Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
Child Support Enforcement Customer 
Service: 
Parent Perceptions of Telephone and Office 
Visit Experiences In Four States 
JANET REHNQUIST 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
MARCH 2003 
OEI-06-02-00250  O I G
FFICE OF  NSPECTOR  ENERAL

http://www.oig.hhs.gov/ 
The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as amended, 
is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) programs, as well as 
the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs.  This statutory mission is carried out 
through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and inspections conducted by the following 
operating components: 
Office of Audit Services 
The OIG's Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by conducting 
audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others.  Audits examine the 
performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying out their respective 
responsibilities and are intended to provide independent assessments of HHS programs and operations in 
order to reduce waste, abuse, and mismanagement and to promote economy and efficiency throughout the 
Department. 
Office of Evaluation and Inspections 
The OIG's Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and program 
evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the Congress, and the 
public.  The findings and recommendations contained in the inspections reports generate rapid, accurate, 
and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability, and effectiveness of departmental programs. 
Office of Investigations 
The OIG's Office of Investigations (OI) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations of 
allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of unjust enrichment by 
providers.  The investigative efforts of OI lead to criminal convictions, administrative sanctions, or civil 
monetary penalties.  The OI also oversees State Medicaid fraud control units which investigate and 
prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program. 
Office of Counsel to the Inspector General 
The Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides general legal services to OIG, rendering 
advice and opinions on HHS programs and operations and providing all legal support in OIGs internal 
operations.  The OCIG imposes program exclusions and civil monetary penalties on health care providers 
and litigates those actions within the Department.  The OCIG also represents OIG in the global settlement 
of cases arising under the Civil False Claims Act, develops and monitors corporate integrity agreements, 
develops model compliance plans, renders advisory opinions on OIG sanctions to the health care 
community, and issues fraud alerts and other industry guidance.   
 
q DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH St, HUMAN SERVICES  Office of Inspector General 
 
  MAR 2 6 2003 
Date         
From       Joseph . Vengrin 
Deputy Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections 
Subject OIG Memorandum Report: "Child Support Enforcement Customer Service: Parent 
Perceptions of Telephone and Office Visit Experiences in Four States," OEI-06-02-00250 
'To 
Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. 
Assistant Secretary for 
Children and Families 
Attached is a memorandum report that describes the perceptions of custodial and noncustodial 
parents in four states concerning the customer service, based on telephone and office visit 
experiences, they have received through child support enforcement offices. . 
Due to a shifting client base and the performance initiatives of the Government Performance 
and Results Act, the Office of Child Support Enforcement has recently placed greater 
emphasis on states providing effective customer service to parents. To describe parent 
perceptions of child support enforcement customer service, we analyzed responses from 
487 custodial and 196 noncustodial parents in four states (Missouri, New Jersey, Texas, and 
Washington). Respondent parents- reported a number of problems with service, especially 
experienced by noncustodial parents, and only a modest level of satisfaction. We found that 
nearly all parent respondents had contacted the agency through telephone calls and office 
visits, most often to gain information about their case. Those who reported encountering 
particular problems, such as rude treatment, often also rated their overall service experience 
poor. We found that direct contact with agency staff, whether by telephone or in person, 
resulted in more positive experiences. 
This report is being issued directly in final since it contains no recommendations. If you have 
any questions or comments about this report, please do not hesitate to call me or 
John Hapchuk, Director, Program Evaluation Division., at (202) 619-0480 or though email 
[Jhapchuk@oig.hhs.gov . To facilitate identification, please refer to report number OEI-06-02-
00250 in all correspondence.  
Attachment  E X E C U T I V E  S U M M A R Y  
OBJECTIVE 
To describe parent perceptions of child support enforcement customer service, based on 
telephone and office visit experiences of parent respondents in four states. 
BACKGROUND 
The base of child support enforcement clients has changed somewhat over the years, shifting 
from primarily single mothers on welfare to a more diverse group.  At the same time, the federal 
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has put greater emphasis on customer service 
through implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), a key 
purpose of which is to improve federal program effectiveness and public accountability by 
promoting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer satisfaction.  To evaluate child 
support enforcement customer service, we surveyed custodial and noncustodial parents in four 
states about their service experiences, focusing specifically on telephone calls and visits to 
offices. 
FINDINGS 
Custodial and noncustodial parent respondents report that they commonly 
encountered problems in contacting offices, especially by telephone 
Among respondents, 93 percent of custodial parents and 96 percent of noncustodial parents 
who telephoned reported problems of some kind with their calls. Parents who reported a 
problem with their office visit were fewer, but still substantial, with 61 percent of custodial 
parents, and 77 percent of noncustodial parents who visited reporting problems of some kind 
with their visit. Those who encountered particular problems, such as rude treatment, often also 
rated their overall service experience poor. 
Nearly all parent respondents have contacted the agency at least once, most 
often by telephone and to access specific case information 
Ninety-one percent of custodial parents and 86 percent of noncustodial parents who responded 
have telephoned the agency, and 96 percent of these have done so more than once.  Office 
visits are less common, with 58 percent of custodial parents and 61 percent of noncustodial 
parents who responded visiting at least once.  Reasons for making contact were similar for 
telephone calls and office visits, with most parents requesting or providing information about 
their specific cases, and about a third to obtain general child support information. 
i 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents  OEI-06-02-00250  Noncustodial parent respondents rated customer service more poorly than 
custodial parent respondents, and less often reported they got help 
Satisfaction ratings of both telephone and office contact were lower for noncustodial parent 
respondents, with only 32 percent of those telephoning and 38 percent of those visiting 
reporting a good or excellent experience. Although more positive, even ratings by custodial 
parent respondents were modest, with 44 percent of those telephoning and 53 percent of those 
visiting rating their latest contact as good or excellent.  Of those who did not have a positive 
experience, reports of poor or very poor experiences were more common for noncustodial 
parents than custodial parents, who more often reported a neutral experience.  Additionally, 
with both methods of contact, custodial parent respondents more frequently reported ultimately 
getting the help they needed than did noncustodial parent respondents. 
Whether by telephone or in the office, parent respondents more often report 
they got the help they needed when they had direct contact with staff 
Both custodial and noncustodial parent respondents who had direct contact with staff, through a

telephone call with a live representative or an office visit, more often report they received help

than those who reached a fully-automated telephone system with no staff contact. 

Noncustodial parents in particular fared poorly with fully-automated systems, with only 20

percent reporting they received help. The benefit of direct contact is apparently possible

through telephone. The highest levels of help received were reported by respondents who

spoke with a live representative by telephone, with 80 percent of custodial parents and 77

percent of noncustodial parents reporting they got the help they needed.

SUMMARY 
Respondents reported they are only modestly satisfied with customer service 
provided through telephone and office visits, and often experience problems, 
but reported they got more help through direct contact with staff 
Parent respondents revealed a number of problems with child support enforcement customer 
service, and only a modest level of satisfaction.  Although both types of parents had areas of 
dissatisfaction and problems, these were more pronounced with noncustodial parents than with 
custodial parents.  Both custodial and noncustodial parents more frequently reported receiving 
help from the child support enforcement agency if they had direct contact with staff. State child 
support enforcement agencies appear to have an opportunity to enhance customer service 
provided to parents through telephone and office visit contact, possibly by providing personal 
contact with staff when possible, addressing the problem of staff rudeness, and ensuring that 
service improvements are applied to noncustodial as well as custodial parents. 
ii 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents  OEI-06-02-00250  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  i

INTRODUCTION .............................................................1

PRIMER  ....................................................................4

FINDINGS  ..................................................................5

SUMMARY ................................................................. 10

ENDNOTES ................................................................ 11

APPENDICES

A: Comparison of Sample States to National Averages  ...........................13

B:  Descriptive Characteristics of Sample and Respondents .........................14

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
 I N T R O D U C T I O N  
OBJECTIVE 
To describe parent perceptions of child support enforcement customer service, based on 
telephone and office visit experiences of parent respondents in four states. 
BACKGROUND 
Child Support Enforcement Clients 
The base of child support enforcement clients has changed somewhat, shifting from primarily 
single mothers on welfare to a more diverse group. In 2000, only 19 percent of the national 
child support enforcement caseload were current recipients of Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families (TANF).1 The largest number of cases (46 percent) involved low-income 
working families who are former TANF recipients, with the remaining 35 percent of cases 
involving families who have never been on TANF. Additionally, the federal Office of Child 
Support Enforcement (OCSE) encourages states to view both custodial and noncustodial 
parents as clients through which they can improve childrens lives, rather than perceiving 
noncustodial parents solely as debtors.2 In response to these changes, the mission of state child 
support agencies has largely shifted from welfare recoupment to providing enforcement and 
payment services. 
Customer Service in Child Support Enforcement 
The Federal Government has recently put greater emphasis on improving customer service. In 
1993, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), a key purpose 
of which is to improve federal program accountability by promoting a new focus on results, 
service quality, and customer satisfaction.3 OCSE was selected as a pilot agency for early 
implementation of GPRA. Included in OCSEs goals under the GPRA project is improvement 
of customer service delivery and quality. 
To meet its GPRA objectives, OCSE created a national customer satisfaction work group, 
whose members represent state and local child support enforcement agencies.  A report 
generated by the work group emphasized the importance of state-specific approaches for 
promoting and facilitating access to child support enforcement services, as well as encouraging 
collaboration among government agencies and other organizations.4 It also defined customer 
satisfaction in support enforcement as encompassing three aspects: 
  satisfaction with client-worker interaction, whether in-person, phone, or mail 
  satisfaction with support payment accuracy, amount, and timeliness 
  satisfaction with the effect of child support on children 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents  1  OEI-06-02-00250  OCSE has given other indications of its interest in improving customer service. A stated goal in 
its Strategic Plan for 2000 - 2004 is to operate a program that is responsive to customers, as 
indicated by satisfaction surveys of custodial and noncustodial parents, and state child support 
agencies (although, to date, no such surveys have been conducted).5 Additionally, the Child 
Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 requires state agencies to develop their own 
self-assessment of performance, which includes an optional category addressing programs and 
innovative practices to improve client services.6 
METHODOLOGY 
Scope 
To describe parent perceptions of child support enforcement customer service, we surveyed 
custodial and noncustodial parents in four states who had existing child support orders at the 
time of our data collection.7 We asked these parents about their service experiences, focusing 
specifically on telephone calls and office visits, the methods of interaction highlighted by the 
OCSE customer service work group.8 This study was conducted in accordance with the 
Quality Standards for Inspections, issued by the Presidents Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 
Sampling 
We purposively selected four states for inclusion in our study:  Missouri, New Jersey, Texas, 
and Washington.  Selected states varied on a number of factors, such as state caseload size, 
geographic region, and percentage of cases with collections.  See 
Appendix A for a description of sample states on various factors. 
We received from each sample state lists of custodial and noncustodial parents. These lists 
included all parents involved with state child support enforcement cases, excluding cases 
without child support orders, interstate cases, arrears-only cases, and cases pending closure.9 
We combined the state lists to create separate population frames of 872,629 custodial parents 
and 865,989 noncustodial parents.10 We randomly selected 2000 custodial parents and 2000 
noncustodial parents, asking states to provide mailing addresses, and case and demographic 
information for each selected parent. We eliminated cases with incomplete mailing addresses 
and those containing special delivery instructions.  These reductions left 1,824 custodial parents 
and 1,561 noncustodial parents, from which we randomly selected 1,500 of each to receive 
surveys. 
Pre-test of Survey Instrument 
We conducted a pre-test of the questionnaire to gauge respondent understanding, adjust the 
reading level, and estimate eventual response rates, using lists of 400 custodial and noncustodial 
parents drawn randomly from the caseloads of two states. We received 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents  2  OEI-06-02-00250  responses from 33 percent of custodial parents and 9 percent of noncustodial parents. 
Response rates reflect the fact that it is difficult to survey the population of child support 
enforcement clients, particularly noncustodial parents.  In a study commissioned by OCSE, the 
Urban Institute collected response rates from a few states which had conducted child support 
enforcement customer satisfaction surveys, and found that response rates averaged 28 percent 
for custodial and 12 percent for noncustodial parents.11 Other analysis of customer satisfaction 
survey research confirms our expectation of low response, indicating that customers who had 
only limited experience with service or did not have strongly positive or negative experiences 
may not be motivated to respond.12 Through telephone calls to non-respondents during our 
pre-test, we found that respondent and non-respondent experiences were similar. 
Data Collection and Analysis 
We mailed each parent in our sample an initial questionnaire and a postcard reminder 10 days 
later. We also mailed a second, identical questionnaire to parents who did not respond to the 
initial mailing within three weeks. Ninety-one custodial parent and 223 noncustodial parent 
questionnaires were returned by the post office for incorrect addresses, constituting 6 percent 
of custodial parents and 15 percent of noncustodial parents in our sample. We continued to 
include these parents in computing our response rates, deeming them non-respondents by virtue 
of not being reached. 
Analysis of parent perceptions is based on responses to mail questionnaires received from 
parents between October 2001 and January 2002. We received completed questionnaires 
from 487 custodial parents and 196 noncustodial parents, representing 32.5 percent and 13.1 
percent response rates, respectively.  Descriptive statistics of the characteristics of our final 
sample and respondents are listed in Appendix B. 
Data Limitations 
We recognize a number of limitations to our data. First, although parent responses from our 
four sample states provide useful information for the broader child support enforcement 
community, information in our report cannot be generalized beyond these respondents. 
Second, while our study examines the experiences and perceptions of parents, it does not 
examine the customer service practices of agencies in individual sample states. Because we 
would not be able to attribute any differences to state practices, we did not separately analyze 
responses of parents from individual sample states.  Third, our questionnaire generally asked 
parents about their most recent experiences, and therefore, responses may not reflect the 
entirety of parents child support enforcement customer service experiences. 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents  3  OEI-06-02-00250  Q U E S T I O N N A I R E  P R I M E R  
The cover section of our questionnaire informed custodial and noncustodial parents that our 
specific aim was to describe their experiences with child support enforcement customer service, 
determining how hard or easy it is for you to get help from your child support office when you 
need it. 
Questions included the following, presented by method of contact: 
Office Visits 
<  Have you visited a child support enforcement office? 
<  If yes, how many times have you visited? 
<  When was the last time you visited? 
<  What was the reason for the latest visit? 
<  Did you get the help you needed when you visited? 
<  What problems did you experience when you visited, if any? 
<  How would you rate your latest visit? 
Telephone Calls 
<  Have you ever telephoned the child support enforcement office?

<  If yes, how many times have you telephoned?

<  When was the last time you telephoned?

<  Did you reach a machine, a person, or both when you telephoned?

<  What was the purpose of the latest call?

<  Did you get the help you needed when you called?

<  What problems did you encounter when you called, if any?

<  How would you rate your latest telephone call?

Internet 
<	 Have you ever tried to find the child support enforcement agencys website on the 
internet? 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents  4  OEI-06-02-00250  F I N D I N G S  
Due to a shifting client base and GPRA performance initiatives, OCSE has recently placed greater 
emphasis on states providing effective customer service to parents.  To describe parent perceptions 
of child support enforcement customer service, we analyzed surveys received from 487 custodial 
and 196 noncustodial parents in four states. Parents reported a number of problems with service 
and only a modest level of satisfaction, but we found that direct contact with agency staff resulted in 
more positive experiences. 
Custodial and noncustodial parents report that they commonly encountered 
problems in contacting offices, especially by telephone 
Among respondents, 93 percent of custodial parents and 96 percent of noncustodial parents who 
telephoned the child support office reported problems of some kind with their calls (see Table 1). 
Responding parents who reported a problem with their office visits were fewer, but still substantial, 
with 61 percent of custodial parents and 77 percent of noncustodial parents reporting problems of 
some kind with their visits. Problems were similar for both types of parents, except that noncustodial 
parents more frequently cited rude treatment. 
Table 1:  Problems Encountered By Method of Contact 
Telephone Call Problems  Custodial Parents  Noncustodial Parents 
n = 439  n = 168 
Any type of problem  93%  (408)  96%  (161) 
Reached an automated system, but  37%  (162)  49%  (82) 
wanted a live representative 
Caseworker unavailable  31%  (136)  45%  (75) 
On hold a long time  28%  (123)  38%  (64) 
Line often busy  26%  (114)  38%  (64) 
Treated rudely  10%  (44)  20%  (34) 
Office Visit Problems  n = 280  n = 119 
Any type of problem  61%  (171)  77%  (91) 
Office far away  27%  (75)  22%  (26) 
Long waits for service  24%  (68)  29%  (35) 
Caseworker unavailable  23%  (64)  35%  (41) 
Hard to visit when open  14%  (39)  23%  (27) 
Treated rudely  10%  (28)  27%  (32) 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents  5  OEI-06-02-00250  Problems with parent-agency interaction are noteworthy due to the large number of parents who 
contact the child support enforcement agency for assistance. Nearly all respondents have contacted 
the agency at least once, the largest number by telephone.13 Ninety percent of custodial and 
noncustodial parent respondents have telephoned the agency, 59 percent have visited, and 10 percent 
report having attempted to access agency websites. In most cases, clients have contacted the agency 
more than once.  Ninety-six percent of respondents who telephoned the office have done so more than 
once, with the majority telephoning between 6 and 20 times over the course of their time as clients. 
Multiple office visits are somewhat less common. Seventy-two percent of responding parents who 
have visited a child support office have visited more than once, with most of these having visited 
between two and five times. 
Both custodial and noncustodial respondents telephone and visit the agency most 
often to give or receive information about their own cases 
Custodial and noncustodial parent respondents report they most often contact the child support 
enforcement agency regarding their individual cases (see Table 2), either to ask for or provide case 
information.  General child support enforcement information was also sought, with about a third of 
respondents contacting the agency to obtain program information not specific to their enforcement 
case. Noncustodial parents mentioned responding to a mail notice as a reason for contact more 
frequently than custodial parents, while custodial parents more frequently reported calling the office 
to check on a specific payment. 
Table 2:  Reasons For Contact By Method of Contact 
Reasons For Telephone Calls  Custodial Parents  Noncustodial Parents 
n = 439  n = 168 
Ask a question about parents  63%  (276)  65%  (109) 
Check on a specific payment  50%  (220)  21%  (35) 
Get general information  36%  (158)  37%  (62) 
Respond to a mail notice  16%  (70)  39%  (66) 
Get help collecting a late payment  14%  (61)  N/A 
Reasons For Office Visits  n = 280  n = 119 
Give information about clients  48%  (134)  40%  (48) 
Ask a question about clients case  46%  (129)  55%  (65) 
Get general information  32%  (89)  32%  (38) 
Get help collecting a late payment  29%  (81)  N/A 
Respond to a mail notice  21%  (59)  42%  (50) 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents  6  OEI-06-02-00250  Noncustodial parent respondents rated customer service more poorly than 
custodial parent respondents, and less often reported they got help 
Satisfaction ratings of both telephone and office contact were lower for noncustodial parent 
respondents, with only 32 percent of those telephoning and 38 percent of those visiting reporting a 
good or excellent experience (see Table 3). Although more positive, even ratings by custodial 
parent respondents were modest, with 44 percent of those telephoning and 53 percent of those 
visiting rating their latest contact as good or excellent.  Of those who did not have a positive 
experience in contacting the agency, reports of poor or very poor experiences were more 
common for noncustodial parents than custodial parents, who more often rated their customer 
service fair. 
Table 3: Customer Service Ratings By Method 
Ratings of Telephone Calls  Custodial Parents  Noncustodial Parents 
n = 426  n = 161 
Good or excellent  44%  (188)  32%  (51) 
Fair  28%  (119)  25%  (40) 
Poor or very poor  28%  (119)  44%  (70) 
Ratings of Office Visits  n = 277  n = 111 
Good or excellent  53%  (146)  38%  (42) 
Fair  28%  (78)  24%  (27) 
Poor or very poor  19%  (53)  38%  (42) 
Source: Analysis of Survey Responses, Office of Inspector General 
Parents who had particular problems also often rated service poor overall 
While most parent respondents reported some kind of problem with telephone and office service, 
those who encountered particular problems also often rated their service experience as poor or 
very poor. Table 4 lists the problems which had the highest proportion of respondents also rating 
their customer service experience as poor overall. Most prominently, for both telephone calls and 
office visits, parents who reported the problem of rude treatment very often gave poor service 
ratings. 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents  7  OEI-06-02-00250  Whether by telephone or in the office, parent respondents more often reported 
they got help when they had direct contact with staff 
Table 4:  Proportion of Respondents Rating Service as 
Poor or Very Poor by Problems Encountered 
Telephone Problems  Custodial Parents  Noncustodial Parents 
Proportion with Problem  Proportion with Problem who 
who Rated Service Poor  Rated Service Poor 
Treated rudely  83% (34/41)  91% (31/34) 
Reached an automated  50% (80/160)  64% (52/81) 
system, 
but wanted a live 
representative 
Caseworker unavailable  50% (68/136)  59% (44/75) 
Office Visit Problems  Custodial Parents  Noncustodial Parents 
Treated rudely  78% (23/27)  83% (27/32) 
Caseworker unavailable  45% (29/64)  54% (22/41) 
Long waits for service  40% (27/67)  66% (23/35) 
In addition to rating their experiences, parent respondents also reported whether they ultimately 
received the help they needed through their telephone calls and office visits. Figure 1 shows that 
both custodial and noncustodial parent respondents who had direct contact with staff, through a 
telephone call with a live representative or an office visit, more often reported they received help 
than those who reached a fully-automated telephone system with no staff contact.14 Noncustodial 
parent respondents, in particular, fared poorly with fully-automated systems, with only 20 percent 
reporting they received help.  However, the benefit of direct staff contact is apparently possible 
through telephone.  The highest levels of help received were reported by respondents who spoke 
with a live representative by telephone, with 80 percent of custodial parents and 77 percent of 
noncustodial parents reporting they got the help they needed. 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents  8  OEI-06-02-00250  Figure 1:  Parents Who Received Help by Method of Contact 
100% 
Direct Access to Staff  Automated Access Only 
80% 
77% 
75% 
80% 
63%  64% 
 
p 60% 
el 51% 
H
43% 
 
d
e 40%  Custodial 
v
ei Noncustodial 
c 20% 
e
R 20% 
0% 
Live representative  Office visit  Automated and live  Fully-automated 
by telephone  by telephone  telephone 
Source: Analysis of Survey Responses, Office of Inspector General 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents  9  OEI-06-02-00250  S U M M A R Y  
Respondents reported they are only modestly satisfied with customer service 
provided through telephone and office visits, and often experience problems, but 
reported they got more help through direct contact with staff 
Parent respondents revealed a number of problems with child support enforcement customer service, 
and only a modest level of satisfaction. Low customer satisfaction appears to be related to whether 
clients encounter certain types of problems, including caseworker unavailability and rude treatment. 
Although both types of parent respondents had areas of dissatisfaction and problems, these were 
more pronounced with noncustodial parents than with custodial parents. The lowest ratings of service 
and receipt of help occurred among parents, particularly noncustodial, who reached fully-automated 
telephone systems without access to a live representative. Both custodial and noncustodial parents 
more frequently reported receiving help from the child support enforcement agency if they had direct 
contact with staff. 
State child support enforcement agencies appear to have an opportunity to enhance customer service 
provided to parents through telephone and office visit contact. Ideas for accomplishing this include 
providing personal contact with staff when possible, addressing the problem of staff rudeness, and 
ensuring that service improvements are applied to noncustodial as well as custodial parents. 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents  10  OEI-06-02-00250  E N D N O T E S  
1.	 Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services, Annual Statistical Report for FY 2000:  Table 41. 
2.	 Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan with 
Outcome Measures for FY 2000-2004. Vision statement: "The Program will put children 
first by helping both parents assume responsibility for the economic and social well-being, 
health and stability of their children.  We recognize the value of improved relationships 
with both parents." 
3.  Government Performance and Results Act, P.L. 103-62, section 2 (b)(3), 1993. 
4.	 Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services. The Implementation of GPRA at the Office of Child Support 
Enforcement. Washington, D.C.; February, 1996. 
5.	 Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services, OCSE Strategic Plan, Goal 4-B, June, 2000. 
6.  Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998,  P.L. 105-200, section 31, 1998. 
7.	 In this report, we use the term parent to refer to custodial and noncustodial child support 
enforcement clients, but recognize that some of these clients may actually be relatives, foster 
parents, or other guardians. 
8.	 We excluded the third method of contact mentioned in the work groups report, interaction 
through mail, because our pre-test indicated it is difficult to collect meaningful information about 
parent contact with the agency through mail service. 
9.	 We excluded cases without orders and interstate or arrears-only cases, because these clients may 
have had little agency interaction, and cases pending closure to ensure clients were current. 
10. 
POPULATION FRAMES BY SAMPLE STATE: 
State  Custodial Parents  Noncustodial Parents 
Missouri  190,114  187,300 
New Jersey  173,081  160,810 
Texas  364,921  371,775 
Washington  144,513  146,104 
Total  872,629  865,989 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents  11  OEI-06-02-00250  11.	 Van Houten, Therese and Brenda Cox. A Child Support Enforcement Customer Service 
Satisfaction Survey.  The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.; February, 1998, 3. 
12.	 Dillman, Don A.  Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (Second Edition). 
John Wiley and Sons, New York; 2000, 268 - 280. 
13. 
Table 1:  Methods of Parent Contact 
Method of Contact  Custodial Parents  Noncustodial Parents 
n = 487  n = 196 
Any contact with agency  96%  (467)  92%  (180) 
Telephoned the office  91%  (443)  86%  (169) 
Visited the office  58%  (283)  61%  (120) 
Attempted to visit the website  11%  (54)  10%  (20) 
Source: Analysis of Survey Responses, Office of Inspector General 
14.	 Among the respondents who telephoned, 32 percent of parents reached a fully-automated 
telephone system with no option for a live representative, and 30 percent reached a live 
representative with no automated menu.  The largest proportion at 38 percent reached a system 
that combines both by offering an automated menu with access to a live representative as an 
option. 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents  12  OEI-06-02-00250  APPENDIX A:  Comparison of Sample States to National Averages 
at Time of Sample Selection
Case Mix % Cases
Admin. (Current/ with
Metho Total  Never/ Collectio Cost Geographi
State d Caseload Former) n Effectiveness c Location
Midwest
MO State 362,156 26/51/23 40% $3.03
(Region VII)
Northeast
NJ County 371,426 23/58/19 57% $4.56
(Region II)
Southwest
TX State 1,215,245 20/78/3 21% $3.96
(Region VI)
Northwest
WA State 320,846 20/46/33 67% $4.37
(Region X)
Source:  Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 1999 Preliminary Data Report.  Washington, D.C.;
September, 2000.
CSE Customer Service:  Perceptions of Parents 13 OEI-06-02-00250 APPENDIX B:  Descriptive Characteristics of Sample and Respondents
CUSTODIAL PARENTS NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS
Characteristic Sample Respondents Sample Respondents
# % # % # % # %
State
MO 325 21.7% 99 20.3% 338 22.5% 27 13.8%
NJ 259 17.3% 90 18.5% 303 20.2% 53 27.0%
TX 651 43.4% 214 43.9% 617 41.1% 72 36.7%
WA 265 17.7% 84 17.2% 242 16.1% 44 22.4%
1500 487 1500 196
TANF Status
Current 155 10.3% 36 7.4% 169 11.3% 16 8.2%
Former 702 46.8% 189 38.8% 712 47.5% 81 41.3%
Never 642 42.8% 262 53.8% 618 41.2% 99 50.5%
1499 487 1499 196
Children
1 894 62.4% 311 66.5% 936 63.9% 114 58.8%
2 416 29.1% 123 26.3% 383 26.1% 53 27.3%
3 122 8.5% 34 7.3% 146 10.0% 27 13.9%
1432 468 1465 194
Gender
Male 82 5.5% 19 3.9% 1395 93.2% 184 93.9%
Female 1413 94.5% 466 96.1% 102 6.8% 12 6.1%
1495 485 1497 196
Time as Client
1 year 135 9.0% 34 7.0% 134 8.9% 21 10.7%
2 years 154 10.3% 52 10.7% 163 10.9% 22 11.2%
3-4 years 277 18.5% 98 20.1% 263 17.5% 39 19.9%
5-6 years 518 34.5% 166 34.1% 488 32.5% 57 29.1%
> 6 years 416 27.7% 137 28.1% 452 30.1% 57 29.1%
1500 487 1500       196
CSE Customer Service:  Perceptions of Parents 14 OEI-06-02-00250 A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
This report was prepared under the direction of Judith V. Tyler, Regional Inspector General for
Evaluation and Inspections in Region VI.  Other principal Office of Evaluation and Inspections staff
who contributed include:
Ruth Ann Dorrill, Team Leader Linda Hall, Program Specialist
A. Blaine Collins, Program Analyst  Barbara Tedesco, Statistician
Deborah McGurk, Program Analyst
Clark Thomas, Program Analyst
Scott Whitaker, Program Analyst
Lisa White, Administrative Officer
For information or copies of this report, please contact
the Office of Inspector Generals
Public Affairs office at (202) 619-1343.
Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address:
http://www.oig.hhs.gov/
CSE Customer Service:  Perceptions of Parents 15 OEI-06-02-00250