Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
EFFECTIVENESS OF ACCESS AND 
VISITATION GRANT PROGRAMS 
JANET REHNQUIST 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
October 2002 
OEI-05-02-00300  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.  Executive Summary 
Objective:

To determine the extent to which the Access and Visitation Grants increased access rights, visitation,

and child support payment compliance for parents in five states.

Background: 
Our study examined program outcomes intended by law, and outcomes of interest to the Office of 
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and the Department of Health and Human Services (the 
Department).  The goal of the Access and Visitation Grant, as stated in law, is  . . . to support and 
facilitate noncustodial parents access to and visitation of their children. Our study assessed whether 
mediation programs, one of the most popular services offered through the Access and Visitation grant 
program, facilitated and increased access rights for IV-D participants.  We expected that increasing 
access rights for the noncustodial parent would lead to increased visitation between noncustodial 
parents and their children. Increased visitation may have other secondary effects on parents and 
children, including improved child support payment compliance, improved child behavior, household 
formation, and others. 
For the purposes of this study, we define access rights as a noncustodial parents right to visit their 
child as noted in formal visitation arrangements.  Access rights can be documented in written mediation 
agreements, divorce decrees, or court orders for visitation, and often include a specific schedule for 
regular visits as well as for holiday and vacation visits. 
Our findings come from 254 cases in five states.  Due to significant differences in Geogias program, we 
analyzed Georgias data separately.  Thus, we have two sets of analyses.  We first analyzed information 
from 190 cases in 4 states (Nevada, Connecticut, Oklahoma, and Illinois). This data has been 
weighted according to state stratification and can be projected to program participants in the four 
states.  Our second analysis reviews the 64 cases in Georgia and can only be projected to that state. 
Findings for Four States: 
  Facilitated & Increased Access: 
	 Seventy-six percent of cases examined in our case file review resulted in a mediated 
agreement. 
	 In 86% of these cases, access rights were increased for the noncustodial parent through 
mutually agreed upon visitation plans. 
	 For all of the cases in our sample, regardless of whether or not an agreement was 
reached, 66% gained increased access rights through mediation. 
  Increased Visitation: 
	 Of the 100 cases in the parent phone survey, 42% who reported reaching an agreement 
also reported an overall increase in noncustodial parent visits after mediation, 33% 
reported visits stayed the same, and an additional 11% reported a decrease in 
visitations. 
1
   Improved Payment Compliance: 
	 According to our case file review of child support files, 61% of noncustodial parents 
increased the percent of current child support they paid after mediation. 
  Other Outcomes: 
	 Out of 254 cases reviewed in our case file review, we found 2 cases that formed a 
household after mediation. Custodial and noncustodial parents differed in their opinions 
regarding the other secondary outcomes measured. 
  Administrator Perspectives on Factors of Success: 
	 According to Access and Visitation state administrators and mediation program 
managers, a mediation programs success is related to its relationship with referral 
sources (i.e. courts or child support offices), its convenience to clients, and its capacity 
to conduct outreach and follow-up.  Regarding factors contributing to a mediation 
sessions success, administrators and managers noted the quality of the mediation 
process, as well as the nature of the clients served. 
Findings for Georgia: 
	 Unlike the four other states, Georgias two mediation programs focus primarily on increasing 
immediate visitation, as opposed to access rights.  Our case file review found that at least 60% 
of cases that successfully completed program goals saw an increase in visits. Fifty-five percent 
of all program participants increased the percentage of current child support paid. 
Cause: 
	 Our data show a potential relationship between participation in mediation programs funded by 
the Access and Visitation grant and increased access rights, increased visits, and improved 
child support payment compliance.  Because these effects are centered around the date of 
mediation, it is plausible that participating in mediation is a cause for these increases, although 
other causes are also likely to impact access rights, visits, and payment. 
Effect: 
	 Mediation programs in our 4 states have successfully increased access rights for noncustodial 
parents, which may plausibly account for an increase in visits for some noncustodial parents. 
	 Increasing visitation means that more children would benefit from a relationship with their 
noncustodial parent that research has shown to be emotionally, psychologically, and financially 
beneficial. 
	 Participation in mediation programs is also plausibly associated with improved child support 
payment compliance. Increased compliance means that IV-D families benefit from added 
income. We estimate that the average net increase in monthly payments after mediation was 
$56 per case.  This increase would have resulted in $230,000 in additional child support 
payments for the universe of 595 IV-D cases served by the program in 4 states for fiscal year 
(FY) 2001. We estimate that the average net increase in monthly 
2
 payments after mediation was $26 per case in Georgia.  Overall, this meant a net increase of 
$66,000 in FY 2001 for the universe of 256 IV-D cases served by the program in Georgia. 
3
 Introduction and Methodology 
Objective: To determine the extent to which the Access and Visitation Grants increased 
access rights, visitation, and child support payment for parents in five states. 
Background 
Our study examined program outcomes intended by law, and outcomes of interest to the Office of 
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and the Department of Health and Human Services (the 
Department).  The goal of the Access and Visitation Grant, as stated in law, is . . . to support and 
facilitate noncustodial parents access to and visitation of their children. Our study assessed whether 
mediation programs facilitated and increased access rights for program participants.  We expected that 
increasing access rights for the noncustodial parent would lead to increased visitation between 
noncustodial parents and their children.  Increased visitation may have other secondary effects on 
parents and children, including improving child support payment compliance, improving child behavior, 
household formation, and others. While not explicitly intended by law, these outcomes are of 
importance to OCSE and the Department, and as such, we have made efforts to measure them. 
For the purposes of this study, we define access rights as a noncustodial parents right to visit their 
child as noted in formal visitation arrangements.  Access rights can be documented in written mediation 
agreements, divorce decrees, or court orders for visitation, and often include a specific schedule for 
regular visits as well as for holiday and vacation visits. 
Sample 
We examined 9 community and court-based programs that offered mediation to IV-D clients in 5 states 
(Illinois, Connecticut, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Georgia). To select our sample, we requested that 
programs provide a list of all cases completing mediation in calendar year 2001. We selected a 
random sample of cases independently within each state, so the data can be treated as a stratified 
random sample.  Once onsite at Georgias programs, we realized that their service goals were 
significantly different from our other programs mediation services.  As such, we have analyzed 
Georgias data separately from the other four states.  Our data come from 190 cases in four states and 
64 cases in Georgia. All aggregate data reported is weighted according to state stratification and can 
be projected to program participants in the four states. Confidence intervals for estimates can be found 
in Appendix D. See Appendix C for a full methodology. 
Methodology 
Access and Visitation programs vary widely from state to state and program to program in the services 
they offer and the populations they target. In order to offer a cohesive, substantial review, it was 
necessary to focus on specific aspects of this grants program.  We elected to focus this study on 
programs that offer mediation services to the IV-D population. Of all the services offered through this 
grant program, we selected mediation, because it is an access-related service. 
4
 Establishing access rights is an essential first step for noncustodial parents attempting to establish regular 
visitation with their child. Further, mediation was one of the most popular activities funded by the 
grants, according to state data on service utilization.  Finally, all but one of the states targeting IV-D 
clients with their grant money offered mediation services, apparently believing it to be an important 
service to offer to this population. 
To collect our data regarding these mediation programs, we reviewed 3 types of case files for each 
sampled case: mediation program files, court files, and child support payment records. Specifically, we 
examined access-related documents, such as mediated agreements, divorce decrees, stand-alone 
visitation orders, and child support orders. For our payment review, we collected information on 
order, payment, and earnings history for the period 18 months before mediation to 18 months after 
mediation. 
In addition to our case file reviews, we conducted a phone survey of custodial and noncustodial parents 
and conducted interviews with Access and Visitation state liaisons, mediation program administrators, 
and program staff. Our phone survey response rate was higher than expected for the 4 states. We 
received responses for 125 parents (out of 380) for a parent response rate of 33%, and surveyed at 
least one parent for 100 of our 190 cases for a case response rate of 53%. In 25 cases both parents 
responded. In Georgia, we received responses for 24 parents (out of 128) for a parent response rate 
of 19%, and surveyed at least one parent for 18 of our 64 cases for a case response rate of 28%. In 6 
cases, both parents responded.  The table below includes our data sources and sample sizes for each 
section. 
Table 1. Sample Sizes for each Data Source Associated with Findings 
Primary Data Sources 
Mediation  Court  Child Support  Parent  Administrator 
Findings Sections  Program Case  Case File  Payment  Phone  Interviews 
File Review  Review  Review  Survey 
Access, page 6  190 cases  190 cases 
Visits, page 8  100 cases, 
125 parents* 
Payment, page 11  111 cases** 
Other Outcomes,  100 cases,  10 interviews 
125 parents* 
page 13 
Perspectives on  100 cases,  10 interviews 
Success, page 15  125 parents* 
Georgia, page 17  64 cases  64 cases  53 cases**  18 cases,  3 interviews 
24 parents* 
*Phone survey respondents represent at least one parent from 100 cases in our 4 states and 18 cases in Georgia. In 
the 4 states, there were 25 cases where both parents responded, and in Georgia, both parents responded in 6 cases. 
**Payment data come from cases that had some child support order both prior to and after mediation. 
5  Organization of this Document 
The following document outlines our findings and analysis of the effectiveness of the Access and 
Visitation grant program.  The first three sections address our major issues: access, visitation, and 
payment. The fourth section consists of other secondary outcomes that we found, including those 
outcomes of interest to OCSE: improved child behavior and household formation.  We bring in Access 
and Visitation state administrators and mediation program managers perspectives in the fifth section in 
order to contextualize the quantitative data presented in the other sections. Finally, we present data 
specific to Georgia from our case file reviews, parent surveys, and program administrator interviews on 
the above five topics: access, visitation, payment, other outcomes, and program perspectives. 
6
 Facilitated and Increased Access 
Seventy-six percent of cases examined in our case file review resulted in a mediated agreement.  In 
86% of these cases, access rights were increased for the noncustodial parent through mutually agreed 
upon visitation plans.  For all of the cases in our sample, regardless of whether or not an agreement was 
reached, 66% gained increased access rights through mediation. 
We reviewed 190 case files in order to evaluate the impact of mediation on noncustodial parents 
access rights.  Specifically, we analyzed: 1) the degree to which mediation resulted in a written 
agreement between the two parents; and 2) the degree to which mediation agreements resulted in 
increased access rights for the noncustodial parents. 
Mediation Facilitates Access Rights 
	 In 76% of cases, mediation facilitated noncustodial parents access rights through the creation 
of mutually agreed upon visitation plans. 
	 The percentage of mediated agreements varied across states, ranging from 72% in Illinois to 
85% in Connecticut. 
  Less than 5% of our cases yielded a change in custody during or as a result of mediation. 
Noncustodial Parents Without Prior Access Gain Rights 
  In 69% of the cases, noncustodial parents had no access rights prior to mediation. 
	 Seventy-seven percent of these parents without prior access rights, gained access in the form of 
a mediated visitation agreement. 
	 On average, access rights were increased from zero to19 hours a week for standard visitation 
(i.e., visits that are scheduled on a weekly or bi-monthly basis), and from zero to 13 days for 
vacations and holidays, for parents with no access prior to mediation. 
	 Eighty-one percent of mediated agreements were formalized by the court, for cases without 
prior access rights. 
	 Twelve percent of the mediated agreements for cases without prior access stipulated that the 
noncustodial parents visitation was to occur under supervision. 
Access Rights Increase for Parents with Prior Access 
	 Through our case file review, we found that 31% of our cases had prior access rights 
documented in formalized agreements.  Of these cases, 54% had prior access rights  formalized 
in stand-alone court documents, 20% in child support documents, 8% in divorce orders, 6% in 
paternity orders and for 13% of the cases it was unknown or unclear in which document prior 
access rights had been formalized. 
	 Seventy-four percent of the noncustodial parents with access rights prior to mediation 
successfully completed the mediation program by reaching a visitation agreement. 
	 Fifty-four percent of the cases that reached a mediated agreement also gained an increase in 
access rights for the noncustodial parent.  For all of the cases with prior access, regardless of 
whether or not an agreement was reached, 40% gained increased access rights. 
7
 	 In contrast to parents without prior access rights, those with prior access increased their 
standard access rights only slightly, from 24 hours a week to 26 hours a week, on average. 
Their holiday and vacation days, however, increased from 3 days to 20 days. 
	 Eighty-two percent of the mediated agreements were formalized by the court for cases with 
prior access rights. 
Facilitated and Increased Access 

Broken Out 

by Noncustodial Parents Prior Access Rights 

Noncustodial parents  Noncustodial parents 
without prior  with prior 
access rights  access rights 
(69% of cases)  (31% of cases) 
Percentage of Cases with 
Mediated Agreements  77%  74% 
Subset of Cases with Mediated 
Agreements and Increased Access  100%  54% 
Rights 
Net Increase in Access Rights 
Standard Visits  19 hours/weekly  2 hours/weekly 
Net Increase in Access Rights 
Holidays and Vacation Days  13 days  17 days 
Source: OEI case files review in four states, n=190. 
Discussion 
Facilitating Access Rights

Mediation programs successfully facilitated access for noncustodial parents in 76% of the cases

through mutually agreed upon visitation plans. This falls at the high end of the expected rate of

agreement, which through our pre-inspection research we found to range anywhere from 50% to 85%.

Increasing Access Rights

Mediation programs also appear to effectively increase the access rights of noncustodial parents. This

appears to be especially true for parents who had no access rights prior to mediation. For example,

mediation agreements increased access rights for 100% of parents with no prior access, compared to

increasing access for only 54% of the parents with prior access.  Furthermore, for parents without prior

access, mediation increased standard visitation rights by 19 hours a week, whereas it made only a 2-

hour-a-week difference for parents who had access prior to mediation.  Where mediation did make a

significant difference for parents with prior access was in the number of holidays and vacation days they

were given. Following mediation, noncustodial parents had, on average, seventeen additional holiday

and vacation days to spend with their child.

8
 It is important to note, however, that increasing access rights is not, and should not be the goal of 
mediation in all cases. For example, parents may use mediation as a neutral forum in which to discuss 
adjustments in the visitation schedule, rather than using it as a mechanism to increase access rights. 
There may be other cases where the noncustodial parents attend mediation with the goal of increasing 
access rights, but through the course of the mediation both parents agree that an increase in access 
rights might be too disruptive for the child. 
9
 Increased Visitation 
Of the 100 cases in the parent phone survey, 42% who reported reaching an agreement also reported an 
overall increase in noncustodial parent visits after mediation, 33% reported visits stayed the same, and an 
additional 11% reported a decrease in visitations.
* 
The following data are from a phone survey of 125 parents.  These parents represent at least one 
parent for 100 cases out of our 190 sampled cases in the four states.  We received responses from 
both parents in only 25 of the cases. 
Unless otherwise stated, all data reported are from survey respondents who reported that they reached 
a visitation agreement at mediation. Overall, 88% of custodial parents (CPs) (n=60) and 83% of 
noncustodial parents (NCPs) (n=45) in our survey reached an agreement. 
More Parents With Agreements Report That Visits Increased Than Those With No 
Agreement 
  Of those reaching a mediated agreement, 39% of CPs reported an increase in NCP visits and 
53% of NCPs reported an increase.  In contrast, for those who did not reach an agreement at 
mediation, 10% of CPs and 13% of NCPs reported an increase in NCP visits. 
Source: OEI survey of CPs and NCPs in four states 
Note: Indeterminate Category refers either to 1) parents who answered dont know regarding visitation changes or 2) cases where 
when combining responses for standard visit changes and holiday/vacation changes, it could not be determined if overall visits 
increased, decreased, or stayed the same. 
* For 15% of cases that reached an agreement, it was not possible to determine the direction of change in reported visits. 
10
 More Parents Report Weekly Visits After Mediation Than Before 
  In the 6 months prior, 30% CPs and 48% of NCPs stated that visits occurred about 1 day per 
week or more. In the 6 months after reaching a mediated agreement, 47% of CPs and 61% of 
NCPs reported visits occurring at least weekly. 
  After reaching an agreement, the proportion of parents reporting that their family had no NCP 
visits decreased.  Forty-two percent of CPs reported having had no NCP visits prior to 
mediation compared to 23% in the 6 months after, and the percentage of NCPs reporting no 
visitations declined as well from 28% before to 16% after mediation. 
More Parents Report Scheduled Visits After Mediation 
  In the 6 months prior to the agreement, only 20% of CPs and 26% of NCPs reported that 
NCP visits were regularly scheduled. These percentages increased to 44% and 57%, 
respectively, for our survey respondents in the 6 months after reaching the mediation 
agreement. 
  On the other hand, the proportion of parents reporting that NCP visits were unscheduled/ 
informal decreased. Seventeen percent of both CPs and NCPs reported unscheduled/informal 
NCP visits prior to an agreement. Afterwards, the percentages with informal visits decreased 
to 8% for CPs and 4% for NCPs. 
After Mediation, More Parents Report That Visits Are Cancelled Less Often 
  Approximately 60% of both CPs and NCPs reported that they experienced missed, cancelled, 
or refused visits both before and after mediation. 
  Twenty-four percent of all CPs said that visits were cancelled less often after reaching an 
agreement, and of those CPs reporting an increase in visits, 43% reported less cancellations. 
  Fifty-one percent of NCPs said their visits were cancelled less often after reaching an 
agreement at mediation, and of those NCPs who reported that their visitations increased, 69% 
said that they had fewer cancellations. 
Source: OEI survey of CPs and NCPs in four states 
11
 Discussion 
The Effect of Increased Visitations 
Programs facilitated increased access rights by mediating agreements for most of the parents in our 
survey. In general, the parents who reached a mediated agreement reported experiencing increases in 
the amount of visits and having fewer cancellations in the 6 months after reaching a mediated agreement 
than they experienced in the 6 month prior to mediation. In addition, a greater proportion of parents 
had visits that were scheduled, as opposed to informal. Scheduled visits that occur more often and are 
cancelled less often may provide stability to children and their families and have a positive impact on 
their lives and relationships. 
Reasons Cited for Visitation Changes 
Parents attributed visitation increases to mediation and other factors. Sixty percent of CPs and 92% of 
NCPs stated that the mediation program played either a major or minor role in the increase. 
Additionally, 8 respondents cited that their visitation increase was also due to a positive change in their 
parental relationships or increased cooperation, and four parents stated that changes in court rulings 
played a major role in the increase in visitations. 
For those who reported a decrease in visitations, 81% of CPs (and no NCPs) cited the mediation 
program as playing a major or minor role in the change in visits.  Also, 8 parents stated that parental 
conflict or a lack of cooperation played a role in the decrease, and 3 parents reported that they lived 
too far away from each other for visits to occur.  Parental conflict was also one of the primary reasons 
cited by respondents for cancelling visits. 
Limitations of Data 
As stated earlier, 25 of our 100 cases had a response from both the CP and NCP.  We found that 
77% of the pairs agreed on whether or not they reached a mediated agreement, and of those pairs, 
65% agreed on whether or not the NCP visits increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Although the 
majority of pairs reported consistently with each other in our survey, research indicates that CPs may 
under-report and NCPs may over-report visits, which may hold true for our respondents as well. Also, 
although extraordinary attempts were made to reach all parents within our sample, and our ultimate 
response rate was higher than expected, those who completed the survey may over-represent the more 
stable CPs and NCPs, whose behaviors may be assumed to be different from other less stable CPs and 
NCPs. 
12
 Improved Payment Compliance 
According to our case file review of child support records, 61% of noncustodial parents increased the percent of 
current child support they paid after mediation. 
For the main analysis of payment patterns, we used a subset of 111 cases out of the total 190 cases 
from our 4 state case file review. These 111 cases represent cases that had a child support order 
before and after mediation.  This section also includes information gathered from our phone survey of 
parents, pertaining to parents opinions about payment patterns. 
Percent of Child Support Paid Increased 
	 Sixty-one percent of NCPs increased the percent they paid of their current child support 
obligation after entering mediation. Twenty-seven percent decreased the percent of the current 
child support obligation they paid, and 12% did not change the percent they paid. 
	 Prior to mediation, NCPs paid 52% of what was owed in current child support.  After 
mediation, NCPs paid 70% of what was owed in current child support.  Nationally, the child 
support system collected 56% of what was owed in FY 2000. 
	 For all cases reviewed, the average monthly payment increased by $56. This is a 35% increase 
over projected post-mediation payments, based on previous payment history.  This difference 
would result in an estimated $230,000 net increase in annual child support collections for the 
universe of 595 IV-D cases served by the program in the 4 states. 
	 For the 61% of NCPs who increased the percent they paid, the average monthly child support 
payments to custodial families increased by $116.  This is a 90% increase over expected post-
mediation payments, based on previous payment history.  For those NCPs who decreased the 
percent they paid, the average monthly child support payment decreased by $54. 
Percent of NCPs Broken Out by Change in Payment 
Compliance After Mediation 
61% 
80% 
s 
P 60% 
C
N 27% 
nt of  40%  12% 
e
rc 20% 
e
P
0% 
Increased  Decreased  No Change 
Source: OEI case file review in four states, n = 111 cases with orders before and after mediation 
13  Consistency of Payments Increased 
	 Fifty-three percent of NCPs increased the percentage of months that they paid at least some 
portion of the current child support owed to the custodial family.  Twenty-three percent 
decreased the percentage of months they paid as least some portion of their current child 
support and for 24% of NCPs it stayed the same. 
Percent of NCPs Broken out by Change in the 
Consistency of Payments After Mediation 
53% 
70% 
s  60% 
P
C 50%  23%  24% 
N
f  40% 
o
nt  30% 
ce 20% 
r
Pe 10% 
0% 
Increased  Decreased  No Change 
Source: OEI case file review in four states, n = 111 cases with orders before and after mediation 
Some Parents Reported Link Between Child Support Payment and Visitation 
	 Forty-two percent of CPs agreed with the statement, If the other parent does not pay child 
support, I should not have to let them see my child. A slightly higher percentage (45%) 
disagreed with this statement. 
	 Fifty-two percent of NCPs agreed with the statement, If the other parent does not let me see 
my child, I should not have to pay child support. Thirty-nine percent disagreed. 
Discussion 
Impact of Program Participation on Payment 
It appears that participating in the sampled programs is plausibly associated with an increase in the 
percent of current child support paid and the number of child support payments made. Overall, 61% of 
NCPs increased the percent of child support paid after mediation.  This number is even higher for 
certain states. In Nevada, Connecticut, and Oklahoma, over 65% of cases show payment increases 
after mediation.  On the other hand, in Illinois, only 51% of cases had an increase in payment 
compliance after mediation. 
Impact of Increasing Access and Visitation on Payment 
Payment compliance increased whether or not NCPs access rights increased through the program. In 
62% of the cases where the NCPs access rights increased, there was an increase in payment 
compliance. Fifty-nine percent of cases without an access increase showed an increase in payment 
14
 compliance. This difference is too small for us to be confident that, accounting for variation, there really 
is a difference between the two groups.  Further, a chi-square test shows that the association is not 
statistically significant. Thus, we conclude that increasing access rights does not appear to be 
associated with an increase in payment compliance. 
We also analyzed the possible association between increased visits and increased payment.  We found 
some interesting patterns suggesting that increased visitation may be associated with an increase in 
payment compliance. Out of the 111 cases in the case file review, there were 25 cases where we also 
had data from NCPs regarding visitation from our phone survey. Of those NCPs who reported that 
their visits increased after mediation (n=14), more NCPs increased the percent of current child support 
paid (60%) than decreased or paid the same percentage of their current child support obligation (40%). 
However, this association must be interpreted with caution, given that the number of cases was 
extremely small and some NCP and CP responses conflicted. 
Impact of Earnings on Payment 
Certainly, program participation is not the only potential explanation for an increase in current child 
support payment compliance.  According to past OEI child support work and other research, a strong 
predictor of child support payment compliance is NCP earnings. Unfortunately, the longitudinal 
earnings data we were able to collect through the state child support enforcement offices were 
extremely limited.  Upon careful scrutiny, we considered it too unreliable to be useful.  However, a 
basic analysis of the earnings data 6 months prior to mediation and 6 months after mediation does show 
a statistically significant relationship between an increase in payment compliance and an increase in 
average monthly earnings.  Of those who increased their payment compliance, 62% showed an 
increase in average monthly income. We ran a logistic regression to ascertain the extent to which this 
increase in earnings might explain the increase in payment compliance after mediation.  Our model, 
which included variables for whether or not earnings increased, whether or not mediation resulted in an 
agreement and whether or not access increased, only explained a small part of why compliance 
increased.  Program participation, our main variable of interest, could not be included in the model since 
we did not have a control group that would allow us to compare those who participated in the program 
with those who did not.  Given this and the rest of the data presented - that show an increase in 
payment compliance temporally related to the date of mediation - it appears plausible that program 
participation is a major factor influencing the increase in payment compliance after mediation. 
15
 Other Outcomes 
Out of 254 cases reviewed in our case file review, we found 2 cases that formed a household after 
mediation. Custodial and noncustodial parents differed in their opinions regarding the other secondary 
The data for our review of other outcomes were gathered from our case file review, the parent survey and 
program and state administrator interviews from the four states. 
Household Formation 
	 After conducting a full case file review of all 254 cases, we found 2 cases in which couples 
began living together after mediation. Our records show that one of these couples agreed in 
mediation to get back together for the kids. 
	 We found two cases among 118 cases in our telephone survey in which at least one of the 
parents reported being romantically involved with the other parent after mediation. 
When asked about parent happiness/well-being and child behavior, respondents were not provided with 
explicit definitions by which to frame their responses.  Thus, the responses we captured reflect personal, 
and in all likelihood different, definitions for these concepts.  Despite this, we have aggregated the data to 
provide a very general sense of program impact.  Rigorous measurement of these issues was not within the 
scope of this inspection. 
Parent Happiness/Well-being 
	 Thirty-eight percent of CPs and 55% of NCPs reported that their happiness or well-
being improved after mediation. 
	 Thirty-four percent of CPs and 84% of NCPs who saw an increase in visits reported that 
their happiness/well-being improved after mediation. 
Change in Child Behavior 
	 Thirty-three percent of CPs and 41% of NCPs reported that they felt their childs behavior 
improved after mediation. 
	 Thirty-two percent of CPs and 63% of NCPs who saw an increase in visits reported that 
they felt there was an improvement in their childs behavior after mediation. 
Other Outcomes Reported From Programs 
A few programs stressed that mediation agreement rates alone do not necessarily define program 
success, and they cite the following other outcomes as important to consider. 
	 Parents learn to refocus on childrens needs. Many programs reported parents 
learning in mediation to re-frame their thinking in terms of what is best for their child, instead 
of becoming mired in their own conflicts. 
16
 	 Improved communication and parenting skills.  Many programs stressed that they are 
proud of their ability to encourage better communication between parents and to promote 
better parenting skills. 
	 Empowering parents. Programs maintained that their clients often feel powerless in the 
court system, and that mediation affords parents an important opportunity to feel a sense of 
empowerment and control.  One administrator stressed the inherent value of the mediation 
paradigm stating that it provides, an opportunity for each parent to be heard and feel that 
their perspective is important and valuable. 
	 Connecting parents to needed services. One administrator stated that, The IV-D 
facilitators are greatly skilled at recognizing problems that might not otherwise be identified, 
such as domestic violence. Other programs noted that they will refer parents to counseling, 
or other social services after seeing them in mediation. 
17
 Administrator Perspectives on Success 
According to the Access and Visitation state administrator and mediation program managers in the four 
states, a mediation programs success is related to its relationship with referral sources (i.e., courts or 
child support offices), its convenience to clients, and its capacity to conduct outreach and follow-up. A 
mediation sessions success, respondents noted, is related to the quality of the mediation process, as well 
as the nature of the clients served. 
In discussing the factors related to the success or failure of a mediation program, it is important to keep in 
mind that a broad range of mediation models exist. See Appendix A for a listing of program characteristics 
and descriptions.  On one end of the spectrum, the community-based model offers multiple services over 
time on a voluntary basis. On the other end, the court-based model offers one session on a mandatory 
basis. While the models of the mediation programs in our sample run along the spectrum, we found general 
agreement across administrators in the factors leading to program and session success. 
To identify the core factors that may be associated with a mediation program or sessions success, we 
analyzed qualitative responses from the 10 state and program managers interviews in 4 states.  Seven of 
the respondents are from court-based mediation programs, the remaining three represent community-based 
programs. 
Perspectives on Program Success 
  Relationship with Referral Source 
	 All 10 respondents agreed that a positive relationship, including close collaboration with 
their referral source (i.e. court or child support office), is crucial to their programs success. 
Also important on the whole is the referral sources buy-in. Specifically, the 7 court-
based respondents stated that the level of communication between the mediators and 
judges greatly facilitates referrals. On the other hand, 1 state Administrator stated its 
community-based mediation programs are not seen as a priority by the child support office, 
their primary source of referral. 
	 Seven interviewees stressed the logistical importance of their close location in relation to the 
referral source. In fact, the director of a community-based program said that moving on-
site to the child support office has made a significant difference in the number of referrals. 
  Convenience of the Program for Clients 
	 The 7 court-based respondents said either their programs close proximity to the court or 
having mediators on-site in the courtroom means clients can easily mediate on the same 
day of a court appearance, saving the parents time off work and money. 
	 Two of the court-based programs provide child care to make it easier for parents to attend 
mediation. 
18
   Program Capacity to Conduct Outreach and Follow-up 
	 Eight respondents mentioned the importance of conducting outreach to recruit clients. Five 
of these respondents specifically mentioned the inability to actively recruit clients, even 
though, as one state administrator said, There are more people in need of mediation than 
the programs can serve. 
	 Three administrators stated that they could not conduct follow-up to monitor the progress 
of their cases, preventing them from revising individual plans, or more broadly, making 
improvements to their programs. 
Perspectives on a Mediation Sessions Success 
  Quality of the Mediation Session 
  Six respondents said the skill of the mediator impacts the sessions success 
	 Two interviewees, 1 from each mediation model, stated that mediation held outside of a 
court room is more successful because it is less formal and, as one mediator said, 
separates child support issues from visitation. 
	 One community-based program manager stressed the importance of meditating multiple 
times, saying, the biggest challenge [for programs who mediate once] is the expectation 
that you can solve family problems in one mediation session. On the other hand, as one 
court-based state administrator said, mediators are pressed for time and one session is 
sometimes all they can do. 
	 The state administrator and program manager for one community-based program attribute 
their success to a pre-mediation parenting course. 
  Nature of the Clients 
	 Seven state and program administrators remarked that a clients negative attitude, animosity 
toward the other parent or the inability to focus on his or her childs needs adversely affects 
a mediation session. 
	 Success is more likely, as 7 respondents said, if clients are open to mediation and willing to 
participate. Unfortunately, as one state administrator said, there are some conflict junkies 
who are just not going to settle. 
	 Seven respondents stated that clients need to have a positive perception of the mediation 
process and believe the mediator is listening to them.  Parents can be mistrustful of 
mediation because of its association with child support or the courts. 
19
 The State of Georgia 
Unlike the four other states, Georgias two mediation programs focus primarily on increasing immediate 
visitation, as opposed to access rights. Our case file review found that at least 60% of cases that successfully 
completed program goals saw an increase in visits. 
The two programs in Georgia have very different services and goals than the mediation programs in the four 
other states reviewed. Because of these differences, we analyzed Georgias data separately. This allowed us to 
present a more uniform analysis of mediation programs in the other states, and to judge Georgias programs 
using a different set of criteria more appropriate to their stated program goals. 
The programs in the four other states generally mediate over one session with both parents referred together 
from the courts. Georgias programs, however, employ a social-work model, providing longer term case-
specific assistance, and their primary referral is the noncustodial parent. The assistance they provide consists of 
such things as locating the custodial parent (CP) on behalf of the noncustodial parent (NCP), building 
communication and parenting skills, facilitating and increasing visits, and assisting in the legitimation process - a 
prerequisite to legal access unique to Georgia. 
Access: Programs focused on visits as opposed to access and, as such, access rights 
did not appreciably increase 
	 Fifty percent of the cases reviewed successfully completed program goals. We defined this as 
negotiating/monitoring immediate visits, promoting the ability of parents to coordinate future 
visits, and/or helping clients through the legitimation process. 
	 Only 6% gained access rights in the form of a written visitation schedule for regular visits. None 
of these parenting plans were ratified by Georgia courts. 
	 Thirty-four percent of records reviewed made some mention of fathers beginning the legitimation 
process, the first legal step to acquiring access rights, and another 8% indicated that fathers had 
reached the middle of the process.  Programs report informing all participants of the need for 
and process entailed in filing for legitimation, and they note that the great majority of these 
noncustodial parents are entirely unaware of this process. 
Visitation: Program participation led to an increase in visits 
	 In Georgia, we have information on visitation from both our case file review and our parent 
survey. Unlike other states, the case files in Georgia contained sufficient documentation about 
visits prior to entering the program and the visits that occurred during service to render an 
assessment of the programs impact on visitation. 
	 Overall, according to our case file review, at least 47% of the cases that entered the program 
saw an increase in visits. We were unable to make a clear determination for another 30%, for 
whom visits may have increased. 
	 At least 60% of cases that successfully completed program goals saw an increase in visits. We 
were unable to make a clear determination for another 38% for whom visits may have increased. 
	 According to our survey, 4 out of 7 parents who reported reaching an agreement and having 
some visits in Georgia reported an increase in regular visits. 
20
 Payment: Payments increased in frequency and amount subsequent to mediation 
	 Fifty-five percent of NCPs increased the percentage of current child support paid by an average 
of $88, and 48% increased their frequency of payment. The 40% who decreased payments did 
so by an average of $56. 
	 Seventy percent of those who successfully completed program goals subsequently increased 
their payments as a percentage of their obligations by an average of $107, and 63% increased 
the frequency of their payments.  The 30% who decreased their payments did so by an average 
of $76. 
	 More NCPs who successfully completed program goals increased their payments than those 
who did not. This association is statistically significant. 
  The net increase in average monthly payments per case was $26. 
	 The net increase in total annual child support paid was approximately $66,000 in FY 2001 for 
the universe of 256 IV-D cases served by the program. 
Other Outcomes 
	 Improved parent well-being and child behavior.  Of the 13 parents surveyed who had 
reached a visitation arrangement, 5 reported an increase in their own-well being, and 5 reported 
an improvement in child behavior in the 6 months following mediation. 
	 Improved parent relationship.  Program administrators felt that as a result of services, parents 
were able to better communicate and discuss their childs needs. 
	 Increased child support involvement.  One program administrator reports that NCPs will at 
times volunteer to open a child support case since this is a prerequisite to receiving help with 
visitation. In addition, parents whom the child support office has had trouble locating may be 
found through these programs. 
	 Parents reunite. None of the cases reviewed indicated parent reunification. However, one 
program administrator reported that this does at times occur. 
	 Good public relations for the child support office. The state administrator reported that the 
child support office is better able to shed their bad guy image, by making referrals to these 
programs focused on assisting NCPs with their visitation concerns. 
Factors of Program Success 
	 The location of the program.  Program administrators reported that the caseworkers ability 
to meet clients in a neutral community setting contributed to the programs success. 
	 The voluntary nature of the referrals.  Because participation is voluntary, program 
administrators reported that their clients are more internally motivated to succeed. 
Barriers to Program Success 
	 Access to custodial parent. State confidentiality laws prevent the child support office from 
supplying custodial parent contact information when they make referrals.  Program 
administrators cite this inability to locate the CP as one of the major reasons why cases close 
with no progress made toward access or visitation. 
	 Legal barrier. In Georgia, there is a law requiring NCPs to be granted "legitimation" in addition 
to paternity establishment before they can pursue access rights. This creates an additional legal 
hurdle for NCPs attempting to seek access to their children. One program 
21
 and the child support office are lobbying the state in an attempt to remove this legal barrier. 
	 Collaboration with the courts. There is currently little interaction with the courts. However, 
one program is currently trying to educate the judges on their services in an effort to encourage 
them to make referrals. 
	 Voluntary nature of the referral. As noted above, programs view the voluntary nature of the 
referrals as beneficial to program success.  However, programs also mention that  without 
mandatory participation, there is no external incentive or enforcement with respect to coming to 
an agreement or following through with the program. 
22
 Appendix A: Program Characteristics 
Program  Program  Physical Location  Primary Referral Source  Avg length of  Avg # of 
Budget - session  sessions 
FY2001 
IL- Cook County  $130,000  Court building  Child Support court  1.5 hours  1 
IL- DuPage County  $230,000  Court building  Court  1-1.5 hours  1 
NV- Las Vegas  $70,000  Court building  Child Support court  2 hours  3 
NV- Reno  $33,300  Near Court building  Court  2 hours  2-3 
CT- Hartford  $82,100  Near Court building  Child Support court  1.5-2 hours  1 
OK- Norman  $28,900  Community site  Child Support office  2 hours  3 
maximum 
OK-Tulsa  $26,300  Child Support building  Administrative Child Support  .5-1 hour  1 
hearings 
GA- Families First  *  Community site  Child Support Office  45 minutes  2 
GA- Middle  *  Community site  Child Support Office  1 hour  2 
Georgia 
* The total amount of the Federal Grant for FY 2001 for Georgia was $194,205.  The break-out by program was unavailable. 
23
 Appendix A: Program Descriptions 
Court-Based Programs 
Connecticut. The Hartford Family Services Program is a voluntary, court-based mediation program. The 
office is located in close proximity of the child support court and mediators are typically on-site in the court room 
to take referrals. Clients then can choose if they want to mediate immediately at the court, or they can set up an 
appointment to meet at a later date at the program office. 
Illinois. The two mediation programs in Illinois, one in Cook County and the other in DuPage County, are 
administered similarly. Both programs are located in the same building as the child support court, their primary 
source of referrals. If the issue of visitation comes up in a clients hearing, the judges or hearing officers can refer 
them to the on-site mediators for same day service. 
Nevada.  The Las Vegas and Reno programs in Nevada both serve clients who are court-ordered to 
mediation. The child support court masters may mandate a case with visitation issues to the mediation program, 
conveniently located in the same building as the court.  The two programs also serve clients who voluntarily want 
to participate. 
Community Based Programs 
Oklahoma. The two programs in Oklahoma both receive referrals for their voluntary mediation programs from 
a variety of sources, including the child support office, courts, and community organizations.  However, the 
program in Tulsa operates similarly to a court-based program, as the majority of its referrals are from 
administrative child support hearings.  The program is located in the same building as the child support office, so 
referrals are typically seen immediately.  The Norman program, on the other hand, sees clients in a community 
setting. 
Georgia. Georgias two community-based mediation programs both employ a broader, social work model. 
They receive almost all of their referrals from the local child support offices, which are typically noncustodial 
parents who have indicated problems related to access and visitation. For those who take the initiative to 
contact the program, their access and visitation needs are assessed and a plan for increasing visitation is 
established. Typically, the first step in this process is to locate and gain the cooperation of the custodial parent. 
Clients are also provided with information regarding seeking legally binding access rights through the courts as 
well as information on the other services offered by the program, such as parenting education and supervised 
visitation. 
24
 Appendix B: Parent Satisfaction 
Table B.1: Most parents recommend the mediation program, even those who did not reach agreements. 
Strongly or  Neither  Strongly or  Dont 
Somewhat  recommend or  Somewhat  know 
recommend  advise against  advise against 
All CP Respondents 
81%  12%  5%  2% 
n=69 
CPs who reached 
3% 
mediated agreement  81%  11%  5% 
n=60 
CPs who did not 
reach an agreement  80%  0%  20%  0% 
n=9 
All NCP Respondents 
71%  14%  12%  2% 
n=56 
NCPs who reached 
mediated agreement  74%  14%  11%  1% 
n=45 
NCPs who did not 
reach an agreement  59%  13%  19%  9% 
n=11 
25
 Appendix C: Methodology 
To describe the effectiveness of the Access and Visitation Grants that target IV-D families, we reviewed Access 
and Visitation program files, related court files, and child support case files for 254 cases in 5 states.  We also 
conducted a phone survey of the parents who participated in the program and interviewed Access and Visitation 
program administrators. 
Sampling plan 
We employed a two-stage stratified random sampling methodology. The strata were states. From each strata, 
we randomly selected a sample of participants who completed mediation services in calendar year 2001. 
Selecting States. We purposively selected 5 states to represent those states that use their Access and Visitation 
grant money to offer access-related services, specifically mediation, to the IV-D population.  These five states 
were selected out of 17 states who reported to OCSE that they elected to use their grant money to offer 
mediation to the IV-D population.  To make our selection, we collected information from each of the mediation 
programs in the 17 states.  We requested information on the programs target populations, number of 
participants, and types of services offered. States were selected to represent geographic diversity as well as 
diversity on a few key characteristics of the programs that they funded. The conditions considered were 
whether the programs were court based or community based, the extent to which they served the IV-D 
population and whether or not confidentiality provisions would prohibit our access to necessary documentation. 
We selected Nevada, Connecticut, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Georgia (containing a total of nine mediation 
programs). 
Selecting Participants. To select our sample participants, we requested that nine programs in the 5 selected 
states identify all IV-D cases completing mediation in calendar year 2001. From this list, we randomly selected 
cases. Samples were selected with the intention of achieving 95% confidence intervals with 7% precision. 
Alternates were selected in anticipation that our case file review would reveal cases that were inappropriately 
included in our sampling frame. 
Data Collection 
In our case file review, we were able to collect complete data for 254 cases. Cases are broken out by state in 
Table C.1. The table also indicates the original sample sizes desired for each strata.  The actual sample sizes are 
smaller than the desired sample size in 3 states because, despite selecting alternates, we had to discard more 
cases than anticipated. This means that some precision was lost, which is reflected in the confidence intervals in 
Appendix D. Cases were primarily discarded because parents did not actually participate in mediation. 
26
 Table C.1: Sample for State Case File Review 
Strata/State  Number of  Number of  Number of Cases 
Cases in  Cases in  in Population 
Desired Sample  Actual Sample 
Nevada  59  51  150 
Connecticut  37  33  59 
Oklahoma  31  31  45 
Illinois  75  75  341 
Georgia  70  64  256 
Four State  202*  190*  595* 
TOTAL* 
TOTAL  272  254  851 
* All states except Georgia 
Access Rights: Court and Mediation Program Case File Review.  To assess whether NCPs increased their 
access rights, we reviewed access-related documents in court, mediation program, and child support case files. 
These documents included mediated agreements, divorce decrees, stand alone visitation orders, restraining 
orders, parentage establishment orders, and child support orders. In addition to mediated agreements, some 
mediation programs also allowed us to collect information from mediator case notes and intake sheets, which 
included demographic and contact information for parents. For each case, we noted whether mediation resulted 
in an agreement, recorded any noncustodial parent access rights at the time mediation began, and noncustodial 
parent access rights acquired through the terms of mediation agreements. 
To analyze our collected data, we first compared the NCPs access rights prior to the program (as noted in 
court documents) to his or her access rights after the program (as noted in mediated access agreements) to code 
whether access rights increased, stayed the same, or decreased. 
Visitation: Phone Survey of CP and NCP Program Participants. Our contractor contacted program 
participants by phone in order to glean information from the participants about changes in visitation and other 
outcomes resulting from the program. Participants were asked about the extent of visits before and after 
completing the program, and whether they experienced other outcomes, such as improved child behavior, 
household formation or marriage after mediation. In addition, participants were asked to comment on reasons 
for visit changes and provide feedback on the program they attended. 
Based on conversations with researchers working with the IV-D population, we expected a low response rate 
on our survey, due primarily to inaccurate, outdated, or missing contact information. One study in particular 
experienced a 25% response rate.  In an effort to increase our response rate, we collected participant contact 
information from multiple sources - child support, court, and mediation program files. 
27
 Our contractor made every effort to contact participants using the information we provided. They called at 
different times of the day, left messages and, where phone numbers were outdated, searched the internet and 
telephone directories for new numbers.  The contractor estimated that staff spent a third of their time tracking 
down current numbers for parents after exhausting the numbers that we provided. 
The response rate for our phone survey was higher than expected. We received responses for 125 parents (out 
of 380) for a parent response rate of 33%, and surveyed at least one parent for 100 of our 190 cases for a case 
response rate of 53%. In 25 cases both parents responded. See the table below for strata sample sizes and 
weights. 
Table C.2: Sample for Phone Survey 
Strata/State  Number of Parents in  Number of Cases  Number of Cases in  Number of Cases in 
Desired Sample  in Desired Sample  Actual Sample  Population 
Nevada  102  51  32  150 
Connecticut  66  33  13  59 
Oklahoma  62  31  21  45 
Illinois  150  75  34  341 
Georgia  128  64  18  256 
Four State TOTAL*  380  190  100  595 
TOTAL  508  254  118  851 
* 
All states except Georgia 
Child Support Payment: Child Support Case File Review. For our payment review, we collected information 
from child support records on order, payment, and earnings history for the period 18 months before mediation 
to 18 months after mediation for each case. To assess whether child support increased, we compared each 
noncustodial parents child support payment history before they entered the mediation program to their payment 
history after they completed the program. 
State and Program Administrator Perspectives. We conducted interviews with all state and program-level 
administrators to examine what factors may be associated with programmatic success or failure. We conducted 
a content analysis on administrator responses, identifying common themes. 
Analysis 
Due to significant differences between Georgias programs and the other states programs, all of the data 
collected from Georgia was pulled out and analyzed separately. In other words, the information from the 254 
cases was broken into two subsets used in analysis, 190 cases for four states and 64 cases for Georgia. 
Analyzing the data separately allowed us to present a more uniform analysis of mediation programs in the other 
states, and to judge Georgias program using criteria more appropriate to their stated program goals. Georgias 
programs have very different services and goals than the mediation programs in the four other states reviewed. 
The programs in the four other states generally mediate over one session with both parents referred from the 
28
 courts at the same time. Georgias programs, however, employ a social-work model, providing longer term 
case-specific assistance, and their primary referral is the NCP. 
Despite sampling on case, we analyzed most of the NCP and CP responses to the phone survey separately. 
Research indicates that CPs tend to under-report when asked about child support payments and NCP visits, 
and NCPs tend to over-report these same items. Also, we had 25 cases in which both parents responded. 
Separate analysis allowed us to report out the data without making potentially arbitrary adjustments to account 
for any over- or under-reporting or conflicting information within a case. For a few core variables, we 
performed analysis by case. For the 25 cases with responses from each parent, we categorized conflicting 
information as indeterminate. Fortunately, most of the parents in these cases agreed on the items being analyzed. 
We found that 77% of the pairs agreed on whether or not that they reached a mediated agreement.  Of those 
pairs reporting having reached an agreement, 65% agreed on whether or not the NCP visits increased, 
decreased, or stayed the same. 
We had anticipated including a comparison of court and community programs outcomes.  Three of our states 
contained court-based mediation programs (Nevada, Illinois, Connecticut), and two states contained 
community-based programs (Georgia, Oklahoma).  Ultimately separating states into court/community categories 
did not prove useful.  One of two community-based states, Georgia, was removed from our aggregate analysis. 
Further, the largest program in Oklahoma, the other state with community-based programs, turned out to have a 
very similar structure to our other court-based programs, in that parents are referred to mediation largely through 
child support administrative hearings. 
For the 4 states, we calculated weighted frequencies and confidence intervals using the statistical software 
package SUDAAN. We tested relationships using chi-square tests and logistic regression where applicable. 
For Georgia, the data was analyzed using the statistical software SAS and Microsoft Access since weighting 
was not necessary. 
Since all aggregate data reported are weighted according to state stratification, they can be projected to 
program participants in the four states. Our sampling methodology does not allow us to project to the 17 states. 
Our analysis of Georgia can only be projected to represent that state. Confidence intervals for specific point 
estimates are provided in Appendix D. 
29
 Appendix D: Confidence Intervals 
Point  Lower  Upper 
Statistic  Estimate  Limit  Limit 
ACCESS 
Percent of cases that reached an agreement  76.1%  71.3%  80.3% 
Percent of cases with an agreement that increased access rights  86.0%  81.9%  90.2% 
Percent of all cases that gained increased access rights through  65.4%  60.2%  70.7% 
mediation 
Percent of IL cases that reached an agreement  72.0%  64.4%  79.6% 
Percent of CT cases that reached an agreement  84.9%  77.9%  91.8% 
Percent of NCPs with no prior access who reached an agreement  77.0%  71.3%  82.8% 
Percent of NCP with prior access who reached an agreement  73.9%  65.3%  82.5% 
Percent of NCPs with prior access who reached an agreement  53.8%  42.9%  64.6% 
increasing their access rights 
Percent of all NCPs with prior access who increased their access  39.7%  30.4%  49.0% 
rights 
VISITS 
Percentage of cases with a parent reporting an increase in visits  41.5%  31.7%  51.3% 
Percentage of cases with a parent reporting visits stayed the  33%  21.7%  44.3% 
same 
Percentage of cases with a parent reporting a decrease in visits  11%  3.7%  18.3% 
Percent of CPs who reached an agreement in mediation  88.2%  68.8%  100.0% 
Percent of NCPs who reached an agreement in mediation  83.3%  75.8%  90.8% 
Percent of CPs with an agreement whose visits increased  38.8%  27.6%  50.0% 
Percent of NCPs with an agreement whose visits increased  53.1%  39.5%  66.7% 
Percent of CPs without an agreement whose visits increased  10.2%  0%  24.8% 
Percent of NCPs without an agreement whose visits increased  13.0%  0%  26.8% 
Percent of CPs who say there were once/weekly or more visits  29.5%  17.6%  41.4% 
before mediation 
Percent of NCPs who say there were once/weekly or more visits  47.9%  33.3%  62.6% 
before mediation 
Percent of CPs who claim there were no visits before mediation  41.6%  29%  54% 
Percent of NCPs who claim there were no visits before mediation  27.6%  14.8%  40.3% 
30
 Point  Lower  Upper 
Statistic  Estimate  Limit  Limit 
Percent of CPs who say there were once/weekly or more visits  47.1%  34.3%  59.9% 
after mediation 
Percent of NCPs who say there were once/weekly or more visits  61.2%  46.9%  75.4% 
after mediation 
Percent of CPs who claim there were no visits after mediation  23.2%  12.4%  34% 
Percent of NCPs who claim there were no visits after mediation  15.7%  4.7%  26.6% 
Percent of CPs who said visits were regularly scheduled before  20.2%  9.5%  30.9% 
agreement 
Percent of NCPs who said visits were regularly scheduled before  26.3%  12.7%  39.9% 
agreement 
Percent of CPs who said visits were regularly scheduled after  43.7%  30.4%  57% 
agreement 
Percent of NCPs who said visits were regularly scheduled after  56.7%  41.4%  71.9% 
agreement 
Percent of CPs who said visits were informal before agreement  16.7%  6.9%  26.4% 
Percent of NCPs who said visits were informal before agreement  17.4%  5.3%  29.5% 
Percent of CPs who said visits were informal after agreement  8.2%  .5%  15.9% 
Percent of NCPs who said visits were informal after mediation  4.4%  0%  9.1% 
Percent of CPs who said visits were cancelled less often after  23.8%  11%  36.6% 
mediation 
Percent of NCPs who said visits were cancelled less often after  50.6%  33.4%  67.7% 
mediation 
Percent of CPs with increased visits who said visits were  42.6%  18.6%  66.7% 
cancelled less often after mediation 
Percent of NCPs with increased visits who said visits were  68.9%  46.8%  91% 
cancelled less often after mediation 
PAYMENT 
Percent of NCPs who increased percent paid of amount owed  60.7%  52%  69.4% 
Percent of NCPs who decreased percent paid of amount owed  27.5%  19.4%  35.5% 
Percent of NCPs who did not change percent paid of amount  11.9%  6.0%  17.7% 
owed 
Estimate of total annual net increase in child support collection  $231,121  $151,777  $310,465 
Average monthly amount increase per case  $55.66  $36.55  $74.77 
31
 Point  Lower  Upper 
Statistic  Estimate  Limit  Limit 
Average monthly amount increase for NCPs who increased  $116.02  $95.28  $136.75 
payment 
Average monthly amount decrease for NCPs who decreased  $53.74  $29.20  $78.28 
payment 
Percent of NCPs who increased number of payments  53.5%  46.2%  60.8% 
Percent of NCPs who decreased number of payments  22.8%  16.3%  29.3% 
Percent of NCPs where the number of payments remained the  23.7%  17.4%  30.0% 
same 
Percent of CPs who agreed with opinion statement regarding the  41.7%  31.5%  51.9% 
connection between child support payment and visitation 
Percent of CPs who disagreed with opinion statement regarding  45.3%  35.0%  55.6% 
the connection between child support payment and visitation 
Percent of NCPs who agreed with opinion statement regarding  52.5%  40.9%  64.0% 
the connection between visitation and child support payment 
Percent of NCPs who disagreed with opinion statement regarding  39.2%  27.8%  50.6% 
the connection between visitation and child support payment 
OTHER OUTCOMES 
Percent of CPs reporting well-being increase after mediation  38.0%  27.0%  49.0% 
Percent of NCPs reporting well-being increase after mediation  54.8%  41.3%  68.2% 
Percent of CPs who reported an increase in visits and reported an  34.3%  18.7%  50.0% 
increase in well-being after mediation 
Percent of NCPs who reported an increase in visits and reported  84.4%  73.5%  95.3% 
an increase in well-being after mediation 
Percent of CPs reporting an improvement in child behavior after  33.3%  23.2%  43.5% 
mediation 
Percent of NCPs reporting an improvement in child behavior after  40.7%  27.4%  53.9% 
mediation 
Percent of CPs who reported an increase in visits and reported an  32.1%  16.7%  47.4% 
improvement in child behavior after mediation 
Percent of NCPs who reported an increase in visits and reported  63.3%  45.9%  80.7% 
an improvement in child behavior after mediation 
GEORGIA 
Percent of all cases that successfully completed program goals  60%  45.5%  74.5% 
and saw an increase in visits 
32
 Point  Lower  Upper 
Statistic  Estimate  Limit  Limit 
Percent of cases that completed program goals  50%  39.6%  60.4% 
Percent of cases that had a formal parenting plan  6.3%  1%  10.9% 
Percent of cases in which there was some indication that they  34.4%  24.1%  43.9% 
had begun the legitimation process 
Percent of cases in which there was some indication that they  7.8%  2.3%  13.7% 
had gotten to the middle of the legitimation process 
Percent of cases with no prior access rights  81.2%  73%  89.4% 
Percent of all cases that saw a clear increase in visits  47%  36.5%  57.4% 
Percent of all cases that saw an indeterminate change in visits  30%  20.4%  39.5% 
Percent of all cases that successfully completed program goals  37.5%  23.2%  51.8% 
and saw an indeterminate change in visits. 
Percent of NCPs who increased percent paid of owed  54.7%  44.9%  64.5 % 
Estimate of total annual net increase in child support collection  $65,967.36  $12,149  $119,786 
Average monthly amount increase per case  $25.93  $4.78  $47.08 
Average amount of the increase of percent paid of due after  $87.86  $55.42  $120.30 
mediation of those who increased payment 
Percent of NCPs who increased their frequency of payments after  48%  38.0%  58.0% 
mediation 
Percent of NCPs who decreased their percent paid of due after  40%  30.2%  49.8% 
mediation 
Average amount of the decrease of percent paid of due after  $55.89  $40.07  $71.71 
mediation of those who decreased payments 
Percent of NCPs who completed program goals who increased  70%  57.4%  82.6% 
percent paid of due after mediation 
Average amount of the increase of percent paid of owed for the  $106.80  $68.46  $145.15 
NCPs who increased percent paid after mediation 
Percent of NCPs who completed program goals who increased  63%  49.7%  76.3% 
frequency of payments after mediation 
Percent of NCPs who completed program goals who decreased  30%  17.4%  42.6% 
percent paid of amount owed after mediation 
Average amount of the decrease of percent paid of amount owed  $76.40  $44.40  $108.40 
for the NCPs who decreased percent paid after mediation 
33
 A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S  
This report was prepared under the direction of William C. Moran, Regional Inspector General for 
Evaluation and Inspections in Chicago and Natalie Coen, Deputy Regional Inspector General.  Other 
principal Office of Evaluation and Inspections staff who contributed include: 
Ann Maxwell, Project Leader
 Joan Richardson, Program Specialist 
Susan Otter, Lead Analyst
 Linda Hall, Program Specialist 
Madeline Carpinelli, Program Analyst

Mara Siler-Price, Program Analyst

Rebecca Ogrodnick, Program Analyst

Christina Singer, Intern

Kim Siegal, Intern

Meaghan Fotherfill, Intern

Sarah Pentoney, Intern