Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JANET REHNQUIST 

Inspector General 

September 2002 

OEI-06-00-00460 

STATEWIDE CHILD SUPPORT 

AUTOMATED TELEPHONE SYSTEMS 
Office of Inspector General

http://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. 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

OBJECTIVE 

To evaluate the quality of parent access to child support enforcement information and customer 

service through State-level automated telephone systems and identify opportunities for 

improving these systems. 

BACKGROUND 

Recent legislation and child support enforcement agency initiatives have increased the overall 

awareness of the need to provide quality customer service to child support enforcement clients. 

Automated telephone systems play an integral role in how State child support enforcement 

agencies communicate with clients and provide customer service. We reviewed all Stateoperated automated child support enforcement telephone systems, using a standardized 

protocol which focused on system content, accessibility and usability. The basis for much of 

our analysis is our development of a list of model system traits. We evaluate the potential 

usefulness of systems to callers, and outline a number of model traits exhibited by the best 

systems. We describe State use of the systems, identify model system traits, and highlight 

recurring limitations that inhibit system usefulness. 

FINDINGS 

Forty-nine child support enforcement agencies use automated systems, and 14 

operate model systems that provide callers superior access to useful information 

Forty-nine States, including the District of Columbia, operate at least one State-wide 

automated telephone system. Thirteen of these States operate more than one State-wide 

system, for a total of 69 systems nationwide. Fourteen State systems exhibit model traits which 

set them apart from other systems, including comprehensive system content, ready accessibility, 

and high usability. Twenty-six other States have systems which meet most, but not all, of our 

model system traits and were rated highly by reviewers for overall usefulness. The nine 

remaining States operate automated systems that are missing more than two model system traits 

and were also rated poorly for overall usefulness. 

Callers receive case-specific payment information through 61 of the 69 systems; 

payment instructions and program descriptions are also common 

Automated systems typically consist of a series of menus from which callers can choose to 

access information and services, the most common of which is case-specific payment 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System i OEI-06-00-00460
information. Recorded descriptions of child support services offered by automated systems are 

typically brief, but give useful program overviews on a broad array of topics such as paternity 

establishment and wage withholding. The more highly rated systems allow for quick automated 

access to the most important topic areas, bypassing topics less likely to be of interest to the 

caller. 

Caller access to information is generally good, with 57 automated systems 

available 24/7, 49 offering toll-free service, and 57 answering calls on first attempt 

Initial system access does not appear to be a substantial barrier to use. Among the 12 systems 

that required more than one attempt to reach, six were accessed on the second or third attempt 

and six required upwards of 10 attempts before our calls were answered. The automated 

portion of 57 systems is available to callers all day, every day, and 49 systems provide service 

toll-free nationwide. Of those systems without toll-free service, many are available free if 

calling within the State. To further broaden access to service, 19 systems provide recorded 

messages in both English and Spanish. 

Navigational tools improve caller ease of use, and 48 systems use optional live 

representatives to supplement automated service 

Systems typically include navigational tools to ease use. For example, 55 systems allow callers 

to repeat menus, and 61 allow callers to make a menu selection without listening to the entire 

list of options. However, these features are not always clearly identified for inexperienced 

callers. Fourteen of the 55 systems offering repeat functions do not inform callers of the option, 

and only 49 systems offer general instructions for using their menus. Forty-eight systems also 

offer callers the option to speak with a live representative in addition to automated information, 

typically to provide details specific to a client’s case. 

Problems commonly inhibiting usefulness for callers include systems that are 

overly complex, are not user-friendly, and include outdated information 

Further analysis of systems that were not rated highly or not identified as model systems 

revealed a number of limits to usefulness. Systems limitations include overly complex menus 

that bury key topics, cumbersome navigation, and use of a negative tone in communicating with 

clients. Some systems also appeared less suited for first-time users, lacking clear information 

on topics of interest to the new client, such as the application process. Other limitations include 

an over reliance on live representatives to provide information that could be automated and 

inclusion of inaccurate or outdated information. 

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 

Conclusion. Our analysis of model child support enforcement automated telephone systems 

identifies key content and features employed by the most useful systems. These 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System ii OEI-06-00-00460
traits, including comprehensive content, ready accessibility, and usability features, combine to 

create systems which are helpful to both new and experienced callers. In terms of system 

content and information, we found that it is critical for systems to provide clear and quick 

access to the most important topic areas, such as case-specific payment information. Among 

features of accessibility and usability, we found that automating key topic areas and providing 

basic navigational tools is highly important to improving caller experiences. In reviewing 

systems not identified as models, we found a number of limitations to usefulness and make 

suggestions for improving child support enforcement automated telephone systems and enhance 

service to callers. 

Suggestions for Improvement. To improve the content, accessibility, and usability of State 

child support enforcement automated telephone systems, we suggest that the Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF) help States enhance their systems. Particular emphasis could be 

placed on improving operations in the nine States identified as using poor automated systems. 

The model system traits listed in the primer on page 5 could serve as a model for basic system 

features, and could be promoted to States by listing these traits on the ACF website. We 

suggest ACF could provide technical assistance to help States: 

< Focus on key topic areas. Assist States in simplifying their automated telephone 

systems, both in content and function, to help them emulate the model States. The most 

useful systems provide substantive information but allow callers to access key, critical 

issues, such as payment information and case initiation, quickly and easily, without requiring 

callers to listen to unnecessary menus or information. 

< Make systems more user-friendly. Assist States in building systems that center on 

services to parents, offering 24-hour access and features that ease use. Technical 

assistance to States could target creating systems that include useful mechanical features, 

using the traits listed in the primer on page 5 as a model for basic system features. These 

model traits could be promoted through the ACF website. 

< Target first-time callers. Foster State efforts to include messages, features, and content 

specifically targeted to first-time callers unfamiliar with procedures. These callers might 

benefit from the provision of a separate menu built for new or prospective clients. 

< Automate functions when possible. Encourage States to automate key information, 

such as payment details, rather than relying primarily on live representatives. Systems could 

attempt to answer basic caller questions through recorded messages and automated 

interaction, reserving live representatives for unique inquiries. 

< Update information frequently. Encourage States to keep information available on 

automated systems accurate and current. Most critical is the accuracy of further contact 

information, such as county office addresses and telephone numbers. 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System iii OEI-06-00-00460
AGENCY COMMENTS 

ACF concurs with the findings and suggestions for improvement included in our report. Additionally, 

ACF plans to publicize the traits of model automated telephone systems on their agency website. ACF 

also indicates that it will target the nine States rated poorly in our report for further review and technical 

assistance. In commenting on our report, ACF outlines details of web-based training it is currently 

offering to State child support enforcement agencies. These efforts appear to address many of the 

limitations to effective customer service that we identify for automated telephone systems. As our 

report indicates, similar technical assistance could be of value in improving automated telephone 

systems. 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System iv OEI-06-00-00460
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE

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

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

PRIMER ON ITEMS REVIEWED AND MODEL SYSTEM TRAITS .................. 5

FINDINGS

Overview of State systems .................................................. 6

System content ........................................................... 7

System accessibility ....................................................... 9

System usability ......................................................... 10

Limitations to system usefulness ............................................. 12

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT ........................................ 16

ENDNOTES ................................................................ 18

AGENCY COMMENTS ...................................................... 19

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................... 22

Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System OEI-06-00-00460 
INTRODUCTION 

OBJECTIVE 

To evaluate the quality of parent access to child support enforcement information and customer 

service through State-level automated telephone systems and identify opportunities for 

improving these systems. 

BACKGROUND 

Recent legislation and initiatives increased the overall awareness of the need to provide quality 

customer service to child support enforcement clients. The Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA)1 of 1993 focuses on improving Federal program effectiveness and public 

accountability by promoting results, service quality, and public satisfaction. Under a GPRA 

pilot project, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) lists improving customer service 

delivery and quality among its chief goals.2 

Automated telephone systems play an integral role in how State child support enforcement 

agencies communicate with clients and provide customer service. They can efficiently and 

economically provide useful information and client services from virtually any location, at any 

time. A 1995 report by the Federal Performance Review estimates that government agencies 

spend three times more money to respond to inquiries by letter than by telephone.3 Automated 

recordings can relay general information about child support enforcement services and give 

clients access to case-specific information, such as dates and amounts of support payments. 

These systems can also often link clients to child support enforcement staff, to handle further 

inquiries and case management tasks. 

The most effective automated telephone systems are both accessible and user-friendly. A 

recent Federal Consortium Benchmark study identified several desirable traits among telephone 

systems that it reviewed.4 It suggests systems that offer 24-hour access, short wait times 

between selections, live representatives, accurate information, and clear recordings in plain 

language. It also indicates systems that should allow callers to navigate within menus for easy 

location of information. Additionally, systems should offer options in the languages most often 

used by clients. 

State policy stemming from welfare reform has also recently altered the way the child support 

community thinks about the customer base for which automated systems are designed. While 

OCSE and its State partners traditionally view custodial parents as their primary customers, 

many now also see noncustodial parents as clients. Consequently, States may augment systems 

to provide information and services to both parent groups. 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 1 OEI-06-00-00460
METHODOLOGY 

Study Focus 

Automated telephone systems typically consist of a series of menus, of varying complexity, from

which callers access information and services. In reviewing system content, we focused on the

topics addressed, and the depth and accuracy of the information provided. Studying the

mechanical features, we focused on how easy the system is for callers to use. Mechanical

issues include the ability to reach the system, the clarity of recorded messages, the extent of

instructions provided, and the use of functions designed to provide greater maneuverability

within each system.

This report examines six aspects of State-level automated telephone systems:

< use of systems by States and identification of model traits

< comprehensiveness of system content

< system accessibility to callers

< system usability by callers

< limitations to system usefulness

State-level Automated Systems 

To compile our list of telephone systems, we requested child support enforcement agencies in 

all States and the District of Columbia to provide us with a list of all State-level and local-level 

automated telephone numbers that were available for clients in August 2001. Because some 

States had more than one system, or multiple lines to a single system, States submitted 101 

State-level telephone numbers (Table 1). We called all of the telephone numbers to verify that 

they were automated systems, rather than live service, and currently in operation. We 

eliminated non-working numbers and 

those which duplicated other 

systems. Our final list consisted of 

69 State-level numbers from 49 

States, and we base our report 

statistics on this set. The remaining 

two States did not have automated 

systems. We further reviewed a 

sample of local-level systems to 

provide additional insight regarding 

the possible experiences of child 

support enforcement clients seeking 

information and services in States 

which operate local systems. 

Table 1: State-level automated telephone systems 

Classification Systems 

Automated systems 69 

Live representatives 14 

In-State-only access 9 

Duplicates 4 

Other 3 

Disconnected 2 

Total 101 

Source: Verification of State-reported telephone numbers, 

Office of Inspector General 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 2 OEI-06-00-00460
Because we found no significant differences between these local-level systems and the Statelevel systems reviewed, we do not include data regarding local-level systems in our report. 

Data Collection 

Two OIG analysts separately reviewed each State-level system between August and October 

2001. Using a standardized protocol, reviewers systematically recorded and assessed multiple 

factors regarding content, accessibility, and usability. We developed the protocol through a 

review of literature describing customer service efforts in child support enforcement and other 

fields, and pre-inspection data collection and analysis using a sample of State systems. We 

attempted contact of each State-level system during three time slots, to verify access at different 

times of the day and different days of the week. The primer on page 5 of this report outlines 

the items we reviewed by category. 

Once contact with a system was successful, reviewers accessed all menus, noting mechanical 

features and creating a ‘tree’ of all available selections. Reviewers also rated the 

comprehensiveness of the information given. A system was considered to have provided 

‘substantive’ information about a topic if the level of detail and practicality of the information 

contained in the recorded messages appeared sufficient to inform callers without referral to a 

live representative or other source. If such substantive information covered an array of topic 

areas, we considered the system as a whole to provide ‘comprehensive’ information. We also 

determined whether any referral numbers given by systems were accessible and what 

information they provided. 

When selections culminated in transfer to a live representative, we recorded at what point in the 

menus this option was offered, whether staff were available, and how quickly they answered. 

Because case-specific information often requires a client access code, our access was limited, 

but we reviewed as much of this service component as possible. Although most criteria could 

be reviewed objectively, ratings of a few factors, such as voice clarity and pace, were based on 

the judgment of the two reviewers. When the judgment of reviewers differed, we combined 

ratings for average measures of items. 

Data Analysis 

We conducted our data analysis at two levels: State-centered (using the 49 States with at least 

one operating system); and system-centered (using the total of 69 State-level systems). For the 

State-centered analysis, we identified the most expansive system with the most service options 

in each State. This State-centered analysis is presented first in the report, to characterize the 

level of national coverage of automated telephone systems, as well as to identify the number of 

States with exemplary systems. The remainder of the report uses all 69 State-level systems to 

focus on describing overall system characteristics. This system-centered analysis enumerates 

the types of information and services offered, and rates their accessibility and usability on a 

number of factors. The combination of State-centered and system-centered analysis provides 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 3 OEI-06-00-00460
both a complete national view of State use of systems and an operational view of how they 

work. 

The basis of much of our analysis is our development of a list of model system traits. After 

dissecting all system traits captured by the standardized data collection protocol, we developed 

a guideline, which describes traits of the best systems. In addition to identifying these model 

characteristics, our subsequent analysis uses the model as a guideline for comparing and 

describing various specific system traits regarding content, accessibility, and usability. Last, 

reviewers gave all systems an overall rating, to provide a collective view of the quality of each 

system, serving as a confirmation of our systematic evaluation of specific items within systems. 

We used positive ratings to confirm our selection of ‘model’ systems and negative ratings to 

help identify limitations to system usefulness. We describe these recurring limitations, and 

highlight features and modifications that could improve system quality. 

Data Limitations 

We note a few limitations to our data collection process. The first is that our calls to State 

automated systems occurred during a three-month period in 2001, and we recognize that States 

may have subsequently modified their systems. Also, the use of OIG analysts to complete the 

standardized protocols may introduce a bias toward callers who are more adept at using 

automated systems. On this point, analysts were instructed to view system traits from the 

perspective of a less-experienced caller to the extent possible. Callers to automated systems 

are assumed to typically be parents, but may include other interested parties, such as 

employers. Thus, we will use the term “callers” for those who used these automated systems. 

Last, our focus on State-level automated systems should not be taken to mean that clients might 

not also receive telephone service from local-level automated systems or strictly through live 

representatives. 

This study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by 

the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 4 OEI-06-00-00460
Primer On State Child Support Enforcement Automated 

Telephone Systems: Items Reviewed and Model Traits 

Our evaluation focused on the content, accessibility, and usability of all State-level automated systems. 

We developed a standardized protocol to record and rate their characteristics. Consideration was given to 

customer service literature in child support enforcement and related fields, and pre-inspection data 

collection using a sample of State systems. After dissecting all system characteristics, captured by the 

standardized data collection protocol, we created a guideline for model traits, which describes 

characteristics of the best systems. We selected these traits because we found them to be indispensable 

to providing effective service to the broadest number of callers. The following table lists items reviewed, 

within the three evaluative categories, and denotes the resulting model traits we determined to be most 

critical to system usefulness. CONTENT ACCESSIBILIT USABILITY 

Automated Telephone Systems: Items Reviewed and Model Traits 

Items Reviewed Model System Traits 

Case-specific information (payment and other) Provide payment information 

Program information (paternity, enforcement, etc.) Provide comprehensive program information 

Introductory recorded message 

Instructions for making payments 

Instructions for application process 

Local office contact information 

Other social service program information 

Primary system function 

Attempts to access Accessible on first attempt 

Hours of operation Operate 24 hours, 7 days a week 

Toll-free status Provide 

Live representatives and hours available 

Rotary caller access 

Spanish language access 

Access variability (by time and day) 

Overall usefulness Rated high in overall usefulness 

Ease in reaching a live representative Direct transfer to live representatives 

Shortcuts to advance through menus Allow repeat callers to skip ahead 

Option to repeat menus Allow system to repeat menus 

Use of technical jargon Avoid problematic jargon 

System instructions Instruct callers on their use 

Clarity and pace of narration 

Narrative consistency 

Wait time between selections 

Navigation errors 

Menu sequence 

toll-free access 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 5 OEI-06-00-00460
FINDINGS 

Automated telephone systems play an integral role in how State child support enforcement 

agencies provide customer service. To assess the provision of information and services, we 

directly accessed and reviewed all 69 Statewide automated telephone system that States 

reported operating in August 2001. Based on our guideline of model system traits, we found 

that 14 States have systems that could be considered models of operation. These systems 

provide substantial information, are readily accessible, and easy to use. The 69 systems 

generally provide information about a variety of child support enforcement issues, and 61 

systems allow clients to access case-specific information. Although we found that all systems 

provide useful information, we identify a number of limitations to usefulness, such as recorded 

messages that are too complex and over reliance on live representatives to provide key 

information and services. 

OVERVIEW OF STATE SYSTEMS 

Forty-nine State child support enforcement agencies use automated telephone 

systems to provide customer service 

Forty-nine States, including the District of Columbia, operate at least one State-wide 

automated telephone system, as a means of communicating with clients. 

Of these 49 States: 

< 37 provide substantive information and service through their automated system; 

< 6 use their systems to direct callers to obtain information elsewhere; and 

< 6 use their systems to provide assistance only to existing clients, by requiring a case 

number or personal identification number to access their systems. 

Of the two remaining States, one reports to operate an automated system, but we could 

not access it after repeated attempts over several months, and therefore, assume it is not 

available to callers. The other State reports that it provides all telephone service through live 

representatives. Thirteen States operate more than one State-wide automated system. 

In 14 model States, callers have superior access to comprehensive and useful 

child support enforcement information 

These 14 States exhibit a number of traits that set them apart (see primer on page 5). The 

combination of comprehensive system content, ready accessibility, and high usability, allow 

them to provide customer service effectively and efficiently. In addition to thorough assessment 

of each item in our protocol, reviewers gave a rating of overall usefulness, after pursuing all 

menu options for each. All 14 model States have all of the 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 6 OEI-06-00-00460
traits we considered critical to identifying automated systems as models, and were also rated 

highly on this broader measure. The 14 States with model child support enforcement 

automated telephone systems are Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 

North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, 

and Wisconsin. 

Twenty-six other States have systems which meet most, but not all, of these model system traits 

and were rated highly by reviewers in overall usefulness. The nine remaining States operate 

automated systems that are missing more than two model traits. Reviewers experienced 

difficulty in accessing these systems, found them frustrating to navigate, and reported that they 

typically contained less substantive information than their model counterparts. 

The remainder of the report uses all 69 State-level systems to outline overall system characteristics. 

SYSTEM CONTENT - Model system content provides both case-specific payment information 

and comprehensive program information. 

Callers receive case-specific payment information through 61 of the 69 systems; 

payment instructions and program overviews are also common 

Case-specific information. Information about individual cases, primarily related to tracking 

child support payments, is available through 61 of the 69 State-wide systems (Table 2). 

Payment information is usually 

provided in an automated fashion, 

following client entry of a personal 

identifier.5 Common items offered in 

payment menus are the dates of 

payment receipt and disbursement, 

as well as the total amount of any 

arrearage due. Introductions to 

case-specific menus often clarify 

how current the payment information 

is and when the system will next be 

updated.6 Eighteen of the 61 

systems which give case-specific 

information rely exclusively on live 

representatives to provide these 

details, having no automated 

information about cases.7 

Table 2: Information provided by automated telephone 

systems 

Topic: Of 69 

Systems: 

Case-specific information 61 

Payment instructions 52 

Program overviews 47 

Instructions for application process 43 

County contact information 33 

(telephone, address, etc.) 

Paternity establishment procedures 27 

Enforcement information (tax intercept) 25 

Referrals to related programs 22 

Source: Analysis of 69 systems, Office of Inspector General 

Payment instructions. Fifty-two systems offer information about how to make payments 

and how the child support enforcement agency processes payments. Wage 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 7 OEI-06-00-00460
withholding is the most prominent payment-related topic, with 10 systems giving instructions for 

establishing, adjusting, and canceling wage withholding orders. Other instructions outline paying 

by mail or through Electronic Funds Transfer. Menu options may also provide information 

about payment of arrearages and interest policies. Although all 69 systems reviewed are 

primarily intended for child support enforcement clients, 28 systems also target payment-related 

information to employers. For example, employers can provide information about new hires 

and changes in employment through live representatives or voicemail. 

Program overviews. Forty-seven systems provide recorded descriptions of child support 

enforcement services, which are typically brief, but give useful program overviews. These 

automated systems describe child support enforcement agency policies and procedures, and 

outline the stages of the enforcement process: paternity and order establishment, location, 

enforcement, and disbursement. The portion of the enforcement process that is most often 

covered thoroughly (27 systems) is paternity establishment, including information about 

voluntary paternity acknowledgment, and locations for submitting to genetic testing. Potential 

clients can receive varying degrees of information about the application process from 43 

systems, and 33 systems also provide contact information for local child support enforcement 

offices. Other topics appear geared toward management of existing cases, including review 

and adjustment, case closure, and suggestions for pursuing interstate cases or adding medical 

support to an order. 

Referrals to related programs. Twenty-two systems give callers guidance regarding other 

social service programs or court-related services. Social service programs covered by 

automated systems include TANF public assistance programs, family counseling, and 

healthcare services. These systems typically provide contact information for the relevant 

agency, with a few giving more substantive details, such as program descriptions and 

qualifications. Nine systems provide information about issues related to, but outside, the realm 

of the child support enforcement agency, such as referrals for court-related services or job 

training. 

Enforcement information. Systems also provide information about specific enforcement 

tactics, such as tax and insurance intercept initiatives, interstate enforcement procedures, 

passport denial, and reports to credit bureaus. Systems may also be able to provide individual 

information about their use in specific cases. Tax intercept information, covered by 25 States, 

is particularly detailed and includes explanations of related tax code and how intercept is 

handled for joint returns. Systems appear to anticipate calls from noncustodial parents, who 

may only make contact with the child support enforcement agency after these measures have 

been used in their case. For example, some recorded messages explain the legal basis for the 

enforcement measure and provide information for appealing an enforcement action. Other 

topics appear targeted for custodial parents, such as instructions for reporting overpayment, 

delayed payments or lost checks, as well as messages describing how clients might take better 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 8 OEI-06-00-00460
advantage of enforcement strategies, such as providing additional information about the 

noncustodial parent. 

Model systems are accessible on the first attempt, operate SYSTEM ACCESSIBILITY - 24/7, and provide toll-free service. 

Caller access to information is generally good, with 57 systems available 24/7, 49 

offering toll-free service, and 57 answering calls on the first attempt 

Hours of operation. We found that 

57 of the 69 systems operate 24 hours a 

day, seven days a week (Table 3). 

Those not operating around-the-clock 

are typically limited to business hours, 

approximately 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 

Systems with limited hours often have 

after-hours recorded messages which tell 

callers when they should call back for full 

service. One system offers more 

extensive automated information after 

Table 3: System accessibility features 

Features: Of 69 Systems: 

24-Hour access

Access on first attempt

Toll-free access

Rotary caller access

Spanish language access

57 

57 

49 

28 

19 

Source: Analysis of 69 systems, Office of Inspector General 

business hours, because live representatives provide most of the information during regular 

hours. 

Attempts to access. Fifty-seven of the 69 automated systems answered reviewers’ calls on 

the first attempt. Among the 12 systems that required more than one attempt to reach, six were 

accessed on the second or third attempt, and six required upwards of 10 attempts before our 

calls were answered. When they were not answered, systems typically either return a busy 

signal or continue ringing indefinitely with no response. Two systems play recorded messages 

indicating that because all lines are busy, callers should try again later. 

Toll-free status. Forty-nine systems are accessible toll-free from anywhere in the continental 

United States. Among the 20 systems that are not toll-free, eight have calling areas that cover 

the entire State in which they operate. Twelve systems require a toll call, but one of these 

offers to accept collect calls in its introductory message. 

Rotary caller access. Twenty-eight telephone systems specifically notify callers using a 

rotary telephone that they can choose either a speech-activated menu or a live representative 

for information. However, at least some of the systems that do not mention services for rotary 

callers, nevertheless, appear to route such calls to a live representative, if no menu selection is 

made after several seconds. 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 9 OEI-06-00-00460 
Callers to 19 systems can access menus and recorded messages in Spanish; no 

other alternative languages are offered 

Spanish is the only language alternative to English offered by automated systems, with 19 

systems providing recorded messages in both languages. Callers to these systems are typically 

offered a choice between Spanish or English, prior to the first menu. The U.S. Census Bureau 

identifies California, New Mexico, New York, and Texas as having the largest proportion of 

adults who speak Spanish but do not speak English well.8 All four of these States offer a 

Spanish language option within their child support enforcement automated telephone system. 

Among the 50 systems that offer information only in English, four indicate in their recordings that 

staff are available to communicate in other languages. However, this service may require calling 

another number or leaving a voicemail message requesting a return call. 

SYSTEM USABILITY - Model systems allow callers to make selections and repeat menus 

before menus end, feature system instructions, avoid problematic 

jargon, and directly transfer callers to live representatives. 

To ease navigation, callers may select items before menus end and repeat menus, 

but systems may not give instructions or alert callers to use these features 

Navigational tools and

instructions. To ease navigation,

systems let callers make selections

and repeat menus before menus end,

but these systems may not give

instructions or alert callers to these

features. Sixty-one systems allow

callers to make a menu selection

without listening to the entire list of

menu options (Table 4). By using the early selection function, callers can more quickly access

desired information. However, this option is not always explicitly indicated, so that reviewers

only discovered the function by attempting to make selections before messages ended. 

Table 4: System usability features 

Features: Of 69 Systems: 

Shortcuts to advance through 

menus 

61 

Option to repeat menus 55 

Instructions for system use 49 

Source: Analysis of 69 Systems, Office of Inspector General 

Fifty-five of the 69 systems allow callers to repeat menus, and five of these automatically repeat

menus when callers delay making a selection. The option to repeat menus helps callers avoid

making multiple calls to get all the information needed. We found the easiest to use systems

include information on repeat functions in the introductory message. They also briefly remind

callers how to use the repeat function at the end of each recorded message, and automatically

repeat the menu if no selection is made. However, 14 of the 55 systems that have the repeat

function do not inform callers of the option, and seven other systems only mention their repeat

function well into menus.

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 10 OEI-06-00-00460
Forty-nine automated systems offer callers specific instructions for use, as either a part of the 

introductory message or a separate menu item. These instructions are particularly valuable for 

callers unfamiliar with the system, as were our reviewers. They typically inform callers how to 

repeat menus, make selections before the end of a list of options, and return to the main menu. 

However, we found no need for instructions when a system was well-designed and 

straightforward. 

Callers encounter clear and well-paced recorded messages in 57 systems, and 

only 4 systems use difficult technical language or jargon 

System narration. Recorded voices used by the systems are usually clear and well-paced. 

Using three factors (voice clarity, voice consistency, and pacing), reviewers rated 57 of the 69 

systems easy to understand. When recordings were difficult to decipher, it was typically due to 

inconsistency in narration, computer-generated voices, or rushed delivery. Narrative 

inconsistency, such as voice changes with each menu option, appears to be the result of systems 

incorporating messages recorded at various times. While such inconsistency is not necessarily 

disruptive, it sometimes distracts from the message and appears less professional. Messages 

spoken too quickly also make it difficult for callers to write down information. Pacing is 

particularly important when systems provide contact information, such as local office addresses 

and telephone numbers. To alleviate problems caused by message pacing, a few systems 

automatically repeat referral information. 

Use of technical language. While 47 automated systems use at least some technical terms, 

only four use such language or jargon to a degree that reviewers found problematic, using 

technical terms or jargon frequently without explaining the terms. Examples of more difficult 

terms we encountered include arrearage, obligor, skip trace, and adjudicate, and acronyms not 

in wide use such as EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer). Although usually defined by the narration, 

we also found that systems overall tend to rely heavily on acronyms or abbreviated agency titles, 

such as IV-D, DCSE or ‘Kids First.’ Forty-seven systems use technical terms in some 

capacity, but most terms are defined or further explained. 

Forty-eight systems provide callers with the option to talk with a live 

representative, and other systems provide voicemail service 

Use of live representatives. Forty-eight systems supplement their automated services with

the option to speak with a live representative. Of these 48 systems: 

< 38 offer live service during weekday business hours;

< 9 offer extended weekday hours; and

< 1 offers weekday hours plus Saturday service.

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 11 OEI-06-00-00460
When selecting this option, callers are typically connected with customer service specialists or 

child support enforcement caseworkers who either provide callers with information or direct 

them to where they can obtain information. Some systems route calls to representatives by 

topic. Representatives can typically inform callers about recent payments or perform general 

administrative tasks, such as updating a client’s mailing address. Beyond these basic functions, 

the level of personal service varies. Examples of other services include fielding questions 

regarding policies and procedures, case-specific services unrelated to payment, such as 

scheduling an appointment, or adding new information to the case file. 

Reviewers found live representatives fairly easy to reach. Representatives answered 

immediately for 19 of the 48 systems, within three minutes for 25, and exceeded three minutes 

for only four systems. When callers had to wait for a live representative, they were typically on 

hold rather than listening to a continuous telephone ring. Despite generally short wait times, 

reviewers found the live representative option ‘difficult’ to use for seven systems. Problems 

include difficulty finding the option within the menus, persistent busy signals, lost connections, 

and connection to a voice mailbox rather than a live representative. 

Voicemail alternative. Nineteen of the 21 systems that do not offer a live representative 

allow callers to interact with the system by leaving voicemail messages. A common use of 

voicemail is to allow callers to request a change of address or documents, such as case payment 

histories. Another use is to encourage callers to leave voicemail with ‘tip-offs’ about the 

whereabouts or income of a non-paying parent. 

LIMITATIONS TO SYSTEM USEFULNESS 

Upon completion of their comprehensive review of each system’s content, accessibility, and 

usability, reviewers gave each an overall rating. They rated 44 systems as ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ 

to use, 18 as ‘neither easy nor difficult’ to use, and seven systems as ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ 

to use. Further analysis of the 25 systems that received a neutral or negative overall rating 

revealed limitations to their usefulness for callers. In this section, we identify these limitations and 

contrast less useful systems with model systems. 

Problems commonly inhibiting usefulness for callers are systems that are too 

complex, are not caller-oriented, and include outdated information 

Overly complex. When systems provide a wide array of options, they may become very 

detailed without enhancing usefulness or properly directing callers to key topics. Reviewers 

found navigating systems frustrating when they are highly detailed but do not provide the 

thorough content and full service expected from such exhaustive systems. These systems tend to 

include vast menu options within which the most critical topics can easily be lost. For example, 

arcane tax code descriptions might be listed within the initial menu, while the payment address is 

provided deep into a second or third tier menu. In 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 12 OEI-06-00-00460
other cases, numerous menu options seem to promise substantive information, but are really just 

elaborate routing systems for voice mailboxes. This was particularly frustrating when callers had 

screened through several menu layers to get to their topic of interest. Even when the options 

provide substantive information, the recorded messages are often wordy and complicated, such 

as the system which provides citations from State law for each policy issue discussed. 

Model systems provide a large number of recorded messages without added complexity and 

with features which assist caller use. Reviewers identified three strategies that allowed them to 

better absorb and handle the multiple options. One strategy involves systems using screener 

questions in the main menu which lead to menus with more specific options. Another strategy 

involves placing topics likely to be of greatest interest, such as county contact and payment 

information, among the first offered in initial menus. A third strategy provides separate menus for 

custodial and noncustodial parents. These menus often include some of the same information, 

but allow parents to avoid wading through many options that did not apply to them. Equally 

important to all strategies was the use of brief messages in simple, clear language. 

Not user-friendly. When systems were rated difficult to use overall, it was often because their 

features, content, and tone are not conducive to assisting or serving callers. Model systems 

present content from the perspective of offering service to customers, predicting caller needs and 

easing experience with respectful tones and user-friendly features. One ineffective system 

instructs callers to contact their county first, and then sternly admonishes them to “call us only if 

you have a problem.” Sometimes systems include adequate information and features, but 

reviewers felt that using the systems would not be comfortable or reassuring to clients. This was 

caused by a combination of the voices and language used, such as very formal program 

descriptions recorded with a fast-paced and monotone delivery. 

We found other examples of inattentive service. One system requires callers to submit questions 

in writing rather than offering live representative or voicemail options. Another directs callers to 

the telephone book to find contact information for local offices instead of providing the 

information. This lack of direction is especially confusing when recordings refer to the office by 

its acronym, such as DCSE. Another system, referring callers to local offices, disconnects those 

who do not know how to spell their county name, rather than providing a list of counties or a zip 

code directory as other systems do. Sometimes indifference to callers concerned mechanical 

features, such as the complex system that has a time limit of five minutes for the duration of 

telephone calls, or several that disconnect callers for exceeding the number of options a caller is 

allowed. Full voicemail boxes were another service issue, with reviewers finding some full for 

days. 

Ill-suited to new callers. New clients may not find automated systems to be as useful as 

veteran callers, particularly when a telephone call is the first attempt to gain access to services. 

As shown in Table 2, only 43 of 69 automated systems offer specific instructions 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 13 OEI-06-00-00460
about how to apply for child support enforcement services. Systems lacking information about 

applications sometimes offer messages explaining the various stages of enforcement, but do not 

include simple, clear instructions for the novice client to begin pursuing enforcement. 

Additionally, system mechanics sometimes do not appear to consider new callers. As shown in 

Table 4, only 49 systems offer instructions for navigating menus, and only 55 offer callers the 

option to repeat menus. First-time users in particular might require information to be repeated in 

order to write down telephone numbers, addresses, or additional information. 

So as not to burden repeat callers, one system uses a screening option that separates new from 

existing clients. New callers receive menu options outlining program services and how they 

might apply, while existing clients reach options that focus on case management, such as 

payment and order modification. This allows both types of callers to access useful information 

more quickly, and might also make the system less overwhelming to novices. 

Over-reliance on live representatives. Generally speaking, live representatives contribute 

to system usefulness by allowing clients to gain additional information not provided through 

recordings and automated features. However, reviewers found that too much reliance on live 

representatives to provide information and services limits the overall usefulness of systems. As 

noted, live representatives are available only during certain hours and days, and reviewers 

experienced some wait time on a majority of systems with live service. Additionally, some live 

representatives are tasked only with directing callers to where they can obtain information rather 

than providing the information. Because of these limitations, callers cannot access information 

except during live service hours and must make additional calls to gain any information and 

services that are not automated. 

Model systems tend to respond to all of the most commonly anticipated client inquiries through 

automated functions, making live representatives available primarily for unusual client needs. In 

particular, all model systems make automated access to payment information available around 

the clock. Additionally, model systems provide recorded messages about many child support 

enforcement topics. It makes them not only more available than live information, and it also 

helps to insure that all callers hear the same information on any given topic. In addition to being 

more useful to clients, the Federal Performance Review suggests that automated information is a 

cost-effective means of providing customer service. 

Inaccurate or outdated information. Reviewers encountered information that was 

inaccurate or had not been updated recently. For example, five systems provided telephone 

numbers for local child support enforcement offices that we found to be either wrong or 

disconnected. Callers seeking these local office telephone numbers would have to obtain them 

elsewhere. One system referred to the long-defunct Assistance for Families with Dependent 

Children (AFDC) program which had been replaced by the Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) program at least four years prior to our data collection. While such outdated 

information is not inaccurate, reviewers found it tended to 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 14 OEI-06-00-00460
slow the flow of recorded messages and created questions about whether more critical 

information, such as payment data, would be current. Model systems update frequently, 

notifying clients of recent events or policy changes that might affect their cases or payment 

processing. Model systems also appear to update at least their introductory messages almost 

daily and inform callers about the timing of the last automated update. 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 15 OEI-06-00-00460
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 

CONCLUSION 

Our analysis of model child support enforcement automated telephone systems identifies key 

content and features employed by the most useful systems. These traits, including 

comprehensive content, ready accessibility, and usability features, combine to create systems 

which are helpful to both novice and experienced callers. In terms of system content and 

information, we found that it is critical for systems to provide clear and quick access to the most 

important topic areas, such as case-specific payment information. Among features of 

accessibility and usability, we found that automating key topic areas and providing basic 

navigational tools are highly important to improving caller experiences. While all systems 

provide valuable information, we found limitations to their usefulness. Following review of both 

model and less effective systems, we developed a number of suggestions for improving 

automated telephone systems and enhancing service to callers. 

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 

To improve the content, accessibility, and usability of State child support enforcement automated 

telephone systems, we suggest that the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) provide 

technical assistance to help States enhance their systems. The traits listed in the primer on page 

5 could serve as a model for basic system features, and could be promoted to States by listing 

them on the ACF website. In carrying out these suggestions, particular emphasis should be 

placed on improving operations in the nine States identified as using poor automated systems. 

< Focus on key topic areas. Assist States in simplifying their automated telephone 

systems, both in content and function, to help them emulate the model States. Without 

sacrificing comprehensive content on a variety of program components, service should 

focus primarily on key areas, such as payment and case initiation. The most useful 

systems contain substantive information, but in a streamlined fashion. The information 

provided focuses on key, critical issues by making select information on such things as 

payment immediately accessible and allotting space deeper in the menus for information 

that is less likely to be of value to all callers. 

< Make systems more user-friendly. Assist States in developing automated 

telephone systems that focus on service to parents, are available around the clock, and 

provide features to improve caller experiences. This would likely involve technical 

assistance to States targeted at creating systems that include useful navigational tools and 

mechanical features. Consideration should also be given to conveying information to 

parents in a respectful and courteous tone. 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 16 OEI-06-00-00460
< Target first-time callers. Foster State efforts to include messages, features and 

content specifically targeted to first-time callers and those not familiar with child support 

enforcement procedures. These might include instructions to apply for enforcement 

services, more comprehensive descriptions of program services, and detailed county 

office contact information. Callers might benefit further from the provision of a separate 

menu built specifically for new or prospective clients. 

< Automate functions when possible. Encourage States to automate all key 

information and services, particularly case-specific payment information. Although the 

provision of live representatives gives clients a choice about how to interact, these 

representatives are not always available. Systems should attempt to answer basic caller 

questions through recorded messages and automated interaction, reserving live 

representatives for unique inquiries. 

< Update information frequently. Encourage States to develop ways to keep 

information available on automated systems accurate and current. Most critical is the 

accuracy of further contact information, such as county office addresses and telephone 

numbers. Attention should also be paid to temporary, time-sensitive messages included 

within the introduction and subsequent menus, as well as policy and program information 

relevant to clients. 

AGENCY COMMENTS 

ACF concurs with the findings and suggestions for improvement included in our report. Additionally, 

ACF plans to publicize the traits of model automated telephone systems on their agency website. ACF 

also indicates that it will target the nine States rated poorly in our report for further review and technical 

assistance. In commenting on our report, ACF outlines details of web-based training that it is currently 

offering to State child support enforcement agencies. These efforts appear to address many of the 

limitations to achieve effective customer service that we identify for automated telephone systems. As 

our report indicates, similar technical assistance could be of value in improving automated telephone 

systems. 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 17 OEI-06-00-00460
ENDNOTES

1. Government Performance and Results Act, Pub. L. 103-62, August, 1993. 

2. Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan. 

Washington, D.C., February 1996. 

3. Ibid, page 4. 

4. Federal Benchmarking Consortium. Putting Customers First Serving the American 

Public: Best Practices In Telephone Service, Washington, D.C., National Performance 

Review, February 1995. 

5. Typically, these unique identifiers were any one or a combination of a client’s Social Security 

number, case number, or personal identification number (PIN). A few systems require multiple 

identifiers, using numbers, such as the dependent’s date of birth. 

6. In all cases that designated how current the payment information is, the date was the last 

business day prior to our call. 

7. These staff, as well as live representatives available through more fully-automated systems, can 

typically also provide case-specific information not related to payments, such as court hearing 

dates. 

8. The Census 2000 Supplementary Survey, Table 3035: Age by Language Spoken at Home by 

Ability to Speak English, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., 2001. 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 18 OEI-06-00-00460
__________ Child Support Enforcement

Automated Telephone System 19 OEI-06-00-00460
COMMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ON THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR 

GENERAL (OIG) DRAFT REPORT: “STATEWIDE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED TELEPHONE 

SYSTEMS: (OEI-06-00-00460) 

General Comments 

The Administration for Children and Families appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft report, which 

addresses the use of technology to support exemplary customer service. The Office of Child Support Enforcement 

(OCSE) has been working closely with the OIG on this effort. OCSE and OIG were panelists at the National Child 

Support Enforcement Association annual meeting in New Orleans in August 2002 discussing the need for improving 

customer service and increasing the use of automation to serve child support clients. 

ACF Response 

OIG presents five (5) opportunities for improvement. Our response addresses the opportunities as a group rather 

than individually. The reason for taking this approach is that the OIG's report focuses on the use of voice response 

units to provide 24/7 access to child support clients and OCSE is currently focusing efforts on encouraging states to 

provide 24/7 access to child support customers via the internet. The technologies differ while the goals are shared. 

OCSE proposes to support these goals by providing a web-based customer service training course which will address 

several of the OIG recommendations including making systems more user-friendly, automating functions when 

possible and updating information frequently. 

While OCSE’s focus is on a customer service web initiative, OCSE is also planning to conduct level of automation 

reviews for states. The nine states identified in the OIG report could be targeted for assistance by the OCSE staff 

during our automation summits and level of automation reviews. OCSE also has a best practices compendium and 

searchable web site, where we can publicize the best practices identified in this OIG report. 

Here are the details of our web-based training curriculum. In FY 2002, OCSE contracted with State Information 

Technology Consortium (SITC) to develop training and provide 2-day training sessions on customer service web 

development. This course will showcase best practices and lessons learned from states and provide information for 

participants in defining, building, and operating a child support enforcement (CSE) web-based customer service 

system in states or territories. The training will be delivered five (5) times over the course of September 2002 – March 

2003. At the end of this course, participants will be able to create a high-level system description, tailored for each 

participant’s state or territory, including information on some or all of the following system life cycle areas, as 

appropriate: 

• Analysis implications, including functions and features, and locations for use of a CSE customer 

service website; 

• Design implications, such as existing technical architecture, portals, other agency websites, data 

confidentiality and access controls, security and privacy, and system reliability considerations; 

• Development implications, such as development platforms, testing procedures, multiple languages, 

and the degree of automation of interactive information; 

• Implementation implications, such as training, piloting, promotion and publicity, and client 

awareness; 

• Operations implications, such as ongoing maintenance and enhancement; and 

• Management implications, such as tangible benefits, cost estimates, risk management, and lessons 

learned. 

Participants will receive relevant information and documentation collected from other states and a contact list of 

Federal and state personnel who can assist after the course ends. Participants will also leave the course with a “to 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 20 OEI-06-00-00460
do” list of three to five specific actions they can take after training to facilitate progress in their agencies toward 

initiating or enhancing a web-based CSE customer service system. 

The courses were announced in Dear Colleague Letter-02-16, dated July 8, 2002. Here is the delivery schedule: 

• September 23-25, 2002 in Arlington, VA 

• November 14-15, 2002 in New York City; 

• January 13-14, 2003 in Dallas; 

• February 25-26, 2003 in Atlanta; and 

• March 25-26, in Seattle. 

__________ Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 21 OEI-06-00-00460
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 Joan Richardson, Program Specialist

Deborah McGurk, Program Analyst 

Clark Thomas, Program Analyst 

Scott Whitaker, Program Analyst 

Lisa White, Administrative Officer 

Child Support Enforcement 

Automated Telephone System 

__________ 

22 OEI-06-00-00460