Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Congressional research reportJul 5, 2016

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

name redacted Specialist in Social Policy

July 5, 2016

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R41204

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Summary

The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program.

Its mission is to enhance the well-being of children by helping custodial parents and children

obtain financial support from the noncustodial parents. Although states were always required to

provide CSE services to members of Indian tribes and tribal organizations who were part of their

CSE caseloads, tribes were not specifically included in the CSE statute until the 1996 welfare

reform law (P.L. 104-193). The 1996 law allowed any state that has Indian country within its

borders to enter into a cooperative agreement with an Indian tribe if the tribe demonstrated that it

had an established tribal court system with the authority to establish paternity, and establish,

modify, and enforce child support orders. In addition, P.L. 104-193 gave the Secretary of the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to make direct payments to

Indian tribes that have approved CSE programs.

There are currently 61 tribal CSE programs, 57 comprehensive tribal CSE programs and 4 startup tribal CSE programs (as of April 2016). In contrast to the federal matching rate of 66% for

CSE programs run by the states or territories, the tribal CSE program provides direct federal

funding equal to 100% of approved and allowable CSE expenditures during the start-up period,

provides 90% federal funding for approved CSE programs operated by tribes or tribal

organizations during the first three years of full program operation, and provides 80% federal

funding thereafter. In FY2014, the 57 tribes or tribal organizations with comprehensive tribal

CSE programs had an aggregate of 50,892 cases and collected over $36 million in total child

support collections.

Tribal CSE program services include parent location, paternity establishment, establishment of

child support orders, review and modification of child support orders, enforcement/collection of

child support payments, and distribution of child support. Indian tribes and tribal organizations

that choose to operate a tribal CSE program must run programs that conform to the objectives of

the state CSE program and that are in compliance with the tribal CSE program regulations.

However, federal regulations provide some flexibility that allows tribes and tribal organizations to

develop and administer tribal CSE programs that are consistent with the tribe’s law and tradition.

In 2010, about 52% of the nearly 1 million American Indian and Alaska Native children were

living with only one of their parents. In 2014, about 66% of American Indian and Alaska Native

children were born to unmarried women. This report presents some demographic data on the

number of Native Americans living in the United States and also provides statistical data on tribal

CSE programs. Although the data are useful in developing an understanding of tribal CSE

programs, they should not be used to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of tribal CSE

programs.

This report describes the components of tribal CSE programs and discusses issues related to

jurisdictional matters, paternity establishment, child support enforcement methods, nonpayment

problems, and consistency of tribal programs with each other and with state CSE programs. The

report also includes three appendices. Appendix A includes six tables that arrange each tribe

according to its ranking in FY2014 on several CSE program indicators. Appendix B displays

FY2016 information that shows the 57 comprehensive tribal CSE programs. It also shows the

four start-up tribal CSE programs. Appendix C shows the American Indian and Alaska Native

household population for 2005/2010 for tribes with CSE programs.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3

CSE Provisions Related to Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations.......................................... 5

Tribal CSE Programs ....................................................................................................................... 8

Requirements for Operating a Tribal CSE Program.................................................................. 8

Jurisdictional Requirement Related to a Minimum Number of Children ........................... 9

Administrative and Management Procedures and Recordkeeping ..................................... 9

Program Services Requirements ....................................................................................... 10

Automated Systems ................................................................................................................. 16

Funding ................................................................................................................................... 17

Start-Up Programs ............................................................................................................ 18

Comprehensive Programs ................................................................................................. 19

Financing Mechanics ........................................................................................................ 19

Data ............................................................................................................................................... 20

Data Problems ......................................................................................................................... 20

Demographic Information ....................................................................................................... 21

CSE Tribal Information ........................................................................................................... 22

Issues ............................................................................................................................................. 31

Jurisdictional Matters .............................................................................................................. 32

Paternity Establishment ........................................................................................................... 35

Child Support Enforcement Methods ...................................................................................... 37

Nonpayment Problems ............................................................................................................ 39

Consistency of Tribal CSE Programs to Each Other and to State CSE Programs .................. 40

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 43

Figures

Figure 1. Map of Tribal CSE Programs ........................................................................................... 7

Figure 2. Tribal CSE Program: Collections and Expenditures,

FY2004-FY2011 and FY2014 .................................................................................................... 27

Tables

Table 1. CSE Tribal Programs ......................................................................................................... 2

Table 2. Tribal CSE Program Financial and Statistical Data, FY2004-FY2011, and

FY2014 ....................................................................................................................................... 25

Table 3. Tribal CSE Program, Expenditures and Collections Per Case, FY2004-FY2010,

and FY2014 ................................................................................................................................ 28

Table 4. Tribal CSE Summary Data by Tribe, FY2014 ................................................................. 29

Table A-1. Tribal CSE Collections by Tribe, in Rank Order, FY2014 .......................................... 46

Table A-2. Tribal CSE Expenditures by Tribe, in Rank Order, FY2014 ....................................... 48

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Table A-3. Tribal CSE Caseload by Tribe, in Rank Order, FY2014.............................................. 50

Table A-4. Tribal CSE Program: Paternities Established by Tribe, in Rank Order, FY2014 ........ 52

Table A-5. Tribal CSE Program: Child Support Orders Established by Tribe,

in Rank Order, FY2014 .............................................................................................................. 53

Table A-6. Tribal CSE Program: Collections Per Dollar of Expenditures by Tribe,

in Rank Order, FY2014 .............................................................................................................. 55

Table B-1. Comprehensive Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs, by Date They

became Comprehensive.............................................................................................................. 58

Table B-2. Start-Up Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs ................................................ 60

Table C-1. Population Figures for Tribes with Tribal CSE Programs: Tribal Enrollment

(2005), BIA Service Population (2010), and Census AIAN Populations in CensusDefined Federal AIAN Areas (2010).......................................................................................... 61

Appendixes

Appendix A. Tribal CSE Program Indicators ................................................................................ 46

Appendix B. Comprehensive and Start-Up Tribal CSE Programs ................................................ 58

Appendix C. American Indian and Alaska Native Population Figures for Tribes with CSE

Programs..................................................................................................................................... 61

Contacts

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 64

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Introduction

Child support is the cash payment that a noncustodial parent is obligated to pay for the financial

support of his or her children. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the

U.S. Virgin Islands operate Child Support Enforcement (CSE) programs. Historically, states were

required to provide CSE services to members of Indian tribes and tribal organizations who were

part of their CSE caseloads. Although tribes were not specifically included in the CSE statute

until the 1996 welfare reform law, several tribes had negotiated agreements (e.g., informal,

cooperative, intergovernmental, and joint powers) with some states in a mutual effort to serve

Native American1 children. The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) allowed direct federal

funding of approved tribal CSE programs.2

As of April 20, 2016, there were 61 tribal CSE programs.3 (See Table B-1 and Table B-2.) The

Indian tribes or tribal organizations with tribal CSE programs are listed in the text box on the next

page and are shown on the map in Figure 1. In FY2014, the 57 tribes or tribal organizations with

comprehensive CSE programs distributed over $36 million in total child support collections in

FY2014 to 50,892 cases in the CSE tribal program.

Only federally recognized tribes and tribal organizations are eligible to operate tribal CSE

programs. As of March 2016, there are 566 federally recognized Indian tribes.4 Although tribal

CSE programs do not have to have a court system per se, they are required to have either a

judicial or administrative system to hear, establish, and enforce child support orders.5 Moreover,

tribal CSE programs are required to ensure that the due process rights of participants are

protected. According to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), it may be necessary to make adjustments to an

existing court system or to develop an administrative process under a start-up tribal CSE

program.6 However, according to OCSE, when a tribe applies for funding to operate a

In this report, the terms “Native American,” “Indian,” and “AIAN” will be used interchangeably. They all mean

American Indians and Alaska Natives (“Alaska Natives” includes the American Indians, Eskimos (Inuit and Yupik),

and Aleuts of Alaska).

Federal regulations that were published in their final form in 2004, rather than the federal law, specified the level of

federal funding. Pursuant to title 45 Code of Federal Regulation (C.F.R.) Section 309.130(c), 100% federal funding is

available for tribal CSE programs during the start-up period, 90% federal funding during the first three years that the

program is fully operational, and 80% federal funding thereafter.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, List of Tribal CSE Programs,

https://ocse.acf.hhs.gov/int/directories/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.tribalivd.

“Federally recognized” means these tribes and groups have a special, legal relationship with the U.S. government.

This relationship is referred to as a government-to-government relationship. A number of Indian tribes and groups in

the U.S. do not have a federally recognized status, although some are state-recognized. This means they have no

relations with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or the programs it operates. See the National Conference of State

Legislatures website, http://www.ncsl.org/research/state-tribal-institute/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx.

Also see Federal Register, vol. 81, no. 19, Friday, January 29, 2016, Notices, p. 5019.

About 275 federally recognized tribes have tribal courts and 23 have Courts of Indian Offenses, according to the

National Tribal Justice Resource Center of the National American Indian Court Judges Association. Tribal courts vary

widely with respect to the types of cases heard, and the law applied in each is distinctly unique to each tribe. Some

tribal courts resemble Western-style courts where written laws and rules of court procedure are applied. However, an

increasing number of tribes are returning to their traditional means of resolving disputes through the use of

peacemaking, elders’ councils, and sentencing circles; http://www.tribalresourcecenter.org/tribalcourts/history.asp.

In FY2016, there were 4 start-up tribal CSE programs. A start-up tribal program does not have to have all of the 14

CSE program components mandated by federal regulations.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

comprehensive tribal CSE program,7 it must demonstrate that the judicial or administrative

process is sufficient to establish and enforce child support orders. Thus, the universe of tribes that

are potentially eligible to operate a tribal CSE program may not be as high as 566 because the

tribe must have a court system (which about 298 tribes have) or an administrative system. The

number of potentially eligible tribes is further reduced because tribes must have at least 100

children under their jurisdiction, and many tribes do not meet this requirement.

Table 1. CSE Tribal Programs

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of TX

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indian Reservation

Aleutian/Pribiloff Islands Association

Modoc Tribe of OK

Apache Tribe of OK*

Muscogee (Creek) Nation

Blackfeet Nation

Navajo Nation

Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian

Nez Perce Tribe

Cherokee Nation

Nooksack Indian Tribe

Chickasaw Nation

Northern Arapaho Tribe

Chippewa Cree Tribe

Oneida Tribe of Indians of WI

Coeur D’ Alene Tribe

Osage Tribe of OK

Comanche Nation of OK

Penobscot Nation

Confederate Tribe of Salish and Kootenai

Ponca Tribe of OK

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation

Delaware Tribe of Indians*

Pueblo of Zuni

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

Puyallup Tribe of Indians

Eastern Shoshone Tribe

Quinault Indian Nation

Forest County Potawatomi Community

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas

Fort Belknap Indian Community

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians

Ho-Chunk Nation

Sac & Fox Tribe (Meskwaki Nation)

Kaw Nation

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

Shinnecock Indian Nation*

Kickapoo Tribe in KS

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes*

Kickapoo Tribe of OK

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Sioux Tribe

Klamath Tribes

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Lac Courte Oreilles

Stockbridge-Munsee Community

Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians

The Suquamish Tribe

In FY2016, there were 57 comprehensive tribal CSE programs. A tribal program is considered comprehensive if it has

all of the 14 program components stipulated in the federal tribal CSE regulations.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe

Three Affiliated Tribes

Lummi Nation

Tulalip Tribes

Menominee Indian Tribe of WI

White Earth Nation

Mescalero Apache Tribe

Winnebago Tribe of NE

Yurok Tribe

Source: Data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement

and data from the following webpage—http://www.supporttribalchildren.org/Tribal%20Program%20Directory/

Tribal%20CS%20Directory.pdf, April 20, 2016.

Note: * denotes start-up programs

Because sufficient demographic and social statistics on Indian tribal members are not collected by

federal or other entities, it is difficult to estimate how many children under tribal jurisdiction are

not covered by tribal CSE programs. Most estimates are derived from Census counts, which are

based on race, not tribal membership. (See the discussion under “Data” below.) One estimate

based on American Community Survey (ACS) racial data found that, in 2014, about 53% of the

631,831 American Indian and Alaska Native children (i.e., roughly 335,000 children) were living

with only one of their parents.8 In 2014, about 66% of American Indian and Alaska Native

children were born to unmarried women (again, according to race).9

This report provides a brief legislative history of CSE provisions related to tribes, presents basic

information on tribal CSE programs, describes the information that tribal CSE programs must

contain in order to be approved for federal funding, displays data on current tribal CSE

programs,10 and discusses issues related to ensuring that Native American children receive the

child support to which they are entitled. The report also includes three appendices. Appendix A

includes six tables that arrange each tribe according to its ranking in FY2014 on several CSE

program features or indicators. Appendix B displays FY2016 information that shows the 57

comprehensive tribal CSE programs. It also names the four start-up tribal CSE programs.

Appendix C shows estimates of total population for each tribe that operates a tribal CSE

program.

Background

The CSE program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program (Title IV-D of the Social

Security Act) to help strengthen families by securing financial support for children from their

noncustodial parent on a consistent and continuing basis and by helping some families to remain

self-sufficient and off public assistance. The mission of the CSE program has shifted and

In 2014, the comparable percentages of children living in one-parent households for other groups were as follows:

17% of Asian American and Pacific Islander children, 25% of white children, 42% of Hispanic children, and 66% of

black children. (Source: Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Data Center, Data for 2014,

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by-race?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/

any/false/869,36,868,867,133/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/432,431.)

Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, Michelle J.K. Osterman, Sally C. Curtin, and T.J. Mathews, “Births: Final Data

for 2014,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital

Statistics Reports, vol. 64, no. 12, December 23, 2015, Table 15.

In FY2014, the 57 tribes with comprehensive CSE programs served about 51,000 cases. A CSE case may include

more than one child. OCSE defines a CSE “case” as a noncustodial parent (mother, father, or putative/alleged father)

who is now or eventually may be obligated under law for the support of a child or children receiving services under the

CSE program. If the noncustodial parent owes support for two children by different women, that would be considered

two cases; if both children have the same mother, that would be considered one case.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

expanded over the years. It has evolved from being a program primarily focused on welfare cost

recovery to a program that focuses more on enhancing the well-being of children by obtaining

child support from noncustodial parents and by emphasizing the personal responsibility of both

parents to their children. Child support payments enable parents who do not live with their

children to fulfill their financial responsibility to their children by contributing to the payment of

childrearing costs.

The CSE program currently provides seven major services on behalf of children: (1) parent

location, (2) paternity establishment, (3) establishment of child support orders, (4) review and

modification of child support orders, (5) enforcement/collection of child support payments, (6)

distribution of child support payments, and (7) establishment and enforcement of medical

support. The CSE program serves both families that receive Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) benefits and those who do not. All 50 states and four jurisdictions (the District

of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) operate CSE programs. In addition,

61 tribes or tribal organizations have CSE programs. The CSE program is administered by the

federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), which is in the Administration for Children

and Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In the early days of child support enforcement, states were required to cooperate in interstate CSE

cases, but problems arose stemming from the autonomy of local courts. Family law traditionally

had been under the jurisdiction of state and local governments, and citizens fell under the

jurisdiction of the courts where they lived. Thus, when parents lived in different states, conflicts

arose with regard to which state’s rules applied to the case in question. During the 1930s and

1940s, domestic/family law under the jurisdiction of state and local courts was used to establish

and enforce child support obligations when the noncustodial parent, custodial parent, and child

lived in the same state. But when noncustodial parents lived out of state, enforcing child support

was cumbersome and ineffective. Often, the only option in those cases was to extradite the

noncustodial parent and, when successful, jail the person for nonpayment of child support. This

procedure, which was rarely used, generally punished the delinquent noncustodial parent, but it

left the abandoned family without financial support. Even up until the late 1990s, many

commentators and CSE staff said that interstate cases were the most difficult child support orders

to enforce. Others, however, noted that when a child support case involved a Native American

child, the case moved to another level of complexity.

Before enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), the CSE statute placed the

authority to administer the delivery of CSE services solely with the states.11 However, within

much of Indian country, the authority of state and local governments was very limited or

nonexistent. Thus, states were limited in their ability to provide CSE services on tribal lands and,

vice versa, Indian families had difficulty obtaining CSE services from the state CSE programs.12

Pursuant to the Constitution, numerous court decisions, and federal law, Indian tribes have the

authority to make and enforce laws, to adjudicate civil and criminal disputes (including domestic

relations cases), to tax, and to license, regarding members and other Indians within their

At state option, CSE services can be administered by local units of government. In most of the states (29 states and

the District of Columbia), the CSE program is state administered with offices in many local areas. However, 14 states

have programs that are locally (i.e., county) administered; and eight states have programs that are state administered in

some counties and locally administered in others (two of these states indicated that they also use private contractors).

(Source: OCSE, Intergovernmental Referral Guide, Section A1 for each of the states, January 2008,

http://ocse.acf.hhs.gov/ext/irg/sps/selectastate.cfm.)

Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs, preamble of final

rule, p. 16638.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

jurisdictions. State power is limited unless Congress has authorized it. Therefore, prior to the

1996 welfare reform legislation, states that attempted to provide CSE services on tribal lands

were restricted in their authority to establish paternity and to establish and enforce child support

orders. During the pre-1996 period, cooperative agreements between Indian tribes and states were

the primary method by which Indian children (especially those living on reservations) received

CSE services.13

CSE Provisions Related to Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations

This section describes federal laws relating to child support that specifically mention Indian tribes

and tribal organizations.

In 1994, P.L. 103-383 (the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act) was

enacted. Section 3(a) of the 1994 act required a state to recognize and enforce another state’s

child support order. “State” is defined as “a state of the United States, the District of Columbia,

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territories and possessions of the United States, and

Indian country (as defined in Section 1151 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code).”14 Therefore, states and

tribes are required to recognize and enforce valid tribal child support orders, without regard to

whether such orders were issued by a state or tribal court or agency.

In 1996, P.L. 104-193 (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of

1996) included two CSE provisions pertaining to Indian tribes. First, it allowed states to enter into

cooperative agreements with Indian tribes and tribal organizations,15 and second, it authorized the

HHS Secretary to provide direct federal funding to Indian tribes. The 1996 law allowed any state

that has Indian country (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151) within its borders to enter into a

cooperative agreement with an Indian tribe or tribal organization if the tribe demonstrated that it

had an established tribal court system with the authority to establish paternity, and establish,

modify, and enforce child support orders.16 In addition, P.L. 104-193 gave the HHS Secretary the

Office of Child Support Enforcement, Action Transmittal OCSE-AT-98-21, “Implementing Section 454(33) of the

Social Security Act, Cooperative Agreements Between Indian Tribes and State Agencies Operating a State Child

Support Enforcement Program Under Title IV-D of the Act,” July 28, 1998, p. 1.

28 U.S.C. 1738B(b). “Indian country” is defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 as “(a) all land within the limits of any Indian

reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and,

including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the

United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the

limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-ofway running through the same.”

Prior to the 1996 law, CSE state plan requirements only included provisions for states to cooperate with other states

in interstate CSE cases. Moreover, because states generally did not have jurisdiction on Indian reservations, a tribe

would enter into an agreement with the state to recognize the state (or county) jurisdiction on tribal lands for the sole

purpose of child support enforcement. In such agreements, the tribe generally allowed the CSE agency to extend CSE

procedures to the reservation. If under such agreement the CSE agency requested the tribe to carry out a child support

enforcement activity, the tribe had to perform the child support enforcement function in accordance with federal CSE

regulations. The 1996 law modified the federal CSE law that required states to cooperate with other states to also

include cooperation with all tribal CSE programs. Further, under the 1996 law, a cooperative agreement with a tribal

entity does not require that tribal law conform with federal CSE regulations in order for the state to receive federal CSE

matching funds for the CSE services provided to the family (i.e., the tribe would receive the payment specified in the

cooperative agreement and the state or locality would be entitled to federal matching funds for CSE expenditures made

pursuant to the agreement). See Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Implementing section 454(33) of the Social

Security Act, Cooperative Agreements Between Indian Tribes and State Agencies Operating a State Chile Support

Enforcement Program Under Title IV-D of the Act,” OCSE-AT-98-21, July 28, 1998.

42 U.S.C. 654(33). This provision defines tribes and tribal organizations in accordance with §4 of the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638, as amended), which defines “Indian tribe” as a federally

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

authority to make direct payments to Indian tribes that have approved CSE programs. In contrast

to the federal matching rate of 66% for CSE programs run by the states or territories, the CSE

program provides direct federal funding equal to 100% of approved and allowable CSE

expenditures during the start-up period, provides 90% federal funding for approved CSE

programs operated by tribes or tribal organizations during the first three years of full program

operation, and provides 80% federal funding thereafter.17

Finally, in 1997, P.L. 105-33 (the Balanced Budget Act of 1997), which in part made numerous

technical amendments to the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), made minor changes to

eliminate ambiguity in the provision that allowed state CSE agencies to enter into cooperative

agreements with an Indian tribe or tribal organization. The 1997 act also clarified that direct

federal funding could be given to an Indian tribe or tribal organization that demonstrates the

capacity to operate a tribal CSE program that meets the objectives of the CSE program,

“including the establishment of paternity, establishment, modification, and enforcement of

support orders, and location of absent parents.”18

(...continued)

recognized tribe or an Alaska Native regional or village corporation, and defines “tribal organization” as a tribal

government, an organization established by a tribal government, or a community organization established by tribal

members (25 U.S.C. 450b(e), (l)).

45 C.F.R. §309.130(c), p. 326 (October 1, 2015 edition).

42 U.S.C. 655(f). According to OCSE-AT-98-21 (July 28, 1998), it is not necessary that the tribe comply with every

federal CSE regulation in order to qualify for a cooperative agreement with a state CSE agency.

Congressional Research Service

Figure 1. Map of Tribal CSE Programs

Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Department of Health and Human Services.

Notes: The map shows the locations of the 61 tribal CSE programs (57 comprehensive and 4 start-up). Tribal CSE programs are labeled and shaded. Areas of tribes

without tribal CSE programs are outlined, but not labeled or shaded. Hawaii is not shown because it has no federally recognized Indian tribes. The Comanche Nation area

shown is the Kiowa-Comanche-Apache Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (OTSA) determined by the Census Bureau. Alaska areas shown are Alaska Native Regional

Corporation (ANRC) statistical areas determined by the Census Bureau.

CRS-7

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Tribal CSE Programs

Part of the mission of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) is to provide

direction, guidance, technical assistance, and oversight to state and tribal CSE program offices.

The Assistant Secretary for Children and Families is the official director of OCSE, but the deputy

director/commissioner manages daily operation of the OCSE. OCSE’s Division of Special Staffs

works with tribal CSE programs. In addition, there are federal CSE staff in each of the

Administration for Children and Families’ 10 regional offices who are assigned to work on tribal

matters. Regional office staff work directly with states and tribes on program implementation and

operations. Central and regional offices collaborate to assess state and tribal needs, and to provide

technical assistance, policy clarification, training, and support for CSE programs.19

Indian tribes and tribal organizations that choose to operate a tribal CSE program must run

programs that conform to the objectives of the state CSE program and are in compliance with the

tribal CSE program regulations. However, federal regulations provide some flexibility that allows

tribes and tribal organizations to develop and administer tribal CSE programs that are consistent

with the tribe’s law and tradition. Moreover, some CSE program documents indicate that tribes

and tribal organizations should review the regulatory requirements to determine if a CSE program

is appropriate for their tribe or tribal organization.20

Requirements for Operating a Tribal CSE Program

A tribal CSE plan must include the following components in order to be approved by HHS and

thereby receive federal funds for its operation:21 (1) a description of the population subject to the

jurisdiction of the tribal court or administrative agency for child support purposes, (2) evidence

that the tribe has in place procedures for accepting all applications for CSE services and

providing CSE services required by law and regulation, (3) assurance that due process rights are

protected, (4) administrative and management procedures, (5) safeguarding procedures, (6)

maintenance of records, (7) copies of applicable tribal laws and regulations, (8) procedures for the

location of noncustodial parents, (9) procedures for the establishment of paternity, (10) guidelines

for the establishment and modification of child support obligations, (11) procedures for income

withholding, (12) procedures for the distribution of child support collections, (13) procedures for

intergovernmental case processing, and (14) tribally determined performance targets.22

In addition, federal law and regulations permit tribes or tribal organizations that cannot satisfy all

of the 14 requirements but that can demonstrate their capacity to operate a CSE program to

request start-up funding.23 Such tribes or tribal organizations must submit a program development

Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Building a Tribal IV-D Program: A Guide to the Start-Up Application

Process,” Information Memorandum IM-05-06, June 22, 2005, p. 1.

Ibid, p. 4.

A tribe or tribal organization may submit a tribal CSE program application at any time. The HHS Secretary or his or

her designee must determine whether the application meets the specified requirements within 90 days of receipt. If the

HHS Secretary or designee needs additional information, the tribe will be notified to provide the needed material. The

HHS Secretary or the designee must approve or disapprove the application within 45 days of receipt of the additional

information. A tribe or tribal organization may re-apply at any time after it has resolved the matter that led to the

disapproval of its CSE program. (Source: Title 45 C.F.R. Sections 309.35 and 309.50, p. 317 and p. 319 (October 1,

2015 edition).)

Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, p. 16643. Also see 45 C.F.R. §309.65, p. 320 (October 1, 2015

edition).

45 C.F.R. §309.16, p. 316 (October 1, 2015 edition). (Note: In this context, the term “capacity” generally means

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

plan to HHS that indicates their ability to meet certain milestones, and meet the 14 required

components mentioned above within a certain time frame.

Jurisdictional Requirement Related to a Minimum Number of Children

There are 566 federally recognized tribal governments in the United States. According to Census

Bureau data, based on race, there were 2.9 million persons who classified themselves as solely

American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) in 2010, representing about 1% of the U.S.

population.24 The 2010 Census data indicate that 30% of AIAN persons are under the age of 18.25

Because the enrollment of federally recognized tribes varies widely (some tribes have fewer than

10 persons while others have over 200,000 persons)26 it is likely that many tribes will have fewer

than 100 children under age 18.

To obtain approval of its tribal CSE plan, a tribe or tribal organization must certify that there are

at least 100 children under the age of majority (as defined by tribal law or code) in the population

subject to the jurisdiction of the tribal court or administrative agency.27 This may include Indian

children who are not members of the applying tribe but who reside on the reservation. In addition,

children who are members of the tribe do not have to live on the tribe’s reservation in order for

the tribal court or administrative agency to have jurisdiction over such children. Moreover,

children of employees of the tribe and its tribal enterprises or privately owned tribal businesses on

the reservation who reside either on or off reservation may also be included, provided they are

subject to the jurisdiction of the tribal court or administrative agency.28

Administrative and Management Procedures and Recordkeeping

The tribal CSE plan must include a description of the tribal administering agency and the

distribution of responsibilities within the agency. The plan must include evidence that all federal

funds and amounts collected by the tribal CSE agency are protected against loss. Tribes and tribal

organizations may comply with this requirement by submitting documentation that every person

who receives, disburses, handles, or has access to or control over funds collected is covered by a

bond or insurance sufficient to cover all losses. The plan must include procedures under which

notices of child support collected, itemized by month of collection, are provided to families

receiving services under the tribal CSE program at least once a year and to either the custodial or

noncustodial parent upon request.29

If the tribal CSE agency intends to charge an application fee, the plan must contain provisions

that the fee will be uniformly applied and cannot exceed $25; that in intergovernmental cases

referred for services, the application fee may only be charged by the jurisdiction in which the

(...continued)

basic governmental and administrative capabilities, such as an effective accounting system and experience in

successfully managing service programs.)

U.S. Census Bureau, “The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010,” by Tina Norris, Paula L. Vines,

and Elizabeth M. Hoeffel, 2010 Census Briefs, C2010BR-10, January 2012, p. 4 and p. 17.

U.S. Census Bureau, The 2012 Statistical Abstract: The National Data Book, p. 16.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2005 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report,

Washington, DC, http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/idc-001719.pdf.

CSE law allows a tribe or tribal organization to receive a waiver from the 100-children rule if it can demonstrate to

the HHS Secretary that it can operate a CSE program with fewer than 100 children.

Office of Child Support Enforcement, Action Transmittal (OCSE-AT-05-07), May 12, 2005, p. 2 and p. 7.

45 C.F.R. §309.75, p. 320 (October 1, 2015 edition).

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

individual applies for services; that fees may not be charged to individuals receiving services

under Titles IV-A (TANF), IV-E (foster care assistance), or XIX (Medicaid) of the Social

Security Act; and that the tribal CSE agency may recover actual costs of providing services in

excess of the application fee. Child support application fees collected and costs recovered are

considered program income and must be used to reduce the amounts of expenditures for federal

matching. In other words, the tribal CSE agency must exclude from its quarterly expenditure

claims an amount equal to all fees collected and costs recovered during the quarter.30

The tribal CSE plan is required to provide that the tribal CSE agency will maintain records

necessary for proper and efficient operation of the program, including records regarding (1)

applications for child support services; (2) efforts to locate noncustodial parents; (3) actions taken

to establish paternity and obtain and enforce child support; (4) amounts of child support owed,

child support arrearages, and amounts and sources of child support collections, and the

distribution of such collections; (5) tribal CSE program expenditures; (6) any fees charged and

collected, if applicable; and (7) statistical, fiscal, and other records necessary for reporting and

accountability.31

Program Services Requirements

The tribal CSE agency is required by federal law to extend the full range of services available

under its tribal CSE plan to states and other tribal CSE programs, and also to respond to all

requests from, and to cooperate with, states and other tribal CSE programs.

Locating Absent Parents

The tribal CSE plan must include provisions governing the location of custodial and noncustodial

parents and their assets. The tribal CSE agency must attempt to locate custodial and noncustodial

parents or sources of income and/or assets when location is required to take necessary action in a

case, and must use all sources of information and records reasonably available to locate

custodial32 and noncustodial parents and their sources of income and/or assets.

Tribes have many options and resources for obtaining location information, such as friends and

relatives of the party being located; tribal employment records; tribal records; utilities; the United

States Postal Service; organizations such as labor unions or professional associations; federal,

state, local, or tribal tax departments; real estate records; law enforcement; credit bureaus; public

assistance and social services agencies; the Department of Natural Resources; and licensing

boards (e.g., motor vehicle, professional, recreation).33

Tribes and tribal organizations may also contact any other tribal, state, or federal agencies that

may have information, such as the Fish and Game Commission or the Conservation Agency.

Other locate options tribes and tribal organizations may select include directly accessing a state

system or requesting information from a state system. Pursuant to P.L. 113-183, the Preventing

Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act of 2014 (enacted September 29, 2014), tribes and

Ibid.

45 C.F.R. §309.85, p. 321 (October 1, 2015 edition).

The reference to custodial parents is included to ensure that locate sources are used to find custodial parents for

whom support has been collected and whom the tribe may be unable to find. (Source: Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61,

March 30, 2004, p. 16644.)

Office of Child Support Enforcement, “OCSE Training Courses for Tribal IV-D Programs—Locate Module,”

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/resources/tribal/training/.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

tribal organization are now considered “authorized persons” and thereby have direct access to the

Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS).34 The FPLS is an assembly of systems operated by the

Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to assist states in locating noncustodial parents,

putative fathers, and custodial parents for the establishment of paternity and child support

obligations, as well as the enforcement and modification of orders for child support, custody, and

visitation. The FPLS also assists federal and state agencies in identifying overpayments and

fraud, and assists with assessing benefits. Developed in cooperation with the states, employers,

federal agencies, and the judiciary, the FPLS was expanded by P.L. 104-193 (the 1996 welfare

reform law). According to an OCSE Tribal Dear Colleague Letter, tribes and tribal organizations

will be able to access the following FPLS data:



The National Directory of New Hires (NDNH): a central repository of

employment, unemployment insurance, and wage data from State Directories of

New Hires, State Workforce Agencies, and federal agencies.

The Federal Case Registry (FCR): a national database that contains information

on individuals in child support cases and child support orders. (Note: Tribal

programs are not required to send tribal case information to the FCR, but they

may benefit from having access to the information contained in the FCR.)

Tribes and tribal organizations now also have access to data from the following

federal agencies: Social Security Administration, Department of Defense, U.S.

Department of Veterans Affairs, and Federal Bureau of Investigation.35

Paternity Establishment

The tribal CSE agency must attempt to establish paternity by the process set out under tribal law,

code, and/or custom. It must also provide the alleged father an opportunity to voluntarily

acknowledge paternity. In a contested paternity case, the child, the mother, and the alleged father

or fathers (more than one man may be alleged as the father) must submit to a genetic test (unless

otherwise barred by tribal law) upon the request of any party if the request is supported by a

sworn statement that (1) alleges paternity, and sets forth facts establishing a reasonable possibility

of the requisite sexual contact between parties; or (2) denies paternity, and sets forth facts

establishing a reasonable possibility of the nonexistence of sexual contact between the parties.

Federal regulations clarify that establishment of paternity under tribal CSE programs does not

infer tribal enrollment or membership.36

To meet tribal CSE plan requirements, tribal law must explicitly provide for genetic testing. Like

state CSE programs, a tribe may have a conclusive presumption of paternity when a child is born

to married parents or if a noncustodial parent has been validly served in a paternity proceeding

and failed to contest paternity in such proceeding. Also, some tribal CSE programs may recognize

a man who holds himself out to be the father as the father, and in effect deem the man to be the

father and thereby may preclude that man from challenging paternity. Federal regulations allow

the tribal CSE program to prohibit genetic testing in cases such as those mentioned above in

Before the enactment of P.L. 113-183, tribes and tribal organizations were not authorized to request Federal Parent

Locator Service information, but a resident parent, legal guardian, agent, or attorney of a child could request locate

information through the state CSE agency if location assistance was needed for child support purposes. (This option is

still available to such persons or entities.)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support

Enforcement, Tribal Dear Colleague Letter, “Tribal Access to the FPLS,” TDCL-16-01, February 22, 2016.

Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, p. 16644.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

which the tribe had already determined or stipulated paternity. In such cases, because paternity

had already been determined, genetic testing would thereby be barred by tribal law.37 Federal

regulations also stipulate that the tribal CSE agency is not required to establish paternity in any

case involving incest or rape, or in a case in which legal proceedings for adoption are pending.38

When genetic testing is used to establish paternity, the tribal CSE agency must identify and use

accredited laboratories, which perform at reasonable cost legally and medically acceptable

genetic tests that seek to identify the father or exclude the alleged father.39

Child Support Order Establishment and Modification

The tribal CSE plan must establish one set of child support guidelines by law or by judicial action

for setting and modifying child support obligation amounts; include a copy of the child support

guidelines; and indicate whether noncash payments of support will be permitted to satisfy the

child support obligation. However, pursuant to federal regulations, noncash payments may not be

used to satisfy assigned support obligations (i.e., child support obligations for children receiving

TANF cash benefits).40

Federal regulations define “noncash support” as “support provided to a family in the nature of

goods and/or services, rather than in cash, but which, nonetheless, has a certain and specific

dollar value.”41 The noncash support must directly contribute to the needs of a child, such as

“making repairs to automobiles or a home, the clearing or upkeep of property, providing a means

for travel, or providing needed resources for a child’s participation in tribal customs and

practices.”42 A tribal support order allowing noncash payments must state the specific dollar

amount of the support obligation.

The tribal CSE plan must provide for the application of the guidelines unless there is a written

finding or a specific finding on the record of the tribunal that the application of the guidelines

would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case. The guidelines must take into account the

needs of the child and the earnings and income of the noncustodial parent and be based on

specific descriptive and numeric criteria.43

The child support guidelines must be reviewed, and if appropriate revised/modified, at least every

four years and must provide a rebuttable presumption that the child support award is the correct

amount based on the guidelines.44

Ibid, p. 16658.

45 C.F.R. §309.100, p. 322 (October 1, 2015 edition).

Probability of exclusion testing can exclude 95%-99% of falsely accused men. In other words, the test generally is

able to determine that a man is “not” the father of a given child. Thus, there is a very high probability the test will

exonerate a falsely accused man. The exclusion probability has nothing to do with the likelihood that a non-excluded

man may be the father. Probability of paternity testing examines the similarities between the alleged father’s blood and

the child’s and a calculation is made regarding the statistical likelihood of paternity based on the chance of such

similarities occurring in a random male in the general population. Probability of paternity testing generally can

determine with almost 100% probability that a man is the father of a given child.

45 C.F.R. §309.105, p. 323 (October 1, 2015 edition).

45 C.F.R. §309.05, p. 314 (October 1, 2015 edition).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal and State Jurisdiction

to Establish and Enforce Child Support,” March 12, 2007, p. 59, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2007/

im-07-03.htm.

45 C.F.R. §309.105, p. 323 (October 1, 2015 edition).

Ibid.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

The tribe or tribal organization must also provide assurances that it will recognize child support

orders issued by other tribes and tribal organizations, and by states, in accordance with the

requirements under 28 U.S.C. 1738B, the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act.45

Tribal child support orders are established through use of tribal courts, Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Courts,46 state courts, administrative processes, mediators prior to going to

court, and agreement orders. Most tribes use petitions to establish child support orders. Means of

serving process include tribal process servers, tribal police, tribal security officers, private process

servers, sheriffs, voluntary service via sending a letter to the individual, court bailiffs, and

subpoena or summons.47

Jurisdictional issues affect how cases are established. Some tribes exert jurisdiction over tribal

members, no matter where they are in the country, based on enrollment factors. Other tribes assert

that they have concurrent jurisdiction in paternity cases when the child was born off the

reservation but to an enrolled tribal member.48 Jurisdictional claims between tribes and states are

sometimes very contentious and it can be hard for either entity to give up jurisdiction.49

Medical Child Support

There is no current requirement that tribal support orders include medical support.50 However,

there is no prohibition for a tribal support order to do so. Tribes are encouraged to make sure that

children have access to medical care through the Indian Health Service (IHS) or otherwise.51 The

IHS is an agency of the United States Public Health Service, within HHS. It does not provide

health insurance coverage. But, it is responsible for providing federal health services to the

American Indians and Alaska Natives who belong to the 566 federally recognized tribes.52

Enforcement/Income Withholding

Tribal CSE agencies are responsible for enforcing child support orders. However, tribes are only

mandated to use the income withholding enforcement method. Any other enforcement actions

Ibid.

Courts of Indian Offenses are courts operated by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, on

certain reservations. Those courts operate under federal regulations contained in Volume 25 of the Code of Federal

Regulations and thus are often referred to as “CFR” courts.

Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal Child Support Enforcement Systems Workgroup, Session III Joint

Application Development Final Report,” October 2005, p. 15.

Ibid.

Pursuant to federal regulations, tribes are required to provide in their Tribal CSE Plan a description of the population

subject to the jurisdiction of the tribe for child support purposes (45 C.F.R. §309.65(a)(1) and 45 C.F.R. §309.70 ).

Federal law mandates that states have procedures under which all child support orders are required to include a

provision for medical support for the dependent child to be provided by either or both parents. Medical support is the

legal provision of payment of medical, dental, prescription, and other health care expenses for dependent children. It

can include provisions for health care coverage, such as coverage under a health insurance plan (including payment of

premium costs, co-payments, and deductibles) as well as cash payments for a dependent child’s medical expenses.

Pursuant to changes mandated by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), if appropriate health insurance is

available to either parent, states are required to establish an order requiring that the children be placed on such coverage

with appropriate cost sharing. Moreover, states now are able to enforce such orders against both custodial and

noncustodial parents.

Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, p. 16660.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal and State Jurisdiction

to Establish and Enforce Child Support,” March 12, 2007, p. 89, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2007/

im-07-03.htm.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

they take are solely at the tribe’s discretion and are based on tribal policies, procedures,

ordinances, and codes. Some of these enforcement remedies include several procedures that must

be done collaboratively with states, such as federal income tax refund intercepts, bank levies,

liens against non-reservation property, state hunting and fishing license suspensions, state fishing

taxes, and passport denials.

Some examples of innovative methods that tribes and tribal organizations use to encourage timely

and consistent payment of child support include the following: (1) some non-paying noncustodial

parents are required to explain to an Elders’ Panel why they are not supporting their children; (2)

some tribes allow per capita payments53 to be intercepted to meet child support obligations; (3)

tribes with casinos may be able to withhold past-due child support (i.e., child support arrearages)

from the winnings of tribal members; (4) reservation fishing taxes; (5) reservation hunting and

fishing license suspension; (6) gaming license suspension; and (7) in cases where a noncustodial

parent has been unable to find a job and make child support payments, a tribe can request that the

court or administrative agency mandate a course of action to improve the noncustodial parent’s

employability (e.g., attending classes to obtain a certificate of general educational development or

high school equivalent, undergoing alcohol or drug abuse treatment, undertaking a work search,

attending trade classes).54

As noted above, with respect to child support enforcement/collection activities, tribes are only

required to use the income withholding enforcement method. The income withholding

requirements are similar to those requirements governing states’ CSE programs, except that

income is subject to withholding once the noncustodial parent has failed to make a payment equal

to the support payable for one month.55 Income withholding is not to be required in any case

where either the custodial or noncustodial parent demonstrates, and the tribunal enters a finding,

that there is good cause not to require income withholding; or where a signed written agreement

is reached between the custodial and noncustodial parent that provides for an alternate agreement.

The tribal CSE agency must allocate amounts withheld across multiple withholding orders, and in

no case shall the allocation result in a withholding for one of the orders not being implemented.

The tribal CSE agency is responsible for receiving and processing income withholding orders

from states or other tribes and ensuring orders are promptly served on employers.56

Distribution of Child Support

CSE regulations stipulate that tribes have the option to condition eligibility for Tribal TANF

assistance on assignment of child support.57 A tribal CSE plan must outline procedures for

distribution of child support collections. As a general rule, the tribal CSE agency must, in a timely

“Per capita payments,” in this context, are payments by a tribe to its individual members (e.g., from tribal trust

property, gaming, or Indian claims awards). Such payments may also include Indian claims awards by the United States

paid directly to individual members.

Office of Child Support Enforcement, “OCSE Training Courses for Tribal IV-D Programs—Enforcement Module,”

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/resources/tribal/training/.

Delinquency-based income withholding was made obsolete for state CSE programs when P.L. 100-485 (the Family

Support Act of 1988) established immediate income withholding. The Family Support Act of 1988 greatly expanded

income withholding by requiring immediate withholding to begin in November 1990 for all new or modified orders

being enforced by states. Equally important, states were required, with some exceptions, to implement immediate wage

withholding in all support orders initially issued on or after January 1, 1994, regardless of whether a parent has applied

for child support services.

Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, p. 16645.

45 C.F.R. §286.155, p. 200 (October 1, 2015 edition).

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

manner, apply collections to satisfy current support obligations first, and pay all child support

collections to the family unless the family is currently receiving or has formerly received

assistance from the tribal TANF program and the state has opted to condition eligibility for tribal

TANF assistance on assignment of child support rights,58 or the tribal CSE agency has received a

request for assistance in collecting support on behalf of the family from a state or another tribal

CSE agency. Such requests for assistance may be to collect child support assigned to the state or

tribe as a condition of receiving TANF assistance or to provide CSE services on behalf of a

family residing in or receiving services from the referring state or tribe. When support is owed to

both states and tribes, the tribal CSE agency may either send collections to the requesting state or

tribe for distribution or determine appropriate distribution by contacting the requesting state or

tribe and distribute collections accordingly. Federal regulations with regard to tribal CSE

programs stipulate that any child support collections obtained through the Federal Income Tax

Refund Offset program must be applied to satisfy child support arrearages.59

State and Tribal Cooperation and Coordination

Federal regulations require states to extend the full range of services available under their CSE

plans to all tribal CSE programs.60 Prior to the 1996 law, although state CSE agencies had the

resources to obtain child support on behalf of Native American children, they usually lacked

jurisdiction over tribal members. In contrast, tribal courts often did not have the resources to

obtain child support on behalf of tribal members. Federal law now addresses the issue of

nonpayment of child support, in part, by authorizing states and tribes to enter into cooperative

agreements to facilitate obtaining child support for Native American children.

Realistically, in order to better serve Indian children, tribes must utilize the existing infrastructure

of state CSE programs.61 Federal regulations authorize tribal CSE programs to enter into

cooperative arrangements with states. Pursuant to the regulations, a tribe may delegate functions

of the tribal CSE program to another tribe, a state, or another agency or entity pursuant to a

cooperative arrangement, contract, or tribal resolution, but the tribal CSE agency retains ultimate

responsibility for meeting the CSE plan requirements.62 Moreover, tribes may enter into

agreements with any entity, including contracts with a private vendor, to carry out the functions

required in the tribal CSE plan. Federal regulations make clear that tribes, not states, are to be

held accountable for the proper operation of tribal CSE programs, including all actions

undertaken on behalf of such programs. In other words, if the tribe or tribal organization

delegates any of the functions of operating a CSE program to another tribe, state, or any other

agency, the tribe is still responsible for compliance with the approved tribal CSE plan.63

Tribal cooperative agreements with state CSE agencies were part of the 1996 welfare reform law.

Cooperative agreements under Section 454(33) of the Social Security Act are between a state

CSE program and a tribe. The tribe performs agreed-upon activities and the state CSE program

reimburses the tribe for these activities. These cooperative agreements are under a state CSE

Ibid.

45 C.F.R. §309.115, p. 324 (October 1, 2015 edition).

45 C.F.R. §302.36(a)(2), p. 235 (October 1, 2015 edition).

State CSE infrastructure includes the Federal and State Parent Locator Service, the National Directory of New Hires,

state centralized units for the collection and distribution of child support payments (i.e., State Disbursement Units), and

the array of state collection/enforcement methods.

45 C.F.R. §309.60(c), p. 319 (October 1, 2015 edition).

Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, p. 16651.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

program and tribes must follow the state CSE program requirements within the scope of

cooperative agreement responsibilities. The state is ultimately responsible for the operation of its

CSE program and ensuring all requirements are met. However, if a tribal CSE program enters into

a cooperative agreement with a state under Section 455(f) of the Social Security Act, for the state

to perform a service for the tribe, the state must meet tribal CSE requirements applicable to the

actions taken pursuant to the cooperative agreement. Under this type of cooperative agreement,

the tribe is ultimately responsible for the operation of its CSE program and for ensuring that all

tribal CSE program requirements are met.64

In addition to the formal cooperative agreements, some commentators contend that the best

interests of Native American children could be better served if states would incorporate the

following procedures into their interactions with tribes and tribal organizations: (1) to determine

if someone is enrolled in a tribe, ask the person for his or her Certificate of Degree of Indian

Blood (CDIB) card or verification of Tribal Membership card; (2) remember that each tribe is

different, with its own laws; (3) find out what procedure(s) are required to register a state support

order for enforcement with the tribe; (4) coordinate service of process in Indian country with the

tribe (e.g., when personal service is required, tribal authorities are often the most appropriate

individuals for serving state process on a reservation); (5) rely on state and tribal court clerks for

information regarding pleadings, required forms, and filing deadlines and procedures; and (6)

ascertain tribal court practices and procedures (e.g., an attorney’s authority/admission to practice

law in a state court does not automatically mean that the attorney is admitted to practice in a tribal

court in that state).65 Also, child support administrators generally agree that cooperation between

tribes and states is enhanced when common goals can be identified and articulated and an open

dialogue is maintained between the tribes and state CSE staff.66

Automated Systems

With respect to the CSE program operated by states, there is widespread agreement that the

achievement of CSE program goals depends in large part on the effective planning, design, and

operation of automated systems. Automating CSE information systems generally improves

caseworker productivity by allowing automatic searches of a variety of databases and eliminating

the need for voluminous paper documentation. Automated CSE systems also help track court

actions relating to paternity and support orders and amounts of collections and distributions.

With respect to tribal CSE programs, many commentators and interested parties contend that

automation is necessary for tribes and tribal organizations to accurately and efficiently process

child support collections. These commentators argue that the costs for development of automated

programs should be allowable expenditures for tribal CSE programs (i.e., tribal expenditures for

development of data systems should be eligible to receive federal matching funds).67

Office of Child Support Enforcement, Action Transmittal (OCSE-AT-05-07), May 12, 2005.

See State/Tribal Child Support Partnerships In Washington State, http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/esa/dcs/tribal/

TribalPartnerships.pdf. See also U.S. Department of Justice, Tribal Judicial Institute, “Walking on Common Ground:

Tribal-State-Federal Justice System Relationships,” December 2008.

See http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/esa/dcs/tribal/GuidingPrinciplesCoop.pdf. Also see National Tribal Child Support

Association, “Tribal Child Support Program: Information and Resource Guide,” by Gloria Howard (Puyallup Tribal

Child Support Program) and Tami J. Lorbecke (Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Office of Child Support Services),

updated May 2009.

Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 113, Computerized Tribal IV-D Systems and Office Automation—Notice of Proposed

Rule Making, June 11, 2008, p. 33049.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Before the final regulations (released February 25, 2010) on tribal CSE automated systems,

development of automated data processing systems was not an allowable activity or expenditure

for comprehensive tribal CSE programs. They were generally only permitted to receive federal

funding for costs associated with the establishment of intergovernmental agreements with states

and tribes for the use of an existing automated data processing computer system necessary to

support tribal CSE program operations.68 In contrast, the recently released final regulations

regarding computerized tribal CSE systems expand allowable activities and costs incurred by

comprehensive tribal CSE programs with regard to automated data processing computer systems

to include the installation, operation, maintenance, and enhancement of a model tribal system that

is described in the regulations.69 Comprehensive tribal CSE programs that are operating within

the first three-year period of federal funding are reimbursed for 90% of the cost of their

automated systems expenditures. Comprehensive tribal CSE programs operating after the initial

three-year period are reimbursed for 80% of their automated systems expenditures.

Automated systems have, to a certain extent, reduced barriers that were often faced by some

tribes who were geographically isolated from access to certain state or county CSE services.

Concomitantly, an administrative structure that depends primarily on automation might be at odds

with the types of flexible, face-to-face assistance that are often successful on Indian reservations.

Funding

Federal funding is based on the tribal CSE application, which includes the proposed budget and a

description of the nature and scope of the tribal CSE program and gives assurance that the

program will be administered in conformity with applicable requirements of the CSE program

(Title IV-D of the Social Security Act), federal regulations, and other official issuances of HHS

that specifically apply to tribes and tribal organizations.

A tribe or tribal organization may apply for federal funding in one of two ways. A tribe or tribal

organization may apply to operate a CSE program that meets all of the 14 mandated requirements

(as specified in federal regulations) for a tribal CSE program. 70 If the tribe or tribal organization

can apply on this basis, it is considered a comprehensive tribal CSE program if it is approved by

the HHS Secretary. If a tribe or tribal organization does not currently meet the regulatory

requirements, it may apply for start-up funding. A tribe or tribal organization that applies on this

basis (and has such a plan approved) is considered to be operating a tribal CSE start-up

program.71

Unlike state CSE programs that are funded by both state and matching federal dollars, tribal CSE

programs that are designated as start-up programs can be funded solely by federal dollars. Tribal

CSE programs that are considered fully operational (i.e., comprehensive programs) are funded at

90% of total program expenditures for the first three years of the program, and at 80%

Before the final regulations (February 25, 2010), tribal CSE programs generally managed and tracked their child

support cases manually or contracted with the state to use their automated CSE system (45 C.F.R. §309.145(h)).

Federal Register, vol. 75, no. 37, February 25, 2010, p. 8508.

According to OCSE officials, although nine tribes began operating CSE programs after the 1996 legislation (P.L.

104-193) and before the final regulations on tribal CSE programs were published, those nine tribes had to reapply for

direct CSE funding once the final regulations were issued.

Office of Child Support Enforcement, Information Memorandum (IM-05-06), “Building a Tribal IV-D Program: A

Guide to the Start-Up Application Process,” June 22, 2005, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2005/im-0506.htm.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

thereafter.72 The non-federal share of CSE program expenditures may be in cash and/or in-kind,

fairly valued, by the tribe or tribal organization and/or by a third party. Both state and

comprehensive tribal CSE programs are considered entitlement programs and they both receive

mandatory funding on an open-ended basis (meaning that they receive federal matching funding

for all reasonable, necessary, and allocable expenditures on the CSE program).

Federal funds are available for the costs associated with operating a tribal CSE program that has

been approved by the HHS Secretary, provided that the Secretary determines that such costs are

reasonable, necessary, and allocable to the tribal CSE program.73 Federal regulations provide a

list of the kinds of activities and costs that can receive federal reimbursement. Federal regulations

also stipulate that tribal CSE program funds may not be used for (1) activities related to

administering other programs, including those under the Social Security Act; (2) construction and

major renovations; (3) any expenditures that have been reimbursed by fees or costs collected,

including any fee collected from a state; (4) expenditures for jailing of parents in tribal CSE

cases; (5) the cost of legal counsel for indigent defendants in tribal CSE program actions; (6) the

cost of guardians ad litem in tribal CSE cases; and (7) all other costs that are not reasonable,

necessary, and allocable to tribal CSE programs.74

Start-Up Programs

As mentioned earlier, federal law and regulations permit tribes or tribal organizations that cannot

satisfy all of the 14 mandatory provisions but that can demonstrate their ability to operate a CSE

program to request start-up funding. Start-up funding is for tribes to develop a CSE program that

will allow them to meet all the regulation requirements of a comprehensive child support

program. Allowable start-up costs and activities include planning for the initial development and

implementation of a program; developing tribal CSE laws, codes, guidelines, systems, and

procedures; recruiting, hiring, and training tribal CSE program staff; and any other reasonable

costs.75

During the period of start-up funding, a tribe or tribal organization will receive federal funds

equal to 100% (subject to a capped amount) of the approved and allowable CSE expenditures

made during that period.76 Tribes and tribal organizations that receive start-up funding do not

have to put up non-federal matching funds for their CSE programs. Federal funds are available

Federal funding of tribal CSE programs differs significantly from state CSE programs. The federal government

reimburses each state for 66% of the cost of operating its CSE program. In addition, the federal government pays states

an incentive payment to encourage them to operate effective programs. For additional information on the financing of

state CSE programs, see CRS Report RL33422, Analysis of Federal-State Financing of the Child Support Enforcement

Program, by (name redacted )

After enactment of the 1996 legislation that provided direct funding for tribes and before the final regulations on

tribal CSE programs were issued in 2004, OCSE gave tribes Special Improvement Project (SIP) grants to operate their

tribal CSE programs. The purpose of the SIP grant program is to provide funding for projects that further the national

child support mission and goals and to help improve program performance. SIP’s legislative authority is Section 452(j)

of the Social Security Act, and it provides federal funds for research and demonstration programs and special projects

of regional or national significance relating to the operation of state child support enforcement programs. No applicant

match is required. Eligible applicants include state and local public agencies, nonprofit agencies (including faith-based

organizations), and tribal organizations.

45 C.F.R. §309.155, p. 331 (October 1, 2015 edition).

Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, p. 16647.

Pursuant to federal regulations (45 C.F.R. §309.16), tribal CSE start-up programs must have the capability to meet all

14 components of a comprehensive tribal CSE program within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed two years. In

other words, a tribal CSE start-up program can potentially receive 100% federal matching for up to two years.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

for the costs of developing a tribal CSE program that meets federal requirements, provided that

such costs are reasonable, necessary, and can be allocated to the program.77 For start-up tribal

CSE programs, 100% federal funding is limited to $500,000, and there is no tribal match

required.78 Start-up funding must be obligated and liquidated within two years of the date in

which the start-up application was approved.

Comprehensive Programs

Tribes or tribal organizations that can meet all of the 14 mandatory provisions (such programs are

considered comprehensive or fully operating programs) receive 90% federal funding during the

first three years of full program operation. The tribe or tribal organization must provide a 10%

tribal match in order to receive the federal funding.79

After the initial three-year period of operating a comprehensive tribal CSE program, the tribe or

tribal organization will receive 80% federal funding each year thereafter for their tribal CSE

program if the tribe continues to meet federal requirements. The tribe or tribal organizations must

provide a 20% tribal match in order to receive the federal funding.80

Financing Mechanics

In order to receive federal funding, a tribal CSE agency must submit the following budgetary

information: a quarter-by-quarter estimate of CSE expenditures for the fiscal year; notification of

whether the tribe or tribal organization is requesting funds for indirect costs; a narrative

justification for each of the required elements of the program (that are listed on the application

form—start-up program may not include all of the 14 mandatory components); and either a

statement certifying that the tribe or tribal organization has or will have the non-federal share of

program expenditures available, as required, or a request for a waiver of the non-federal share.81

Unlike the state CSE program, which is funded on a prospective quarterly basis, tribal CSE

programs that qualify for funding of less than $1 million per 12-month period receive a single

annual award of the total amount. However, tribal CSE programs with funding of $1 million or

more per 12-month period will receive quarterly awards similar to state CSE programs. OCSE

documents indicate that the funding for tribal CSE activities is completely separate from funding

for state CSE programs. A tribe’s decision to run its own CSE program does not impact a state’s

CSE program funds. This means that tribal CSE funding is not apportioned from a state’s CSE

funding. However, funds for the tribal CSE programs come from the same appropriation as the

state CSE program.82

Tribal CSE funds may not be used for activities related to administering other programs, including those under the

Social Security Act; construction or major renovations; expenditures that have been reimbursed by fees collected,

including any fee collected from a state; jailing of parents in tribal CSE cases; the cost of legal counsel for defendants

in tribal CSE actions; or any other costs that are not reasonable, necessary, and allocable to the tribal CSE program.

Federal funding for tribal CSE program development generally may not exceed a total of $500,000 except in very

unusual or extraordinary circumstances. According to federal regulations (45 C.F.R. §309.16), “in extraordinary

circumstances, the Secretary will consider a request to extend the period of time during which start-up funding will be

available and/or to increase the amount of start-up funding provided.”

45 C.F.R. §309.130, p. 325 (October 1, 2015 edition).

Ibid.

45 C.F.R. §309.15, p. 315 (October 1, 2015 edition).

Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61, March 30, 2004, p. 16667.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Data

This section presents data on the number of Native Americans living in the United States, tribal

population estimates, the percentage of Native American women who had children outside of

marriage, living arrangements of Native American children, and the percentage of Native

Americans with child support orders. It also provides statistical information on tribal CSE

programs.

Data Problems

Although the data are useful in developing an understanding of tribal CSE programs, there are

several problems associated with the data. First, population data for federally recognized Indian

tribes are elusive. No federal entity performs a census of members of federally recognized tribes

such as the Census Bureau does for the U.S. population, so there are no detailed demographic or

socioeconomic data on tribal members alone. All Census Bureau data on American Indians and

Alaska Natives (AIAN) are based on race, not tribal membership. The Census Bureau’s decennial

census and other surveys ask respondents to identify themselves by race, not by confirmed

membership in a federally recognized tribe.83 Not all persons self-identifying as AIAN are

members of federally recognized tribes, and it may be that not all tribal members identify

themselves as AIAN on the Census form. The decennial census does collect information by

Indian reservation or other Census-developed statistical area, for almost all federally recognized

tribes, so it can report AIAN race data (even if it cannot report membership) for a tribe’s

reservation or other statistical area. These reservation-specific AIAN decennial data may serve as

proxies for actual tribal data. However, Census Bureau data collected through non-decennial

sample surveys, such as the American Community Survey (ACS) or the Current Population

Survey (CPS), cannot yet be used for the great majority of Indian areas because the Indian areas’

populations are too small.84

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) publishes biennial estimates of its own service population—

defined as AIAN living on or near a reservation and eligible for BIA services—based on figures

received from federally recognized tribes. The BIA asks tribes to survey and provide estimates on

their members, but does not require a tribe to carry out a census to prepare these figures.85 The

BIA report also lists tribal enrollment totals, as reported by the tribes, but the BIA does not

conduct censuses to confirm these figures. The report does not provide tribal enrollees’

geographic, demographic, or socioeconomic data, so it cannot show where enrollees are living or

their age or other characteristics. (See Table C-1 in Appendix C for population figures from

differing Census and BIA sources for CSE tribes and the nation.)

Another problem is that the tribal CSE program data include missing data related to

implementation issues. It is also important to note that this report does not try to analyze the

impact of factors such as size of tribe, wealth or poverty status of tribe, source of resources,

In the race question, the Census Bureau allows respondents to identify their tribe—still self-identification—but does

not confirm a respondent’s enrollment (or eligibility to be enrolled) in the tribe named. Hence, Census data on selfreported tribes cannot be assumed to correspond to data on federally recognized tribes.

For ACS, see U.S. Census Bureau, “2008 American Community Survey: Overview of Census Geographic Areas in

the United States and Puerto Rico,” Table 1a, p. 2, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/

2008_geography_notes.pdf. For CPS, see U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey Design and Methodology,

Technical Paper 66, October 2006, pp. 21-22, http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/tp-66.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2005 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report

Washington, DC, pp. v-viii, http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/idc-001719.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

employment opportunities, or administrative structures (courts, administering agencies, etc.) on

the effectiveness of tribal CSE programs.

Demographic Information86

In 2010, the Census Bureau estimated that there were about 5.2 million persons who were AIAN,

either alone or in combination with other races. The number of these individuals who reported

AIAN as their only race amounted to 2.9 million persons, or about 0.9% of the U.S. population, in

2010.87 In 2010, 30% of persons classified as AIAN alone were under age 18.88 As the discussion

above indicated, these AIAN population figures are based on race, not on tribal membership; see

Appendix C for other figures for the tribal population, for both the nation and each CSE tribe.

In 2010, about 66% of AIAN babies were born to unmarried mothers, compared with 17% of

Asian or Pacific Islander babies, 29% of white babies, 53% of Hispanic babies, and almost 73%

of black babies.89

In 2010, 52% of AIAN children were living in single-parent families, compared with 16% of

Asian or Pacific Islander children, 24% of white children, 41% of Hispanic children, and 66% of

black children.90

A special OCSE study that examined the

Child Support Awards Among Custodial

CSE program with respect to minority

Mothers, by Race and Ethnicity

families by analyzing pooled Census

(Pooled Data)

Bureau data from 1994 through 2002 found

that, among custodial mothers, 51% of

Percent Who

AIAN mothers had child support orders,

Percent with

Actually

Child Support

Received Some

compared with 66% of white mothers, 46%

Orders

Child Support

of Asian mothers, 43% of black mothers,

and 42% of Hispanic mothers. Although

White

66%

78%

AIAN mothers fared better than other

minority mothers in terms of having child

Black

43%

62%

support orders, the rate at which

Asian

46%

68%

noncustodial parents complied with those

orders was lower for AIAN mothers than

AIAN

51%

67%

for many of their minority counterparts.

For AIAN mothers who had a child support

Hispanic

42%

70%

order, 67% received some child support,

compared with 78% of white mothers, 70%

of Hispanic mothers, 68% of Asian mothers, and 62% of black mothers.91

Census Bureau data in this section are based on race.

U.S. Census Bureau, The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010, by Tina Norris, Paula L. Vines, and

Elizabeth M. Hoeffel, 2010 Census Briefs, C2010BR-10, January 2012, p. 4 and p. 17.

In 2010, 23% of whites were under age 18, as were 23% of Asians, 28% of African-Americans, 30% of Pacific

Islanders, and 34% of Hispanics. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, The 2012 Statistical Abstract: The National Data Book,

p. 16.)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Preliminary Data for

2010,” by Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, and Stephanie J. Ventura, National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 60, no.

2, November 2011, Table 1.

Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Data Center, Data for 2010, http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/

acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

CSE Tribal Information

Below are two tables that highlight some of the financial and statistical data on tribal CSE

programs (in the aggregate and individually) provided by tribes and tribal organizations to the

federal OCSE. It is probably unwise to draw conclusions from the data because the complexity of

individual tribal CSE programs is overly simplified by the summary statistics shown in the tables,

there are wide differences among program indicators in tribal CSE programs, and the tribal CSE

programs have been operating for only a relatively short time. Moreover, unlike state CSE

programs, tribal CSE programs do not have the benefit of federal auditors who assess the

completeness and reliability of tribe-reported data.92

The data in Table 2 and Table 3 are based on information from tribes and tribal organizations on

their tribal CSE programs. Just as the state CSE data do not include child support cases heard

within the legal or administrative systems of tribes or tribal organizations, tribal CSE program

information does not include data on cases that were not processed through the tribal CSE

program. This means that tribal CSE program data do not include state CSE data or information

on cases connected with the other 505 federally recognized tribal governments.

Table 2 presents a summary of tribal CSE program data for the seven-year period from FY2004

through FY2011 and for FY2014.93 The table only provides information on comprehensive tribal

CSE programs. During the years FY2001-FY2006, there were nine comprehensive tribal CSE

programs; in FY2007, there were 12 comprehensive tribal CSE programs; in FY2008, there were

25 comprehensive tribal CSE programs; in FY2009, there were 36 comprehensive tribal CSE

programs; in FY2010, there were 38 comprehensive tribal CSE programs; in FY2011, there were

41 comprehensive tribal CSE programs; in FY2012, there were 45 comprehensive tribal CSE

programs; in FY2013, there were 51 comprehensive tribal CSE programs; and in FY2014, there

were 57 comprehensive tribal CSE programs (see Table B-1). Child support payments collected

by tribes or tribal organizations increased from $14.5 million in FY2004 to $47.3 million in

FY2014 (an increase of 196% between FY2004 and FY2014). The number of children whose

paternity was established (or acknowledged) via the tribal CSE program increased by 150%, from

13,746 in FY2004 to 34,413 in FY2014.94 The number of child support orders/obligations

established increased by 246%, from 9,767 in FY2004 to 33,834 in FY2014. Tribal CSE program

expenditures also increased substantially, from $9.1 million in FY2004 to $41.7 million in

(...continued)

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Minority Families and Child

Support: Data Analysis,” December 2007, pp. 3-4, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/DCL/2007/dcl-0743a.pdf.

Pursuant to P.L. 105-200, states are accountable for providing reliable data on a timely basis or they receive no CSE

incentive payments. (In addition to the 66% federal matching rate for state expenditures on child support activities, the

federal government provides states with an incentive payment—based in part on five program performance measures—

to encourage them to operate effective CSE programs.) The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)

Office of Audit performs data reliability audits to evaluate the completeness, accuracy, security, and reliability of data

reported and produced by state reporting systems. The audits help ensure that incentives under the Child Support

Performance and Incentives Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-200) are earned and paid only on the basis of verifiable data and that

the incentive payments system is fair and equitable. If an audit determines that a state’s data are not complete and

reliable for a given performance measure, the state receives zero payments for that measure.

FY2004 represents the first year for which complete tribal CSE data are available and FY2014 represents the most

recent data available. For more information, see footnote 95.

Legally identifying child’s father is a prerequisite for obtaining a child support order. If there is no child support

order, there is no legal financial obligation.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

FY2014 (a 357% increase). However, during that same period, the tribal CSE program caseload

only increased 83%, from 27,750 cases in FY2004 to 50,892 cases in FY2014.95

Table 2 also shows that during the period FY2004-FY2014, the tribal CSE program increased the

amount it collected on current child support obligations by about 136%, from $12.9 million in

FY2004 to $30.4 million in FY2014. During that same period, the tribal CSE program

substantially increased the amount it collected on past-due child support obligations by 606%,

from $1.7 million to almost $12.3 million. Nonetheless, in FY2014, $268.5 million in child

support obligations was owed to families receiving tribal CSE services, but only $42.7 million

was paid.96 This means that in FY2014, the tribal CSE program only collected 16% of the child

support obligations for which it had responsibility.97 If current child support collections are

examined separately, Table 2 indicates that the tribal CSE program collected 48% of all current

obligations in FY2014.98 If collections on past-due child support obligations (i.e., arrearages) are

examined separately, Table 2 indicates that the tribal CSE program only collected 6% of child

support arrearage payments in FY2014. The tribal CSE program closely parallels the state CSE

program in its inability to collect a substantial portion of past-due child support obligations (i.e.,

child support arrearages).99 If child support is not paid in the month in which it is due it is

considered past-due child support. Thus, the past-due child support shown in the table for

FY2014 could be from FY2014 or any of the prior years. In other words, the past-due child

support shown for FY2014 could have accrued in any of the years shown in the table or even in

earlier years. This means that much of the child support arrearages that are currently part of the

tribal CSE program could have been transferred from a state CSE program to the tribal CSE

See the FY2007 OCSE Annual Report to Congress for summary Tribal CSE data for FY2004 through FY2007

(Table 89) and the FY2011 OCSE Annual Report to Congress for summary Tribal CSE data for FY2007 through

FY2011 (Table 102). The Office of Child Support Enforcement redesigned the FY2012 Annual Report to Congress,

since then summary tables that display program statistics for tribes and tribal organizations as a group are no longer

available. Instead, the statistical information for each individual tribe and tribal organization must be summed together.

The FY2014 data are from the OCSE FY2014 Annual Report to Congress (Tribal Performance). For FY2012 tribal

performance data, see OCSE FY2012 Annual Report to Congress (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/

fy2012-annual-report-to-congress). For FY2013 tribal performance data, see OCSE FY2013 Annual report to Congress

(http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/fy2013-annual-report-to-congress).

The $42.7 million figure is substantially larger than the $36.5 million mentioned earlier and shown in the first row of

Table 2 as distributed child support collections. These data come from two different sources (forms OCSE34A and

OCSE75), which have different reporting criteria instructions. Other reasons for the difference could include the

following factors: (1) child support forwarded to states is not included in the distributed tribal child support amount, (2)

voluntary child support payments that were not part of a legally established child support order are not included in the

distributed amount, and (3) interest payments and penalty payments on past-due child support (i.e., arrearages) are not

included in the distributed amount.

In FY2014, $63.5 million in current support and $205.0 million in past-due support was owed to families receiving

tribal CSE services, but only $30.4 million in current support and $12.3 million in past-due support was actually paid to

families.

In its first year of full implementation (FY2004), the tribal CSE program collected more current child support

obligations than were currently due. It collected $12.9 million in current child support obligations in FY2004 when

only $9.1 million in current child support obligations were actually owed. If these data are accurate, it would indicate

that noncustodial parents in the tribal CSE program paid 42% more than they were actually required to pay. CSE

administrators have suggested that there probably were some reporting errors in FY2004.

For state CSE programs, in FY2014, $148.6 billion in child support obligations ($33.8 billion in current support and

$114.8 billion in past-due support) was owed to families receiving CSE services, but only $29.3 billion was paid ($21.7

billion current, $7.6 billion past-due). In FY2014, the federal/ state CSE program collected only 20% of child support

obligations for which it had responsibility. If current child support collections are examined separately, the state CSE

programs collected about 64% of all current obligations in FY2014. If child support arrearages are examined

separately, the state CSE programs collected about 7% of child support arrearage payments in FY2014.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

program. Indeed, Table 2 shows that in FY2004 (the first year in which comprehensive data are

available) child support arrearages were already at nearly $50 million.

The last row of Table 2 shows a measure of CSE program effectiveness, obtained by dividing

total tribal CSE collections by total tribal CSE expenditures (costs). This measure is sometimes

referred to as the collections-to-costs ratio. The table shows that in FY2014, $0.87 was collected

from noncustodial parents for the financial support of their children for each dollar spent on tribal

CSE programs.100

100

With regard to state CSE programs, in FY2014, $4.96 was collected from noncustodial parents for the financial

support of their children for each dollar spent on state CSE programs.

Congressional Research Service

Table 2. Tribal CSE Program Financial and Statistical Data, FY2004-FY2011, and FY2014

Percentage

Change,

FY2004FY2014

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2014

Distributed Child

Support

Collectionsa

$12,327,444

$10,750,329

$12,885,776

$15,663,985

$19,873,555

$19,995,803

$29,225,754

$34,079,158

$36,484,842

196.0%

Collections

Forwarded to

States

$2,161,323

$1,823,836

$1,987,837

$2,169,604

$3,324,766

$5,575,833

$5,267,850

$5,913,502

$10,800,286

399.7%

Total Collections

$14,488,767

$12,574,165

$14,873,613

$17,833,589

$23,198,321

$25,571,636

$34,493,604

$39,992,660

$47,285,028

226.4%

Expenditures

$9,129,785

$9,427,218

$12,087,361

$13,478,997

$17,819,053

$26,172,089

$29,224,592

$30,886,548

$41,744,837

357.2%

Child Support

Caseload

27,750

24,650

25,898

27,184

29,350

36,217

39,578

43,084

50,892

83.4%

Child Support

Orders

9,767

8,162

9,128

12,567

14,414

17,714

22,567

26,729

34,413

246.4%

Paternity

Established or

Acknowledged

13,746

12,245

13,787

15,087

18,465

19,968

27,464

27,538

33,834

150.3%

Current Child

Support Due

$9,145,632

$19,227,881

$21,708,165

$24,288,673

$28,121,641

$37,864,240

$40,641,149

$45,972,563

$63,506,256

594.4%

Current Child

Support

Collected and

Distributedb

$12,892,936

$8,575,632

$9,664,579

$11,611,269

$16,144,883

$17,736267

$19,707,714

$27,501,826

$30,413,186

135.9%

Past-Due Child

Support Owed

$49,876,837

$122,987,564

$310,145,753

$138,658,867

$150,974,343

$193,133,808

$182,893,770

$203,213,508 $204,991,610

311.0%

CRS-25

Past-Due Child

Support

Collected and

Distributedb

Total Collections

Per Dollar of

Expenditures

Percentage

Change,

FY2004FY2014

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2014

$1,736,722

$4,833,116

$4,603,739

$6,321,819

$10,358,264

$8,032,237

$9,216,570

$9,136,525

$12,260,500

606.0%

$1.59

$1.33

$1.23

$1.32

$1.30

$0.98

$1.18

$1.29

$0.87

-45.3%

Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Department of Health and Human Services.

Notes: See the FY2007 OCSE Annual Report to Congress for summary Tribal CSE data for FY2004 through FY2007 (Table 89) and the FY2011OCSE Annual Report to

Congress for summary Tribal CSE data for FY2007 through FY2011 (Table 102). The Office of Child Support Enforcement redesigned the FY2012 Annual Report to

Congress, since then summary tables that display program statistics for tribes and tribal organizations as a group are no longer available. Instead, the statistical information

for each individual tribe and tribal organization must be summed together. The FY2014 data are from the OCSE FY2014 Annual Report to Congress (Tribal Performance).

Figures for “Collections Per Dollar of Expenditures” (i.e., the last row of the table) were obtained by dividing total collections (shown in the third row) by expenditures.

N.A.—not available.

a. This figure is smaller than the sum of the figures labeled “Current Child Support Collected and Distributed” and “ Past-Due Child Support Collected and Distributed”

primarily because the figures are taken from two different reporting forms that have different reporting criteria instructions. (This figure comes from form OCSE34A

and the other figures mentioned come from form OCSE75.)

b. Some of this amount may have been owed to the custodial parent when the state-based cases were transferred to the tribe.

CRS-26

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Figure 2 shows the amount of child support collected by the tribal CSE program for the period

FY2004-FY2011 and for FY2014. It also shows the amount of expenditures associated with the

tribal CSE program. As mentioned earlier, one measure of a program’s cost-effectiveness is often

portrayed as the relationship of benefits to costs. As shown in Table 2, in FY2004, the tribal CSE

program collected $1.59 for each dollar that it spent. The collections-to-expenditures rate

fluctuated throughout the 11-year period. In FY2014, it reached a low of $0.87. A reason for this

might be that tribal CSE programs that are just getting underway are included in the data

calculations. Another reason might be that the data may be inconsistent and/or unreliable across

tribes.

Figure 2.Tribal CSE Program: Collections and Expenditures,

FY2004-FY2011 and FY2014

$50,000,000

$45,000,000

$40,000,000

$35,000,000

$30,000,000

Total Collections

$25,000,000

Expenditures

$20,000,000

$15,000,000

$10,000,000

$5,000,000

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,

Department of Health and Human Services.

Note: The Office of Child Support Enforcement redesigned the FY2012 Annual Report to Congress, since then

summary tables that display program statistics for tribes and tribal organizations as a group are no longer

available. Instead, the statistical information for each individual tribe and tribal organization must be summed

together. Thus, data for FY2012 and FY2013 are not readily available and are not shown in this figure.

The data also show that expenditures per case in the tribal CSE program grew over the 11-year

period FY2004-FY2014. Expenditures per case increased by 149% during that period, from $329

in FY2004 to nearly $820 in FY2014 (see Table 3). Collections per case also increased during

the period, but not as much. Collections per case increased by 78%, from $522 in FY2004 to

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

$929 in FY2014.101 As mentioned earlier, tribal CSE cases increased by 83% over the FY2004FY2014 period.

Although the two measures, expenditures per case and collections per case (see Table 3), help

illuminate the tribal CSE program, they are only averages and do not accurately reflect what

individual families receive. As noted earlier, Census Bureau data pertaining to child support

receipt do disaggregate by race, but AIAN are included in the “other race” category. OCSE data

do not provide information on actual cases with collections for the tribal CSE program.

Nevertheless, it is known that about $226 million of child support owed to tribal members went

unpaid in FY2014, which is 84% of the amount of money that the tribes and tribal organizations

were supposed to collect on behalf of Native American children.

Table 3. Tribal CSE Program, Expenditures and Collections Per Case,

FY2004-FY2010, and FY2014

Collections/Caseload

Expenditures/Caseload

2004

$522.12

$329.00

2005

$510.11

$382.44

2006

$574.32

$466.73

2007

$656.03

$495.84

2008

$790.40

$607.12

2009

$690.99

$736.19

2010

$812.23

$806.64

2014

$929.12

$820.26

Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,

Department of Health and Human Services.

Table 4 and Table A-6 show that there were wide differences among the tribes in how much

child support was collected for each dollar spent on the tribal CSE program, ranging from 0

(zero) cents in the Blackfeet Nation tribe to $2.37 in the Forest County Potawatomi tribe.102

Table 4 presents tribal CSE program data by tribe (for the 57 comprehensive tribal CSE

programs) for FY2014. It shows tribal CSE collections (distributed), expenditures, and caseload

data. It also displays the number of paternities and child support orders established by the tribe or

tribal organization, and the collections-to-expenditures ratio for each tribe or tribal organization.

The table indicates that the Navajo Nation ranked highest in five of the six categories shown. The

Navajo Nation collected the most child support payments, had the highest child support

expenditures, had the largest child support caseload, and established the most paternities and

child support orders. The Navajo Nation was one of the first tribes to receive direct federal CSE

funding. It has had a comprehensive CSE program since FY2002. The Forest County Potawatomi

tribe had the best collections-to-expenditures ratio in FY2014, about two times higher than the

average ($0.87) for all tribes. The Forest County Potawatomi tribe has had a comprehensive CSE

101

The “expenditures per case” data were obtained by dividing the child support expenditures (displayed in Table 2) by

the child support caseload (also displayed in Table 2). The “collections per case” data were obtained by dividing the

total child support collections (displayed in the third row of Table 2) by the child support caseload.

102

As noted in Table 2, the average amount collected for each $1 spent for all of the tribes with CSE programs was

$0.87 in FY2014.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

program since FY2003 (one year after the Navajo Nation). See Tables A-1 through A-6 in

Appendix A for a ranking of the tribes and tribal organizations with respect to each of the six

program/performance indicators. The Navajo Nation is the largest Indian tribe in the United

States, with about 14% of the U.S. tribal enrollment. Although the Navajo Nation is not among

the wealthiest tribes per capita, it appears to have a very effective CSE administrative structure. In

contrast, the Forest County Potawatomi tribe is a much smaller tribe but appears to be relatively

wealthy103 and seems also to have an effective CSE administration. (See Table C-1 for enrollment

and population data on these tribes.)

Table 4. Tribal CSE Summary Data by Tribe, FY2014

Distributed

Collections Expenditures

Alabama-Coushatta

Caseload

Paternities

Established

Orders

Established

Collections/

Expendituresa

N.A.

196,510

N.A.

Aleutian/Pribilof

$3,403

$539,576

$0.01

Blackfeet Nation

1,500

554,567

408

169

0.00

Cherokee Nation

2,965,747

2,101,713

1,665

1,580

1.41

Chickasaw Nation

2,861,520

2,535,678

1,572

1,175

1,461

1.13

Chippewa Cree

(Rocky Boys Res.)

57,966

652,350

391

138

0.09

Coeur ‘D Alene

180,183

801,269

247

0.22

Comanche Nation

474,725

518,691

450

N.A.

0.92

Confederate Tribe

Of Colville

243,692

1,025,933

2,003

1,225

0.24

Eastern Band of

Cherokee

2,948,972

1,336,632

1,218

1,104

1,006

2.21

Eastern Shoshone

98,800

596,071

403

175

0.17

Forest County

Potawatomi

2,240,252

946,451

626

607

605

2.37

Fort Belknap

28,386

623,459

401

0.05

176,187

171

153

Ho-Chunk Nation

Kaw Nation

308,542

429,301

150

139

0.72

Keweenaw Bay

83,549

215,616

135

0.39

Kickapoo (Kansas)

106,700

375,031

194

167

0.28

Kickapoo

(Oklahoma)

81,762

414,556

113

0.20

Klamath

7,847

399,296

462

477

222

0.02

Lac Courte Oreilles

94,459

850,560

365

282

252

0.11

103

Indian gaming has greatly enhanced the economic development of the Forest County Potawatomi Community. The

Forest County Potawatomi government is now able to provide employment, for both tribal and non-tribal people in the

tribal offices, tribal businesses, and casinos, and is currently the largest employer in Forest County, WI (see

http://www.fcpotawatomi.com/index.php/Treaties/history-overview.html).

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Distributed

Collections Expenditures

Caseload

Paternities

Established

Orders

Established

Collections/

Expendituresa

Lac Du Flambeau

702,454

372,583

1,207

611

1,207

1.89

Leech Lake Band

104,338

282,034

619

879

609

0.37

Lummi Nation

398,789

1,115,150

587

439

0.36

Menominee

1,603,454

770,653

1,783

1,576

1,701

2.08

Mescalero Apache

304,794

531,675

518

379

0.57

Mille Lacs Band

542,240

496,189

1,600

1,524

1.09

Modoc

1,774,978

1,873,650

1,181

1,182

989

0.95

Muscogee Creek

Nation

1,416,094

2,132,179

1,339

981

1,079

0.66

Navajo Nation

8,864,498

3,965,043

14,984

16,253

6,949

2.24

Nez Perce

50,929

N.A.

349

336

N.A.

Nooksack

62,953

903,545

292

231

242

0.07

Northern Arapaho

214,797

971,098

2,148

1,265

0.22

Oneida Nation

2,168,647

1,345,215

2,872

1,838

2,528

1.61

Osage Nation

619,674

570,023

383

237

1.09

Penobscot Nation

41,939

671,161

N.A.

0.06

Ponca

123,557

542,221

107

116

0.23

Port Gamble

S’klallam

138,113

846,924

446

285

326

0.16

Prarie Band

Potawatomi Nation

298,249

361,363

197

149

0.83

Pueblo Of Zuni

257,128

176,578

1.46

Puyallup

97,241

1,238,899

1,022

362

634

0.08

Quinault Nation

207,587

593,726

884

879

0.35

Red Cliff Band of

Lake Superior

Chippewa

N.A.

Red Lake Band

218,677

89,759

1,039

937

770

0.56

Sac & Fox Tribe of

the Mississippi in

Iowa

N.A.

57,953

N.A.

Saint Regis Mohawk

400

N.A.

Salish and Kootenai

135,490

395,146

355

142

327

0.34

Sisseton Wahpeton

467,137

920,324

1,520

827

0.51

Standing Rock Sioux

83,031

631,828

102

0.13

Stockbridge-Munsee

302

N.A.

Suquamish

48,654

381,811

158

149

0.13

Three Affiliated

708,743

798,164

N.A.

0.89

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Distributed

Collections Expenditures

Caseload

Paternities

Established

Orders

Established

Collections/

Expendituresa

Tlingit and Haida

666,792

784,778

1,243

1,464

1,034

0.85

Tulalip

864,862

853,529

1,433

1,349

568

1.01

Umatilla

103,785

540,021

224

316

224

0.19

White Earth Nation

184,753

643,350

869

779

674

0.29

Winnebago

221,758

317,123

322

337

276

0.70

Yurok

N.A.

178,205

N.A.

Total

$36,484,842

$41,744,837

50,892

33,834

34,413

$0.87

Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement,

Department of Health and Human Services.

Notes: According to OCSE, data reporting by the tribes has been an issue for three reasons: (1) reporting

methods before 2006 were not clear, (2) in 2006, the reporting form changed again and what was required was

not clear; and (3) until one of the tribes developed an MS Access-based case management system, all data were

calculated manually (most tribes now use the Access system).

N.A.—not available. (For the most part, the tribes for which data are not available are tribes that began

operating “comprehensive” tribal CSE programs in FY2013 or FY2014.)

a. This column shows distributed tribal CSE collections divided by tribal CSE expenditures. The total differs

from Table 2 because it does not include tribal CSE collections that were forwarded to states.

It should be noted that during the formative years of any program, the meaning of program

indicators may not be clear-cut. For example, with respect to tribal CSE programs, a large

caseload may mean that the program is doing an excellent job of informing potential recipients of

the program, or it may mean that there are reasons external to the program that are contributing to

the high number of cases, such as high divorce rates, high rates of single-parent families, high

rates of nonmarital childbearing, or high rates of nonpayment of child support. Similarly, high

expenditures may mean that the program is providing a range of services to ensure child support

collections, or that it has increased program staff to facilitate outreach and program

administration, or that the families it is servicing require a lot of assistance (e.g., location

services, paternity establishment, order establishment). Thus, although the tables are provided to

shed some light on how individual tribal CSE programs are doing, it is probably unwise to draw

conclusions from the data or make broad generalizations about tribal CSE programs. The

effectiveness of tribal CSE programs may prove to be even more difficult to determine and

evaluate than state CSE programs.

Issues

Nearly eight years after tribes officially became part of the CSE program with the enactment of

the 1996 welfare reform law, final regulations104 were established to implement direct funding to

Indian tribes and tribal organizations for tribal CSE programs. The final regulations require that

all child support agencies accept applications for service from anyone and require that the tribal

CSE agency provides appropriate services. This includes taking all applications, opening a case

for each, determining what services are needed and may be provided by the tribal CSE agency,

and providing all of those services required by tribal CSE regulations. The tribe must provide, at a

104

The final rule pertaining to tribal CSE programs is found in Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 61,March 30, 2004. The

federal regulations are codified at 45 C.F.R. §309.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

minimum, basic assistance, such as location, preparation of documents for intergovernmental

processing, and case monitoring and distribution of collections forwarded from another

jurisdiction. There may be circumstances where the tribal agency’s only appropriate service will

be to request assistance from another tribal or state CSE program with the legal authority to take

actions on the case. In these and other such instances, states and tribes must work together to

ensure that families receive the child support that they deserve.105

Although tribes and tribal organizations can now operate CSE programs, many problems have yet

to be resolved. Even though there are rules related to whether a state or a tribe has jurisdiction

over certain cases, in some instances there is concurrent jurisdiction and in some instances the

complexity of the case blurs jurisdictional lines. Although federal regulations clarify that

establishment of paternity under tribal CSE programs does not infer tribal enrollment or

membership, paternity is inextricably linked to tribal membership. Many tribes view tribal

membership as a political and cultural issue and thereby do not want to rely on scientific

technology to confer tribal membership. A major difference between state CSE programs and

tribal CSE programs is that tribal CSE programs can authorize the use of noncash payments to

satisfy child support orders. Some observers are concerned that requiring the tribe to place a

dollar value on each type of noncash payment may prove to be administratively cumbersome and

costly. They argue that it is hard to predict and include a dollar amount for all of the kinds of

noncash payments that members of the tribe may want to use to satisfy their child support

obligations.

Some child advocates are concerned that children who receive tribal CSE services may be less

likely to receive the child support to which they are entitled than their counterparts who receive

state CSE services, because tribal CSE programs do not have access to the vast array of state

collection methods. Although nonpayment of child support is likely to be a perennial issue,

especially for low-income noncustodial parents, some observers assert that tribal CSE programs

that determine realistic and appropriate child support orders from the outset may improve the

long-term success of their programs. In addition, some observers are concerned that unequal

resources may result in children within a tribes’ jurisdiction not getting the child support they are

due, while others contend that the individualized approach used by tribes may counterbalance

reduced and/or inadequate resources. This section examines the issues mentioned above.

Jurisdictional Matters

Indian tribes within the boundaries of the United States are considered “domestic dependent

nations” under federal law, and tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction has been viewed by the federal

government as limited. In general, tribal sovereignty applies in matters that affect tribe members

who live on the tribe’s reservation. Census data indicate that about 67% of AIAN, as defined by

race, live outside reservations and other Census-defined Indian areas.106

When all parties to a domestic relations case are not members of the tribe or any federally

recognized Indian tribe, the tribe may lack jurisdiction.107 Whether a tribal court or state court has

105

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Tribal Policy Interpretation

Questions, PIQT-05-02, April 26, 2005.

106

U.S. Census Bureau, “The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010,” by Tina Norris, Paula L. Vines,

and Elizabeth M. Hoeffel, 2010 Census Briefs, C2010BR-10, January 2012, p. 13.

107

The Supreme Court, in Montana v. United States, 450 U.S.544 (1981), distinguished between retained tribal

sovereignty and that which has been divested, emphasizing that a tribe’s sovereign power is strongest when it is being

exercised with respect to tribal members on tribal lands. The extent to which a tribe may exercise civil jurisdiction over

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

jurisdiction may be crucial in paternity cases and in child support matters.108 Most states do not

have criminal or civil jurisdiction over Indian tribal members on their reservations. P.L. 83-280

(usually referred to as Public Law 280), however, was enacted in 1953 and the affected states

received criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians on some or all reservations within their

boundaries. There are six mandatory Public Law 280 states (California, Minnesota, Nebraska,

Oregon, Wisconsin, and Alaska), where Public Law 280 required state jurisdiction (with some

exceptions); and there are 10 optional Public Law 280 states (Nevada, Florida, Idaho, Iowa,

Washington, South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, Arizona, and Utah), which chose to acquire

various jurisdictional powers under Public Law 280’s authorization. Public Law 280 provides that

a state can exert jurisdiction over individual tribal members. This jurisdiction is concurrent with

that of the tribe.109 In general, a state with complete Public Law 280 civil jurisdiction has

jurisdiction over domestic relations actions, to which Indians are parties, and which arise in

Indian country. In the absence of Public Law 280 jurisdiction, if both parents are enrolled

members of the same tribe and live in Indian country, it is generally held that the tribal court has

exclusive jurisdiction.110

Although tribal courts have exclusive jurisdiction (in the absence of Public Law 280) over

parentage and child support matters where both parents are from the same tribe and reside on the

tribe’s reservation,111 there are many circumstances in which that is not the case. The following is

a list of several examples that would raise the issue of tribal court versus state court jurisdiction:

(1) Indian mother and non-Indian father, (2) non-Indian mother and Indian father, (3) Indian

mother who is a member of the tribe and an Indian father who is not a member of the tribe, or (4)

Indian mother who is not a member of the tribe and an Indian father who is a member of the

tribe.112

Concurrent jurisdiction does not necessary resolve conflict. For example, if there is concurrent

jurisdiction under Public Law 280, such as a case in which one party is a tribal member who

resides on the reservation and the other party, who may or may not be a tribal member, resides off

the reservation, it is possible that a state and a tribe may have competing interests. For example,

while the tribe has a significant interest in establishing paternity in such cases, there also could be

(...continued)

non-members involves a number of factors. Divestment of tribal authority may occur by virtue of a treaty or federal

statute, or as a result of the status of Indian tribes as being subject to the overriding sovereignty of the United States.

108

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal and State

Jurisdiction to Establish and Enforce Child Support,” March 12, 2007, p. 59, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/

IM/2007/im-07-03.htm.

109

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Policy Questions and

Responses to Miscellaneous Issues regarding Provisions of 45 CFR part 309, the Tribal Child Support Enforcement

Program Final Rule,” OSCE-AT-05-07, May 12, 2005, p. 13.

110

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal and State

Jurisdiction to Establish and Enforce Child Support,” March 12, 2007, p. 60-61, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/

pol/IM/2007/im-07-03.htm.

111

A valid exercise of tribal court jurisdiction requires valid service of process. When the civil action is being heard by

a tribal court, service should comply with the relevant tribal code. Most tribal codes allow personal service and/or

service by registered mail, return receipt requested. The tribal code may also specify who may serve process. For

example, in some tribes service of process may be performed by any person who is not a party and who is at least 18

years old. In other tribes, the court may require service of process by a tribal police officer or other person specially

appointed by the court. (Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support

Enforcement, “Tribal and State Jurisdiction to Establish and Enforce Child Support,” March 12, 2007, p. 43,

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2007/im-07-03.htm.)

112

U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support, “Supporting Our Children: A Blueprint for Reform,” 1992, p. 201.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

state concerns, such as the application for public assistance or CSE services. Also, tribal courts

might not use genetic testing for paternity establishment to the same extent as state courts. Tribal

courts are also less likely to recognize presumptions of paternity, and they historically have given

limited recognition to the marriage presumption. Balancing state interests and tribal interests is an

important consideration in such cases.113

Native American children who receive TANF benefits are another example in which state court

versus tribal court jurisdictional issues could arise. Some courts would characterize the state as a

non-Indian party and analyze jurisdiction accordingly. Other courts could characterize the state as

an Indian because it derives its interest in the child support actions from the Indian parent’s

assignment of child support rights.114

Even in mandatory Public Law 280 states, conflict over jurisdiction may occur. On January 19,

2010, the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes filed a lawsuit against the state

of Alaska’s Child Support Services Division (CSSD) for its refusal to recognize the tribe’s child

support orders. The state of Alaska and the Tlingit and Haida Tribes disagree on the underlying

jurisdictional issue of the tribal court’s authority to issue its own child support orders. CSSD

provides all necessary services, such as the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD)115 intercept, to all

“transferred” cases, but refuses to provide services when the underlying order is based upon a

tribal court child support order. According to the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian

Tribes,

This lawsuit will allow both the State and Tribe to resolve these underlying jurisdictional

issues and ensure that Native children and families receive the child support services

necessary to meet families’ basic needs. It will also address CSSD’s refusal to follow

Alaska’s Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to provide interstate services

for Central Council’s tribal child support orders.116

In October 2011, the Juneau Superior Court ruled in favor of the tribe117 and agreed that the tribe

has jurisdiction over child support when the case involves a child that is enrolled or is eligible for

enrollment with the tribe.118

Some observers contend that states and tribes must avoid or set aside long-standing disputes over

land and jurisdiction so that they can better serve custodial parents in obtaining the CSE services

to which their children are entitled.

Jurisdictional issues between states and Indian tribes can be very complex, and even cases that

seem straightforward may have twists and turns. For instance, even though the state of Wisconsin

is a Public Law 280 state, which means that the state has jurisdiction over members of Indian

tribes even if they reside on the reservation, the Menominee Reservation is excepted from

Wisconsin’s Public Law 280 jurisdiction.119

113

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Chapter 8, Paternity

Establishment,” in Essentials for Attorneys in Child Support Enforcement, 3rd ed. (October 2002);

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/essentials/c8.html.

114

U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support, “Supporting Our Children: A Blueprint for Reform,” 1992, p. 201.

115

The Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) are payments that are given to persons who are qualified Alaska residents.

116

Tlingit & Haida Central Council, Tribal News, Tribe Files Lawsuit Against State of Alaska, February 2010.

117

Central Council v. State of Alaska, 1JU-10-376 CI)

118

Tlingit & Haida Central Council, Tribal News, Tlingit and Haida Tribe and Alaska Child Support Services Division

Agree to Release Garnished Permanent Fund Dividend Funds, April 2012.

119

State Bar of Wisconsin, “Jurisdictional Issues Relating to Contracts with Indian Tribes,” by Brian L. Pierson,

http://www.wisbar.org/AM/PrinterTemplate.cfm?section=indian_law_section&template=/cm/contentdisplay.cfm&

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Paternity Establishment

Legally identifying the father is a prerequisite for obtaining a child support order. Generally, if a

child is born to a married couple, the wife’s husband is presumed to be the baby’s father. In the

United States, nonmarital births are widespread, touching families of varying income class, race,

ethnicity, and geographic area. In 2010, 40.8% of the 4.0 million U.S. births were to unmarried

women. In that same year, 65.6% of the approximately 47,000 births to American Indian or

Alaska Native women, as identified by race, were nonmarital births.120

In cases where a child is born to unmarried parents, paternity must be established or

acknowledged. Tribes and tribal organizations allow the establishment of paternity through a

variety of methods, including through voluntary acknowledgement, through the tribal courts,

through the state courts, through an administrative process, by default, by stipulation, and through

tribal ceremony for adoptions.121

Most experts agree that use of highly reliable DNA tests greatly increases the likelihood of

correct identification of putative fathers. DNA tests can be used either to exclude unlikely fathers

or to establish a high likelihood that a given man is the father of a child. DNA profiling allows for

direct examination of the genetic material that a child inherited from his or her biological

parents.122 During the testing process, the genetic characteristics of a child are first compared to

those of his or her mother. The characteristics that cannot be found in the mother must have been

inherited from the biological father. If the tested man does not contain the genetic characteristics

necessary to be the biological father of the child, he is excluded.123 If the DNA of the tested man

does contain those genetic characteristics, then the man cannot be excluded and the probability

that the tested man is the true biological father can be calculated.124

Many tribes and tribal organizations view paternity differently than states. Although federal

regulations clarify that establishment of paternity under tribal CSE programs does not infer tribal

enrollment or membership, paternity may be inextricably linked to tribal membership. Thus, even

though DNA testing is commonly used by tribes to establish paternity, many tribes view tribal

membership as a political and cultural issue and thereby do not want to rely solely on scientific

technology to confer tribal membership.

(...continued)

contentid=53479. Also see http://www.falmouthinstitute.com/training/public/oct/LW005.html.

120

The percentage of nonmarital births was 17.0% for Asian or Pacific Islander women (247,000 births), 29.0% for

white women (about 2.2 million births), 53.3% for Hispanic women (946,000 births), and 72.5% for black women

(589,000 births). (Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics,

“Births: Preliminary Data for 2010,” National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 60, no. 2, November 2011.)

121

Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal Child Support Enforcement Systems Workgroup, Session III Joint

Application Development Final Report,” October 2005.

122

Since DNA is present in all cells of the body, DNA testing can be done on a specimen collected by gently rubbing

the inside of the cheek with a cotton swab (i.e., the buccal swab method).

123

Negative genetic test results are usually considered conclusive evidence that the alleged father is not the biological

father. A negative genetic test result almost always results in a dismissal of all claims for child support.

124

When a man is not excluded, the probability that he is indeed the father of the child can reach as high as 99.99%.

The exact percentage used to determine paternity varies among tribes. When tests indicate a high probability of

paternity, a rebuttable presumption arises and it becomes the man’s responsibility to disprove the findings. If he has not

challenged the results within the number of days specified in tribal procedures (and the genetic test results reach the

threshold of probability established by the tribe), the tribe may seek a conclusive determination of paternity. (Source:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “OCSE Training Courses for

Tribal IV-D Programs—Paternity Module,” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/resources/tribal/training/.)

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Others note that many people view paternity tests as an affront to their integrity and an indication

of a lack of trust. This situation is exacerbated in the case of an older child. According to some

focus group discussants, for many couples, once one of the partners or alleged partners indicates

that a paternity test is needed, any future chance for cooperative parenting is greatly diminished

because of lingering animosity over the father not stepping forward and meeting his financial

responsibility or the mother not being honest about her fidelity or use of birth control.125 Although

the discussants mentioned above were talking about problems with and ways to improve state

CSE programs, it is not unrealistic to infer that clients of tribal CSE programs may hold similar

negative views about the implications of paternity testing.

Although tribes and tribal organizations must give full faith and credit to child support orders,

they do not have to recognize stand-alone paternity orders.126 Some commentators contend that

tribes and tribal organizations should not be given so much discretion with regard to establishing

paternity. They maintain that the advances in science and technology make paternity

establishment straightforward and relatively inexpensive and argue that a tribe’s reluctance to use

DNA testing stems from its disinclination to confer membership on more persons and belies a

financial motivation in that some tribes might not want to share revenue from casinos, oil and

water rights, etc., with more members.127

Moreover, some persons argue that DNA testing to establish paternity is different from DNA

testing that tries to prove whether or not a person is a member of a tribe. They assert that DNA

paternity testing is almost infallible (with probability of paternity values reaching as high as

99.999%). They also point out that federal regulations more than adequately protect the status of

tribes by stipulating that establishment of paternity under tribal CSE programs does not infer

tribal enrollment or membership.128

Federal CSE law requires that in the case of unmarried parents, the father’s name shall not appear

on the birth certificate unless he has signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity or a court

has issued an adjudication of paternity; no such provision exists for tribal CSE programs. This

means that in a case in which a tribe or tribal organization has jurisdiction, if a woman puts a

man’s name on the birth certificate of her child and he does not contest the paternity (perhaps

because he does not know about it), the child could be deemed to be the child of the man whose

name is on the birth certificate—regardless of whether the name is on the birth certificate due to a

125

National Women’s Law Center and Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy, “Family Ties: Improving

Paternity Establishment and Practices and Procedures for Low-Income Mothers, Fathers, and Children,” November 15,

2000, p. 15. See also Paula Roberts, “An Ounce of Prevention and a Pound of Cure: Developing State Policy on the

Payment of Child Support Arrears by Low Income Parents,” Center for Law and Social Policy, May 2001.

126

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal and State

Jurisdiction to Establish and Enforce Child Support,” March 12, 2007, p. 59, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/

IM/2007/im-07-03.htm.

127

Kim Tallbear and Deborah A. Bolnick, “Native American DNA Tests: What are the Risks to Tribes?”

http://www.williams.edu/go/native/tallbear_bolnick%20_dna.pdf.

128

It is interesting that the biological child of a woman who is a member of a tribe may not automatically be a member

of his or her mother’s tribe. Tribal enrollment requirements preserve the unique character and traditions of each tribe.

The tribes establish membership criteria based on shared customs, traditions, language, and tribal blood. Tribal

enrollment criteria are set forth in tribal constitutions, articles of incorporation, or ordinances. The criteria vary from

tribe to tribe, so uniform membership requirements do not exist. Two common requirements for membership are lineal

descent from someone named on the tribe’s base roll or relationship to a tribal member who descended from someone

named on the base roll. (A “base roll” is the original list of members as designated in a tribal constitution or other

document specifying enrollment criteria.) Other conditions such as tribal blood quantum, tribal residency, or continued

contact with the tribe are common. (Source: http://www.doi.gov/archive/enrollment.html#Requirements.)

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

paternity adjudication, a default paternity order, or a paternity acknowledgment, and regardless of

whether the man is the child’s biological father.129

Child Support Enforcement Methods

Federal regulations require that tribes include in their tribal CSE plans tribal law, code, or

regulations that describe the types of collection/enforcement actions the tribe can use. The only

collection/enforcement method mandated (by federal regulations) for tribes and tribal

organizations is income withholding. For the states, income withholding is by far the most

effective method of obtaining child support payments. According to OCSE data, about 67% of

child support collected through the state CSE agencies is collected via income withholding.

However, if the noncustodial parent does not have a job or is self-employed, then income

withholding is not applicable.

Federal law requires that states enact state laws that authorize the use of the following

collection/enforcement methods: income withholding; intercept of federal and state income tax

refunds; intercept of unemployment compensation; liens against property; reporting child support

obligations to credit bureaus; intercept of lottery winnings; sending insurance settlement

information to CSE agencies; authority to withhold or suspend driver’s licenses, professional

licenses, and recreational and sporting licenses of persons who owe past-due child support; and

authority to seize assets of debtor parents held by public or private retirement funds and financial

institutions. Moreover, federal law authorizes the Secretary of State to deny, revoke, or restrict

passports of debtor parents. All jurisdictions also have civil or criminal contempt-of-court

procedures and criminal nonsupport laws. In addition, federal criminal penalties may be imposed

in certain cases. Federal law also provides for international enforcement of child support. Some

tribes argue that allowing tribes to operate CSE programs but denying them access to the array of

enforcement methods that are available to states results in inequities in service that adversely

impact Native American children.

Even though tribes do not have access to the vast array of child support enforcement/collection

tools that are available to the states, many tribes have been successful in implementing new and

innovative enforcement techniques, such as elders’ panels, attachment of per capita payments,

attachment of gaming winnings, and personal improvement mandates. (All enforcement

techniques must first be approved by the tribe’s governing body.)

One of the child support collection methods that has been mentioned as a tool that would greatly

benefit tribes is the federal income tax refund offset program.130 According to a representative of

the National Tribal Child Support Association, many noncustodial parents of Native American

children are reluctant to use their federal income tax refunds to pay past-due child support but do

not mind if their refunds are withheld from them to pay past-due child support. Some

noncustodial parents view the refund as extra money, and while they might not use it to pay child

support on their own, they recognize as legitimate the reason for withholding it from them.131

129

According to the National Tribal Child Support Association, although some tribes accept/acknowledge default

orders, most do not (http://www.supporttribalchildren.org/NTCSA_TCS%20Info_Resource%20Guide_2009_May.pdf).

130

According to an HHS document, direct access for Indian tribes to the Federal Income Tax Refund Offset program

and the Federal Parent Locator Service could result in about $100 million in additional collections to tribal families

over a five-year period. (Source: HHS Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Administration for

Children and Families, FY2004, p. B-14.)

131

Clifton Adcock, “Tribes Seek State Tools for Child Support,” Cherokee Phoenix , http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/

3855/Article.aspx.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Thus, some child advocates argue that the federal income tax refund offset is a very important

enforcement tool that should be available to the tribes. Under current law, tribes do not have

access to the federal income tax refund and because of jurisdictional boundaries, states cannot

“serve” (i.e., deliver a legal summons) an individual in a child support case if that person is on

Indian land. According to the National Tribal Child Support Association, several tribes are in the

process of negotiating contracts for states to access the federal income tax refund offset on behalf

of Indian children.132 In order for tribes to have direct access to the federal income tax refund

offset, Congress would have to pass legislation that specifically provided access to tribes and

tribal organizations.

Tribes do not have access to most of the state child support collection tools, but tribes, unlike

states, have the authority to allow noncustodial parents to use in-kind payments instead of cash to

satisfy child support debt.133 Many tribal CSE administrators view this as a great advantage,

especially because many of the noncustodial parents associated with their caseloads are

individuals with low-income and/or barriers to employment. The use of in-kind payments allows

noncustodial parents of Indian children to reduce or eliminate their monthly child support

obligation by providing a service to the custodial parent. Federal regulations require that child

support orders clearly include a specific dollar amount reflecting the child support obligation. For

example, a tribal CSE order could provide that a noncustodial parent owes $200 a month in

current support, which may be satisfied with the provision of firewood suitable for home heating

to the custodial parent and child. The child support order could provide that a cord of firewood

has a specific dollar value of $100 based on the prevailing market. Therefore, the noncustodial

parent would satisfy his or her child support obligation by providing two cords of firewood every

month. The valuation of noncash resources is the responsibility of the tribe.134 Other examples of

in-kind payments include food such as salmon and buffalo, and ceremonial regalia.

Some tribal CSE administrators view in-kind payments as an effective and innovative

enforcement strategy that encourages responsible parenting (by allowing noncustodial parents

with little income to provide for their children with noncash payments/services).135 Nonetheless,

there is also the concern that requiring a tribe to place a dollar value on each type of noncash

payment may prove administratively cumbersome and costly. Some observers argue that it is hard

to predict and include in a tribal CSE plan all of the kinds of noncash payments that tribal

members may want to use to satisfy their child support obligations. Others insist that one of the

major roadblocks for tribal CSE programs is the lack of access to state locate resources and state

enforcement tools.136 However, pursuant to P.L. 113-183, the Preventing Sex Trafficking and

132

Ibid.

Although many custodial parents in state CSE programs receive some form of noncash support from the

noncustodial parent, this noncash support does not reduce their child support obligation. According to Census data,

61% of all custodial parents received some noncash support from the noncustodial parent in 2005. The most common

type of noncash support was gifts for birthdays, holidays, or other occasions (58%), followed by clothes (39%), food or

groceries (29%), medical expenses other than health insurance (19%), and full or partial payments for child care or

summer camp (11%). (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Children: 2005,” P60234, August 2007, p. 10.)

134

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal and State

Jurisdiction to Establish and Enforce Child Support,” March 12, 2007, p. 59, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/

IM/2007/im-07-03.htm.

135

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office Of Child Support Enforcement, “Tribal Community, InKind Payments a Useful Enforcement Strategy,” by Deborah Yates, Director, Comanche Nation Child Support

Program, Child Support Report, vol. 31, no. 10, October 2009, p. 8.

136

Clifton Adcock, “Tribes Seek State Tools for Child Support,” Cherokee Phoenix, http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/

3855/Article.aspx.

133

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

Strengthening Families Act of 2014 (enacted September 29, 2014), tribes and tribal organizations

are now considered “authorized persons” and thereby have direct access to the Federal Parent

Locator Service (FPLS). Such access is expected to help increase the tribe’s ability to locate

noncustodial parents and their assets and resources.

Nonpayment Problems

As discussed earlier, in FY2014 the tribal CSE program collected only 16% of the child support

obligations for which it had responsibility (i.e., 48% of current child support obligations and 6%

of child support arrearage payments). Nonpayment of child support is a major problem for both

tribal and state CSE programs. Some commentators contend that certain CSE procedures such as

the use of default judgments and unrealistically high child support orders are major contributors

to the problem of nonpayment of child support.

If a noncustodial parent gets a notice or a summons about child support or paternity establishment

but does not appear in court at the stipulated date and time, the court can enter a child support

order against the noncustodial parent by default. Although the majority of tribes with CSE

programs do not acknowledge default judgments, some do. In cases where default judgments are

recognized, if the noncustodial parent does not show up to tell his or her side of the story, the

court can decide that the evidence against that person must be true. Thus, a “no show” by the

noncustodial parent may result in the establishment of paternity and/or the establishment of a

child support order, which will be effective whether or not the man in question is the actual father

or whether or not the person in question has a job or a source of income. Some observers argue

that the practice of using default judgments (i.e., judgments made in the absence of the alleged

father), which is a practice of both tribal and state courts, has adversely affected many putative

fathers who claim they are not the father of the child in question but, for whatever reason, did not

show up in court to deny the allegations. Many analysts and observers maintain that the standards

governing default judgments should balance the rights of the putative father to proper notice and

the opportunity to be heard before paternity is established and a child support order is set against

the right of the child to obtain a determination of paternity and support (on a timely basis) from a

father who knowingly fails to appear in court.137

Although nonsupport can be partly attributed to the low incomes of many noncustodial parents,

many commentators contend that unrealistically high child support orders and complicated timeconsuming modification requirements exacerbate the problem. According to the American

Community Survey (ACS) data for 2007-2011, 27.0% of American Indians and Alaska Natives,

as identified by race, had incomes below the poverty level, more than twice the rate of their white

counterparts.138 Setting child support orders at a level that exceeds a noncustodial parent’s ability

to pay may in some cases decrease the amount of child support received by the custodial parent

because of the noncustodial parent’s low income and/or because of the noncustodial parent’s

contention that the CSE system is unfair.139 In contrast, CSE policies, both tribal and state, that

result in realistic child support orders, especially for persons at the lower end of the income scale,

137

National Women’s Law Center and the Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy, “Dollars and Sense:

Improving the Determination of Child Support Obligations for Low-Income Mothers, Fathers, and Children,” 2002.

138

The comparable figures for whites, Asians, blacks, and Hispanics were 11.6%, 11.7%, 25.8%, and 23.2%,

respectively. (Source: Suzanne Macartney, Alemayehu Bishaw, and Kayla Fontenot “Poverty Rates for Selected

Detailed Race and Hispanic Groups by State and Place: 2007–2011,” U.S. Census Bureau, American Community

Survey Briefs ACSBR/11-17, February 2013, Table 1.)

139

Ingrid Rothe and Daniel R. Meyer, “Setting Child Support Orders: Historical Approaches and Ongoing Struggles,”

University of Wisconsin-Madison Institute for Research on Poverty, Focus, vol. 21, no. 1, Spring 2000, p. 61.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

may result in more child support from low-income noncustodial parents. Some commentators

contend that child support orders established by tribes are more realistic and fairer than those set

by state guidelines. They argue that tribes are more aware of the circumstances of their people.

There is agreement among policymakers and analysts that tribal CSE programs that establish

realistic guidelines for child support orders, allow swift and in some cases automatic modification

of child support orders, and provide effective means of cooperating and coordinating with states

and other tribal CSE programs will probably avoid many of the mistakes of state CSE programs.

Some noncustodial parents claim that the child support guidelines are inherently unfair because

they do not account for “affordability.” They say that in many states and on many reservations,

the basic living expenses of noncustodial parents, such as rent, food, and car payments, are often

not considered a legitimate factor in determining the child support order. Many commentators

agree that in many cases current levels of child support exceed what many middle and lower

income noncustodial parents can afford to pay.

According to information for the Puyallup Tribe,140 some tribes have significantly reduced child

support debt that they claimed was inappropriately set by states or for which repayment would be

impossible to achieve. However, other information indicates that some noncustodial parents who

have appeared in tribal court to try to modify their child support order were told that the tribal

court cannot modify their order because the custodial parent does not live on the reservation.

They were told that the tribal court could not modify the underlying child support order, but it

could make an “ability to pay” determination and thereby lower the amount to be paid to avoid a

contempt of court ruling.141

Consistency of Tribal CSE Programs to Each Other and to State

CSE Programs

While it is generally agreed that state and tribal CSE programs should move in the same

direction, it is also acknowledged that tribes are a sovereign entity and thus should have the

authority to develop their own policies to achieve CSE program directives. It is also recognized

that tribes are at the early stage of CSE program development and therefore need flexibility (as

long as they remain within the parameters established in the law) to adjust their programs so as to

better serve their clientele.

Although tribes have historically had some things in common, like their “boarding school”

experience142 and how they viewed nature and shared a holistic philosophy based on the premise

140

The Puyallup Tribal Child Support Program indicated that it continues to facilitate the reduction of child support

debt that was either inappropriately set by the state or for which repayment would be impossible due to changes in

circumstances. It reports that such reductions total over $2.3 million (Source: http://www.puyallup-tribe.com/

index.php?nav=programs&id=8).

141

North Dakota Supreme Court Committee on Tribal and State Court Affairs, April 12, 2002,

http://www.ndcourts.com/court/committees/tribstat/Minutes/MinutesApr2002.htm.

142

From the 1880s to the late 1970s, most Native American children attending BIA-funded schools were sent to BIA

boarding schools, many for 12 years (since the late 1970s, most BIA students were in BIA day schools; see Paul Stuart,

“Nations Within a Nation,” 1987, pp. 111-168). Many Native Americans describe the boarding school experience as

horrendous, they say that the purpose of the schools was to strip them of their culture, they were told that their manner

of speaking and dressing was bad and that the only way for them to succeed was to ignore their cultural heritage and

assimilate into “American” culture. Many analysts contend that the negative psychological, emotional, social, and

cultural impact of that boarding school experience continues to affect the relationship between tribes, the federal

government, and states. (Sources: “The State of the Native Nations: Conditions Under U.S. Policies of SelfDetermination,” the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, May 2007, chapter 13, pp. 235-250;

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

of the “circle of life,” they are also very diverse.143 In most tribes, the father is highly respected

but his role as a caregiver varies. In some tribes, the role of the father, like the mother, is to

provide affection and support to his children while the uncles (and aunts) provide supervision and

discipline. In other tribes, the father is very instrumental in assuring the cultural survival of the

tribe, so he may have a very close relationship to his male children so that they will model his

behavior and be prepared for leadership roles in the tribe. In other tribes, it is the grandparents

who instill in the children the cultural mores of the tribe.144 In many cases, the father’s role in a

particular tribe will have an impact on how other tribe members, including mothers, view

paternity establishment and child support. In some tribes, establishing paternity and child support

orders may be viewed as reducing the harmony and unity of the tribe. In some tribes, child

support enforcement techniques such as suspending various types of licenses of noncustodial

parents who owe past-due child support may be viewed as harming fathers rather than helping

children. Some observers contend that the potential variation among tribal CSE programs may

adversely affect some Native American children. They maintain that finding the correct balance

between historical tribal practices and the present-day needs of children is a crucial part of

developing and operating a tribal CSE program that will ultimately be successful in providing

Native American children with the child support to which they are entitled.

As indicated above, tribal CSE programs vary. Below is a summary of some of their differences,

as identified in a document prepared by the National Tribal Child Support Association.



Some tribes have adopted their own codes/laws but have incorporated their

state’s child support statutes by reference, while other tribes have written their

own codes/laws, procedures, and policies to govern their child support program.

Most tribes have a court order process, some have CFR courts and some have

tribal courts. The Navajo Nation has an administrative process.

Some tribal CSE programs use the automated/computer systems of their

corresponding state while others are not yet computerized and operate using

manual systems.

A few tribes have agreements with their individual states or counties for personal

services on their reservation, although most do not.

Administrative hearings may or may not be provided within the tribal programs.

Some tribes will accept default orders (court or administrative), most will not.

Some tribes will require paternity testing based on their tribal codes/laws if the

original order does not meet certain criteria.145

(...continued)

“Native America in the Twentieth Century: An Encyclopedia,” 1994, pp. 193-195.) In addition, some analysts contend

that it is useful for state CSE administrators to recognize and not underestimate this history in their interactions with the

tribes. (Source: Information obtained from seminar titled, “Government-to-Government Relations Between the Federal

Government and Native American Tribes, Part 2 Working Together Today,” presented by Randy A. Doucet at the 19th

National Child Support Enforcement Training Conference, Washington, DC, November 3, 2009.)

143

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Strengthening the Circle: Child

Support for Native American Children,” January 27, 1998.

144

William Damon and Richard M. Lerner, “Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality

Development,” 2006, p. 478-482.

145

National Tribal Child Support Association, “Tribal IV-D Comprehensive Program Information, Key Differences

and Similarities of Tribal Programs,” by Gloria Howard (Puyallup Tribal Child Support Program), November 2008.

Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs

As seen earlier in Table 4, there are big differences between tribal CSE programs in terms of

caseloads, collections, and expenditures. The Navajo Nation is one of the tribes that is credited

with operating an effective CSE program. The Navajo Nation has a collaborative relationship

with Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico (the three states in which a majority of its members reside).

The New Mexico Child Support Enforcement Division has had a formal cooperative agreement

with the Nav

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.