Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JANET REHNQUIST 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

October 2002 

OEI-05-02-00300 

EFFECTIVENESS OF ACCESS AND 

VISITATION GRANT PROGRAMS 
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. 
Executive Summary 

Objective:

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

and child support payment compliance for parents in five states.

Background: 

Our study examined program outcomes intended by law, and outcomes of interest to the Office of 

Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and the Department of Health and Human Services (the 

Department). The goal of the Access and Visitation Grant, as stated in law, is “. . . to support and 

facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children.” Our study assessed whether 

mediation programs, one of the most popular services offered through the Access and Visitation grant 

program, facilitated and increased access rights for IV-D participants. We expected that increasing 

access rights for the noncustodial parent would lead to increased visitation between noncustodial 

parents and their children. Increased visitation may have other secondary effects on parents and 

children, including improved child support payment compliance, improved child behavior, household 

formation, and others. 

For the purposes of this study, we define “access rights” as a noncustodial parent’s right to visit their 

child as noted in formal visitation arrangements. Access rights can be documented in written mediation 

agreements, divorce decrees, or court orders for visitation, and often include a specific schedule for 

regular visits as well as for holiday and vacation visits. 

Our findings come from 254 cases in five states. Due to significant differences in Geogia’s program, we 

analyzed Georgia’s data separately. Thus, we have two sets of analyses. We first analyzed information 

from 190 cases in 4 states (Nevada, Connecticut, Oklahoma, and Illinois). This data has been 

weighted according to state stratification and can be projected to program participants in the four 

states. Our second analysis reviews the 64 cases in Georgia and can only be projected to that state. 

Findings for Four States: 

• Facilitated & Increased Access: 

• Seventy-six percent of cases examined in our case file review resulted in a mediated 

agreement. 

• In 86% of these cases, access rights were increased for the noncustodial parent through 

mutually agreed upon visitation plans. 

• For all of the cases in our sample, regardless of whether or not an agreement was 

reached, 66% gained increased access rights through mediation. 

• Increased Visitation: 

• Of the 100 cases in the parent phone survey, 42% who reported reaching an agreement 

also reported an overall increase in noncustodial parent visits after mediation, 33% 

reported visits stayed the same, and an additional 11% reported a decrease in 

visitations. 

1
• Improved Payment Compliance: 

• According to our case file review of child support files, 61% of noncustodial parents 

increased the percent of current child support they paid after mediation. 

• Other Outcomes: 

• Out of 254 cases reviewed in our case file review, we found 2 cases that formed a 

household after mediation. Custodial and noncustodial parents differed in their opinions 

regarding the other secondary outcomes measured. 

• Administrator Perspectives on Factors of Success: 

• According to Access and Visitation state administrators and mediation program 

managers, a mediation program’s success is related to its relationship with referral 

sources (i.e. courts or child support offices), its convenience to clients, and its capacity 

to conduct outreach and follow-up. Regarding factors contributing to a mediation 

session’s success, administrators and managers noted the quality of the mediation 

process, as well as the nature of the clients served. 

Findings for Georgia: 

• Unlike the four other states, Georgia’s two mediation programs focus primarily on increasing 

immediate visitation, as opposed to access rights. Our case file review found that at least 60% 

of cases that successfully completed program goals saw an increase in visits. Fifty-five percent 

of all program participants increased the percentage of current child support paid. 

Cause: 

• Our data show a potential relationship between participation in mediation programs funded by 

the Access and Visitation grant and increased access rights, increased visits, and improved 

child support payment compliance. Because these effects are centered around the date of 

mediation, it is plausible that participating in mediation is a cause for these increases, although 

other causes are also likely to impact access rights, visits, and payment. 

Effect: 

• Mediation programs in our 4 states have successfully increased access rights for noncustodial 

parents, which may plausibly account for an increase in visits for some noncustodial parents. 

• Increasing visitation means that more children would benefit from a relationship with their 

noncustodial parent that research has shown to be emotionally, psychologically, and financially 

beneficial. 

• Participation in mediation programs is also plausibly associated with improved child support 

payment compliance. Increased compliance means that IV-D families benefit from added 

income. We estimate that the average net increase in monthly payments after mediation was 

$56 per case. This increase would have resulted in $230,000 in additional child support 

payments for the universe of 595 IV-D cases served by the program in 4 states for fiscal year 

(FY) 2001. We estimate that the average net increase in monthly 

2
payments after mediation was $26 per case in Georgia. Overall, this meant a net increase of 

$66,000 in FY 2001 for the universe of 256 IV-D cases served by the program in Georgia. 

3
Introduction and Methodology 

Objective: To determine the extent to which the Access and Visitation Grants increased 

access rights, visitation, and child support payment for parents in five states. 

Background 

Our study examined program outcomes intended by law, and outcomes of interest to the Office of 

Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and the Department of Health and Human Services (the 

Department). The goal of the Access and Visitation Grant, as stated in law, is “. . . to support and 

facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children.” Our study assessed whether 

mediation programs facilitated and increased access rights for program participants. We expected that 

increasing access rights for the noncustodial parent would lead to increased visitation between 

noncustodial parents and their children. Increased visitation may have other secondary effects on 

parents and children, including improving child support payment compliance, improving child behavior, 

household formation, and others. While not explicitly intended by law, these outcomes are of 

importance to OCSE and the Department, and as such, we have made efforts to measure them. 

For the purposes of this study, we define “access rights” as a noncustodial parent’s right to visit their 

child as noted in formal visitation arrangements. Access rights can be documented in written mediation 

agreements, divorce decrees, or court orders for visitation, and often include a specific schedule for 

regular visits as well as for holiday and vacation visits. 

Sample 

We examined 9 community and court-based programs that offered mediation to IV-D clients in 5 states 

(Illinois, Connecticut, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Georgia). To select our sample, we requested that 

programs provide a list of all cases completing mediation in calendar year 2001. We selected a 

random sample of cases independently within each state, so the data can be treated as a stratified 

random sample. Once onsite at Georgia’s programs, we realized that their service goals were 

significantly different from our other programs’ mediation services. As such, we have analyzed 

Georgia’s data separately from the other four states. Our data come from 190 cases in four states and 

64 cases in Georgia. All aggregate data reported is weighted according to state stratification and can 

be projected to program participants in the four states. Confidence intervals for estimates can be found 

in Appendix D. See Appendix C for a full methodology. 

Methodology 

Access and Visitation programs vary widely from state to state and program to program in the services 

they offer and the populations they target. In order to offer a cohesive, substantial review, it was 

necessary to focus on specific aspects of this grants program. We elected to focus this study on 

programs that offer mediation services to the IV-D population. Of all the services offered through this 

grant program, we selected mediation, because it is an access-related service. 

4
Establishing access rights is an essential first step for noncustodial parents attempting to establish regular 

visitation with their child. Further, mediation was one of the most popular activities funded by the 

grants, according to state data on service utilization. Finally, all but one of the states targeting IV-D 

clients with their grant money offered mediation services, apparently believing it to be an important 

service to offer to this population. 

To collect our data regarding these mediation programs, we reviewed 3 types of case files for each 

sampled case: mediation program files, court files, and child support payment records. Specifically, we 

examined access-related documents, such as mediated agreements, divorce decrees, stand-alone 

visitation orders, and child support orders. For our payment review, we collected information on 

order, payment, and earnings history for the period 18 months before mediation to 18 months after 

mediation. 

In addition to our case file reviews, we conducted a phone survey of custodial and noncustodial parents 

and conducted interviews with Access and Visitation state liaisons, mediation program administrators, 

and program staff. Our phone survey response rate was higher than expected for the 4 states. We 

received responses for 125 parents (out of 380) for a parent response rate of 33%, and surveyed at 

least one parent for 100 of our 190 cases for a case response rate of 53%. In 25 cases both parents 

responded. In Georgia, we received responses for 24 parents (out of 128) for a parent response rate 

of 19%, and surveyed at least one parent for 18 of our 64 cases for a case response rate of 28%. In 6 

cases, both parents responded. The table below includes our data sources and sample sizes for each 

section. 

Table 1. Sample Sizes for each Data Source Associated with Findings 

Primary Data Sources 

Findings Sections 

Mediation 

Program Case 

File Review 

Court 

Case File 

Review 

Child Support 

Payment 

Review 

Parent 

Phone 

Survey 

Administrator 

Interviews 

Access, page 6 190 cases 190 cases 

Visits, page 8 100 cases, 

125 parents* 

Payment, page 11 111 cases** 

Other Outcomes, 

page 13 

100 cases, 

125 parents* 

10 interviews 

Perspectives on 

Success, page 15 

100 cases, 

125 parents* 

10 interviews 

Georgia, page 17 64 cases 64 cases 53 cases** 18 cases, 

24 parents* 

3 interviews 

*Phone survey respondents represent at least one parent from 100 cases in our 4 states and 18 cases in Georgia. In 

the 4 states, there were 25 cases where both parents responded, and in Georgia, both parents responded in 6 cases. 

**Payment data come from cases that had some child support order both prior to and after mediation. 

5 
Organization of this Document 

The following document outlines our findings and analysis of the effectiveness of the Access and 

Visitation grant program. The first three sections address our major issues: access, visitation, and 

payment. The fourth section consists of other secondary outcomes that we found, including those 

outcomes of interest to OCSE: improved child behavior and household formation. We bring in Access 

and Visitation state administrators and mediation program managers perspectives in the fifth section in 

order to contextualize the quantitative data presented in the other sections. Finally, we present data 

specific to Georgia from our case file reviews, parent surveys, and program administrator interviews on 

the above five topics: access, visitation, payment, other outcomes, and program perspectives. 

6
Facilitated and Increased Access 

Seventy-six percent of cases examined in our case file review resulted in a mediated agreement. In 

86% of these cases, access rights were increased for the noncustodial parent through mutually agreed 

upon visitation plans. For all of the cases in our sample, regardless of whether or not an agreement was 

reached, 66% gained increased access rights through mediation. 

We reviewed 190 case files in order to evaluate the impact of mediation on noncustodial parents’ 

access rights. Specifically, we analyzed: 1) the degree to which mediation resulted in a written 

agreement between the two parents; and 2) the degree to which mediation agreements resulted in 

increased access rights for the noncustodial parents. 

Mediation Facilitates Access Rights 

• In 76% of cases, mediation facilitated noncustodial parents’ access rights through the creation 

of mutually agreed upon visitation plans. 

• The percentage of mediated agreements varied across states, ranging from 72% in Illinois to 

85% in Connecticut. 

• Less than 5% of our cases yielded a change in custody during or as a result of mediation. 

Noncustodial Parents Without Prior Access Gain Rights 

• In 69% of the cases, noncustodial parents had no access rights prior to mediation. 

• Seventy-seven percent of these parents without prior access rights, gained access in the form of 

a mediated visitation agreement. 

• On average, access rights were increased from zero to19 hours a week for standard visitation 

(i.e., visits that are scheduled on a weekly or bi-monthly basis), and from zero to 13 days for 

vacations and holidays, for parents with no access prior to mediation. 

• Eighty-one percent of mediated agreements were formalized by the court, for cases without 

prior access rights. 

• Twelve percent of the mediated agreements for cases without prior access stipulated that the 

noncustodial parents’ visitation was to occur under supervision. 

Access Rights Increase for Parents with Prior Access 

• Through our case file review, we found that 31% of our cases had prior access rights 

documented in formalized agreements. Of these cases, 54% had prior access rights formalized 

in stand-alone court documents, 20% in child support documents, 8% in divorce orders, 6% in 

paternity orders and for 13% of the cases it was unknown or unclear in which document prior 

access rights had been formalized. 

• Seventy-four percent of the noncustodial parents with access rights prior to mediation 

successfully completed the mediation program by reaching a visitation agreement. 

• Fifty-four percent of the cases that reached a mediated agreement also gained an increase in 

access rights for the noncustodial parent. For all of the cases with prior access, regardless of 

whether or not an agreement was reached, 40% gained increased access rights. 

7
• In contrast to parents without prior access rights, those with prior access increased their 

standard access rights only slightly, from 24 hours a week to 26 hours a week, on average. 

Their holiday and vacation days, however, increased from 3 days to 20 days. 

• Eighty-two percent of the mediated agreements were formalized by the court for cases with 

prior access rights. 

Facilitated and Increased Access 

Broken Out 

by Noncustodial Parents’ Prior Access Rights 

Noncustodial parents 

without prior 

access rights 

(69% of cases) 

Noncustodial parents 

with prior 

access rights 

(31% of cases) 

Percentage of Cases with 

Mediated Agreements 77% 74% 

Subset of Cases with Mediated 

Agreements and Increased Access 

Rights 

100% 54% 

Net Increase in Access Rights– 

Standard Visits 19 hours/weekly 2 hours/weekly 

Net Increase in Access Rights– 

Holidays and Vacation Days 13 days 17 days 

Source: OEI case files review in four states, n=190. 

Discussion 

Facilitating Access Rights

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

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

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

Increasing Access Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and vacation days to spend with their child.

8
It is important to note, however, that increasing access rights is not, and should not be the goal of 

mediation in all cases. For example, parents may use mediation as a neutral forum in which to discuss 

adjustments in the visitation schedule, rather than using it as a mechanism to increase access rights. 

There may be other cases where the noncustodial parents attend mediation with the goal of increasing 

access rights, but through the course of the mediation both parents agree that an increase in access 

rights might be too disruptive for the child. 

9
Increased Visitation 

Of the 100 cases in the parent phone survey, 42% who reported reaching an agreement also reported an 

overall increase in noncustodial parent visits after mediation, 33% reported visits stayed the same, and an 

additional 11% reported a decrease in visitations.* 

The following data are from a phone survey of 125 parents. 

parent for 100 cases out of our 190 sampled cases in the four states. 

both parents in only 25 of the cases. 

Unless otherwise stated, all data reported are from survey respondents who reported that they reached 

a visitation agreement at mediation. 

noncustodial parents (NCPs) (n=45) in our survey reached an agreement. 

More Parents With Agreements Report That Visits Increased Than Those With No 

Agreement 

• Of those reaching a mediated agreement, 39% of CPs reported an increase in NCP visits and 

53% of NCPs reported an increase. 

mediation, 10% of CPs and 13% of NCPs reported an increase in NCP visits. 

Source: OEI survey of CPs and NCPs in four states 

Note: Indeterminate Category refers either to 1) parents who answered “don’t know” regarding visitation changes or 2) cases where 

when combining responses for standard visit changes and holiday/vacation changes, it could not be determined if overall visits 

increased, decreased, or stayed the same. 

* For 15% of cases that reached an agreement, it was not possible to determine the direction of change in reported visits. 

These parents represent at least one 

We received responses from 

Overall, 88% of custodial parents (CPs) (n=60) and 83% of 

In contrast, for those who did not reach an agreement at 

10
More Parents Report Weekly Visits After Mediation Than Before 

• In the 6 months prior, 30% CPs and 48% of NCPs stated that visits occurred about 1 day per 

week or more. 

NCPs reported visits occurring at least weekly. 

• After reaching an agreement, the proportion of parents reporting that their family had no NCP 

visits decreased. 

mediation compared to 23% in the 6 months after, and the percentage of NCPs reporting no 

visitations declined as well from 28% before to 16% after mediation. 

More Parents Report Scheduled Visits After Mediation 

• In the 6 months prior to the agreement, only 20% of CPs and 26% of NCPs reported that 

NCP visits were regularly scheduled. 

respectively, for our survey respondents in the 6 months after reaching the mediation 

agreement. 

• On the other hand, the proportion of parents reporting that NCP visits were unscheduled/ 

informal decreased. 

NCP visits prior to an agreement. 

to 8% for CPs and 4% for NCPs. 

After Mediation, More Parents Report That Visits Are Cancelled Less Often 

• Approximately 60% of both CPs and NCPs reported that they experienced missed, cancelled, 

or refused visits both before and after mediation. 

• Twenty-four percent of all CPs said that visits were cancelled less often after reaching an 

agreement, and of those CPs reporting an increase in visits, 43% reported less cancellations. 

• Fifty-one percent of NCPs said their visits were cancelled less often after reaching an 

agreement at mediation, and of those NCPs who reported that their visitations increased, 69% 

said that they had fewer cancellations. 

Source: OEI survey of CPs and NCPs in four states 

In the 6 months after reaching a mediated agreement, 47% of CPs and 61% of 

Forty-two percent of CPs reported having had no NCP visits prior to 

These percentages increased to 44% and 57%, 

Seventeen percent of both CPs and NCPs reported unscheduled/informal 

Afterwards, the percentages with informal visits decreased 

11
Discussion 

The Effect of Increased Visitations 

Programs facilitated increased access rights by mediating agreements for most of the parents in our 

survey. In general, the parents who reached a mediated agreement reported experiencing increases in 

the amount of visits and having fewer cancellations in the 6 months after reaching a mediated agreement 

than they experienced in the 6 month prior to mediation. In addition, a greater proportion of parents 

had visits that were scheduled, as opposed to informal. Scheduled visits that occur more often and are 

cancelled less often may provide stability to children and their families and have a positive impact on 

their lives and relationships. 

Reasons Cited for Visitation Changes 

Parents attributed visitation increases to mediation and other factors. Sixty percent of CPs and 92% of 

NCPs stated that the mediation program played either a major or minor role in the increase. 

Additionally, 8 respondents cited that their visitation increase was also due to a positive change in their 

parental relationships or increased cooperation, and four parents stated that changes in court rulings 

played a major role in the increase in visitations. 

For those who reported a decrease in visitations, 81% of CPs (and no NCPs) cited the mediation 

program as playing a major or minor role in the change in visits. Also, 8 parents stated that parental 

conflict or a lack of cooperation played a role in the decrease, and 3 parents reported that they lived 

too far away from each other for visits to occur. Parental conflict was also one of the primary reasons 

cited by respondents for cancelling visits. 

Limitations of Data 

As stated earlier, 25 of our 100 cases had a response from both the CP and NCP. We found that 

77% of the pairs agreed on whether or not they reached a mediated agreement, and of those pairs, 

65% agreed on whether or not the NCP visits increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Although the 

majority of pairs reported consistently with each other in our survey, research indicates that CPs may 

under-report and NCPs may over-report visits, which may hold true for our respondents as well. Also, 

although extraordinary attempts were made to reach all parents within our sample, and our ultimate 

response rate was higher than expected, those who completed the survey may over-represent the more 

stable CPs and NCPs, whose behaviors may be assumed to be different from other less stable CPs and 

NCPs. 

12
Improved Payment Compliance 

According to our case file review of child support records, 61% of noncustodial parents increased the percent of 

current child support they paid after mediation. 

For the main analysis of payment patterns, we used a subset of 111 cases out of the total 190 cases 

from our 4 state case file review. These 111 cases represent cases that had a child support order 

before and after mediation. This section also includes information gathered from our phone survey of 

parents, pertaining to parents’ opinions about payment patterns. 

Percent of Child Support Paid Increased 

• Sixty-one percent of NCPs increased the percent they paid of their current child support 

obligation after entering mediation. Twenty-seven percent decreased the percent of the current 

child support obligation they paid, and 12% did not change the percent they paid. 

• Prior to mediation, NCPs paid 52% of what was owed in current child support. After 

mediation, NCPs paid 70% of what was owed in current child support. Nationally, the child 

support system collected 56% of what was owed in FY 2000. 

• For all cases reviewed, the average monthly payment increased by $56. This is a 35% increase 

over projected post-mediation payments, based on previous payment history. This difference 

would result in an estimated $230,000 net increase in annual child support collections for the 

universe of 595 IV-D cases served by the program in the 4 states. 

• For the 61% of NCPs who increased the percent they paid, the average monthly child support 

payments to custodial families increased by $116. This is a 90% increase over expected postmediation payments, based on previous payment history. For those NCPs who decreased the 

percent they paid, the average monthly child support payment decreased by $54. 

61% 

27% 

12% 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

80% 

Percent of NCPs 

Increased Decreased No Change 

Percent of NCPs Broken Out by Change in Payment 

Compliance After Mediation 

Source: OEI case file review in four states, n = 111 cases with orders before and after mediation 

13 
Consistency of Payments Increased 

• Fifty-three percent of NCPs increased the percentage of months that they paid at least some 

portion of the current child support owed to the custodial family. Twenty-three percent 

decreased the percentage of months they paid as least some portion of their current child 

support and for 24% of NCPs it stayed the same. 

53% 

23% 24% 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

Percent of NCPs 

Increased Decreased No Change 

Percent of NCPs Broken out by Change in the 

Consistency of Payments After Mediation 

Source: OEI case file review in four states, n = 111 cases with orders before and after mediation 

Some Parents Reported Link Between Child Support Payment and Visitation 

• Forty-two percent of CPs agreed with the statement, “If the other parent does not pay child 

support, I should not have to let them see my child.” A slightly higher percentage (45%) 

disagreed with this statement. 

• Fifty-two percent of NCPs agreed with the statement, “If the other parent does not let me see 

my child, I should not have to pay child support.” Thirty-nine percent disagreed. 

Discussion 

Impact of Program Participation on Payment 

It appears that participating in the sampled programs is plausibly associated with an increase in the 

percent of current child support paid and the number of child support payments made. Overall, 61% of 

NCPs increased the percent of child support paid after mediation. This number is even higher for 

certain states. In Nevada, Connecticut, and Oklahoma, over 65% of cases show payment increases 

after mediation. On the other hand, in Illinois, only 51% of cases had an increase in payment 

compliance after mediation. 

Impact of Increasing Access and Visitation on Payment 

Payment compliance increased whether or not NCPs’ access rights increased through the program. In 

62% of the cases where the NCP’s access rights increased, there was an increase in payment 

compliance. Fifty-nine percent of cases without an access increase showed an increase in payment 

14
compliance. This difference is too small for us to be confident that, accounting for variation, there really 

is a difference between the two groups. Further, a chi-square test shows that the association is not 

statistically significant. Thus, we conclude that increasing access rights does not appear to be 

associated with an increase in payment compliance. 

We also analyzed the possible association between increased visits and increased payment. We found 

some interesting patterns suggesting that increased visitation may be associated with an increase in 

payment compliance. Out of the 111 cases in the case file review, there were 25 cases where we also 

had data from NCPs regarding visitation from our phone survey. Of those NCPs who reported that 

their visits increased after mediation (n=14), more NCPs increased the percent of current child support 

paid (60%) than decreased or paid the same percentage of their current child support obligation (40%). 

However, this association must be interpreted with caution, given that the number of cases was 

extremely small and some NCP and CP responses conflicted. 

Impact of Earnings on Payment 

Certainly, program participation is not the only potential explanation for an increase in current child 

support payment compliance. According to past OEI child support work and other research, a strong 

predictor of child support payment compliance is NCP earnings. Unfortunately, the longitudinal 

earnings data we were able to collect through the state child support enforcement offices were 

extremely limited. Upon careful scrutiny, we considered it too unreliable to be useful. However, a 

basic analysis of the earnings data 6 months prior to mediation and 6 months after mediation does show 

a statistically significant relationship between an increase in payment compliance and an increase in 

average monthly earnings. Of those who increased their payment compliance, 62% showed an 

increase in average monthly income. We ran a logistic regression to ascertain the extent to which this 

increase in earnings might explain the increase in payment compliance after mediation. Our model, 

which included variables for whether or not earnings increased, whether or not mediation resulted in an 

agreement and whether or not access increased, only explained a small part of why compliance 

increased. Program participation, our main variable of interest, could not be included in the model since 

we did not have a control group that would allow us to compare those who participated in the program 

with those who did not. Given this and the rest of the data presented - that show an increase in 

payment compliance temporally related to the date of mediation - it appears plausible that program 

participation is a major factor influencing the increase in payment compliance after mediation. 

15
Other Outcomes 

Out of 254 cases reviewed in our case file review, we found 2 cases that formed a household after 

mediation. Custodial and noncustodial parents differed in their opinions regarding the other secondary 

The data for our review of other outcomes were gathered from our case file review, the parent survey and 

program and state administrator interviews from the four states. 

Household Formation 

• After conducting a full case file review of all 254 cases, we found 2 cases in which couples 

began living together after mediation. Our records show that one of these couples agreed in 

mediation to “get back together for the kids.” 

• We found two cases among 118 cases in our telephone survey in which at least one of the 

parents reported being romantically involved with the other parent after mediation. 

When asked about parent happiness/well-being and child behavior, respondents were not provided with 

explicit definitions by which to frame their responses. Thus, the responses we captured reflect personal, 

and in all likelihood different, definitions for these concepts. Despite this, we have aggregated the data to 

provide a very general sense of program impact. Rigorous measurement of these issues was not within the 

scope of this inspection. 

Parent Happiness/Well-being 

• Thirty-eight percent of CPs and 55% of NCPs reported that their “happiness or wellbeing” improved after mediation. 

• Thirty-four percent of CPs and 84% of NCPs who saw an increase in visits reported that 

their “happiness/well-being” improved after mediation. 

Change in Child Behavior 

• Thirty-three percent of CPs and 41% of NCPs reported that they felt their child’s behavior 

improved after mediation. 

• Thirty-two percent of CPs and 63% of NCPs who saw an increase in visits reported that 

they felt there was an improvement in their child’s behavior after mediation. 

Other Outcomes Reported From Programs 

A few programs stressed that mediation agreement rates alone do not necessarily define program 

success, and they cite the following other outcomes as important to consider. 

• Parents learn to refocus on children’s needs. Many programs reported parents 

learning in mediation to re-frame their thinking in terms of what is best for their child, instead 

of becoming mired in their own conflicts. 

16
• Improved communication and parenting skills. Many programs stressed that they are 

proud of their ability to encourage better communication between parents and to promote 

better parenting skills. 

• Empowering parents. Programs maintained that their clients often feel powerless in the 

court system, and that mediation affords parents an important opportunity to feel a sense of 

empowerment and control. One administrator stressed the inherent value of the mediation 

paradigm stating that it provides, “an opportunity for each parent to be heard and feel that 

their perspective is important and valuable.” 

• Connecting parents to needed services. One administrator stated that, “The IV-D 

facilitators are greatly skilled at recognizing problems that might not otherwise be identified, 

such as domestic violence.” Other programs noted that they will refer parents to counseling, 

or other social services after seeing them in mediation. 

17
Administrator Perspectives on Success 

According to the Access and Visitation state administrator and mediation program managers in the four 

states, a mediation program’s success is related to its relationship with referral sources (i.e., courts or 

child support offices), its convenience to clients, and its capacity to conduct outreach and follow-up. A 

mediation session’s success, respondents noted, is related to the quality of the mediation process, as well 

as the nature of the clients served. 

In discussing the factors related to the success or failure of a mediation program, it is important to keep in 

mind that a broad range of mediation models exist. See Appendix A for a listing of program characteristics 

and descriptions. On one end of the spectrum, the community-based model offers multiple services over 

time on a voluntary basis. On the other end, the court-based model offers one session on a mandatory 

basis. While the models of the mediation programs in our sample run along the spectrum, we found general 

agreement across administrators in the factors leading to program and session success. 

To identify the core factors that may be associated with a mediation program or session’s success, we 

analyzed qualitative responses from the 10 state and program managers’ interviews in 4 states. Seven of 

the respondents are from court-based mediation programs, the remaining three represent community-based 

programs. 

Perspectives on Program Success 

• Relationship with Referral Source 

• All 10 respondents agreed that a positive relationship, including close collaboration with 

their referral source (i.e. court or child support office), is crucial to their program’s success. 

Also important on the whole is the referral source’s “buy-in”. Specifically, the 7 courtbased respondents stated that the level of communication between the mediators and 

judges greatly facilitates referrals. On the other hand, 1 state Administrator stated its 

community-based mediation programs are not seen as a priority by the child support office, 

their primary source of referral. 

• Seven interviewees stressed the logistical importance of their close location in relation to the 

referral source. In fact, the director of a community-based program said that moving onsite to the child support office has made a significant difference in the number of referrals. 

• Convenience of the Program for Clients 

• The 7 court-based respondents said either their program’s close proximity to the court or 

having mediators “on-site” in the courtroom means clients can easily mediate on the same 

day of a court appearance, saving the parents time off work and money. 

• Two of the court-based programs provide child care to make it easier for parents to attend 

mediation. 

18
• Program Capacity to Conduct Outreach and Follow-up 

• Eight respondents mentioned the importance of conducting outreach to recruit clients. Five 

of these respondents specifically mentioned the inability to actively recruit clients, even 

though, as one state administrator said, “There are more people in need of mediation than 

the programs can serve.” 

• Three administrators stated that they could not conduct follow-up to monitor the progress 

of their cases, preventing them from revising individual plans, or more broadly, making 

improvements to their programs. 

Perspectives on a Mediation Session’s Success 

• Quality of the Mediation Session 

• Six respondents said the skill of the mediator impacts the session’s success 

• Two interviewees, 1 from each mediation model, stated that mediation held outside of a 

court room is more successful because it is less formal and, as one mediator said, 

“separates child support issues from visitation.” 

• One community-based program manager stressed the importance of meditating multiple 

times, saying, “the biggest challenge [for programs who mediate once] is the expectation 

that you can solve family problems in one mediation session.” On the other hand, as one 

court-based state administrator said, “mediators are pressed for time and one session is 

sometimes all they can do.” 

• The state administrator and program manager for one community-based program attribute 

their success to a pre-mediation parenting course. 

• Nature of the Clients 

• Seven state and program administrators remarked that a client’s negative attitude, animosity 

toward the other parent or the inability to focus on his or her child’s needs adversely affects 

a mediation session. 

• Success is more likely, as 7 respondents said, if clients are open to mediation and willing to 

participate. Unfortunately, as one state administrator said, there are some “conflict junkies” 

who are “just not going to settle.” 

• Seven respondents stated that clients need to have a positive perception of the mediation 

process and believe the mediator is listening to them. Parents can be mistrustful of 

mediation because of its association with child support or the courts. 

19
The State of Georgia 

Unlike the four other states, Georgia’s two mediation programs focus primarily on increasing immediate 

visitation, as opposed to access rights. Our case file review found that at least 60% of cases that successfully 

completed program goals saw an increase in visits. 

The two programs in Georgia have very different services and goals than the mediation programs in the four 

other states reviewed. Because of these differences, we analyzed Georgia’s data separately. This allowed us to 

present a more uniform analysis of mediation programs in the other states, and to judge Georgia’s programs 

using a different set of criteria more appropriate to their stated program goals. 

The programs in the four other states generally mediate over one session with both parents referred together 

from the courts. Georgia’s programs, however, employ a “social-work model,” providing longer term casespecific assistance, and their primary referral is the noncustodial parent. The assistance they provide consists of 

such things as locating the custodial parent (CP) on behalf of the noncustodial parent (NCP), building 

communication and parenting skills, facilitating and increasing visits, and assisting in the legitimation process - a 

prerequisite to legal access unique to Georgia. 

Access: Programs focused on visits as opposed to access and, as such, access rights 

did not appreciably increase 

• Fifty percent of the cases reviewed successfully completed program goals. We defined this as 

negotiating/monitoring immediate visits, promoting the ability of parents to coordinate future 

visits, and/or helping clients through the legitimation process. 

• Only 6% gained access rights in the form of a written visitation schedule for regular visits. None 

of these parenting plans were ratified by Georgia courts. 

• Thirty-four percent of records reviewed made some mention of fathers beginning the legitimation 

process, the first legal step to acquiring access rights, and another 8% indicated that fathers had 

reached the middle of the process. Programs report informing all participants of the need for 

and process entailed in filing for legitimation, and they note that the great majority of these 

noncustodial parents are entirely unaware of this process. 

Visitation: Program participation led to an increase in visits 

• In Georgia, we have information on visitation from both our case file review and our parent 

survey. Unlike other states, the case files in Georgia contained sufficient documentation about 

visits prior to entering the program and the visits that occurred during service to render an 

assessment of the program’s impact on visitation. 

• Overall, according to our case file review, at least 47% of the cases that entered the program 

saw an increase in visits. We were unable to make a clear determination for another 30%, for 

whom visits may have increased. 

• At least 60% of cases that successfully completed program goals saw an increase in visits. We 

were unable to make a clear determination for another 38% for whom visits may have increased. 

• According to our survey, 4 out of 7 parents who reported reaching an agreement and having 

some visits in Georgia reported an increase in regular visits. 

20
Payment: Payments increased in frequency and amount subsequent to mediation 

• Fifty-five percent of NCPs increased the percentage of current child support paid by an average 

of $88, and 48% increased their frequency of payment. The 40% who decreased payments did 

so by an average of $56. 

• Seventy percent of those who successfully completed program goals subsequently increased 

their payments as a percentage of their obligations by an average of $107, and 63% increased 

the frequency of their payments. The 30% who decreased their payments did so by an average 

of $76. 

• More NCPs who successfully completed program goals increased their payments than those 

who did not. This association is statistically significant. 

• The net increase in average monthly payments per case was $26. 

• The net increase in total annual child support paid was approximately $66,000 in FY 2001 for 

the universe of 256 IV-D cases served by the program. 

Other Outcomes 

• Improved parent well-being and child behavior. Of the 13 parents surveyed who had 

reached a visitation arrangement, 5 reported an increase in their own-well being, and 5 reported 

an improvement in child behavior in the 6 months following mediation. 

• Improved parent relationship. Program administrators felt that as a result of services, parents 

were able to better communicate and discuss their child’s needs. 

• Increased child support involvement. One program administrator reports that NCPs will at 

times volunteer to open a child support case since this is a prerequisite to receiving help with 

visitation. In addition, parents whom the child support office has had trouble locating may be 

found through these programs. 

• Parents reunite. None of the cases reviewed indicated parent reunification. However, one 

program administrator reported that this does at times occur. 

• Good public relations for the child support office. The state administrator reported that the 

child support office is better able to shed their “bad guy” image, by making referrals to these 

programs focused on assisting NCPs with their visitation concerns. 

Factors of Program Success 

• The location of the program. Program administrators reported that the caseworkers’ ability 

to meet clients in a neutral community setting contributed to the programs’ success. 

• The voluntary nature of the referrals. Because participation is voluntary, program 

administrators reported that their clients are more internally motivated to succeed. 

Barriers to Program Success 

• Access to custodial parent. State confidentiality laws prevent the child support office from 

supplying custodial parent contact information when they make referrals. Program 

administrators cite this inability to locate the CP as one of the major reasons why cases close 

with no progress made toward access or visitation. 

• Legal barrier. In Georgia, there is a law requiring NCPs to be granted "legitimation" in addition 

to paternity establishment before they can pursue access rights. This creates an additional legal 

hurdle for NCPs attempting to seek access to their children. One program 

21
and the child support office are lobbying the state in an attempt to remove this legal barrier. 

• Collaboration with the courts. There is currently little interaction with the courts. However, 

one program is currently trying to educate the judges on their services in an effort to encourage 

them to make referrals. 

• Voluntary nature of the referral. As noted above, programs view the voluntary nature of the 

referrals as beneficial to program success. However, programs also mention that without 

mandatory participation, there is no external incentive or enforcement with respect to coming to 

an agreement or following through with the program. 

22
Appendix A: Program Characteristics 

Program Program 

Budget -

FY2001 

Physical Location Primary Referral Source Avg length of 

session 

Avg # of 

sessions 

IL- Cook County $130,000 Court building Child Support court 1.5 hours 1 

IL- DuPage County $230,000 Court building Court 1-1.5 hours 1 

NV- Las Vegas $70,000 Court building Child Support court 2 hours 3 

NV- Reno $33,300 Near Court building Court 2 hours 2-3 

CT- Hartford $82,100 Near Court building Child Support court 1.5-2 hours 1 

OK- Norman $28,900 Community site Child Support office 2 hours 

maximum 

3 

OK- Tulsa $26,300 Child Support building Administrative Child Support 

hearings 

.5-1 hour 1 

GA- Families First * Community site Child Support Office 45 minutes 2 

GA- Middle 

Georgia 

* Community site Child Support Office 1 hour 2 

* The total amount of the Federal Grant for FY 2001 for Georgia was $194,205. The break-out by program was unavailable. 

23
Appendix A: Program Descriptions 

Court-Based Programs 

Connecticut. The Hartford Family Services Program is a voluntary, court-based mediation program. The 

office is located in close proximity of the child support court and mediators are typically on-site in the court room 

to take referrals. Clients then can choose if they want to mediate immediately at the court, or they can set up an 

appointment to meet at a later date at the program office. 

Illinois. The two mediation programs in Illinois, one in Cook County and the other in DuPage County, are 

administered similarly. Both programs are located in the same building as the child support court, their primary 

source of referrals. If the issue of visitation comes up in a client’s hearing, the judges or hearing officers can refer 

them to the on-site mediators for same day service. 

Nevada. The Las Vegas and Reno programs in Nevada both serve clients who are court-ordered to 

mediation. The child support court masters may mandate a case with visitation issues to the mediation program, 

conveniently located in the same building as the court. The two programs also serve clients who voluntarily want 

to participate. 

Community Based Programs 

Oklahoma. The two programs in Oklahoma both receive referrals for their voluntary mediation programs from 

a variety of sources, including the child support office, courts, and community organizations. However, the 

program in Tulsa operates similarly to a court-based program, as the majority of its referrals are from 

administrative child support hearings. The program is located in the same building as the child support office, so 

referrals are typically seen immediately. The Norman program, on the other hand, sees clients in a community 

setting. 

Georgia. Georgia’s two community-based mediation programs both employ a broader, social work model. 

They receive almost all of their referrals from the local child support offices, which are typically noncustodial 

parents who have indicated problems related to access and visitation. For those who take the initiative to 

contact the program, their access and visitation needs are assessed and a plan for increasing visitation is 

established. Typically, the first step in this process is to locate and gain the cooperation of the custodial parent. 

Clients are also provided with information regarding seeking legally binding access rights through the courts as 

well as information on the other services offered by the program, such as parenting education and supervised 

visitation. 

24
Appendix B: Parent Satisfaction 

Table B.1: Most parents recommend the mediation program, even those who did not reach agreements. 

Strongly or 

Somewhat 

recommend 

Neither 

recommend or 

advise against 

Strongly or 

Somewhat 

advise against 

Don’t 

know 

All CP Respondents 

n=69 81% 12% 5% 2% 

CPs who reached 

mediated agreement 

n=60 

81% 11% 5% 3% 

CPs who did not 

reach an agreement 

n=9 

80% 0% 20% 0% 

All NCP Respondents 

n=56 71% 14% 12% 2% 

NCPs who reached 

mediated agreement 

n=45 

74% 14% 11% 1% 

NCPs who did not 

reach an agreement 

n=11 

59% 13% 19% 9% 

25
Appendix C: Methodology 

To describe the effectiveness of the Access and Visitation Grants that target IV-D families, we reviewed Access 

and Visitation program files, related court files, and child support case files for 254 cases in 5 states. We also 

conducted a phone survey of the parents who participated in the program and interviewed Access and Visitation 

program administrators. 

Sampling plan 

We employed a two-stage stratified random sampling methodology. The strata were states. From each strata, 

we randomly selected a sample of participants who completed mediation services in calendar year 2001. 

Selecting States. We purposively selected 5 states to represent those states that use their Access and Visitation 

grant money to offer access-related services, specifically mediation, to the IV-D population. These five states 

were selected out of 17 states who reported to OCSE that they elected to use their grant money to offer 

mediation to the IV-D population. To make our selection, we collected information from each of the mediation 

programs in the 17 states. We requested information on the programs’ target populations, number of 

participants, and types of services offered. States were selected to represent geographic diversity as well as 

diversity on a few key characteristics of the programs that they funded. The conditions considered were 

whether the programs were court based or community based, the extent to which they served the IV-D 

population and whether or not confidentiality provisions would prohibit our access to necessary documentation. 

We selected Nevada, Connecticut, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Georgia (containing a total of nine mediation 

programs). 

Selecting Participants. To select our sample participants, we requested that nine programs in the 5 selected 

states identify all IV-D cases completing mediation in calendar year 2001. From this list, we randomly selected 

cases. Samples were selected with the intention of achieving 95% confidence intervals with 7% precision. 

Alternates were selected in anticipation that our case file review would reveal cases that were inappropriately 

included in our sampling frame. 

Data Collection 

In our case file review, we were able to collect complete data for 254 cases. Cases are broken out by state in 

Table C.1. The table also indicates the original sample sizes desired for each strata. The actual sample sizes are 

smaller than the desired sample size in 3 states because, despite selecting alternates, we had to discard more 

cases than anticipated. This means that some precision was lost, which is reflected in the confidence intervals in 

Appendix D. Cases were primarily discarded because parents did not actually participate in mediation. 

26
Table C.1: Sample for State Case File Review 

Strata/State Number of 

Cases in 

Desired Sample 

Number of 

Cases in 

Actual Sample 

Number of Cases 

in Population 

Nevada 59 51 150 

Connecticut 37 33 59 

Oklahoma 31 31 45 

Illinois 75 75 341 

Georgia 70 64 256 

Four State 

TOTAL* 

202* 190* 595* 

TOTAL 272 254 851 

* All states except Georgia 

Access Rights: Court and Mediation Program Case File Review. To assess whether NCPs increased their 

access rights, we reviewed access-related documents in court, mediation program, and child support case files. 

These documents included mediated agreements, divorce decrees, stand alone visitation orders, restraining 

orders, parentage establishment orders, and child support orders. In addition to mediated agreements, some 

mediation programs also allowed us to collect information from mediator case notes and intake sheets, which 

included demographic and contact information for parents. For each case, we noted whether mediation resulted 

in an agreement, recorded any noncustodial parent access rights at the time mediation began, and noncustodial 

parent access rights acquired through the terms of mediation agreements. 

To analyze our collected data, we first compared the NCP’s access rights prior to the program (as noted in 

court documents) to his or her access rights after the program (as noted in mediated access agreements) to code 

whether access rights increased, stayed the same, or decreased. 

Visitation: Phone Survey of CP and NCP Program Participants. Our contractor contacted program 

participants by phone in order to glean information from the participants about changes in visitation and other 

outcomes resulting from the program. Participants were asked about the extent of visits before and after 

completing the program, and whether they experienced other outcomes, such as improved child behavior, 

household formation or marriage after mediation. In addition, participants were asked to comment on reasons 

for visit changes and provide feedback on the program they attended. 

Based on conversations with researchers working with the IV-D population, we expected a low response rate 

on our survey, due primarily to inaccurate, outdated, or missing contact information. One study in particular 

experienced a 25% response rate. In an effort to increase our response rate, we collected participant contact 

information from multiple sources - child support, court, and mediation program files. 

27
Our contractor made every effort to contact participants using the information we provided. They called at 

different times of the day, left messages and, where phone numbers were outdated, searched the internet and 

telephone directories for new numbers. The contractor estimated that staff spent a third of their time tracking 

down current numbers for parents after exhausting the numbers that we provided. 

The response rate for our phone survey was higher than expected. We received responses for 125 parents (out 

of 380) for a parent response rate of 33%, and surveyed at least one parent for 100 of our 190 cases for a case 

response rate of 53%. In 25 cases both parents responded. See the table below for strata sample sizes and 

weights. 

Table C.2: Sample for Phone Survey 

Strata/State Number of Parents in 

Desired Sample 

Number of Cases 

in Desired Sample 

Number of Cases in 

Actual Sample 

Number of Cases in 

Population 

Nevada 102 51 32 150 

Connecticut 66 33 13 59 

Oklahoma 62 31 21 45 

Illinois 150 75 34 341 

Georgia 128 64 18 256 

Four State TOTAL* 380 190 100 595 

TOTAL 508 254 118 851 

* All states except Georgia 

Child Support Payment: Child Support Case File Review. For our payment review, we collected information 

from child support records on order, payment, and earnings history for the period 18 months before mediation 

to 18 months after mediation for each case. To assess whether child support increased, we compared each 

noncustodial parent’s child support payment history before they entered the mediation program to their payment 

history after they completed the program. 

State and Program Administrator Perspectives. We conducted interviews with all state and program-level 

administrators to examine what factors may be associated with programmatic success or failure. We conducted 

a content analysis on administrator responses, identifying common themes. 

Analysis 

Due to significant differences between Georgia’s programs and the other states’ programs, all of the data 

collected from Georgia was pulled out and analyzed separately. In other words, the information from the 254 

cases was broken into two subsets used in analysis, 190 cases for four states and 64 cases for Georgia. 

Analyzing the data separately allowed us to present a more uniform analysis of mediation programs in the other 

states, and to judge Georgia’s program using criteria more appropriate to their stated program goals. Georgia’s 

programs have very different services and goals than the mediation programs in the four other states reviewed. 

The programs in the four other states generally mediate over one session with both parents referred from the 

28
courts at the same time. Georgia’s programs, however, employ a “social-work model,” providing longer term 

case-specific assistance, and their primary referral is the NCP. 

Despite sampling on case, we analyzed most of the NCP and CP responses to the phone survey separately. 

Research indicates that CPs tend to under-report when asked about child support payments and NCP visits, 

and NCPs tend to over-report these same items. Also, we had 25 cases in which both parents responded. 

Separate analysis allowed us to report out the data without making potentially arbitrary adjustments to account 

for any over- or under-reporting or conflicting information within a case. For a few core variables, we 

performed analysis by case. For the 25 cases with responses from each parent, we categorized conflicting 

information as indeterminate. Fortunately, most of the parents in these cases agreed on the items being analyzed. 

We found that 77% of the pairs agreed on whether or not that they reached a mediated agreement. Of those 

pairs reporting having reached an agreement, 65% agreed on whether or not the NCP visits increased, 

decreased, or stayed the same. 

We had anticipated including a comparison of court and community programs’ outcomes. Three of our states 

contained court-based mediation programs (Nevada, Illinois, Connecticut), and two states contained 

community-based programs (Georgia, Oklahoma). Ultimately separating states into court/community categories 

did not prove useful. One of two community-based states, Georgia, was removed from our aggregate analysis. 

Further, the largest program in Oklahoma, the other state with community-based programs, turned out to have a 

very similar structure to our other court-based programs, in that parents are referred to mediation largely through 

child support administrative hearings. 

For the 4 states, we calculated weighted frequencies and confidence intervals using the statistical software 

package SUDAAN. We tested relationships using chi-square tests and logistic regression where applicable. 

For Georgia, the data was analyzed using the statistical software SAS and Microsoft Access since weighting 

was not necessary. 

Since all aggregate data reported are weighted according to state stratification, they can be projected to 

program participants in the four states. Our sampling methodology does not allow us to project to the 17 states. 

Our analysis of Georgia can only be projected to represent that state. Confidence intervals for specific point 

estimates are provided in Appendix D. 

29
Appendix D: Confidence Intervals 

Statistic 

Point 

Estimate 

Lower 

Limit 

Upper 

Limit 

ACCESS 

Percent of cases that reached an agreement 76.1% 71.3% 80.3% 

Percent of cases with an agreement that increased access rights 86.0% 81.9% 90.2% 

Percent of all cases that gained increased access rights through 

mediation 

65.4% 60.2% 70.7% 

Percent of IL cases that reached an agreement 72.0% 64.4% 79.6% 

Percent of CT cases that reached an agreement 84.9% 77.9% 91.8% 

Percent of NCPs with no prior access who reached an agreement 77.0% 71.3% 82.8% 

Percent of NCP with prior access who reached an agreement 73.9% 65.3% 82.5% 

Percent of NCPs with prior access who reached an agreement 

increasing their access rights 

53.8% 42.9% 64.6% 

Percent of all NCPs with prior access who increased their access 

rights 

39.7% 30.4% 49.0% 

VISITS 

Percentage of cases with a parent reporting an increase in visits 41.5% 31.7% 51.3% 

Percentage of cases with a parent reporting visits stayed the 

same 

33% 21.7% 44.3% 

Percentage of cases with a parent reporting a decrease in visits 11% 3.7% 18.3% 

Percent of CPs who reached an agreement in mediation 88.2% 68.8% 100.0% 

Percent of NCPs who reached an agreement in mediation 83.3% 75.8% 90.8% 

Percent of CPs with an agreement whose visits increased 38.8% 27.6% 50.0% 

Percent of NCPs with an agreement whose visits increased 53.1% 39.5% 66.7% 

Percent of CPs without an agreement whose visits increased 10.2% 0% 24.8% 

Percent of NCPs without an agreement whose visits increased 13.0% 0% 26.8% 

Percent of CPs who say there were once/weekly or more visits 

before mediation 

29.5% 17.6% 41.4% 

Percent of NCPs who say there were once/weekly or more visits 

before mediation 

47.9% 33.3% 62.6% 

Percent of CPs who claim there were no visits before mediation 41.6% 29% 54% 

Percent of NCPs who claim there were no visits before mediation 27.6% 14.8% 40.3% 

30
Statistic 

Point 

Estimate 

Lower 

Limit 

Upper 

Limit 

Percent of CPs who say there were once/weekly or more visits 

after mediation 

47.1% 34.3% 59.9% 

Percent of NCPs who say there were once/weekly or more visits 

after mediation 

61.2% 46.9% 75.4% 

Percent of CPs who claim there were no visits after mediation 23.2% 12.4% 34% 

Percent of NCPs who claim there were no visits after mediation 15.7% 4.7% 26.6% 

Percent of CPs who said visits were regularly scheduled before 

agreement 

20.2% 9.5% 30.9% 

Percent of NCPs who said visits were regularly scheduled before 

agreement 

26.3% 12.7% 39.9% 

Percent of CPs who said visits were regularly scheduled after 

agreement 

43.7% 30.4% 57% 

Percent of NCPs who said visits were regularly scheduled after 

agreement 

56.7% 41.4% 71.9% 

Percent of CPs who said visits were informal before agreement 16.7% 6.9% 26.4% 

Percent of NCPs who said visits were informal before agreement 17.4% 5.3% 29.5% 

Percent of CPs who said visits were informal after agreement 8.2% .5% 15.9% 

Percent of NCPs who said visits were informal after mediation 4.4% 0% 9.1% 

Percent of CPs who said visits were cancelled less often after 

mediation 

23.8% 11% 36.6% 

Percent of NCPs who said visits were cancelled less often after 

mediation 

50.6% 33.4% 67.7% 

Percent of CPs with increased visits who said visits were 

cancelled less often after mediation 

42.6% 18.6% 66.7% 

Percent of NCPs with increased visits who said visits were 

cancelled less often after mediation 

68.9% 46.8% 91% 

PAYMENT 

Percent of NCPs who increased percent paid of amount owed 60.7% 52% 69.4% 

Percent of NCPs who decreased percent paid of amount owed 27.5% 19.4% 35.5% 

Percent of NCPs who did not change percent paid of amount 

owed 

11.9% 6.0% 17.7% 

Estimate of total annual net increase in child support collection $231,121 $151,777 $310,465 

Average monthly amount increase per case $55.66 $36.55 $74.77 

31
Statistic 

Point 

Estimate 

Lower 

Limit 

Upper 

Limit 

Average monthly amount increase for NCPs who increased 

payment 

$116.02 $95.28 $136.75 

Average monthly amount decrease for NCPs who decreased 

payment 

$53.74 $29.20 $78.28 

Percent of NCPs who increased number of payments 53.5% 46.2% 60.8% 

Percent of NCPs who decreased number of payments 22.8% 16.3% 29.3% 

Percent of NCPs where the number of payments remained the 

same 

23.7% 17.4% 30.0% 

Percent of CPs who agreed with opinion statement regarding the 

connection between child support payment and visitation 

41.7% 31.5% 51.9% 

Percent of CPs who disagreed with opinion statement regarding 

the connection between child support payment and visitation 

45.3% 35.0% 55.6% 

Percent of NCPs who agreed with opinion statement regarding 

the connection between visitation and child support payment 

52.5% 40.9% 64.0% 

Percent of NCPs who disagreed with opinion statement regarding 

the connection between visitation and child support payment 

39.2% 27.8% 50.6% 

OTHER OUTCOMES 

Percent of CPs reporting well-being increase after mediation 38.0% 27.0% 49.0% 

Percent of NCPs reporting well-being increase after mediation 54.8% 41.3% 68.2% 

Percent of CPs who reported an increase in visits and reported an 

increase in well-being after mediation 

34.3% 18.7% 50.0% 

Percent of NCPs who reported an increase in visits and reported 

an increase in well-being after mediation 

84.4% 73.5% 95.3% 

Percent of CPs reporting an improvement in child behavior after 

mediation 

33.3% 23.2% 43.5% 

Percent of NCPs reporting an improvement in child behavior after 

mediation 

40.7% 27.4% 53.9% 

Percent of CPs who reported an increase in visits and reported an 

improvement in child behavior after mediation 

32.1% 16.7% 47.4% 

Percent of NCPs who reported an increase in visits and reported 

an improvement in child behavior after mediation 

63.3% 45.9% 80.7% 

GEORGIA 

Percent of all cases that successfully completed program goals 

and saw an increase in visits 

60% 45.5% 74.5% 

32
Statistic 

Point 

Estimate 

Lower 

Limit 

Upper 

Limit 

Percent of cases that completed program goals 50% 39.6% 60.4% 

Percent of cases that had a formal parenting plan 6.3% 1% 10.9% 

Percent of cases in which there was some indication that they 

had begun the legitimation process 

34.4% 24.1% 43.9% 

Percent of cases in which there was some indication that they 

had gotten to the middle of the legitimation process 

7.8% 2.3% 13.7% 

Percent of cases with no prior access rights 81.2% 73% 89.4% 

Percent of all cases that saw a clear increase in visits 47% 36.5% 57.4% 

Percent of all cases that saw an indeterminate change in visits 30% 20.4% 39.5% 

Percent of all cases that successfully completed program goals 

and saw an indeterminate change in visits. 

37.5% 23.2% 51.8% 

Percent of NCPs who increased percent paid of owed 54.7% 44.9% 64.5 % 

Estimate of total annual net increase in child support collection $65,967.36 $12,149 $119,786 

Average monthly amount increase per case $25.93 $4.78 $47.08 

Average amount of the increase of percent paid of due after 

mediation of those who increased payment 

$87.86 $55.42 $120.30 

Percent of NCPs who increased their frequency of payments after 

mediation 

48% 38.0% 58.0% 

Percent of NCPs who decreased their percent paid of due after 

mediation 

40% 30.2% 49.8% 

Average amount of the decrease of percent paid of due after 

mediation of those who decreased payments 

$55.89 $40.07 $71.71 

Percent of NCPs who completed program goals who increased 

percent paid of due after mediation 

70% 57.4% 82.6% 

Average amount of the increase of percent paid of owed for the 

NCPs who increased percent paid after mediation 

$106.80 $68.46 $145.15 

Percent of NCPs who completed program goals who increased 

frequency of payments after mediation 

63% 49.7% 76.3% 

Percent of NCPs who completed program goals who decreased 

percent paid of amount owed after mediation 

30% 17.4% 42.6% 

Average amount of the decrease of percent paid of amount owed 

for the NCPs who decreased percent paid after mediation 

$76.40 $44.40 $108.40 

33
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This report was prepared under the direction of William C. Moran, Regional Inspector General for 

Evaluation and Inspections in Chicago and Natalie Coen, Deputy Regional Inspector General. Other 

principal Office of Evaluation and Inspections staff who contributed include: 

Ann Maxwell, Project Leader

Susan Otter, Lead Analyst

Madeline Carpinelli, Program Analyst

Mara Siler-Price, Program Analyst

Rebecca Ogrodnick, Program Analyst

Christina Singer, Intern

Kim Siegal, Intern

Meaghan Fotherfill, Intern

Sarah Pentoney, Intern

Joan Richardson, Program Specialist 

Linda Hall, Program Specialist