USER'S GUIDE TO THE PUBLIC USE DATABASE
In October 1994, CSR, Incorporated, and its subcontractor, the American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law, conducted an evaluation of the implementation of child support guidelines under a contract with the Office of Child Support Enforcement. The evaluation was conducted from October 1994 to March 1996. The major components of the evaluation included the following: collection and analysis of child support cases from 21 counties in 11 States; interviews with key participants in the child support system in the study counties; collection and analysis of State guideline reviews; and analysis of data from the Current Population Survey.
This User's Guide to the Public Use Database
is Volume III of the final report on this evaluation.
Volume I presents the main study findings, integrating
findings from all components. A comprehensive description
of the research questions, methodology, and history of child
support guidelines implementation are in
Volume
I, Chapter 1 of this report, which also describes study
methodology and limitations on the data. Additional details
on the methodology are contained in Appendix A of Volume I,
and Appendix B of Volume I contains typical cases received
from each of the study States. Volume II of the report
analyses the State guideline reviews, deviations in those
reviews, and interviews conducted with stakeholders in the
study counties.
This guide is divided into four parts. These sections
describe the nature of the worksheet and supplemental case
record data collected, the data extraction and coding, and
the database structure and provides guidance for accessing
and interpreting the database. Appendix
A contains the codebook for the supplemental data used
for all States and counties, Appendix B replicates the data
entry screens used for each county, and
Appendix C provides detailed
instructions for installing and using the databases.
NATURE OF THE DATA COLLECTED FROM THE 21 STUDY
COUNTIES
The collected data were of two types: (1) worksheet
information containing data on the income and expenses of
the parties, adjustments, and the calculations of award
amounts and (2) supplemental information from the case
records on deviations, the size and composition of families,
the type of award, case type, and other descriptive data.
Although strenuous efforts were made by local court and IV-D
agency personnel and by local personnel engaged by CSR to
obtain complete case records containing both worksheet and
supplemental data, some case files were incomplete.
Methodology and Data Limitations
The sampling plan for the evaluation imposes important
limitations on use of the data. The data contained in the
databases described in this user's guide were coded from the
case records collected from the 21 study counties. Two
counties from each of 11 States participated in the case
record collection component of the study, with the exception
of the State of Minnesota where data from only one county
was included in the study. It is important to emphasize
that the States and counties were selected purposively to
represent the major guideline models (income shares, percent
of income, and Melson) and for their willingness to
participate in the evaluation. Therefore, these data cannot
be used to generalize to any population outside these cases.
The case records were coded into two types of databases
corresponding to the collected information: (1) worksheets
used to calculate support awards and (2) supplemental
data describing the characteristics of each case. It is
important to note that most of the analyses reported in
Volume I of the report were conducted using the supplemental
databases, which were uniform and consistently coded across
all cases and all counties. The worksheet databases were
designed specifically to replicate each State's worksheet
and the specific provisions of each State's guidelines. The
worksheet databases are not uniform or consistent across the
States, significant effort is required to interpret each
worksheet database, and combining data across States and
counties is extremely challenging. This guide is designed
to allow the user to access and interpret the database. It
will explain the nature of the data collected from each
study county, the database structure, and the steps needed
to use the data for analysis.
Sources of Data
The goal of the data collection was to obtain 200 case
records from each county. The case records were intended to
include all written documentation about the case. A variety
of documents were received such as:
Standardized child support order forms;
Child support worksheets;
Financial affidavits;
Employment security records printouts;
Letters to employers;
Case notes from decisionmakers; and
Pay stubs and tax forms.
Table 1 following this page
lists the 21 counties from which data were collected and the
number of case records of each type (i.e., worksheet,
supplemental data, or both) included in the research
database. One county in New Jersey provided no usable
worksheet data. It is important to note that no oral
records or transcripts were collected, so that any facts or
decisions not in the written record of the case were not
available for analysis.
The study methodology was designed to collect data on
the full range of support cases decided in the counties,
including both AFDC cases and non-AFDC cases handled by the
IV-D agency, as well as non-IV-D cases. Cases across all
counties were nearly equally divided among three categories:
(1) AFDC cases, (2) IV-D non-AFDC cases, and (3) non-IV-D
cases. In Pennsylvania all child support cases are handled
by the IV-D agency, and New Jersey does not make an
administrative distinction between IV-D and non-IV-D cases.
Child support orders applicable to the study included the
following:
Temporary orders (10.5 percent);
Permanent orders (63.0 percent);
Interim orders (5.6 percent); and
Award modifications (20.9 percent).
The awards could be made in any type of case, such as
separations, dissolutions, or paternity establishments.
Paternity establishments were most frequent (29.3 percent
of cases), followed by dissolutions (26.2 percent).
Modifications to existing awards did not report a separate
case type, and 18.6 percent of the records had missing
case types.
Cases were collected in all relevant forums where cases
are heard in the county, including courts, quasi-judicial
settings, and administrative bodies, as follows: 38.9 percent
of the cases were heard in courts; 51.0 percent were
heard in quasi-judicial settings; and 6.7 percent were
heard before administrative bodies. There was less
uniformity than expected within States--only two States
(Arkansas and Massachusetts) heard all cases in judicial
forums, while in most States, many forums were used.
Different case types were heard in different forums in some
counties. Only 14.4 percent of non-IV-D cases were
heard in judicial forums, compared with 38.9 percent of
all cases, while 62 percent of non-IV-D cases were
heard in quasi-judicial forums, and 22.4 percent were
heard in administrative forums.
DATA EXTRACTION AND CODING
The following sections discuss data extraction of the supplemental and worksheet information from each case record. The supplemental data are discussed first because the supplemental information contained in the databases is consistent and uniform across all States and counties. In contrast, the worksheet data are specific to each county.
Supplemental Information
In order to address the research questions of the study, a wealth of information was extracted from each case record by CSR staff using the Supplemental Information Codebook (reproduced as Appendix A of this volume). The data were extracted onto coding sheets and then entered into the database for each county. The supplemental data were organized into the following topics in the Codebook:
A. Case Characteristics [e.g., interstate, case type (paternity, separation, dissolution), case status (IV-D AFDC, IV-D other, non-IV-D), contested or negotiated, type of award (permanent, temporary, modification), jurisdiction, forum (judicial, administrative), obligor (father, mother), arrears, obligee];
B. Characteristics of the children [i.e., number of children in the order, age of youngest and oldest, and any special needs children (physically or emotionally disabled, gifted)];
C. Characteristics of the order (e.g., amount of order, wage attachment, termination of support, retroactivity);
D. Income information on the parents [e.g., employment status of the parties, presence of income verification (pay stubs, affidavit), reason for imputing income (unemployment, failure to appear), method used for imputing income (minimum wage, past earnings)];
E. Deviations [e.g., presence of explicit statement in record of deviation, reason for deviation (second family, custody expenses), amount and direction of deviation];
F. Health care needs [e.g., presence of order for one or more parent to maintain or obtain health insurance, how costs incorporated into order (added to basic need, income deduction), provision for payment of insurance (parties split proportionally, noncustodial parent pays 100 percent), provision in order for extraordinary medical costs (one parent pays 100 percent, parties split 50/50 or proportionally)];
G. Day care costs [e.g., day care costs a part of the order, amount of day care costs, how costs incorporated into order (added to basic need, income deduction), provision for payment of day care costs (parties split proportionally, noncustodial parent pays 100 percent), consideration of federal tax credit];
H. Postsecondary education provisions [e.g., provision for postsecondary costs (immediate costs for college or vocational education, provision for future college and/or vocational education costs), provision for payment of costs (parties split proportionally or 50/50)];
I. Other expenses [e.g., provision for additional expenses not included in the child support amount (tutoring expenses, lessons), provision for payment of additional costs (parties split proportionally or 50/50, noncustodial parent pays 100 percent)];
J. Tax exemptions [i.e., provision for dependency tax exemptions (custodial parent always receives exemptions, parties alternate the exemptions)];
K. Custody and visitation [e.g., type of custody arrangement (joint legal custody with primary physical custody to custodial parent and liberal visitation rights granted to the noncustodial parent, split custody, joint/shared custody), effect of custody arrangement on support order (no effect, orders offset), extended visitation considerations (support abatement);
L. Presence of parents and/or attorneys (e.g., obligor and/or obligee represented by a private attorney or legal services, attorney present for the State); and
M. Multiple families [e.g., noncustodial parent and/or custodial parent having a previous child support order or current support obligation not subject to a court order, effect of other obligation on current action (income adjustment, deviation)].
Information related to the above topics was coded and entered into a database for each case record. The codebook associated with this task is in Appendix A of this volume.
Child Support Worksheet Information
Eight of the 11 States participating in this study use a
child support guideline worksheet and incorporate it into
most child support actions.(1)
Many cases received for the study contained some form of
worksheet. In most cases it was readily apparent if the
worksheet (or one of the worksheets) in the case record was,
in fact, the worksheet used to determine the award. For
those cases that did not contain a worksheet or a
determination could not be made as to which worksheet was
used to determine the award, the case was kept in the sample
of supplemental data but no worksheet data was entered.(2) In a relatively small
number of cases a worksheet could be reconstructed from case
notes, income statements, statements in the order itself,
etc. These cases were coded as having a reconstructed
worksheet.
DATABASE STRUCTURE
For each county there are 2 databases, a supplemental
database and a worksheet database.(3)
The databases were named using the two-letter State postal
abbreviation, a county number (1 or 2), and an extension
(SUP or WS). For example, the naming convention for the
second county in New Hampshire is as follows:
"NH2-SUP" is the supplemental database for
county 2 in New Hampshire; and
"NH2-WS" is the worksheet database for county
2 in New Hampshire.
As a part of case identification, each case was assigned
the appropriate county code and a sequential number. For
example, the one-hundredth case received from county 2 in
New Hampshire was identified as "NH2100". In each
data file this identifier is split in 2 fields: "ST_CO"
contains the county code (NH2) and "CSRNO"
contains the sequential number (100). This identification
number links the supplemental and worksheet data for each
case. The supplemental information for this case is in the
"NH2-SUP" database and the worksheet information
in the "NH2-WS" database. Table 1 identifies
the county codes and number of records in each data file.
Paradox and DBase-IV Data Files
Data files in both Paradox and Dbf-IV formats are
available for public use. The databases were originally
designed using Paradox 4.5 for DOS, and this is the most
user friendly format with respect to the worksheet files. A
data entry screen was designed to resemble each State's
child support worksheet. These are extremely useful when
looking at the data on-screen. These specialized screens do
not accompany the file when exported to DBase-IV format.
However, the screens have been reproduced and are in
Appendix B of this volume.
The supplemental files were standardized across all
counties and did not require specialized data entry screens.
Data Fields
The following sections discuss the data fields for the
supplemental and worksheet databases.
Supplemental Database
The standardized supplemental database is comprised of
numeric fields, with explanatory text in memo fields for
selected fields.
Supplemental information was coded using pre-defined
numeric codes. Fields containing dollar amounts are also
numeric fields.
Many supplemental questions have corresponding memo
fields (e.g., C2 has a corresponding memo field called C2T).
These fields were used to describe situations that could
not be captured by any of the pre-defined codes.
The supplemental files were standardized across all
counties. The field names are identical in every "-SUP"
database. The supplemental codebook, in Appendix A of this
volume, is the roadmap to locating the needed information
from each case record.
Worksheet Database
The majority of data fields in the worksheet databases
are numeric fields. A small number of worksheet databases
contain character (memo) fields that describe income
sources, debts, assets, etc. These character fields were
rarely used. Additionally, a memo field was added to a few
databases to allow for comments on the case to be entered by
the coder. These are useful for interpreting difficult
cases.
The worksheet files are more complex than the
supplemental files, and are designed with formats and fields
specific to each State in the study. Child support
worksheets vary considerably from State to State and similar
terms have quite different meanings. Following are some
examples of the variability:
The cost of health insurance premiums is a deduction
from income in some States, in others they are an addition
to the support need, and in other States they are a credit
against the support obligation (similar differences exist in
the treatment of other costs such as those for day care).
The "income available for support" may be a
gross income figure, a net income figure, or not described
by either of these terms. States vary considerably in how
this available income is arrived at and many have
intermediate income figures. For example, in one State this
figure may be gross income minus federal, State, and local
taxes, while in another State this figure is defined as
gross minus other support obligations.
These variations made standardizing field names across
worksheets a difficult task. However, some standardization
was possible in the areas of income, deductions from income,
obligation terms, and child care. Table 2 following
this page summarizes some common field names and their
definitions across counties. Consulting the specialized
data entry screen is still necessary, and highly
recommended, to be aware of county specific fields and
nuances. In addition, at the bottom of each specialized
screen in Appendix B are notes that highlight areas that
require special attention and provide general information
about the database. The structure of each worksheet
database and field descriptions follows each custom data
entry screen.
Another difference across States is the labeling
convention used to identify the relative parties. Three
conventions were used by the States in this study: father
and mother, obligor and obligee, and noncustodial and
custodial parent. To determine which parent is the obligor
in those States where the parties are labeled mother and
father, the supplemental file for the case must be
referenced (field "A8" in the supplemental file).
For purposes of quality control over the dataentry
process, all computed fields in each worksheet were
recalculated by Paradox after the data were entered into the
database. For each computational step on the worksheet
there is a field in the database preceded by "C_".
This field represents the Paradox-generated value for that
computational step. If a discrepancy existed between an
original and a recomputed value, a "1" appears in
the "ERROR" field. It is important to note,
however, that this field cannot be used to identify math
errors in general. Because incomplete worksheets were the
rule, not the exception, many worksheets are marked as
having a computational error as the result of blank fields.
For example, it was common for deductions from income not to
be itemized. This creates a discrepancy in recomputing the
award. Therefore, these fields should be interpreted
cautiously.
ACCESSING AND INTERPRETING THE DATABASE
The supplemental and worksheet records for each case can
be linked through the unique case identifier. However, not
every supplemental record has a corresponding worksheet
file. Some records were incomplete or did not contain a
worksheet for other reasons unique to a given case. For
example, in some counties if a noncustodial defaults, an
order is automatically entered for a specific amount and a
worksheet is not completed. The following sections discuss
issues related to using both databases.
Worksheet Information
Because the goal of the supplemental coding was to
capture the process of incorporating various factors into
the child support calculation, certain elements can only be
found in the worksheet database, some of which include the
following:
Income figures;
Actual dollar amounts for deductions, health care, prior
orders, subsequent obligations, etc.;
Basic child support amounts derived from look-up tables
or percent multipliers; and
The presumed or "guideline" amount of child
support. This last element is discussed in greater detail
in the next section.
Presumed or Guideline Child Support Amount
Two important fields in the worksheet file are "NSUPPORD"
and "CSUPPORD". These represent each parent's
guideline amount of support.(4)
In those cases that do not indicate a deviation, this amount
should match the amount coded in "C2" (amount of
support order) in the supplemental file. In those cases
that do indicate a deviation, the amount in "C2"
is after the deviation. Therefore, the worksheet fields are
the pre-deviation amount. For deviation cases, when the
amount in "C2" is combined with the amount in "E6"
(adding or subtracting the two, depending on the direction
of the deviation) the result should equal the worksheet
amounts.
Some worksheets allow the decisionmaker to select a payment schedule (e.g., weekly, biweekly, monthly, etc.). The user should be careful to ensure that the worksheet schedule and schedule coded in the supplemental file match. The general rule to calculating monthly amounts is to multiply weekly amounts by 4.33, biweekly amounts by 2.17, and semi-monthly amounts by 2. The amount in "E6" of the supplemental is in the same schedule as that for "C2".
1. 0 The States of Arkansas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin do not have a child support worksheet. In order to collect the information needed for this study, a worksheet was developed for these States with input from State and local personnel.
2. 0 Cases were not included in the study if the information in the case record did not fully explain how the award was arrived at.
3. 0 One county in the State of New Jersey (NJ2) does not have a worksheet database. None of the cases received contained a worksheet.
4. The "NSUPPORD" field in the State of Arkansas is the NCP's obligation after any deviation. See the data entry screen in Appendix B.