Table A2.

Components of the City- and State-Level Measures of Enforcement

	City PUMS Payment Rate Ratio			State Laws × Exp. Measure
	Mothers with Support	Predicted Probability of Support	Standardized PUMS Payment Rate Ratioa,b	Standardized Laws Index	Exp. per Single Mother ($)	Laws × Exp. Interaction Categoriesa,c
Richmond, VA	.27	.16	3.21	.08	290	2
Toledo, OH	.29	.18	3.09	−.33	627	2
Norfolk, VA	.27	.17	2.76	.08	290	2
Newark, NJ	.19	.14	1.75	−.01	469	2
Milwaukee	.22	.17	1.60	.26	618	3
Pittsburgh	.22	.17	1.60	.09	428	3
Nashville	.21	.18	.67	−.29	215	1
Boston	.17	.15	.55	−.32	336	2
Indianapolis	.21	.20	.37	−.09	172	1
Jacksonville, FL	.19	.19	.08	−.33	300	2
Detroit	.16	.16	.07	−.12	416	2
Baltimore	.15	.16	−.17	−.24	357	2
Philadelphia	.15	.16	−.18	.09	428	3
San Jose, CA	.18	.19	−.28	.32	483	3
San Antonio	.15	.17	−.53	.28	252	2
Chicago	.14	.16	−.56	.23	297	2
Austin, TX	.16	.19	−.59	.28	252	2
Oakland, CA	.14	.16	−.61	.32	483	3
New York	.12	.14	−.69	−.6	254	1
Corpus Christi, TX	.15	.18	−.83	.28	252	2

Note.—PUMS = Public Use Microdata Samples from the 2000 census; exp. = child support expenditure.

^aIndicates the final constructed measure used.

^bCities are ordered from best to worst on the standardized payment rate ratio.

^c1 = states in the bottom two quintiles on both measures; 3 =states in the top two quintiles on both measures; 2 = all other states.