KEY POINTS
Federal spending per child support case increased from $374.31 to $435.82 (in inflation adjusted dollars) between Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15) and FY24. However, total federal spending fell from about $5.2 billion to $4.5 billion over the same period as caseloads declined by roughly 2 million cases.
Locally-administered Child Support Enforcement (Title IV-D) programs have higher federal spending per case than state-administered programs. After controlling for state characteristics, average federal spending was approximately $510 per case for locally-administered programs compared with $358 per case for state-administered programs, with no differences in the four federal performance measures examined .
Judicial-only states (those that rely exclusively on courts to establish child support orders), have higher federal spending per case than states using a combination of judicial and administrative processes ($403 versus $345), after controlling for state factors. Order-establishment rates are also higher in judicial-only and highly administrative states (87 percent and 89 percent) than in states using a combined approach (85 percent).
This is a summary of the associated issue brief. Download the full brief for more details on the data, methods, and findings.
BACKGROUND
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program, also known as the IV-D system, was established in 1975 primarily to reimburse governments for cash assistance paid to families. Today CSE focuses primarily on delivering child support payments to families. The IV-D program provides parent location, paternity establishment, order establishment, order review and modification, and collection and distribution of support. States provide required services, supported by federal reimbursement of up to 66 percent for allowable costs.
In FY24, CSE served 12.2 million children and distributed $29.5 billion in child support, of which 97 percent went directly to families. This brief summarizes federal spending and performance over the past ten years and presents new analysis of how program administration relates to federal cost and performance.
Variation in State Title IV-D Administrative Models
Based on the Office of Child Support Enforcement state plans, forty-one states and DC administer their IV-D program centrally at the state level; nine states operate primarily at the local or county level (Tribal CSE programs are funded under separate federal grant provisions and were not included in this analysis). States also vary in how they establish support orders: nine states use highly administrative processes, 29 rely exclusively on judicial processes, and 13 use a combined approach.
The federal government supports CSE through cost reimbursement and incentive paymentsFederal performance measures have been generally stable over the last decade
In FY24, total CSE spending was $6.6 billion (excluding territories), including $4.5 billion in federal spending and $2.1 billion in state spending. Federal financial participation (FFP) reimburses states for up to 66 percent of eligible expenditures. States also receive incentive payments under the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act (CSPIA) of 1998. States received $679 million in incentive payments for FY23; the FY24 pool totals $713 million.
Federal performance measures have been generally stable over the last decade
From FY15 to FY24, states and DC generally maintained stable performance across four of five CSPIA measures, with small improvements in some areas. Paternity establishment remained near 100 percent, order establishment between 85 and 87 percent, and current collections around 64 to 65 percent. Cost-effectiveness was the only measure to decline overall. In FY24, every state and DC met the levels needed to receive at least some incentive payment for all five measures.
FEDERAL CHILD SUPPORT SPENDING HAS DECLINED ALONGSIDE FALLING CASELOADS, EVEN AS SPENDING PER CASE RISES
Caseloads declined from around 17 million in 1999 to under 12 million in 2024, driven partly by 1996 welfare reform that reduced cash assistance participation and mandatory IV-D participation. As caseloads fell about 21 percent from FY15 to FY24, total federal spending dropped from about $5.2 billion to $4.5 billion, while state spending per case rose from $374 to $436 (2024 dollars).
Federal spending per case varies widely across states Federal funding per case ranges from $116 to $1,010 across states. Program size alone does not explain these differences; evidence from other federal programs (e.g., Head Start, SNAP) suggests administrative structure and local economic conditions shape costs and outcomes.
LOCALLY-ADMINISTERED CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAMS DO NOT PERFORM BETTER, DESPITE HIGHER FEDERAL SPENDING
After accounting for state characteristics, locally-administered programs averaged about $510 in federal funding per case, compared with about $358 per case for state-run programs a difference of about 42 percent (see Figure 2). This higher spending was not accompanied by measurably better performance on the four federal performance measures analyzed.
JUDICIAL-ONLY OR HIGHLY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES HAVE HIGHER FEDERAL SPENDING PER CASE AND BETTER ORDER-ESTABLISHMENT PERFORMANCE THAN COMBINATION APPROACHES
Average federal spending was about $403 per case for judicial-only states, $389 for highly administrative states, and $345 for combination states (see Figure 3). The difference between judicial-only and combination states was statistically significant; spending did not differ significantly between judicial-only and highly administrative states.
Order-establishment performance was higher among judicial-only or highly administrative states than combination states: 89.2 percent (highly administrative) and 86.6 percent (judicial-only), versus 84.7 percent (combination). A two-percentage-point national increase would require establishing orders in approximately 233,000 additional cases.
CONCLUSION
Program structure appears important for reducing federal child support spending while maintaining or improving performance, though the analyses identify associations rather than causal relationships. Locally administered programs have higher federal spending per case but do not show corresponding advantages in performance. Judicial-only or highly administrative order-establishment processes are associated with higher federal spending per case and stronger performance than combination approaches. These findings point to program structure as an area for further investigation into efficiency opportunities.
[i] Average federal spending per case are the results of the linear regression models. See Appendix for full regression table.
[ii] Cost-effectiveness was excluded.