Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
Child Support Enforcement 
State Satisfaction Survey 
JUNE GIBBS BROWN 
Inspector General 
AUGUST 1998 
OEI-02-97-00310  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, is to 
protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services programs as well as the 
health and welfare of beneficiaries served by them.  This statutory mission is carried out through a 
nationwide program of audits, investigations, inspections, sanctions, and fraud alerts.  The 
Inspector General informs the Secretary of program and management problems and recommends 
legislative, regulatory, and operational approaches to correct them. 
Office of Evaluation and Inspections 
The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is one of several components of the Office of 
Inspector General.  It conducts short-term management and program evaluations (called 
inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the Congress, and the public.  The 
inspection reports provide findings and recommendations on the efficiency, vulnerability, and 
effectiveness of departmental programs. 
OEI's New York Regional Office prepared this report under the direction of John I. Molnar, 
Regional Inspector General and Renee C. Dunn Deputy Regional Inspector General.  Principal 
OEI staff included: 
REGION  HEADQUARTERS 
Demetra Arapakos, Project Leader  Linda Hall, Program Specialist 
Jennifer Caves  Ann OConnor, Program Specialist 
Daniel Ginsberg 
To obtain copies of this report, please call the New York Regional Office at 212-264-1998. 
Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address: 
http://www.dhhs.gov/progorg/oei  E X E C U T I V E  S U M M A R Y

PURPOSE 
To determine State child support agencies level of satisfaction with the Federal Office of Child 
Support Enforcement and to identify opportunities to improve its services to the States. 
BACKGROUND 
The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) requested that we survey States to 
determine their experiences and satisfaction with OCSE and to identify any areas for 
improvement.  This survey was one of the action items identified in a recently completed national 
Strategic Plan for the Child Support Enforcement Program. 
The Child Support Enforcement Program was established in 1975 under Title IV-D of the Social 
Security Act.  The goal of this program is to ensure that children are financially supported by both 
parents; it is administered at the State level and overseen Federally by OCSE.  The OCSE has its 
central office in Washington D.C. and 10 regional offices throughout the country. 
We conducted 54 structured telephone interviews in October and November 1997 with 
respondents from all 50 States, as well as the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the 
United States Virgin Islands.  In most cases, we spoke to the child support program director.  We 
asked respondents to differentiate their answers between the central and regional offices for most 
questions.  We have also selected six States for on-site visits and will present these case studies in 
a separate follow-up report. 
FINDINGS 
Most States Are Satisfied Overall 
Forty-seven States are very or somewhat satisfied with OCSE's central office, while seven are 
somewhat dissatisfied.  Similarly, 49 States are very or somewhat satisfied with their regional 
OCSE office, with only five being somewhat dissatisfied.  A majority of States say their 
satisfaction with OCSE has increased over the past 2 years; 44 say it has increased with the 
central office and 28 say it has increased with the regional office. 
States Rate Their Recent Experiences High 
States rate overall communication within the Child Support Enforcement Program high, with 44 
saying it is very good or good.  More specifically, three-quarters say communication with the 
central office is very good or good and more than three-quarters say it is very good or good with 
the regional office.  Furthermore, most States (37) rate overall coordination in the program as 
very good or good; at least two-thirds give this high rating to their coordination with both the 
central and  regional offices. 
i  A majority of States also give high ratings to their most recent contacts with both the central and 
regional offices, although ratings are somewhat higher for the latter.  Three-quarters  are satisfied 
with the accessibility, availability, and responsiveness of OCSE staff, as well as with the 
timeliness, helpfulness, and accuracy of the assistance they received. 
Communication, coordination, and recent contacts are related to States overall satisfaction.  As 
States ratings of each of these decrease, States overall satisfaction with OCSE declines. 
Additionally, nearly all States have asked OCSE for support over the past year, including help 
with new and existing policies, systems, and demonstration projects.  The majority (at least two-
thirds) say the help they received from OCSE was very good or good. 
States Believe OCSE Works With Them As Partners 
Half of the States believe the Child Support Enforcement Program is a true Federal/State 
partnership most of the time, and another quarter say it is a partnership some of the time.  They 
say the increased emphasis on Federal and State partnership has greatly improved the program. 
Also, States believe the central office provides strong program expertise and leadership. 
Some Regional Offices Are Rated Higher Than Others 
While States rate some regional offices high, others receive mixed ratings.  States which are more 
satisfied with their regional office value the State-specific support and commitment they get from 
these offices.  On the other hand, States which are less satisfied with their regional office say they 
receive limited support, or that communication and coordination are weak. 
States Offer Specific Suggestions For Improving Their Relationship With OCSE 
States offer several suggestions which would increase their satisfaction with OCSE.  Perhaps 
most importantly, many States say OCSE should improve the timeliness of communication with 
them.  They also believe OCSE should strengthen the regional office role to give them stronger 
program support; some say this role is not adequately defined, and others believe the regions lack 
authority.  Other States say communication with States further away from the central office can 
be improved.  States would also like OCSE to provide more systems support, training and 
practical support, including enhanced appreciation of their problems with new child support 
initiatives and more detailed advice on how to implement regulations.  Finally, States suggest 
continued improvement of the audit process and a more timely Annual Report to Congress. 
CONCLUSION 
Overall, this report shows that States give OCSE high marks for its performance, particularly in 
recent years.  But opportunities to improve remain, and the office should consider the suggestions 
cited by States to further improve its performance.  By adopting a philosophy of customer service, 
OCSE has not only enhanced its support to the States, but also enriched the program as a whole. 
COMMENTS 
ii  We received comments on the draft report from the Administration for Children and Families 
(ACF) and the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget (ASMB).  The ACF believes the 
States suggestions are pertinent and noted some of its efforts to work with the States to address 
them.  Some parts of the report were modified in response to ASMBs technical comments. 
The full comments are presented in Appendix B. 
iii  T A B L E  O F  C O N T E N T S

PAGE 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
INTRODUCTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

FINDINGS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

!Most States Satisfied Overall  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

!States Rate Recent Experiences High  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

!States Believe OCSE Works With Them As Partners  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

!Some Regional Offices Rated Higher Than Others  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

!States Offer Suggestions For Improving Relationship With OCSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

APPENDICES

A: Regional Office Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B: Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  B-1
 I N T R O D U C T I O N

PURPOSE 
To determine State child support agencies level of satisfaction with the Federal Office of Child 
Support Enforcement and to identify opportunities to improve its service to the States. 
BACKGROUND 
The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) requested that we survey States to 
determine their experiences and satisfaction with OCSE and to identify any areas for 
improvement.  This survey was one of the action items identified in a recently completed national 
Strategic Plan for the Child Support Enforcement Program. 
Child Support Enforcement Program 
The Child Support Enforcement Program was established in 1975 under Title IV-D of the Social 
Security Act.  The goal of this program is to ensure that children, from both Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and non-TANF families, are financially supported by both 
parents.  The major services provided by the program include: 1) locating noncustodial parents; 2) 
establishing paternity; 3) establishing child support obligations; and 4) enforcing child support 
orders. 
The Child Support Enforcement Program is administered at the State level and is overseen 
Federally by OCSE.  One of OCSE's primary roles is to fund, evaluate, and provide technical 
assistance to the States.  The OCSE also sets program standards and policy, and provides 
guidance to States in implementing that policy.  Additionally, it provides support for automated 
systems, research and demonstration projects, and operations. 
The OCSE has a central office in Washington D.C. and 10 regional offices throughout the 
country.  Each of these regional offices has a regional child support program manager who 
oversees a staff of child support enforcement program specialists.  The structure and size of each 
regional office varies from region to region. 
Although State agencies have considerable autonomy in administering services, Federal 
regulations specify minimum standards of program operation.  In addition to providing the four 
major services listed above, States must also have procedures in place to maintain case records, 
establish medical support orders, withhold wages and taxes, and modify support orders.  Federal 
regulations further require that these services be carried out in a timely manner. 
The program has been growing since its inception.  In fiscal year 1993, the program's caseload 
consisted of approximately 17 million cases, and almost 9 billion dollars in child support was 
collected.  By 1995, the caseload had increased to over 19 million cases; monetary collections 
were up to 10.8 billion dollars. 
)))))))))))
1  Recently, the OCSE worked with its State partners to develop a Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 
1995-1999.  The plan emphasizes both the coordination of service delivery systems and the 
forging of new partnerships at all levels to make the Child Support Enforcement Program more 
results-oriented and responsive to customers. 
Welfare Reform 
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
193 welfare reform) contains comprehensive child support enforcement provisions.  Welfare 
reform legislation requires that each State do the following: 
!  participate in a national new hire reporting system;

!  develop a streamlined system for establishing paternity;

!  adopt a uniform interstate child support law;

!  establish computerized statewide collections;

!  exercise tougher penalties for nonpayment; 

!  follow a "families first" policy; and

!  create access and visitation programs.

Welfare reform legislation also proposes the establishment of a performance-based incentive 
funding system for the States.  The Departments proposal recommends that State programs be 
evaluated on five key performance areas: paternity establishment; support order establishment; 
collection of current support; collection of arrearages; and cost effectiveness.  Each State would 
be paid an incentive based on its score on these measures.  This new system would replace the 
current one, which provides an incentive payment to all States based on the ratio of child support 
dollars collected to program dollars expended.  The existing system had been criticized for being 
an inaccurate measure of State performance. 
Other OIG Work 
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has completed several studies of the Child Support 
Enforcement Program over the past several years.  These have included reports on paternity 
establishment, income tax reductions, and State data systems.  The latter, finalized in December 
1996, identified obstacles States faced in automating their data systems, such as inadequate 
technology and problems with contractors. 
METHODOLOGY 
We conducted 54 structured telephone interviews in October and November 1997 with 
respondents from all 50 States, as well as the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the 
United States Virgin Islands.  In reporting our findings, we also refer to the latter four as States. 
We spoke to the child support program director in 47 of the 54 States; in 7 States where we did 
not interview the director, they declined mostly because they were new to their position and did 
not feel they had enough experience to respond to our questions.  In these cases, they designated 
)))))))))))
2  an experienced manager as the lead respondent.  For 26 States, we had multiple respondents, 
often a deputy director, policy specialist, systems specialist, or attorney, in addition to the 
director.  In the remaining 28 States, we interviewed just one individual. 
In our interviews, we asked respondents questions about communication, coordination, and 
satisfaction with OCSE.  We did not provide respondents with a common definition of OCSEs 
role, but instead asked States about their own understanding and expectations.  We also asked 
more specific questions on various child support initiatives, Federal audits, the strategic plan, and 
the Annual Report to Congress.  For most questions, respondents were asked to differentiate their 
answers between the central and regional offices. 
We also constructed a regional office index using data from the State interviews.  This index was 
based on three variables - States overall satisfaction with their regional office, States' rating of 
communication with their region, and States' rating of coordination with their region.  We gave 
each variable a subscore which were then combined to give a total score for each region.  This 
index is explained in greater detail in Appendix A. 
Finally, we selected 6 States for on-site visits: Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, 
South Carolina and Texas.  These case studies will be presented in a separate follow-up report. 
This inspection was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections issued 
by the Presidents Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 
)))))))))))
3  F I N D I N G S
MOST STATES ARE SATISFIED OVERALL
States are satisfied overall with both the central and regional OCSE offices.  See Graph A below. 
Forty-seven States  are very or somewhat satisfied with the central office.  Of these 47 States, 16
are very satisfied and 31 are somewhat satisfied.  Another seven States are somewhat dissatisfied
with the central office, and none are very dissatisfied.
Similar to their rating of the central office, a large majority of States are also satisfied overall with
their regional office.  Forty-nine States are very or somewhat satisfied with their region; of the 49,
28 are very satisfied and 21 are somewhat satisfied.  Another five States are somewhat dissatisfied
with their region, while no State is very dissatisfied.  
Graph A
Satisfaction With Central And Regional Offices
Central Office   
16
7
31
Very Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
)))))))))))
4 As illustrated in Graph A, the intensity of satisfaction differs between the central and regional 
offices.  This difference carries over in some of our other data, as can be seen in Tables A and B. 
Our analysis also reveals minor differences in overall satisfaction based on State caseload size, 
program structure and administrative position of the child support program. 
States' satisfaction with OCSE has increased over the past two years.  Forty-four States say their 
level of satisfaction with the central office has increased, six say it has remained the same, and 4 
say it has decreased.  Additionally, 28 States say their satisfaction with their regional office has 
increased over the past two years, 20 say it has remained the same (almost all of whom say they 
are just as satisfied), and 5 say it has decreased.  The remaining State did not have an opinion. 
STATES RATE THEIR RECENT EXPERIENCES  HIGH 
Communication 
States rate overall communication within the Child Support Enforcement Program high, with 44 
saying it is very good or good.  Nine say it is average, and one says it is poor.  Table A below 
shows States' satisfaction with communication with both the central and regional offices. 
Table A 
Rating of Communication 
Very Good  Good  Average  Poor  Very Poor  Dont Know 
Central Office  20  19  11  2  0  2 
Regional Office  32  14  8  0  0  0 
At least 49 States describe the communication they get from the central office as very or 
somewhat helpful, clear, or accurate; fewer (42), however, rate the communication as timely.  At 
least 48 States say their communication with the regional office is very or somewhat helpful, clear 
or timely; all States say it is accurate. 
States say they rate communication high because OCSE is willing to listen to them, is responsive 
to their requests and concerns, and is available to help them when needed.  They also say their 
good working relationship with OCSE staff makes communication good.  Furthermore, many 
States believe communication in the Child Support Enforcement Program has improved over the 
past several years.  On the other hand, States more dissatisfied with their communication cite a 
lack of timeliness and detail, too much bureaucracy, and insufficient program knowledge as 
reasons for their dissatisfaction. 
)))))))))))
5  States' rating of communication is related to their overall satisfaction.  See Graph B below. 
Graph B 
States Overall Satisfaction Declines as Their Communication Rating Decreases 
Most State communication with OCSE is for policy-related issues.  Forty-five States cite this as a 
reason for their most recent contact with the central office and 39 say this is a reason for their 
most recent contact with the regional office.  In fact, about half of the States say program policy 
is the main topic of their discussions with both the central and regional offices.  Other reasons for 
contacting the central office include systems, workgroups, and funding issues.  Other reasons 
States contact the regional office include case specific support, regional meetings, technical 
assistance, and reporting.  Most States (42) communicate more with their regional office than 
with the central office.  Forty-five States are in contact with their region on a daily or weekly 
basis, compared to only 22 States who interact with the central office that frequently. 
States report that subject matter should dictate the form of communication.  They believe that 
written documents are most useful to communicate policy and legislative matters, and that 
conference calls are helpful when State discussion and input is needed or when discussing 
regulations.  Additionally, States say individual calls are most useful for case specific questions. 
States also find e-mail, in-person visits, and the IV-D link helpful. 
Coordination 
State satisfaction with coordination (State and Federal efforts to work together), while high, is 
not as high as it is with communication.  Most (37) say overall coordination within the program is 
)))))))))))
6  very good or good.  Another 15 say it is average, while one State rates coordination as poor. 
Table B below gives the coordination satisfaction ratings of States with both the central and 
regional offices. 
Table B 
Rating of Coordination 
Very  Good  Average  Poor  Very  Dont  Other 
Good  Poor  Know 
Central Office  10  24  15  3  0  2  0 
Regional Office  26  12  12  1  0  1  2 
States explain their high ratings of coordination by pointing out their partnership with OCSE. 
They also say that coordination has improved due mostly to the willingness of OCSE to work 
together with them to achieve common goals.  Other States, however, cite the difficulty in 
coordinating all the different players in the Child Support Enforcement Program and the lack of 
coordination between these different players as reasons why coordination is not strong. 
Graph C below shows how States' assessment of coordination is related to their overall 
satisfaction. 
Graph C 
States Overall Satisfaction Declines as Their Coordination Rating Decreases 
*No States rate coordination with regional office as poor. 
)))))))))))
7  Recent Contacts 
A majority of States give high ratings to their most recent contacts with both the central and 
regional offices, although ratings are somewhat higher for the latter.  States' overall satisfaction 
decreases as their ratings of each of the aspects below drops.  Table C illustrates the number of 
States that are very or somewhat satisfied with each office on specific aspects of their contacts. 
Table C 
Number of States Satisfied With Recent Contacts 
Aspect of Contact  Central Office  Regional Office 
Ability to reach someone  47  47 
Timeliness of assistance  46  49 
Responsiveness  46  52 
Helpfulness of assistance  44  52 
Accuracy of response  47  52 
Extent to which needs met  47  52 
General Support 
States have asked OCSE for different types of support over the past year.  Table D below 
illustrates the type of help States have asked for and their assessment of how good that help was. 
Table D 
Quality of  Support 
States Asking  States Rating Support 
Type of Support  for Support  Very Good or Good 
Interpreting existing policies  53  83% 
Explaining new policies  53  70% 
Systems  45  71% 
Implementing new policies  31  81% 
Research or demonstration project  27  81% 
Evaluating program  19  68% 
Customer service initiative  14  79% 
)))))))))))
8  Support Provided On Welfare Reform 
States are also pleased with the help they have received from OCSE on welfare reform.  Most say 
this help has been in the form of policy communications, implementation documents, legislative 
guides, workgroups, and other technical assistance.  A majority of States (42) rate the help 
received on welfare reform so far as very good or good.  Some States do, however, mention 
further assistance they would like with welfare reform.  One-third would like more information on 
specific topics such as the Financial Institutions Data Match, or more timely decisions on new 
welfare reform regulations in general. 
STATES BELIEVE OCSE  WORKS WITH THEM AS PARTNERS 
States View The Child Support Enforcement Program As More Of A Partnership Than Before 
When asked to evaluate the extent to which they believe the Child Support Enforcement program 
is a true Federal/State partnership, about half (29) say the program is a partnership most of the 
time, 11 say it is a partnership some times, and another 14 say most of the time the program is not 
a partnership.  In fact, 10 States volunteer this increased emphasis on partnership as a major 
strength of the central office.  As one State program director says, there is "more spirit of 
cooperation" between the Federal office and the States. 
States believe the increased emphasis on Federal and State partnership has greatly improved the 
Child Support Enforcement Program.  Some say OCSE is more willing to listen and talk with 
States, while others view the program as more of a joint venture than they used to in the past. 
States' assessment of the program as a partnership also influences their overall satisfaction with 
OCSE.  Most States (60 percent) that are satisfied overall with OCSE believe the program is a 
partnership most of the time, while in contrast only 3 percent of States that are dissatisfied overall 
believe the same. 
Two-thirds of States believe that Federal and State roles in the Child Support Enforcement 
Program are adequately defined.  The remaining third do not believe these roles are adequately 
defined.  Most of these States believe the Federal office has an undefined or evolving role in 
assisting States; a few suggest that OCSE play a stronger role in the program, such as being a 
stronger public advocate for the program and lobbying for more funding.  Several States also 
recognize the challenge in reconciling a monitoring role with a partnership role.  Others mention 
that the Federal office needs to understand and appreciate the differences that exist among State 
programs; however, they do acknowledge the challenge in recognizing these differences while 
trying to develop national policies. 
States Particularly Like Recent Collaborative Efforts With OCSE 
Most States say recent collaborative efforts with OCSE illustrate the willingness of OCSE to 
work more with them as partners.  Many mention the formation of welfare reform workgroups, 
comprised of Federal and State representatives, as working very well.  More specifically, two
)))))))))))
9  thirds volunteer that the collaborative process used to develop the new incentive funding rules 
was a good one, and another quarter volunteer that the process was also positive for the New 
Hire Directory.  One child support program director says that there was "lots of opportunity to 
provide formal and informal feedback" while the incentive funding rules were being developed; 
another remarks this process was "HHS at its best, a real partnership." 
Additionally, States offer positive feedback about the program's strategic planning process, which 
occurred in 1995; almost all have been informed about the plan.  Half of the States feel favorably 
about the strategic planning process and believe the plan has had a positive effect on their 
relationship with the central and regional offices by promoting partnership or improving 
communication.  Another half of States believe the plan has had a positive effect on their 
relationship with their regional office for the same reasons.  On the other hand, one-quarter of 
States had little or no involvement in the strategic planning process and the remaining quarter of 
States either feel negatively or have mixed reactions. 
Finally, States rate the biannual Administration for Children and Families (ACF) users group 
systems conferences high.  Forty-four say these conferences have been very or somewhat helpful. 
Some of these States cite the practical knowledge gained at these conferences as particularly 
useful. 
States Believe The Central Office Provides Strong Program Expertise And Leadership 
When asked about the strengths of the central office, the most frequently cited strength is their 
program expertise (24 States).  In particular, many States cite the program knowledge and 
commitment of central office staff as assets.  Nearly half of the States (24) volunteer that they 
have a good working relationship with the central office, and an equal number of States believe 
the central office to be responsive. 
Some States also note the strong leadership the central office provides for the program.  In 
particular, States mention the leadership provided both by Judge Ross and by the central office 
staff.  Furthermore, a few States say the central office is a strong child support advocate with 
Congress. 
SOME REGIONAL OFFICES ARE RATED HIGHER THAN OTHERS 
Regional Office Ratings Vary Greatly 
While overall satisfaction with the regional offices is high, States do rate some regional offices 
higher than others.  As discussed in our methodology, we created a regional office index, based 
on States' ratings of communication, coordination and overall satisfaction with their region (see 
Appendix A for a more detailed discussion of this index).  This index shows that while all regions 
are generally above average, in comparison to each other, three regions are rated low, four are 
rated in the middle, and three are rated the high. 
)))))))))))
10  States Satisfied With Their Regional Office Appreciate Its Practical Support And Commitment 
States which are more satisfied with their  regional office value the State-specific support they get 
from that office.  They believe that regional staff are very committed to the success of their State 
program.  Several States mention that regional staff  have greater sensitivity to the complexities of 
the State than does the central office.  In fact, 24 States report that a main strength of their 
regional office is their commitment to or understanding of the States program.  As one 
respondent says, the regional office has an "understanding of States' situations and knows States' 
quirks."  Other strengths cited include helpfulness (18), technical knowledge (13) and good 
communication (13).  A few States report that despite some weaknesses in the regional office, the 
staff person assigned to their State is strong. 
States Less Satisfied With Their Regional Office Do Not Like The Lack Of Communication 
And Support 
States which are not as satisfied with their regional office say they receive limited support from 
their region, and that communication and coordination between them are weak.  Other 
weaknesses of the regional offices States mention include a lack of staffing resources and 
inadequate program expertise.  States also say weaker regional offices do not provide adequate 
leadership or guidance. 
STATES OFFER SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THEIR 
RELATIONSHIP WITH OCSE 
Improve The Timeliness Of Communication 
Many States believe that OCSE is not always timely in its communication.  This is the most 
common problem States have.  Thirty-six States are dissatisfied with either the timeliness of 
responses or with the timeliness of getting new program regulations from OCSE; nine States are 
dissatisfied with both.  While most States would like more timely regulations in general, a few do 
cite specific examples of regulations or information and guidance they believe have not been 
timely, including specifications for systems requirements, New Hire Directory, and the Uniform 
Interstate Family Support Act.  Additionally, several States believe regulations have not been 
timely so far for the Federal Case Registry, which has an implementation deadline of October 
1998. 
Concerns about timeliness lower States' overall satisfaction with the central office in particular. 
Six of the seven States who are dissatisfied overall with the central office believe regulations are 
not timely, while less than half of the States who are satisfied overall think this is a problem. 
Strengthen The Regional Office Role To Give States Stronger Program Support 
Some States raise concerns about the regional offices.  Some States (15) cite the regional offices 
lack of authority, as illustrated in one respondent's remark that the regional office "has no real 
authority and can't give us definite answers."  These States specifically offer this as a main 
)))))))))))
11  weakness of the regional office.  Often, States say, regional offices cannot give definitive answers 
because they have to check with the central office first.  A few States bypass the region 
altogether, saying that it is faster to go directly to the central office rather than involve an 
intermediary. 
Additionally, a few States (4) also believe that regional offices lack a clearly defined  role in the 
Child Support Enforcement Program.  Says one respondent, "I have no idea what regional staff 
does."  Some note that regional OCSE staffs are located within the regional ACF and report to 
ACFs regional administrator; these States therefore feel that no clear chain of command exists 
between all players in the Child Support Enforcement Program.  Furthermore, according to 
several States, regional offices are sometimes left out of the loop, thus decreasing their 
effectiveness in helping the States.  In fact, several States say they get program information (e.g., 
updates on new initiatives) before their regional office does.  In such instances, these States say 
regional staff are not knowledgeable and are unable to give support in a timely manner. 
A few States (6) also believe that the relationship between the central and regional offices is not 
as good as it should be.  These States believe this weakness can adversely affect program 
operation.  For example, some States receive conflicting information from the two offices, 
resulting in uncertainty about program policy. 
In order to develop a clearer and more useful role for the regional office, some States offer 
suggestions for the types of support regional offices could provide that would be especially 
helpful.  They think that regional offices should develop specialists in the areas of technical 
assistance and program implementation.  Some States mention that central office specialists often 
do not understand the intricacies of their particular State, and believe that regional staff may 
understand States better.  A few States mention that regional staff could compile "best practices" 
of States in the region more efficiently than the current practice of each State reporting to the 
central office. 
Provide More Systems Support and Training 
Some States would like more systems support from OCSE.  In particular, they express several 
concerns related to systems.  Twenty-six States indicate some dissatisfaction with the timeliness 
of systems regulations; they believe they did not receive sufficient information in time to meet 
deadlines for new systems requirements.  Furthermore, 10 States rate the recent help they have 
received with their management information systems as being average, poor, or very poor, and 
one-third of the 38 States with recent on-site technical assistance rate this assistance as average, 
poor or very poor.  Fifteen States volunteer that they would like either more or better systems 
support, specifically more on-site technical assistance, more detailed guidance, and better 
technical expertise. 
Seventeen States indicate that they would also like more training from OCSE.  In particular, some 
States mention training on the Internet, self-audit, and legal issues.  Others say they would like 
more training in general, while a few mention they would like OCSE to develop training materials 
that they can use to train State program staff. 
)))))))))))
12  Improve Communication To States Further Away From The Central Office 
Some States also believe that distance from the central office can be a barrier to communication. 
"The further away you get from central office," remarks one child support program director, "the 
more problems you have with respect to getting information."  The six States that are dissatisfied 
with the extent to which their communication needs have been met in recent OCSE contacts are 
all at least 350 miles from central office; four are more than 1,000 miles from central office. 
States that are furthest away from the central office are also more likely to be dissatisfied with 
their ability to reach someone in central office and the timeliness of assistance they receive.  Some 
States also find that distance interferes with in-person communication.  As another director from 
the West Coast says, "We don't see our Federal partners as much as New England States do." 
Furthermore, seven States volunteer that they have difficulty arranging out of State travel.  They 
believe such restrictions not only impede communication with central office, but also hinder State 
participation in conferences and workgroups.  Says one respondent, "It is very useful to attend 
conferences, but out of State travel is just not possible given the State's political climate." 
Provide More Practical Support 
Eighteen States say OCSE should provide more practical support to the States, including more 
specific guidance on how to implement regulations.  Most of these mention that the central office 
in particular lacks a practical understanding of how the program works and do not understand the 
problems States face.  Others say they want more detailed, practical advice on how to implement 
new initiatives and policy changes.  Some examples of where States would like specific, practical 
advice are with implementing welfare reform and interstate compacts. 
These concerns impact both States' overall satisfaction and their sense of partnership with OCSE. 
States who want more practical support are less likely than other States to be satisfied overall 
with the central office.  Similarly, States who say OCSE should provide more practical support 
are less likely to believe the program is a Federal/State partnership most of the time. 
Enhance OCSE Appreciation Of State Problems With New Child Support Initiatives 
Some States illustrate their concern with OCSE's lack of practical support by citing difficulties 
that they have faced in implementing the Financial Institutions Data Match, Administrative Offset, 
and other administrative processes in general.  Five States volunteer that original regulations for 
the Financial Institutions Data Match were burdensome to implement.  Says one child support 
program director, "We need help fighting with the banks for Financial Data Match.  It should have 
been fought at the Federal level instead of States having to fight bank by bank."  Nine States 
express problems with Administrative Offset, and most States say much of the blame for these 
problems was not with OCSE.  They do say implementation of the initiative was rushed.  Says 
another director who has struggled with the initiative, More piloting is needed.  Finally, 5 States 
express concern over other administrative processes and State due process requirements.  In some 
cases, the concerns reflect resistant State legislatures or judiciaries.  In other cases, the concern is 
wider in scope.  Pushing administrative process in order to speed things up, says one 
)))))))))))
13  respondent, puts enormous power in the hands of people who dont know what they are doing. 
It will lead to serious legal issues in the future. 
Continue To Improve The Audit Process 
States have some concerns about their past audits, although they do recognize that a new process 
will shortly be implemented and are optimistic that this new process will resolve their concerns. 
Seven States believe that their most recent audit was not done appropriately and 14 say it was not 
useful.  Some of these States say that the audit focused too much on details rather than take a 
broader perspective and did not provide them with useful feedback on how to improve their 
program. 
States with audit concerns are more likely to be in some regions than in others.  At least half of 
the States in three regions say their most recent audit was inappropriately conducted and/or was 
not useful, while no State in three other regions had such concerns. 
States offer various suggestions for improving OCSE audits.  These range from making the audits 
more timely and relevant to making them more outcome-based.  Some States believe that audits 
should be conducted more consistently throughout the country, and others say they should include 
some component of self-assessment. 
Make The Annual Report to Congress More Timely 
States also report dissatisfaction with the timeliness of the Child Support Enforcement Annual 
Report to Congress.  Forty-three States say the report is not timely and say the report would be 
more useful if it were more timely.  Some States also express concern about the accuracy of the 
data in the report, with 18 States finding it to be inaccurate.  Beyond improving the timeliness and 
accuracy of the report, 9 States suggest a more narrow focus, and 8 States request more 
explanation of the data contained in the report. 
CONCLUSION 
Overall, this report shows that States give OCSE high marks for its  performance, particularly in 
recent years.  But opportunities to improve remain, and the office should consider the suggestions 
cited by States to further improve its performance.  By adopting a philosophy of customer service, 
OCSE has not only enhanced its support to the States, but also enriched the program as a whole. 
COMMENTS 
We received comments on the draft report from the Administration for Children and Families 
(ACF) and the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget (ASMB).  The ACF believes the 
States suggestions are pertinent and noted some of its efforts to work with the States to address 
them.  Some parts of the report were modified in response to ASMBs technical comments. 
The full comments are presented in Appendix B. 
)))))))))))
14  A P P E N D I X  A

REGIONAL OFFICE INDEX 
The regional office index is based on the scores achieved by each region from all of its States on 
the following three variables: 
(1) mean of States overall satisfaction with regional office 
(2) mean of States rating of communication with regional office 
(3) mean of States rating of coordination with regional office 
Mean scores on each variable could range from 1 to 4, with 4 being the highest score and 1 being 
the lowest. 
(1)  Overall Satisfaction With Regional Office 
The overall satisfaction score was based on States overall satisfaction with the regional 
Office of Child Support Enforcement.  We scored each States level of satisfaction using 
the following system: 
Rating  Satisfaction Score 
Very Satisfied  4 
Somewhat Satisfied  3 
Somewhat Dissatisfied  2 
Very Dissatisfied  1 
(2)  Communication With Regional Office 
The communication score was based States rating of communication with the regional 
office.  We scored each States rating using the following system: 
Rating  Communication Score 
Very Good  4 
Good  3 
Average  2 
Poor  1 
)))))))))))
A - 1  (3)  Coordination With Regional Office 
The coordination score was based on States rating of coordination with the regional 
office.  We scored each States rating using the following system: 
Rating  Coordination Score 
Very Good  4 
Good  3 
Average  2 
Poor  1 
After scoring the regions on each of the three variables, we added the three scores together to 
give a total score for each region.  Scores ranged from 8.25 to 11.15, with a mean score of 10.13. 
We then assigned the 10 regions into the following three groups based on their total score: 
Group  # Of Regions In Group  Range of Scores 
Low  3  8 - 9.5 
Middle  4  9.6 - 10.5 
High  3  10.6 - 12 
)))))))))))
A - 2  A P P E N D I X  B

In this appendix, we present in full the comments from the Administration for Children and 
Families and the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget. 
B - 1
 B - 2
 B - 3
 B - 4