State pushes counties to collect more child support

"seeking financial incentives from the federal government."

Those incentives are about $.70 for every dollar collected. So if the state collects $1000 in support, it receives an additional $700 in federal incentives, This money goes into the general tax fund. The states make money from this program; the federal government loses money, however.

States only receive these incentives if there is child support to collect. And there is only child support to collect if there are broken families--mom and the kids over here, dad over there. So to collect its federal financial incentives, it benefits the state to have more broken families but does not benefit the state to have more intact families. In short, removing as many fathers as possible from the family helps the state bring in more federal dollars.

And there are also no incentives for fair and equitable treatment of those who owe child support. So the state has no motive for fair and equitable treatment of those who pay child support. It's all a game of "show me the money."

I agree with the OP. There is no reason why her and her ex husband should be forced to use a collection service which takes 5%.

In my state and I assume most others, parents owing and receiving child support pay directly to each other. The only time the state gets involved with collections is if the state pays out social benefits towards the care of the children (food stamps, etc), which typically pertains to low income people.

I have never understood or seen any source on the popular MRA position that the state makes a profit from the federal government for collecting child support. According to el cid's comment, if the state collects $1000 in child support, the federal government pays them $700 for doing so? I don't get this, why would the federal government do this, are you sure it is profit and not reimbursement for welfare payouts or something? I would like to see a source because it is not making any sense to me.

The existence of the program is not in doubt. It is admitted in the article. The 70% was wrong, however. It's actually 66%. Also, the formula may now be more complicated.

I also think you're wrong that most states permit parents to pay each other directly. CS registries make it easy to keep track of collected CS so states can apply for these incentives. That's also a reason to use agencies to collect support.

The idea behind these incentives is to reduce federal welfare costs by increasing CS collections. My understanding from various sources is that the welfare savings at the federal level have never equaled the cost of the incentive program. It is also my understanding that states rarely spend $.66 to collect a dollar of support. One reason is that collection is fairly easy for all but welfare-related cases. But including middle and high income collections in the pool increases the total collected, hence giving a state the right to more incentive payments.

More info at these links:

http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/esa/dcs/fedincentivesfaq.pdf
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/child-support-incentive-funding
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34203.pdf

I don't see in the OP article where it speaks about getting additional 66% from the federal government. I see statements like this:

> "the state collection average has also increased from 66.5 percent to the current 67.3 percent,"

This means that if the sum of all parents in the state ordered to pay child support is $1 Million per year, the amount the receiving parents are receiving is 67.3% which is $673,000 per year. So not all child support which is ordered by one parent is received by the other parent.

However, I did see mention about financial incentives from the federal government, but no explanation.

...okay, I just clicked on your links. Maybe you are speaking of this (from your second link):

> "The Work Group's Report includes recommendations with respect to other aspects of program funding, beyond incentives, for example, a recommendation that the level of Federal financial participation in State program expenditures remain at 66 percent."

I take this to mean that the federal government reimburses the state government for 66% of their *collection expenses*. (not of how much they collect)

So far I see that the incentives relate to the effectiveness of the collections. The more efficient system the state has, the more the federal government will reimburse them for their expenses. I don't see anything as a profit or bonus. The state still pays out 34% in collection fees, which is an expense that would not be neccesary if families stayed intact so the state does not profit from child support orders. (from what I can tell)

Also your first link is from Washington State. In Washington State parents pay direct to each other unless the kids receive government handouts like food stamps. (which I think only represents about 25% of families)

I admit I only brushed over your links. Also want to add that I am not disagreeing or arguing, I am only trying to get to the truth about child support collections and understand why MRAs frequently say states profit from collecting child support. So far I did not see any proof in your links.