Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JANET REHNQUIST 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

MARCH 2003 

OEI-06-02-00250 

Child Support Enforcement Customer 

Service: 

Parent Perceptions of Telephone and Office 

Visit Experiences In Four States 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

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 OIG’s 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

MAR 2 6 2003

Date 

From Joseph . Vengrin

Deputy Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH St, HUMAN SERVICES Office of Inspector General

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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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. 

CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents i 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. 

CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents ii 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
INTRODUCTION 

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 children’s 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 OCSE’s 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 President’s 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 
QUESTIONNAIRE PRIMER 

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 agency’s website on the 

internet? 

CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents 4 OEI-06-02-00250 
FINDINGS 

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: 

Telephone Call Problems Custodial Parents 

n = 439 

Noncustodial Parents 

n = 168 

Any type of problem 93% (408) 96% (161) 

Reached an automated system, but 

wanted a live representative 

37% (162) 49% (82) 

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) 

Problems Encountered By Method of Contact 

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 Telephone Calls Custodial Parents 

n = 439 

Noncustodial Parents 

n = 168 

Ask a question about parent’s 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 client’s 48% (134) 40% (48) 

Ask a question about client’s 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) 

Reasons For Contact By Method of Contact 

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 

n = 426 

Noncustodial Parents 

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: 

‘Poor’ or ‘Very Poor’ by Problems Encountered 

Telephone Problems Custodial Parents Noncustodial Parents 

Proportion 

who Rated Service Poor 

Proportion 

Rated Service Poor 

Treated rudely 83% (34/41) 91% (31/34) 

Reached an automated 

system, 

but wanted a live 

representative 

50% (80/160) 64% (52/81) 

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) 

Proportion of Respondents Rating Service as 

with Problem with Problem who 

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 
80% 

75% 

64% 

43% 

77% 

63% 

51% 

20% 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

80% 

100% 

Live representative 

by telephone 

Office visit Automated and live 

by telephone 

Fully-automated 

telephone 

Custodial 

Noncustodial 

Source: Analysis of Survey Responses, Office of Inspector General 

Figure 1: 

Direct Access to Staff Automated Access Only 

Received Help 

Parents Who Received Help by Method of Contact 

CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents 9 OEI-06-02-00250 
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. 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 
ENDNOTES 

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 group’s 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: 

Method of Contact Custodial Parents 

n = 487 

Noncustodial Parents 

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 

Methods of Parent Contact 

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 
CSE Customer Service: Perceptions of Parents 13 OEI-06-02-00250

APPENDIX A: Comparison of Sample States to National Averages 

at Time of Sample Selection

State

Admin.

Metho

d

Total 

Caseload

Case Mix

(Current/

Never/

Former)

% Cases

with

Collectio

n

Cost

Effectiveness

Geographi

c Location

MO State 362,156 26/51/23 40% $3.03 Midwest

(Region VII)

NJ County 371,426 23/58/19 57% $4.56 Northeast

(Region II)

TX State 1,215,245 20/78/3 21% $3.96 Southwest

(Region VI)

WA State 320,846 20/46/33 67% $4.37 Northwest

(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 14 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 15 OEI-06-02-00250

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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 General’s

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/