a category called "mixed race".
Note: The percents under Averages are determined by taking the unweighted averages by race regardless of the number of states and then recalibrated so that the sum of the race
categories equals 100.
Note: CPs/NCPs in Georgia who indicated that they were apart of multiple racial groups were counted separately in each racial category.
Note: After distributing the survey, we asked states to provide additional information regarding the number of children, custodial parents, and non-custodial parents who are "Native
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander." Only Georgia and Michigan submitt
Note: California data was gathered from a representative sample of CP/NCP clients. However, California data presented here are weighted to reflect the population of custodial
parents, children, and non-custodial parents in California's IV-D program.
Note: California did not provide any information on children.
a
Source: Mellgren, Linda, Jennifer Burnszynski, Sarah Douglas, and Brian Sinclair-James, “Characteristics of Families Using Title IV-D Services in 1999 and 2001.” DHHS/ASPE
(2004).
59
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
APPENDIX E: DETAILED INFORMATION ON MISSING DATA
To capture the amount of data that are missing from this analysis, we created a table
entitled Appendix E. Table 1. Missing Data from States by Survey Question. The survey did not
ask states to provide the number of missing values for each question directly.
For questions
with a full set of subcategories that sum to the total number of clients, a simple calculation was
performed to determine the number of missing values by taking the total number of clients and
subtracting the sum of responses from the subcategories of the question. However, this method
did not always yield the same number of missing values as reported by the state in the comments
section. We do not know why these discrepancies occurred. In addition, some of the questions
did not ask for a full set of subcategories that should sum to the total. For example, the survey
asked how many custodial parents were currently receiving TANF, but it did not ask how many
custodial parents were not currently receiving TANF. Without this latter information, we could
not calculate the number of missing values.
Although states reported the number of missing values for some questions in the
comment fields at the end of each section of the survey, only California provided missing value
information for all of the questions that it answered. In addition, none of the other states
provided missing values for questions we could not calculate on our own, except in one case.
Michigan did indicate the number of children who were not on assistance in the comment
sections and thus we were able to calculate the percent of children in Michigan who were
missing their assistance status. We were not able to calculate the percentage of missing values
for any of the other questions that did not have a complete set of subcategories.
The issue presented with not knowing the magnitude of missing data is that we have to
assume that none of the data are missing when calculating percentages. For example, Michigan
reported that 50,060 non-custodial parents lived out of state, which represents 6.4 percent of the
60
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
total number of non-custodial parents reported by Michigan. However, some non-custodial
parents do not have an address. These individuals may live in-state or out-of-state; we do not
know. Since we did not ask Michigan to indicate how many non-custodial parents do not have
an address, we have to assume that all of the individuals who have a missing address live instate. Thus, 6.4 percent is clearly an underestimate of the extent to which non-custodial parents
in Michigan live out-of-state.
In future surveys, it is recommended the survey include a space to report the number of
missing values for each question and when subcategories are used they sum to the total number
of clients. For example, instead of asking how many non-custodial parents live out-of-state, the
question should ask: What is the total number of non-custodial parents who are in the following
categories:
1) Live Out-of-State;
2) Live In-State; and
3) Do Not Know.
Asking states to report the number of unknowns for each question and providing a full set of
subcategories for questions that sum to the total number of clients will allow the person who
analyzes the data to compare the reported missing values with the calculated number of missing
values.
Appendix E. Table 1 presents information about the 31 questions in the survey as well as
the data elements for the public assistance questions about TANF, Medicaid, and foster care
services that were asked of custodial parents and children. Thus, there are 34 question/data
elements listed in this table. Appendix E. Table 1 shows that:
•
Missing values could not be calculated for all survey questions as not all questions had a
complete set of subcategories and the states (except for California) did not provide this
information (these questions are marked by --);
61
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Appendix E. Table 1. Missing Data from States by Survey Question
Average
Percent
Missing
CA
FL
GA
IL
MI
NY
OH
PA
TX
NA
15,431
(1.1)
DCD
NA
47,237
(7.7)
2,044
(0.3)
4,727
(0.8)
168,008
(27.3)
DCD
DCD
DCD
NA
--
NA
177,348
(23.1)
NR
33,779
(4.0)
NR
NA
484,610
(54.3)
66,996
(7.5)
0
(0.0)
DCD
--DCD
--DCD
NA
185,870
(24.1)
0
(0.0)
3,727
(0.5)
306,641
(39.8)
--DCD
NA
51,448
(11.8)
1,285
(0.3)
13,098
(3.0)
DCD
-DCD
DCD
NA
44,667
(9.8)
7,856
(1.7)
9,608
(2.1)
435,485
(95.2)
--DCD
-DCD
DCD
NA
82,333
(9.6)
4,643
(0.5)
2,740
(0.3)
748,478
(87.1)
--DCD
DCD
---
DCD
DCD
DCD
DCD
DCD
--
NR
NR
NR
DCD
DCD
DCD
DCD
DCD
--
----
DCD
DCD
--
-DCD
DCD
DCD
-DCD
NR
--
DCD
--
DCD
--
---
DCD
--
--
DCD
66,913
(6.6)
12 (0.0) 0
222,006
(18.9)
0 (0.0)
DCD
0
(0.0)
789,107
(70.4)
15,443
(1.4)
DCD
--
314,372
(23.9)
0
(0.0)
28,312
(2.2)
--
-DCD
--
-DCD
--
Custodial Parent Questions
A1: Number
NA
A2: Race
17.7
A3: Age
1.5
A4: Gender
1.3
A5: Marital Status
50.1
DCD
A7: Education
0.7
A8: Fam. Inc < Nat. Poverty Thresh.
A9: Average Family Income
--
A10: Currently Employed
0.9
12,667
(0.9)
DCD
DCD
10,594
(0.7)
DCD
DCD
12,667
(0.9)
A11: Avg. Monthly Earn. Among Emp.
A12: Private Health Insurance For Kids
---
DCD
DCD
A6i: TANF
A6ii: Medicaid
---
0
(0.0)
0
(0.0)
NR
Children Questions
DCD
DCD
DCD
--
95,173
(13.3)
689
(0.1)
0
(0.0)
--
----
DCD
DCD
DCD
DCD
DCD
--
-DCD
--
----
C1: Number
C2: Lives outside state
NA
--
C3: Race
13.8
C4: Age
1.6
NA
DCD
12,437
(1.4)
DCD
C5: Gender
1.8
C6: Marital Status
60.9
B1: Race
27.8
B2: Age
0.2
B3: Household Status
0.5
B4i: Tanf
B4ii: Medicaid
B4vi: Foster Care Services
B5: Private health insurance
3.0
(0.0) 0
(0.0)
NR
34,914
(3.0)
----
196,844 491,531
(27.9)
(33.6)
539 (0.1) 679 (0.0)
DCD
--
6,851
(0.5)
--
DCD
---
----
NA
-43,908
(9.9)
3,991
(0.9)
10,623
(2.4)
DCD
--DCD
DCD
NA
-50,445
(5.8)
10,498
(1.2)
3,997
(0.5)
806,937
(93.2)
--DCD
DCD
Non-custodial Parent Questions
C7: Interstate case
C8: International case
C9: Tribal case
----
C10: Education
1.1
C11: Average family income
--
C12: Currently employed
1.5
C13: Avg. Monthly Earn. Among Employ.
C14: Private Health Insurance For Kids
--12.1
Average Percent Missing
DCD
11,055
(1.2)
DCD
DCD
DCD
9,443
(1.1)
DCD
13,819
(1.5)
DCD
DCD
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
----16,325
-84,259
213,689
(2.6)
(18.6)
(27.4)
13,931 0 (0.0) 9795 (2.2)
0
(2.2)
(0.0)
348 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 10,937
66,678
(2.4)
(8.5)
356,171
DCD
429,282
NR
(56.5)
(94.6)
--------DCD
-DCD
DCD
DCD
DCD
DCD
DCD
NA
NA
--280,740 199,067
(31.4)
(27.1)
54,611 0
(0.0)
(6.1)
0 (0.0)
4,492
(0.6)
DCD
435,409
(59.2)
--DTD
DCD
DCD
DCD
DCD
DCD
---
DCD
DTD
DCD
--
NR
--
DCD
NR
DCD
--
---
NR
--
-DCD
9.5
DTD
-0
--21.8
NR
-10.6
NR
-21.4
DCD
-16.1
--7.0
NR
-21.1
Note: -- = Missing Data Information is Not Available. NA=Not Applicable. NR= Data Not Reliable (as reported by states). DCD= Do Not Collect Data. DTD= Cannot
Tabulate Data.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are the percent missing.
Note: We calculated the number of missing values for the following questions: the race, age, gender, marital status, and educational attainment of custodial parents; the race,
age, and household status of children; and the race, age, gender, marital stat
62
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
•
Many question/data elements were not answered by the states because they could not
collect the data (DCD);
•
4 of 9 states indicated that some data were not reliable (NR);
•
2 states indicated that they collected information for which they could not tabulate
(DTD); and
•
Calculating missing values for two other questions -- those that measure the total number
of custodial and non-custodial parents -- is not applicable (NA).
Below, we discuss the questions for which we had missing value information for states
other than California (12 questions). California had low missing value percentages (1.1 percent
on average) for all of the questions that it answered.
Race
The average percent of missing values for the race/ethnicity questions were relatively
high across the states that provided this information.
•
27.8 percent of children did not have a race/ethnicity identified, which was the highest
percent of missing values for race.
•
17.7 percent and 13.8 percent of custodial and non-custodial parents, respectively, were
missing their race/ethnicity on average across all nine states.
New York had the highest percent of missing values for race/ethnicity. Over half of
custodial parents, 70.4 percent of children, and 31.4 percent of non-custodial parents were
missing a value for race/ethnicity in New York. Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Texas had lower missing percentages than New York, but only 4 of the 15 client questions for
these states had missing value percentages below 10 percent.
California had the lowest
percentages of missing values for custodial and non-custodial parents at 1.1 and 1.4 percent,
respectively.
Florida had the next lowest percentages of missing values -- 7.7 percent of
custodial parents, 6.6 percent of children, and 2.6 percent of non-custodial parents were missing
63
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
a value for race/ethnicity. We could not calculate the missing percentages for Georgia because
Georgia allows its clients to report more than one race or ethnicity and thus the sum of their race
and ethnicity categories exceeded the total number of clients by a small amount.
Marital Status
Except for California, all of the states that provided marital status had very high
percentages of missing values for this category of data.
•
Across the five states that provided this information, 50.1 percent of custodial parents and
60.9 percent of non-custodial parents had missing values for marital status.
•
When California is excluded from these averages, 62.4 percent of custodial parents and
75.9 percent of non-custodial parents were missing marital status.
•
For non-custodial parents, all states, except California, had over 50 percent missing
values.
•
Two states – Illinois and Texas – had over 87 percent missing values for the marital
status of custodial and non-custodial parents.
Age and Gender
In contrast to marital status, the age and gender of custodial parents, the age of children,
and the age and gender of non-custodial parents had very few missing values.
•
All of the average missing value percentages for these five questions were below 2
percent.
•
The highest missing rate among these questions was 8.5 percent for the gender of noncustodial parents in Michigan followed by 7.5 percent for the age of custodial parents in
New York.
•
The next highest missing rates were 6.1 percent for the age of non-custodial parents in
New York and 3.0 percent for the gender of custodial parents in Pennsylvania.
64
DEMOGRAHPIC SURVEY RESULTS: APPENDICES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Child Residence and TANF Status of Children
These questions also had relatively few missing values. The average percent of children
who had missing values for child residence was 0.5 percent. Ohio reported the highest percent of
children with missing values for child residence; 2.2 percent of children in Ohio were missing a
value for child residence. Three percent of children in Michigan did not have a TANF status.
65