Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Office of Child Support Enforcement

Department of Health and Human 

Services 

Administration for Children and 

Families

Child Access and 

Visitation Programs: 

Participant Outcomes

Program Analysis
This report was prepared by the Center for Policy Research for the Office of Child Support 

Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human 

Services, under Contract Number 105-00-8300, Task Order 27, with Policy Studies Inc., January 

2006. Points of view expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

represent the official position of the Department of Health and Human Services.
cknowledgments A 

 

 

 

The authors would like to thank David Arnaudo, Debra Pontisso and John Jolley who served as the 

project officers for the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). 

Our thanks also go to several agencies in the nine sites. These agencies provided invaluable 

assistance in generating contact information for the clients to be interviewed and collecting 

background data. Additionally, special thanks go out to child support staff in Arizona, Missouri and 

Pennsylvania for generating child support data. 

Special thanks to the site and staff: 

Arizona: Kat Cooper, Associate Clerk, Family Support Center, Maricopa County Clerk of the 

Superior Court, and Wanda Weber, Conciliation Programs Coordinator, and Don Vert, Supervisor, 

Office of Child Support Enforcement 

California: Shelly Glapion, Judicial Council of California, and Linda Louie, Acting Manager, Family 

Court Services and Probate Investigations, Los Angeles Superior Court 

Colorado: Robert Smith, Office of Dispute Resolution Project Manager, Caryn Stanley, District 

Administrator for the 15th and 16th Judicial Districts, and Cindie Farmer, Family Court Facilitator for 

the 15th Judicial District

Hawaii: Maureen Kiehm, Program Specialist, Office of the Chief Court Administrator, First Judicial 

Circuit Court Hawaii, and Claudia Wilcox-Boucher and Donna Madrid, Program Director, Island of 

Hawaii YMCA 

Missouri: Kathy LeFebvre, Grant Coordinator, Family Support Division, and Felicia Green, Child 

Support Administrator, Family Support Division 

New Jersey: Shonda Laurel, Administrative Specialist, Administrative Office of the New Jersey 

Courts 

Pennsylvania: Treasure Rigley, Amanda Pennypacker and Mary Smith, Pennsylvania Bureau of 

Child Support Enforcement

Rhode Island: David Tassoni and Maureen Curran, Rhode Island Family Court 

Utah: Guy Galli, Program Coordinator, Utah Administrative Office of the Courts, and Vickee Clark, 

ADR intern with the AOC who conducted interviews 
Page i

Executive Summary

Purpose of the Study

This study was commissioned by the Office of Child Support Enforcement to: 

# Develop critical measures of participant outcomes for the State Access and Visitation 

Program; 

# Perform a limited, pilot evaluation using these measures in a sample of states offering the 

major types of access and visitation interventions; 

# Assess participant outcomes and gauge the feasibility of routinely assessing such 

programs; 

# Suggest program improvements based upon the evaluation; 

# Suggest ways to improve the quality of data collected about programs and their 

participants. 

Study Sites and Methods

Programs in three states were selected for each of three major program types: 

# Mediation: Missouri, Rhode Island, and Utah; 

# Parent education: Arizona, Colorado, and New Jersey; 

# Supervised visitation: California, Hawaii, and Pennsylvania. 

A 10-minute telephone interview was administered to program participants an average of 17 

months following service delivery. This resulted in the following: 

# Completed telephone interviews with 391 noncustodial parents and 579 custodial parents, 

for a total of 970 interviews; 

# Attempts were made to reach 4,109 participants for a response rate of 24 percent; 

# The refusal rate was 7 percent, but the phone disconnection or wrong number rate was 41 

percent. 

The study also included a review of child support records for 173 program participants in 

Arizona, Missouri, and Pennsylvania for 12 months prior to and 12 months following program 

participation. 
Page ii 

Access and Visitation Participant Outcome Measures and Results

The key outcome measures studied for users of mediation, parent education, and supervised 

visitation programs, and the results for these measures, are: 

# Child Support Payment: Among those who entered the program paying less than 

everything they owed, most noncustodial parents paid more child support in the 12 

months following program participation, with official child support records showing 

increases for 64 percent in mediation programs, 93 percent in parent education programs, 

and 53 percent in supervised visitation programs.i

# Child Support Compliance: The child support compliance rate (child support 

paid/child support owed) for never-married parents increased significantly from an 

average of 59 percent in the 12 months prior to services to 79 percent in the 12 months 

following the receipt of services. The compliance rate for divorced parents was 74 

percent before services were provided and did not increase significantly following service 

delivery. 

# Level of Child Contact: Among mediation participants, the proportion of noncustodial 

parents reporting an increase in child contact 12 months after the delivery of services was 

32 percent, compared with 41 percent for those who participated in parent education, and 

45 percent for supervised visitation users. Custodial parents reported lower rates of 

increase. Many reported that visitation stayed the same or declined. 

# Behavior of Youngest Child: Custodial parents reported that the behavior of the 

youngest child had improved in the 12 months after service delivery for 27 percent of the 

mediation cases, 26 percent of the parent education cases, and 41 percent of the 

supervised visitation cases. 

# Parental Relationships: In the 12 months after service delivery, approximately 25 

percent of custodial and noncustodial parents, respectively, reported that their 

relationship with the other parent had improved, with only slight differences by program 

type. A majority reported that the relationship quality had stayed the same; some 

reported a decline. 

# Household Formation and Marriage: Since marriage and household formation were 

not stressed in any of the programs, and most program participants had already decided to 

 

iThe HHS Office of the Inspector General found that 61 percent of mediation participants in a sample of cases 

and states increased their child support payments. 
Page iii 

divorce or not marry, few participants reported that they began to live together (1-5%), 

married or re-married (2-6%). 

# Mediation Agreement Rates: Approximately 70 percent of custodial and noncustodial 

parents who participated in mediation reported reaching an agreement on the issues of 

visitation or custody. 

# Parent Satisfaction: Nearly all parents who participated in parent education rated these 

programs as “very” or “somewhat” useful. Ninety percent of parents who participated in 

supervised visitation characterized it as a safe place to conduct visits. 

Findings on How to Improve Program Performance

# Refer noncustodial parents in the child support caseload to State Access and Visitation 

Programs. 

# Focus on serving never-married parents, since they show significantly better child 

support payment outcomes following service delivery. 

# Investigate ways to expand the number of State Access and Visitation Programs and the 

population served. 
 

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Introduction and Background .......................................1

Chapter 2

Methodology .....................................................5

Program Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Program Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Sample Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Interview Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Sample Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The Review of Child Support Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 3

Profile of the Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Mediation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Parent Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Supervised Visitation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chapter 4

Parents Served in Access and Visitation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Background Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Family Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Marital Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Domestic Violence Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Referral Source and Voluntary or Mandatory Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Other Sources of Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Exclusive Use of AV Programs for Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Chapter 5

Types of Services Received and Parent Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Mediation Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Parent Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Supervised Exchange and Supervised Visitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Satisfaction with Program Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table of Contents

Chapter 6

Participant Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Changes in Parenting Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Changes in Child Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Changes in Parental Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Changes in Child Support Payment Patterns: Parent Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Changes in Child Support Payment Patterns: Child Support Records . . . . . . . . . 60

Summary of Outcomes and Changes in Household Formation and Marriage . . . 63

Outcomes for Certain Sub-Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Chapter 7

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Chapter 8

Implications for Practice and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Implications for Practice and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Implications for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

References

Appendices
List of Tables and Figures

Table 2-1

Attempted and Completed Interviews, by Site and Program Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 2-2

Percent of NCPs Interviewed by Selected Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 4-1

Characteristics of Parents Interviewed, by Program Type and Custody Status . . . . . . . . 28

Table 4-2

Residence, Number, and Age of Children, by Program Type and Custody Status . . . . . 29

Table 4-3

Marital Relationship of Parents, by Program Type and Custody Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 4-4

Physical Violence During Relationship, as Reported by Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 4-5

How Parents Learned About Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 4-6

Mandatory or Voluntary Nature of Services, by Program Type and Custody Status . . . 32

Table 4-7

Other Services Used to Resolve Access Problems and Timing of 

Service Use, by Program Type and Custody Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 5-1

Mediation Issues and Agreements by Custody Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 5-2

Of Those With No Agreement on Visitation in Mediation, Percent 

Reporting a Resolution of the Issue, by Custody Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 5-3

Reported Hours of Parent Education, by Custody Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 5-4

Parent Report of Topics in Parent Education and Rating of Usefulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 5-5

Current Status and Length of Time Using Supervised Exchange 

and Supervised Visitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 5-6

Perception of Safety Provided by Supervised Visitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 5-7

Parents’ Proximity to the Supervised Visitation Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 5-8

Degree of Satisfaction With Services, by Program Type and Custody Status . . . . . . . . 46
List of Tables and Figures

Table 5-9

Assessment that the Program Was Worth the Fee, by Type of Program and 

Custody Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 5-1

Willingness to Pay for Services, by Program Type and Custody Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table 6-1

Access at Program Entry and at the Time of the Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

 Table 6-2

Perceived Changes in Contact with Child from Program Entry to Interview and

Perceived Role of the Program in Producing Changes, by Program Type and 

Custody Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 6-3

Perceived Changes from Program Entry to Interview in Youngest Child’s Behavior . . 55

Table 6-4

Reported Quality of the Relationship Between Parents Before and After Program

Services and Perceived Role of the Program in Creating Changes,

by Program Type and Custody Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table 6-5

Self-Report of Child Support Obligations and Payment, at Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Table 6-6

Child Support Information From Agency Records, by Program Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Table 6-7

Summary of Changes Since Program Enrollment, by Program Type 

and Custody Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Table 6-8

Percent of Child Support Paid Pre- and Post-Services, by Marital Status 

of Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Table 6-9

Outcomes by Marital and Custody Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Table 6-10

Post-Program Contact by Geographic Distance and Custody Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Table 6-11

Outcomes and Satisfaction Levels, by Mandatory Program Participation . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Table 6-12

Outcomes for Those Who Do and Do Not Reach Agreement in Mediation . . . . . . . . . . 68
Page 1

Chapter 1

Introduction and Background

In his research, David Chambers (1979) found that fathers with little or no contact with their

children after divorce paid only about 34 percent of their child support, while fathers in regular

contact paid 85 percent. A decade later, Judith Seltzer (1991) reached similar conclusions when she

found that two-thirds of parents with frequent contact paid child support, while only one-fifth of

those with no contact made payments. More recently, the U.S. Census has confirmed that there are

strong, practical connections between visitation and child support payment and that parents with

joint custody or visitation rights are substantially more likely to make child support payments than

their counterparts who lack such arrangements. According to the most recent survey, 77.1 percent

of those with joint custody or visitation rights paid at least some child support, compared with 55.8

percent of their counterparts without visitation rights or joint custody (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2003).

As research has mounted showing the importance of access and visitation and its connections with

the payment of child support, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and state and

local child support agencies, known as title IV-D agencies, have sought to find ways to address

access and visitation problems without making the two contingent upon one another or undermining

their legal distinctions.

# In 1990, OCSE launched the Child Access Demonstration Projects in seven states to test the

impact of mediation, parent education, and counseling following parental separation and divorce

and to increase the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children. 

# In 1995, the evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects confirmed that access was

a complex problem for many separated and divorced parents (with estimates of access problems

ranging from 13 to 20 percent of new divorce cases to 31 percent of post-decree cases), and

recommended that courts and other agencies help parents by developing no- and low-cost

dispute resolution interventions like mediation (Pearson, et al., 1996).

# In 1996, Congress enacted legislation authorizing the State Access and Visitation (AV)

Program, which provides total annual grant awards of $10 million per year for states to promote

the development of mediation, counseling, education, parenting plans, and visitation

enforcement services, including supervised visitation, to alleviate access problems. OCSE

awarded the first grants in 1997.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 2

The limited research on the implementation and effectiveness of programs funded with AV grants

has been promising. 

# In its first year, the AV grants program supported 131 local initiatives in 30 states that served

19,454 individuals (Fender, et al., 1999). By 2003, the program served an estimated 69,500

parents (OCSE, 2004).

# A 2002 assessment of the AV program showed that states were using their funds in a variety of

ways, with many states focusing on helping parents in IV-D cases with child support obligations

to obtain court-ordered visitation rights. This included programs that work primarily with IV-D

populations, including low-income and never-married families; programs that work with highconflict families; programs that work with incarcerated parents; programs that attempt to help

parents enforce visitation orders; and multi-service programs in rural areas (Pearson and Price,

2002).

# A 2002 study conducted by the HHS Office of the Inspector General that focused on 190

families in four states who received mediation services to deal with access problems found that

76 percent generated mediation agreements, 42 percent reported increased contact with their

children, and 61 percent paid more child support (OIG, 2002).

As the access and visitation program comes of age, interest has grown in developing mechanisms

to allow for a standard means of measuring outcomes across programs. The standard measures that

are currently collected at all project sites include:

# The referral sources for clients;

# The relationship of the individuals served to the children in the household;

# Marital status of the parents;

# Race and ethnicity of the parents;

# Income of the parents; 

# The type of access and visitation service provided; and

# Increase in parenting time.

In 2002, OCSE awarded a Task Order to examine State Access and Visitation Programs and answer

a variety of questions on outcomes for major program types. The study had several objectives. One

goal was to develop ways of measuring outcomes for users of various types of programs funded by

State Child Access and Visitation grants. Another objective was to conduct a limited study of

program users to document the actual outcomes that they experience and to gauge the level of effort

that such assessments require. Still other project goals were to: suggest ways to improve program

services; explore the feasibility of having states routinely collect outcome information for program
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 3

participants; and recommend steps that states should take to make program assessment more

practical and reliable. 

To accomplish these objectives, a data collection instrument was developed to assess participant

outcomes among users of the most common types of services funded by State Child Access and

Visitation grants. Those services were (1) mediation, (2) parent education, and (3) supervised

visitation. States that offer these three types of services were identified and recruited to participate

in the research effort. Minimally, this involved providing contact information for a large number

of participants who received services at least six months prior to the initiation of field work.

Ultimately, the research focused on 18 AV programs in nine states, with three states offering

mediation, parent education, and supervised visitation, respectively. Although all nine states offered

a variety of services, we assessed programs offering parent education in Arizona, Colorado, and

New Jersey; programs offering mediation in Missouri, Rhode Island, and Utah; and supervised

visitation programs in California, Hawaii, and Pennsylvania.

This report presents the results of this research. Chapter 2 discusses the methodology for the

evaluation, including how the program types and sites were selected, how the sample was generated,

the interview instrument, the response rate, and the methodology used to gauge outcomes. Chapter

3 provides a description of the sites in which the study was conducted, including the nature of

services provided. Chapter 4 provides a portrait of the clients served, their demographic and family

characteristics, how they learned about AV programs and what other forms of assistance they have

pursued to resolve their access disputes. Chapter 5 describes the types of services parents recalled

receiving at the AV program and their satisfaction with those services. Chapter 6 presents outcomes

following program participation, including changes in parent-child contact, parental relationships,

child behavior, family formation, and child support payment. Chapter 7 summarizes key findings

and compares them with prior research on mediation, parent education, and supervised visitation

programs. Chapter 8 discusses the implications of the study, including ways to improve program

services and to reliably assess participant outcomes. In the report, we merge data from similar sites

and present patterns for mediation, parent education, and supervised visitation programs,

respectively. 
Page 4
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 5

Chapter 2

Methodology

Program Types

Under the regulations for State Access and Visitation Program grants (45 CFR§ 303.109), states and

local projects can engage in a broad range of activities, including mediation, counseling, parenting

education, development of parenting plans, development of guidelines for visitation and custody

arrangements, and visitation enforcement. An assessment of applications submitted by states for

Fiscal Year 2001 and telephone discussions with AV program coordinators in late 2001 showed that

states are using their grant funds to offer a wide range of services (Pearson and Price, 2002). Among

the key findings of the 2001 assessment are the following:

# Mediation: Forty-six states offer some mediation; 36 of those states offer both voluntary and

mandatory mediation, seven offer only voluntary mediation, and three offer only mandatory

mediation.

# Counseling: Thirty-one states offer counseling to program participants.

# Parent Education: Forty-six states offer education to parents.

# Parenting Plans: Forty-seven states help parents develop access plans.

# Monitoring: Thirty states include monitoring of the visitation agreement among their services.

# Supervised visitation: Forty-five states provide some supervised visitation services.

# Neutral pick-up and drop-off: Thirty-four states have some provision for this service.

# Development of visitation guidelines: Twenty-four states mention developing visitation

guidelines in their grant application.

Although states have changed some of their service priorities since 2001, the majority continue to

offer mediation services, parenting education, and supervised visitation services. As a result, this
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 6

research focused its outcome assessment efforts on users of these three most common service types.

Since many programs that offer supervised visitation services also offer neutral drop-off and pick-up

arrangements, these two service categories were combined and are addressed as programs offering

supervised visitation. Similarly, since most mediation programs result in the development of

parenting plans, it was possible to address outcomes associated with both mediation and the

development of parenting plans within the same set of mediation programs selected for assessment

purposes. 

Program Sites

Researchers contacted AV program directors in states offering (1) mediation services; (2) parent

education; and (3) supervised visitation. The goal was to identify three states that offered each of

these types of services and that were willing to provide contact information for a large number of

participants who received services at least six months prior to the initiation of field work. Another

objective was to avoid duplication of sites covered in the OIG’s recent assessment of Access and

Visitation Grant Programs. Finally, at some sites, we wanted to review child support records for

actual payment behavior before and after program participation; for this analysis, we needed to

recruit AV programs that collected Social Security numbers or other case identifiers recognized by

the child support agency. These volume, contact, duplication, and identification criteria proved to

be quite challenging.

Volume Considerations: In order to obtain at least 100 completed interviews at each site with

parents served in AV programs during a 12-month period of time, we projected that we needed a

sample pool of at least 300 families who were served over 12 months. This limited consideration

to programs with larger case volumes and eliminated the many providers who serve fewer than 300

families per year. 

Contact Considerations: Since the chief assessment tool was a telephone interview conducted with

participating parents, a key requirement for site participation was the ability to provide complete

contact information for program participants, including telephone numbers. It was also important

to identify sites that had previously obtained a signed consent form from program participants who

were willing to be contacted by telephone for evaluation purposes and/or would agree to a passive

consent process that involved notifying participants about the telephone evaluation and offering

them the possibility of opting out of the study by telephoning the program. These considerations

led to the elimination of many sites that lacked complete contact information and/or required an

active consent process whereby potential respondents would be mailed a letter about the assessment
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 7

and interested parents would be invited to authorize the program to release their names and numbers

to telephone interviewers. Previous research efforts with similar populations found that active

consent requirements yielded few participants, with most parents ignoring requests to mail postcards

or make phone calls indicating their willingness to participate in a telephone interview (Pearson and

Thoennes, 1999).

Duplication Considerations: In order to avoid duplication with the OIG’s recent evaluation of

Access and Visitation Grant Programs, we eliminated from consideration mediation programs in

Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, and Oklahoma. The OIG focused on mediation programs

in these five states in its 2002 evaluation of AV Programs. One of the goals of this assessment was

to expand the number of state programs subject to evaluation.

Child Support Case Identification Considerations: Records maintained by the child support agency

are the most reliable way to gauge child support obligations and/or payment patterns. In order to

review child support records in a manual or automated fashion, certain identifiers, such as Social

Security numbers or child support case numbers, are required. Many sites do not collect such

identifiers from program participants and/or were unwilling to release them without active consent.

Ultimately, 18 programs in nine states satisfied these considerations and comprised the sites for our

study. Programs offering parent education were selected in Arizona, Colorado, and New Jersey.

Programs offering mediation were selected in Missouri, Rhode Island, and Utah. Supervised

visitation programs were selected in California, Hawaii, and Pennsylvania. The three sites that had

participant information that was sufficient to permit use of child support records were Arizona,

Missouri, and Pennsylvania. 

Sample Generation

Program staff at each site identified parents who had received services during 2002 and extracted

relevant contact and service information from their files. At some sites, the recruitment process was

extended to include clients served in 2003; at others, it was extended retroactively to 2000 and 2001.

These extensions served to expand the pool of eligible participants. In all instances, clients were

contacted for assessment interviews at least six months following the date at which they entered the

programs, with the range going from six to 54 months. On average, interviews were conducted 17

months after the delivery of services; the median number of months elapsing between service

delivery and the interview was 14. Less than 20 percent of the interviews (18%) were conducted
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 8

24 months or more after the delivery of services. Ultimately, the sites identified and provided

relevant information on 4,109 parents who had participated in the access and visitation programs.

The chief type of information on participants provided by program staff was contact information:

the name, address, and telephone number for each parent served. In addition, programs were asked

to identify who could be termed the “custodial” and “noncustodial” parent; the type of service each

parent received; the language in which any follow-up interview should be conducted; history of or

allegations of domestic violence; the date each parent first received service; and/or whether he or

she was charged any fees for program services. If child support identifiers such as Social Security

and/or child support case numbers were available, it was noted. 

Finally, staff at mediation programs were asked to note whether the mediation effort had resulted

in a full or partial agreement or no agreement at all. Staff at supervised visitation programs were

asked to note whether the client was still receiving program services, had moved to a different

visitation arrangement, and/or had been terminated by the program. They were also asked to

indicate whether the program had communicated about the status of the case/family to the court.

A copy of the form completed by program staff (“Information Supplied by Program”) appears in

Appendix A.

In addition to supplying information on participants, program staff at most sites mailed a brief letter

to parents alerting them to the fact that they would soon be contacted by telephone interviewers for

research purposes. Pursuant to the “passive consent” process, parents were invited to contact the

program to request that their names and phone numbers be withheld from lists conveyed to

telephone interviewers but were not asked to explicitly authorize its use. Parents were assured that

the interview information would be kept confidential and reported in an anonymous fashion. They

were told that the purpose of the interview was to improve services. A copy of the letter used to

inform participants about the study and permit them to opt out appears in Appendix B. At the

California site in Los Angeles County, parents were sent an introductory letter in both English and

Spanish. 

The Instrument

Researchers worked with the sites to develop a 10-minute interview that gathered information that

was common to all program types, as well as information that was unique to mediation, parent

education, and supervised visitation programs, respectively. Accordingly, the instrument began with

a common set of questions about children who were the subject of the intervention and services
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 9

received; moved to sections that were specifically tailored for those who had received mediation,

parent education or supervised visitation services; and concluded with a second series of common

questions on program outcomes and client satisfaction. All questions were close-ended, with fixed

choice responses. A copy of the parent survey (Evaluating Outcomes of the States’ Access and

Visitation Program) appears in Appendix C. The survey was translated into Spanish and

administered on an as-needed basis, mostly with parents at the California site in Los Angeles.

Since the central objective of the assessment was to gauge participant outcomes in the areas of child

support payments, parenting time, parent relationships, child behavior, household formation, and

marriage, researchers designed multiple measures of key outcome variables. For example, changes

in parenting time were assessed by asking parents to characterize their visitation arrangement, their

frequency of visitation, and their amount of contact relative to their visitation agreement or court

order in the months before they received program services and at the time of the interview. In

addition, parents were asked to compare the amount of time that the noncustodial parent spent with

the children before and after receiving program services. Those who noted a change were asked to

assess if it could be attributed to the program. Finally, parents were asked to indicate in a “yes” or

“no” fashion whether the noncustodial parent was seeing the child(ren) more often than she or he

did before receiving program services.

Since another objective of the study was to compare outcomes patterns generated in this study with

the results of OIG’s assessment of the extent to which the Access and Visitation Grants have led to

increases in access rights, visitation, and child support payment compliance, this study used some

of the same outcome questions that the OIG used. The use of multiple measures and repeated

measures in independent research efforts enhances the reliability of observed results.

A final objective of the study was to generate information that was useful to the individual programs

and sites. Thus, researchers attempted to accommodate the interests of participating programs by

adding specific questions that might help programs to sustain themselves. For example, all

providers were interested in knowing whether participating parents would be willing to pay for

services and how much they would pay. Mediation providers wanted to know the issues that were

discussed in mediation and whether they had resulted in agreements. In addition to general

satisfaction patterns, providers of supervised visitation services wanted to know whether the

program had provided a safe environment for responding parents and/or their children. Providers

of parent education programs were interested in client ratings of the usefulness of various topics

covered in the classes. Finally, all providers wanted to know whether participating parents were
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 10

consumers of other dispute resolution or access services and/or whether the AV programs were

essentially the sole providers of access assistance.

The Interview Process

All interviews were conducted by the Public Opinion Laboratory (POL) of Northern Illinois

University, using its computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system. POL conducted

telephone surveys with custodial and noncustodial parents in the five-state study conducted by OIG.

Thus, the agency’s supervisors and many interviewers were familiar with access and visitation issues

and the challenges associated with reaching custodial and noncustodial parents for assessment

purposes. POL programmed the questionnaire on its CATI system with all appropriate skips for its

administration to users of mediation, supervised visitation, and parent education services. 

In addition to setting up the questionnaires in the CATI system, POL created a case file list from

hard copy forms supplied by program staff. This meant that interviewers had immediate access to

all potential respondents, their telephone numbers, the date they received access and visitation

services, and the nature of the service they had received. The questionnaires were further

customized so that interviewers could name the specific program that respondents had used and

confirm whether the respondent had received the services indicated by the program.

During September to December 2003, interviewers made up to 16 attempts to contact targeted

program participants and conduct telephone interviews. On average, interviewers made 3.9 attempts

to reach respondents. Completed interviews were ultimately conducted with 970 of the 4,109

parents who participated in the program. This sample consisted of 391 noncustodial parents and 579

custodial parents. The cross-site response rate was 24 percent. The response rate was significantly

higher for custodial parents (23%) as compared with noncustodial parents (20%). Looked at

somewhat differently, interviews were conducted with at least one parent in 40 percent of the

families targeted for assessment.

Relatively few targeted respondents declined to be interviewed, with refusal rates ranging from 2

to 10 percent and averaging 7 percent across the nine state sites. Client mobility was a much bigger

problem, with 41 percent of targeted parents having a disconnected or wrong telephone number.

Another 17 percent of call attempts resulted in no answer. Finally, 12 percent of program

participants had no phone number listed and it was impossible for interviewers to locate one. There

were relatively few differences in refusal and response rates for mediation, parent education, and

supervised visitation programs, respectively. More to the point, there were consistent differences
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 11

in rates of completed interviews for custodial versus noncustodial parents, with the rate being

significantly higher for custodial parents for every program type. 

Given that data are analyzed separately for custodial and noncustodial parents, the differences in

response rates do not result in greater weight being given to custodial parent viewpoints. However,

the greater difficulty in locating noncustodial parents may mean that noncustodial parent responses

in this survey are less representative of all noncustodial parents, while custodial parent responses

are more representative of custodial parents as a whole. Table 2-1 shows call attempts, response

rates, and refusals by program site and program type.

Table 2-1: Attempted and Completed Interviews, by Site and Program Type

Total

number

called

Number of

noncustodial

parent

interviews

Number of

custodial

parent

interviews

Number of

interviews

completed

Number

of

Refusals

Average

number of

call

attempts

Total 4,109 391 579 24% (970) 7% (285) 3.9

Total Mediation 1,479 43% (155) 57% (208) 25% (363) 9% (133) 3.9

Missouri 622 35% (58) 65% (107) 27% (165) 10% (60) 3.4

Rhode Island 544 46% (45) 54% (53) 18% (98) 8% (46) 4.8

Utah 313 52% (52) 48% (48) 32% (100) 9% (27) 3.4

Total Parent Education 1,567 38% (134) 62% (220) 22% (354) 6% (99) 3.8

Arizona 625 41% (64) 59% (92) 25% (156) 9% (59) 3.6

Colorado 397 32% (31) 68% (67) 24% (98) 5% (20) 4.2

New Jersey 545 39% (39) 61% (61) 18% (100) 4% (20) 3.8

Total Supervised Visitation 1,063 40% (102) 60% (151) 24% (253) 5% (53) 3.9

California 469 36% (36) 64% (64) 21% (100) 6% (26) 4.2

Hawaii 210 46% (20) 55% (24) 21% (44) 2% (5) 4.4

Pennsylvania 384 42% (46) 58% (63) 28% (109) 6% (22) 3.5

Sample Bias

To determine whether interviewed noncustodial parents differed from their counterparts who could

not be reached by telephone interviewers, we compared the limited information available for both

groups. The analysis showed that noncustodial parents who were interviewed were significantly

more likely to be recent AV program clients and somewhat older than their counterparts who could

not be reached. Thus, while the cross-site response rate for noncustodial parents served in 2003 was

25 percent, it was only 12 percent for those served in 1999. In a similar vein, the response rate for
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 12

noncustodial parents in the 16-25 year age range was 19 percent as compared with 26 percent for

those ages 36 and older.

Parent age and the recency of services were the only factors that appeared to differentiate

interviewed and non-interviewed parents. Response rates were identical for those who were involved

in allegations of domestic violence, used English or Spanish as a primary language, and were in or

out of the child support system. The patterns suggest that it is more difficult to locate people as time

passes and that younger noncustodial parents are more geographically mobile than older parents.

There is no reason to believe that the AV experiences of those served in 2003 were different from

the AV experiences of those served in 1999. Nor is the lower response rate of younger parents a

significant concern, since the average age of the noncustodial parents served in the study (i.e., 33)

closely matched the age of interviewed parents. Table 2-2 provides interview rates for selected

groups of noncustodial parents.

Table 2-2: Percent of NCPs Interviewed by Selected Characteristics1

Date of AV Services

1999 2000-2001 2002 2003

Percent of NCPs interviewed* 12% 17% 22% 25%

(134) (820) (2,087) (670)

Age of the NCP

16-25 yrs 26-35 yrs 36yrs+

Percent of NCPs interviewed* 19% 23% 26%

(394) (878) (693)

Did Case Involve Allegations of Domestic Violence

Yes No

Percent of NCPs interviewed 22% 22%

(662) (1434)

Primary Language

English Spanish

Percent of NCPs interviewed 22% 18%

(2,893) (82)

IV-D Status

IV-D Non IV-D

Percent of NCPs interviewed 23% 23%

(1,272) (246)

* Chi square is significant at .05 or less.

1

 Excludes Arizona where the information provided by the program did not allow us to determine which parent had custody prior

to merging with the interview data.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 13

The Review of Child Support Records

Programs in Arizona, Missouri, and New Jersey had identifiers that enabled them to locate

participants in the child support system. In Arizona and Missouri, experienced child support

workers did manual searches of the automated records and extracted information on obligations and

payments in the 12 months prior to and following program enrollment. In Pennsylvania, an

experienced child support worker conducted manual searches on a portion of the form and payment

information was provided by an automated computer extract.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 14
Page 15

Chapter 3

Profile of the Programs

The research was conducted in nine states that offered three types of access and visitation services:

mediation (Missouri, Rhode Island, and Utah); parent education (Arizona, Colorado, and New

Jersey); and supervised visitation (California, Hawaii, and Pennsylvania). As previously noted,

these are the most typical programs funded by State AV grants. In this chapter, we briefly describe

each program included in the study.

Mediation Programs 

Mediation has become the predominant form of dispute resolution in domestic cases. In 1998, all

but six states had statutes that explicitly mentioned family mediation of some type, a far cry from

1981 when California adopted the first mandatory mediation statute for contested child custody and

visitation matters (Rogus and McEwen, 1998). Mediation is widely regarded as a useful adjunct

to courts that hear family matters and is typically credited with producing agreements that are

perceived to be fair and equitable by both mothers and fathers. Although the research evidence is

mixed, many studies have concluded that mediated agreements are better complied with over time

than those generated in adjudicated settings and are associated with improved parental relationships

and more parent-child contact (Kelly, 1996). 

With few exceptions, however, court mediation programs have aimed to assist the domestic relations

bench that handles divorce and post-decree matters. Far less attention and effort have been paid to

addressing the access and visitation problems experienced by never-married parents who have

paternity and child support issues. A number of states, however, are attempting to remedy this

omission by using their Access and Visitation grants to provide mediation services to populations

served by the child support agency, including never-married parents. A recent evaluation conducted

by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services examined

outcomes for state AV programs in five states (Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, and

Oklahoma) that make a concerted effort to serve IV-D participants (OIG, 2002). This evaluation

considers three additional states that make mediation services available to parents in the IV-D

system: Missouri, Rhode Island, and Utah.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 16

Missouri’s Access and Visitation Grant is administered by the Family Support Division, which

contracts with Mediation Achieving Results for Children (M.A.R.C.H.) for mediation services.

Begun as a pilot project in 1997, M.A.R.C.H. mediation services have been available in twenty

judicial circuits since October 2003, reaching about 800 families per year. Services are available

to divorced or never married parents seeking to establish paternity or child support, or to parents

who have an administrative or judicial order for child support. Independent mediators provide

families with up to four hours of free planning and facilitation services to address a range of custody,

visitation, and child support issues, with the objective of enhancing both parents’ participation and

involvement on financial and emotional levels. The steps of the M.A.R.C.H. mediation program

generally include:

# An initial telephone call or fax to the Family Support Division to confirm that a child support

order exists;

# Information mailed to the other parent (and the possibility of court orders for mediation);

# An intake process during which the propriety of mediation is considered;

# The scheduling of one or more mediation sessions; and

# The preparation of a verbal agreement or written summary of understanding which may be filed

with the court.

A 1999 evaluation of M.A.R.C.H. indicated that the process showed great promise in helping parents

resolve complex parenting issues (Fuger and Duncan, 1999). Among the findings were:

# Nearly half of parents referred to M.A.R.C.H. learned about it from child support workers, with

the remainder coming from courts and other legal actors;

# Most parents participate voluntarily, but a fraction are ordered to do so by the court;

# About half the parents are divorced from each other and half are never married;

# Most served parents had low levels of education and earnings;

# The average case required 1.26 sessions and two hours and 14 minutes of mediation; and

# Over 60 percent of the parents attending mediation reached an agreement on a significant

portion of the issues.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 17

Mediation, however, is not a panacea. The M.A.R.C.H. evaluators observed that while most

mothers and fathers reported substantial levels of parent child contact between the children

following mediation, three-quarters of fathers reported lingering parenting time issues, while twothirds of mothers reported child safety concerns. The evaluators recommended more follow-up

information to understand the long-term results of mediation and the availability of additional

mediation or other support services to address parenting issues that remain after an initial mediation

agreement is reached.

Missouri maintains contact information on all mediation participants and also obtains a signed

consent at intake to participate in research. Using information supplied by clients, we were able to

locate them in the automated system and extract information on their payment behavior for the 12

months prior to and following mediation.

Rhode Island’s Access and Visitation grant is administered by the family court, which uses the bulk

of its funds to support a court-based mediation program for “miscellaneous” petitions that are filed

in Providence County, housing one-half of the state’s population. Typically, these are pro se

petitions for visitation filed by never-married, noncustodial parents. Two court-based mediators

work with families in a confidential, facilitated process aimed at developing a mutually acceptable

visitation schedule. Generally, the mediation is conducted within two sessions, the first of which

is devoted to screening for domestic violence, sexual abuse, and other issues that might be barriers

to a safe and effective visitation schedule. 

Unlike most jurisdictions, mediation is mandatory in Rhode Island in miscellaneous petitions but

not in divorce cases, where litigants are usually represented by attorneys. Mediation information

is mailed out with each summons to appear for child support. It is the court’s belief that child

support issues are readily resolved once visitation and access issues are addressed. The court may

impose a sanction on parties who fail to appear for mediation. 

During the first two years of program operation, mediators successfully settled 172 cases, for an

overall success rate of 75 percent. The court currently receives 75 mediation referrals per month,

or about 600 to 700 per year. In addition to mediation, the family court offers supervised visitation

services at the courthouse during evening hours.

Utah used its Access and Visitation Grant funds to create a Co-Parenting Mediation Program in the

Third Judicial District in Salt Lake County. Begun in 1998, the program is a collaborative effort

among the Department of Human Services, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the Third
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 18

District Court. Among the services offered is mediation when there is a problem or dispute over

court-ordered parent-time. Mediation is mandated by the court; services are provided by community

mediators who charge $75 per hour, which the parents split unless they are indigent and mediation

fees are paid with grant funds. Most cases are handled in a single session lasting approximately two

to three hours. 

Referral to mediation is initiated by a court filing alleging a dispute or problem with court-ordered

visitation. The case is screened for domestic violence, allegations of abuse, or protective orders.

If appropriate, the parties appear for an in-person intake, where the issues are identified and needs

are assessed. Most are referred to mediation, which takes place within 15 days of the referral being

made. The program attempts to serve the IV-D population and encourages child support technicians

to refer parents who complain about not getting to see their children, although most referrals come

from the court and typically involve divorcing or previously divorced parents rather than the nevermarried. Approximately 400 mediations are conducted per year, with 60 percent resulting in full

and 20 percent resulting in partial agreements. 

In addition to mediation, the Program offers supervised or neutral exchange services, longer-term

mediation services for parties who have attempted traditional mediation in the past with no lasting,

positive effect and intensive co-parenting education to acquire skills dealing with communication

and the management of emotions. The Program recently initiated a voluntary support group known

as a “Talking Circle” to implement agreements reached in mediation and provide additional support.

Parent Education Programs

Begun in 1978, parent education programs attempt to promote parent-child contact and prevent

conflict by focusing on the post-divorce needs of children, the consequences of parental conflict, the

importance of both parents staying involved, and the adjustment process that children face after a

parental separation or divorce. By 1998, 25 states had mandated attendance at a parent education

program (Clement, 1998). The average program audience consists of 20 divorcing and relitigating

parents with minor-aged children who each pay a $30 fee and receive a certificate of attendance that

they present to the court as evidence of their participation. Some program variants have been

developed for violent and high-conflict families as well as stepparents, never-married parents, and

ethnic minorities (Geasler and Blaisure, 1998). 

Assessments of parents who attend parent education programs find that most are satisfied with their

experiences, with 70 percent favoring a mandatory attendance policy. Parents credit the programs
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 19

with helping to sensitize them to their children’s needs. Six months after they attend, high

proportions of parents report that they use the information gleaned in the program to help their

children cope and to make visitation more successful and enjoyable. At the same time, education

programs do not revolutionize relationships between parents, with substantial proportions reporting

continuing conflict and relitigation (Thoennes and Pearson, 1999). 

Arizona used its Access and Visitation grant to create the Parental Conflict Resolution class. The

four-hour class is a joint effort of Conciliation Services and the Office of The Clerk of the Court,

Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County (Phoenix). It targets parents who have long-standing

conflict and who are noncompliant with the court’s orders regarding access. Most participate by

direct order of the judge in their case, typically following a court appearance. The program adopts

a cognitive restructuring approach. As such, it attempts to help parents understand the emotional

and psychological roots of their conflict and offers them new approaches to interacting with one

another and their children. 

The Parental Conflict Resolution (PCR) Program consists of a four-hour class and extensive takehome materials, including community resources for adults and children. Two custom-made videos

are used. One incorporates spontaneous comments recorded in interviews with children; the second

uses actors to portray embattled parents. The class is jointly conducted by a male and female

presenter, both of whom hold graduate degrees and have years of experience in family courts. The

two parents who are in conflict are not placed into the same class, although new spouses or partners

are encouraged to attend along with the party in conflict. The average class includes 15 clients.

Toward the end of the class, clients are divided into groups of three and given a vignette describing

a high-conflict case. Their task is to discuss the case and arrive at a list of recommendations as to

actions that each parent can take to “turn this situation around, making it healthier for the child or

children.” Each group shares its recommendations. 

A prior evaluation that involved telephone interviews with 135 clients who had completed the PCR

class at least six months prior to the interview found that the class received consistently high marks

on all evaluation items. Although men rated the program somewhat more favorably than women,

high proportions of mothers and fathers agreed that they had learned a lot and had a better

understanding of how their children are affected by conflict. Nearly half agreed that the level of

hostility had declined in the intervening six months. Separate examination of parent assessments

at 12 and 15 months following class attendance showed no drop-off in the clients’ assessment of the

program over time, with some positive behavioral effects materializing at a later date as clients

began experimenting with the tools they learned (Neff and Cooper, 2003). 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 20

For this project, staff at the Division of Child Support Enforcement searched the automated system

for interviewed parents who attended the PCR class and extracted information on their payment

behavior for the 12 months prior to and following class attendance. 

Colorado uses some of its Access and Visitation grant funds to support parent education seminars

in unserved or under-served areas, including rural settings. One of those sites is the Fifteenth

Judicial District in Lamar, Colorado. The intervention, “Calming Down the Conflict,” is a 3.5-hour

seminar held at a community college. Most participants are court-ordered to attend. There are two

instructors at each seminar. Participants are given a packet of information that is covered during the

seminar and an evaluation that is completed at its conclusion. Attendees also receive a certificate

of completion. 

A second program site is the Sixteenth Judicial District, which offers an education program to

divorcing parents known as “Parenting Through Divorce.” The 3.5-hour class is offered during

weekday evenings at Child Development Services in La Junta. Seminars in both Lamar and La Junta

include several video clips with children talking about their experiences with parental separation and

divorce. The instructors discuss the stages of loss/grief, how parents incite one another, and

communication issues between parents and children. 

In evaluations completed following the conclusion of the seminar, many parents noted that the most

helpful part of the seminar was learning more about children’s feelings, listening to everyone’s

problems, and getting group input. Asked what behavior they will change as a result of the seminar,

several noted that they will try to get less emotional. As one parent put it, “I will try to remember

that I am the adult here and I will continue to treat her as a business associate and not wear my heart

on my sleeve when dealing with her.” Others resolved to try to spend more time with their children,

make their visits with the children “valuable” and to try to be “more positive.”

New Jersey developed an education program specifically for non-dissolution clients known as “The

Best of Us for Our Child(ren).” Offered in the Essex Family Division of the Superior Court of New

Jersey, The Best of Us For Our Child(ren) targeted unmarried litigants involved in custody and

parenting time disputes. A collaborative effort with the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New

Jersey/University Behavioral HealthCare, the program seeks to increase litigants’ knowledge of

court procedures and options, to assist in the early resolution of cases, to share information on

common parenting issues, and to encourage litigants to respond as a family. The program was

developed in response to the growing number of custody and visitation cases appearing in court for

adversarial treatments and the recognition that many could be resolved without a court hearing.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 21

Two types of programs are offered. The 90-minute, Level I workshop is conducted on a daily basis

by a parent educator. The agenda includes a 25-minute video explaining court terms, activities,

procedures, and the impact of conflict on children. This is followed by a 30-minute lecture and

discussion on keeping parenting issues and personal relations separate, conflict resolution strategies,

managing stress, and resources available to families including mediation and the fatherhood

initiative. The program ends with a referral to other community resources, including mediation.

The Level II workshop is an intensive 12-hour program conducted over six weeks for high-conflict

families that is offered on a weekly basis. It consists of specialized presentations addressing anger

management, communication skills, mental health and substance abuse issues that are associated

with non-payment of child support, withholding of visitation rights, domestic violence, child abuse

and neglect, and other crisis situations. Referrals to the Level II workshop are made by judges,

mediators, probation officers, and self-referrals by Level I participants.

Most participants only pursue Level I workshops, and virtually all the clients included in this

assessment fall into this category. In order to make the Level II workshop more convenient, the

Family Division recently began to experiment with a new, one-day format. Although the workshops

are designed for all adults, including grandparents, foster parents, and legal guardians who have

primary responsibility for the parenting of a child(ren), this assessment focuses on participants who

are biological parents. 

According to the Family Division, the program has resulted in clear benefits, including an increase

in the number of cases resolved through inter-party agreements at the court and/or through

mediation. These resolutions have helped with case backlog at the court and have also induced

parents to take more responsibility for their cases.

Supervised Visitation Programs

Supervised visitation provides third-party monitoring of contact between a child and a parent. The

first program began in 1982. By 1991, a Supervised Visitation Network had been developed and

in 1996, Standards and Guidelines for Supervised Visitation were developed and adopted. The

Supervised Visitation Network has over 600 members representing approximately 300 agencies or

individuals from five countries (Pearson and Thoennes, 1999). 

Supervised visitation is typically ordered by judges in highly conflicted separation and divorce

cases, particularly when there is a history of or allegations of domestic violence, child sexual abuse,
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 22

visitation denial, and other forms of parental misconduct and/or safety concerns. Supervised

visitation is also a way to teach inexperienced, nonmarital parents how to care for their children or

to introduce them into the lives of their children, although it is used less frequently for these

purposes. In addition to allowing parents to maintain contact with their children when there are

safety concerns and normalizing the visitation process, the records of visitation maintained by

visitation supervisors may be used to refute various allegations of misconduct. Most supervised

visitation programs also offer drop-off and pick-up services that allow high-conflict parents to

exchange their children for visits in the presence of a third party. 

A recent evaluation of supervised visitation programs shows that they serve both noncustodial

mothers and fathers and that many formats are equally effective in promoting positive visit

experiences. Although parent participants tend to rate the programs highly (and the court and legal

system negatively), many stop coming, with no explanation, thus making it impossible to determine

whether they “outgrew” their need for supervision, stopped visiting their children totally, or engaged

in unsupervised visits characterized by the same problems that initially brought them into

supervision. Those who drop out tend to have been in the programs longer and are less likely to

have received court attention in the form of evaluations, assessments, or review hearings. According

to parents, program participation is associated with increases in parent-child contact, lower conflict

between the parents, fewer problems with visitation, and increases in children’s happiness and wellbeing (Pearson and Thoennes, 2000).

California uses its Access and Visitation grant funds for supervised visitation, neutral exchange

services, and education and group counseling services. Administered by the Judicial Council of

California, Administrative Office of the Courts, and the Center for Families, Children and the

Courts, most of California’s grant is used to support supervised visitation and neutral exchange

services in 30 of California’s 58 counties, where limited or no services previously existed.

California has mandatory mediation services in all family courts with minor-aged children who have

a dispute about child custody or visitation (paid for by earmarked, court filing fees). California also

offers parent education, with some counties providing a specific course and others incorporating

educational material for parents in a mandatory orientation session prior to mediation. The

California legislature focused on supervised visitation and neutral exchange services for this grant

because there is a particular need to maintain parent-child contact and provide safe visitation options

when there are allegations of domestic violence, substance abuse, or child (sexual) abuse. 

For this project, we focused on parents who were served at Safe Access and Friendly Exchanges for

Kids (SAFE for Kids) in Los Angeles County. SAFE is a non-profit social services agency that
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 23

offers an array of services such as domestic violence treatment, parenting classes, and child abuse

counseling, as well as supervised visitation and exchange services. SAFE provides on-site, low-fee

supervised visitation and neutral drop-off and exchange services at six agency locations throughout

Los Angeles County. Visit hours are determined based on an agency’s hours of operation, court

orders, and the availability of the parents and the agency. 

The program serves parents with a court order that specifically refers them to the SAFE for Kids

program. Parents are typically ordered to utilize supervised visitation or exchange services when

there are allegations of parental misconduct and the children may be at risk of emotional or physical

harm. Parents referred to the program are required to make a $5 co-payment if the parent’s annual

income is less than $30,000. Other parents use the programs on a fee-for-service basis, which runs

$55 per hour for supervised visitation and $35 per exchange (round trip). The program pays for up

to two hours of visits per week for six months. Clients for this evaluation were drawn from four of

six Los Angeles sites offering SAFE for Kids services: Bienvenidos Family Services, Los Angeles

Wings of Faith, the Ness Center, and Richstone Family Center. All of these sites have Spanishspeaking staff available.

Pennsylvania’s Access and Visitation grant supports five community-based organizations that were

selected through a competitive Request for Proposal process, as are all AV-funded organizations.

The five organizations offer supervised visitation and exchange services, as well as other services.

Many of the providers of AV services are one-stop centers for parents, providing a variety of

services ranging from health care to employment. Each program is unique and aims to address the

needs of the region and the population that it serves. The five community programs that provide

supervised visitation are:

# Armstrong Community Action Agency, Armstrong County;

# YWCA of Greater Harrisburg, Dauphin County;

# Erie Family Center, Erie County;

# Scranton Area Family Center, Lackawanna County; and

# Salvation Army, Philadelphia County.

Parents who enter Pennsylvania’s Access and Visitation program are referred by a variety of

sources, primarily the courts, children and youth agencies, attorneys, or the Domestic Relations

Sections. The Domestic Relations Sections of the county Court of Common Pleas provide child

support enforcement services at the local level. Many of Pennsylvania’s AV programs also provide

education services to parents while they are incarcerated and/or as part of their probation. Each
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 24

program has different prerequisites for the noncustodial parent to complete prior to visiting with the

child, ranging from an orientation session to eight hours of parenting classes. Some programs require

additional parent education for the visits to continue. Visits typically occur at the community

agency, although they may be conducted off-site at a restaurant or the noncustodial parent’s

residence. Staff maintain case records to use in providing reports to the courts for review that

include visitation dates, no-shows and cancellations, parent-child interactions, the efforts the parent

has made to be prepared for visits with the child, concerns, and referrals for other services. The

courts view each case individually with its own unique set of circumstances and schedule reviews

of the case accordingly.

For this project, staff at the Bureau of Child Support Enforcement generated an automated extract

that includes information on child support payments made by parents who received supervised

visitation services during the 12 months prior to and following their participation in the programs.

In addition, an experienced child support worker conducted manual searches to gather information

for a portion of the form. 

Hawaii also uses its Access and Visitation grant to support child visitation/exchanges. Services are

available at four sites, two of which are in the City and County of Honolulu and two rural sites in

the County of Hawaii. The focus on the projects, which are administered by the Family Court of

the First Judicial Circuit, is safety and non-violence to parents and children during the visits and

exchanges. As in California and Pennsylvania, most referrals come from court orders involving

divorce, paternity, child support, and domestic violence. Priority is given to cases in which there

have been, or continue to be, indications of domestic violence.

This assessment focuses on clients served at the Island of Hawaii’s YMCA in its Family Visitation

Center (FVC) at Hilo. The Hilo FVC is housed with a preschool which the program uses during

evening and weekend hours for a child-friendly setting for visits. Established in 1999 with funding

from the Attorney General’s Office and the Violence Against Women Act, FVC provides a safe and

neutral environment for children up to age 18 to establish and/or maintain a healthy relationship with

their estranged parents, with particular emphasis on families with a domestic violence history.

During nine months of 2001, the program provided services to 96 families for a total of 736 visits

and 424 exchanges. Up to four visits can occur simultaneously in separate visiting rooms/areas. As

in other supervised visitation programs, FVC has a variety of security procedures designed to

prevent spouses from encountering one another during visits and/or exchanges, to ensure that no

weapons are brought into the Center, and that kidnapping and other acts of violence do not occur.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 25

FVC charges $7.50 to $40.00 for visits, depending on the individual’s ability to pay, although no

one is refused service because of financial hardship.

According to the agency’s internal assessments, 75 percent of participating parents state that they

have increased knowledge of parenting skills, 80 percent say they are satisfied with the services they

received, and 85 percent feel safe during the visitation process. The program has also helped

families transition to less restricted visitation arrangements, with 30 percent receiving amended

court orders for unsupervised visits. In addition to supervised visitation, which includes full or

intermittent supervision and the preparation of an observation form after each visit, FVC offers

supervised exchanges and unsupervised visitation, which allows parents to visit at the Center

without any direct supervision.
Page 26
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 27

Chapter 4

Parents Served in Access 

and Visitation Programs

The State Access and Visitation Grants aim “...to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access

to and visitation of their children.” Our study examines the extent to which the three most popular

services offered through the Access and Visitation grant program achieve these objectives. The

types of programs we focus on are mediation, parent education, and supervised visitation. We begin

the analysis with a description of the types of parents whom the programs served and how they came

to learn about and utilize the programs.

Background Characteristics

State Access and Visitation Programs offering mediation, parent education, and supervised visitation

serve a fairly heterogenous group of parents, although as Table 4-1 shows, there are some

differences by program type. Parents who use mediation programs are somewhat more apt to be

white than their counterparts in parent education and supervised visitation programs. Parents who

use supervised visitation programs, on the other hand, are more apt to report having the lowest levels

of education, the highest rates of unemployment, and the lowest income levels. Parents who attend

education programs stand somewhere between these two groups. They are more racially diverse

than parents who utilize mediation services, but report higher rates of employment, education, and

household income than those who utilize supervised visitation services. 

The programs succeed in reaching many parents at the lower socioeconomic levels. Nearly onethird to one-half of noncustodial parents using the three program types reported gross, annual

household income levels of $20,000 or less. About a third of noncustodial parents who received

mediation and supervised visitation services reported being educated to the high school level or less.

And 15 to 30 percent of noncustodial parents using each type of service told interviewers they were

not employed. In contrast, about a quarter of noncustodial parents who used mediation and parent

education services (and many fewer users of supervised visitation services) reported having college

and graduate degrees or household incomes that exceeded $50,000 per year. 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 28

Table 4-1: Characteristics of Parents Interviewed, 

by Program Type and Custody Status 

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=153 N=134 N=102 N=205 N=216 N=150

Racial/ethnic groups:    

American Indian/Alaska Native 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Asian American/Pacific Islander 1% 1% 13% 1% 1% 12%

Black/African American 8% 24% 10% 5% 24% 10%

White 83% 54% 48% 87% 55% 53%

Hispanic/Latino 3% 15% 23% 2% 18% 22%

Other 4% 6% 5% 4% 1% 3%

Level of education:  

Less than high school 8% 5% 11% 4% 4% 6%

High school graduate 23% 15% 26% 21% 19% 25%

Some training beyond high school 14% 14% 19% 13% 13% 15%

Some college 26% 38% 34% 41% 45% 35%

B.A./B.S. degree 19% 18% 7% 15% 14% 14%

Graduate degree 11% 10% 4% 7% 5% 5%

Employment status:  

Not employed 15% 14% 29% 19% 20% 18%

Employed full-time 80% 76% 59% 67% 66% 59%

Employed part-time 5% 10% 12% 14% 14% 23%

Annual gross household income:     

Less than $10,000 11% 14% 25% 14% 15% 23%

$10,000-$19,000 19% 15% 25% 11% 24% 19%

$20,000-$29,000 16% 18% 20% 19% 22% 17%

$30,000-$39,000 17% 13% 17% 20% 14% 11%

$40,000-$49,000 11% 16% 4% 15% 11% 11%

$50,000-$69,000 16% 12% 2% 13% 9% 12%

$70,000-$89,000 4% 7% 3% 3% 3% 4%

Over $90,000 7% 5% 3% 5% 3% 2%

Chi square is significant at .05.

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%. 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 29

Family Characteristics

Parents using all three program types reported similar family characteristics. On average, these

parents had 1.5 to 1.7 children, with the median being one and the range going from one to six.

Most of their children tended to be six and seven years old, with the oldest being 11 to 13. Not

surprisingly, all noncustodial parents reported that the children lived primarily with the other parent,

while all custodial parents reported that the children lived with them. In the sampling process, we

eliminated cases that involved grandparent and other third-party custodial arrangements. There were

only a few joint custody arrangements in the samples generated at each program site, and they were

classified as mother-only custody arrangements to simplify the analysis. Although three-quarters

to four-fifths of responding parents reported living within 50 miles of their children, more than 10

percent of parents who used mediation services reported living at distances that exceeded 300 miles.

Table 4-2: Residence, Number, and Age of Children,

by Program Type and Custody Status

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=153 N=134 N=102 N=205 N=216 N=150

Number of children:

Mean 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.5

Median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Range 1-5 1-4 1-6 1-5 1-6 1-6

Average age of only child 7.5 6.8 6.6 6.9 6.8 6.1

If more than one child,

Average ages of oldest and youngest 

9.6



7.5



6.3



9.7



8.0



Youngest 7.1

Average age of oldest 13.0 11.1 11.3



13.5



13.0



11.3

Distance between NCP and children:

Less than 50 miles 74% 84% 88% 75% 80% 76%

51-75 miles 4% 3% 2% 7% 6% 6%

76-100 miles 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 5%

101-200 miles 5% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3%

201-300 miles 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% 0%

Over 300 miles 12% 6% 5% 11% 6% 8%

Parent is in prison N/A N/A N/A 0% 1% 2%

Parent lives out of state/country N/A N/A N/A 2% 1% 1%

 Chi square is significant at .05. 

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 30

Marital Status

Another characteristic of interviewed parents that we compared was their current and past marital

status. Table 4-3 shows that all three types of programs served parents who had been married as

well as those who had never married. Across the program types, approximately half reported that

they had been married to the parent with whom they were experiencing access and visitation

problems. Parents who used supervised visitation reported the lowest rates of marriage; among

those who were never married, supervised visitation program users were least apt to report

cohabitation. The current marital status of interviewed parents was fairly similar across program

types, although those who used mediation programs were somewhat more apt to report being

married than their counterparts in education and supervised visitation programs. In a similar vein,

those who used supervised visitation programs were least apt to report being married and more likely

to characterize their current marital status as “never married.”

Table 4-3: Marital Relationship of Parents, by Program Type and Custody Status 

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

Were the parents ever

married? N=153 N=134 N=102 N=205 N=216 N=150

No 40% 44% 51% 43% 38% 49%

Yes 60% 56% 49% 57% 62% 51%

If never married, did they live

together? N=60 N=59 N=52 N=88 N=82 N=73

No

Yes

38%

62%

30%

70%

40%

60%

34%

66%

33%

67%

43%

58%

If married or cohabiting, 

for how many years? N=125 N=114 N=81 N=168 N=190 N=119

Mean

Median

Range

6.8

6.0

1-20

8.0

6.5

1-32

6.5

5.0

1-26



7.2

6.0

1-25



8.3

7.0

1-25



6.4

5.0

1-23

Current marital status: N=153 N=134 N=102 N=205 N=216 N=150



Married 33% 28% 25% 38% 21% 26%

Separated 6% 8% 16% 2% 5% 16%

Divorced 41% 35% 30% 33% 46% 31%

Never married 20% 29% 29% 28% 28% 27%

 Chi square is significant at .05. 

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 31

Domestic Violence Status

Not surprisingly, custodial and noncustodial parents disagree on the incidence of domestic violence

in their relationships. Table 4-4 shows that while 22 to 28 percent of noncustodial parents reported

to the programs that domestic violence was a factor in their relationships, this was the case for 37

percent of custodial parents who utilized mediation and education services and 67 percent of those

receiving supervised visitation services. Reports of domestic violence are understandably affected

by social desirability factors; men typically report incidence levels that are much lower than those

reported by women. More to the point, since supervised visitation programs expressly serve families

with allegations of domestic violence and other forms of parental misconduct, it is likely that the

accounts by custodial parents track with the conclusions of the courts that issued the orders for

supervised visitation in the first place. 

Table 4-4: Physical Violence During Relationship, as Reported by Parents

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents 

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=154 N=134 N=102 N=204 N=219 N=150

Ever any physical violence?

No 78% 73% 72% 63% 63% 33%

Yes 22% 27% 28% 37% 37% 67%

 Chi square is significant at .05. 

Referral Source and Voluntary or Mandatory Programs

Although the State Access and Visitation Program is administered by the federal Office of Child

Support Enforcement, Table 4-5 shows that the child support community plays a relatively minor

role in the process of referring parents to programs for services. Fewer than 10 percent of

noncustodial parents reported learning about access and visitation programs of any type from child

support workers. The percentage was slightly higher for custodial parents who utilized mediation

(14%) and education (15%) programs, but still very modest. Courts are the most frequently

mentioned source of program referrals, cited by one-half to two-thirds of interviewed noncustodial

parents and one-half to three-quarters of interviewed custodial parents. Mediators are another

important source of referrals to education and supervised visitation programs. Finally, attorneys are
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 32

important sources of referrals for all three types of programs, but especially for mediation and

supervised visitation. 

Table 4-5: How Parents Learned About Services 

Noncustodial Parents Custodial Parents

All

Mediation

N=155

All Parent

Education

N=134

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=102

All

Mediation

N=208

All Parent

Education

N=220

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=151

If received any services above,

how heard about program?

Someone at court 52% 69% 56% 54% 78% 72%

Mediator 7% 28% 20% 10% 21% 21%

Attorney 28% 15% 24% 32% 14% 21%

Child support 9% 9% 7% 14% 15% 2%

Friend/family 4% 5% 8% 8% 4% 8%

Flyer/ad/etc. 2% 4% 7% 4% 5% 3%

Other 9% 2% 10% 8% 4% 13%

 Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple responses. 

Perhaps because the court plays such a critical role in program referral, most parents tend to view

their participation in AV programs as compulsory. Nearly all interviewed parents (80 to 90%)

reported that they had been required to participate in education and supervised visitation programs.

Although mediation was viewed as somewhat less of a requirement, nearly two thirds (60 to 63%)

of program participants characterized their participation as mandatory (see Table 4-6).

Table 4-6: Mandatory or Voluntary Nature of Services,

by Program Type and Custody Status

Noncustodial parents  Custodial parents 

All

Mediation

N=152

All Parent

Education

N=133

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=92

Supervised

Exchange

N=16

All

Mediation

N=205

All Parent

Education

N=215

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=144

Supervised

Exchange

N=19

Was participation

mandatory?

No 37% 10% 15% 25% 40% 7% 18% 10%

Yes 63% 90% 85% 75% 60% 93% 82% 90%

 Chi square is significant at .05.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 33

Other Sources of Assistance

Do parents who use State Access and Visitation programs to address their problems with visitation

use other problem-solving resources? To answer this question, we asked all interviewed parents

whether they had used a variety of community and private services and programs to try to resolve

their access and visitation issues. Their responses appear in Table 4-7. In addition to providing a

picture of the extent to which Access and Visitation programs stand alone or supplement other

services, the table affords some clues on the scale and duration of the access problems that

participating parents bring to the programs.

Table 4-7 shows that supervised visitation program users are the biggest consumers of other

services. Compared with their counterparts who attended mediation and education programs, they

are more apt to report using other parent education programs, legal clinics, anger management

classes, domestic violence classes, and substance abuse counseling. Mediation program users were

most apt to report using a private attorney before attending the program. More than half of these

parents had been married to the other parent with whom they had a visitation dispute and had

pursued a legal divorce. Counseling was another source of support that about one-quarter of

mediation users reported pursuing, typically before the mediation intervention. Finally, 15 to 20

percent of noncustodial and custodial parents who used mediation also attended a parent education

program, usually before their mediation intervention. For clients of education programs, the most

common sources of additional assistance were private attorneys (39 to 43%), counseling (41 to

43%), and mediation (37 to 46%).

Table 4-7: Other Services Used to Resolve Access Problems and 

Timing of Service Use, by Program Type and Custody Status 

Noncustodial parents  Custodial parents 

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=153 N=134 N=102 N=205 N=214 N=148

Percent reporting receiving help from:

Mediation program/

Other mediation program 13% 46% 32% 9% 37% 32%

Before or after this program:

Before 70% 73% 79% 78% 61% 73%

After 30% 27% 21% 22% 39% 27%
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Table 4-7: Other Services Used to Resolve Access Problems and 

Timing of Service Use, by Program Type and Custody Status 

Noncustodial parents  Custodial parents 

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=153 N=134 N=102 N=205 N=214 N=148

Page 34

Parent Education program/Other

Parent Ed program 14% 16% 44% 19% 16% 35%

Before or after this program:

Before 86% 84% 56% 91% 67% 76%

After 14% 16% 44% 9% 33% 24%

Supervised visitation program/Other

supervised visitation program 2% 8% 0% 3% 8% 17%

Before or after this program:

Before • 60% 0% 40% 71% •

After • 40% 0% 60% 29% •

A counseling program 27% 41% 40% 26% 43% 55%

Before or after this program:

Before 66% 63% 76% 78% 65% 68%

After 34% 38% 24% 22% 35% 32%

A private attorney 66% 43% 44% 62% 39% 64%

Before or after this program:

Before 81% 83% 83% 82% 86% 87%

After 19% 17% 17% 18% 14% 13%

A legal clinic 5% 7% 17% 4% 9% 16%

Before or after this program:

Before 63% 56% 73% 63% 95% 91%

After 37% 44% 27% 37% 5% 9%

Anger management class 3% 13% 30% 1% 10% 14%

Before or after this program:

Before 80% 39% 70% • 50% 31%

After 20% 61% 30% • 50% 69%

Domestic violence class 4% 5% 17% 2% 9% 20%

Before or after this program:

Before • 83% 69% • 68% 75%

After • 17% 31% • 32% 25%
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Table 4-7: Other Services Used to Resolve Access Problems and 

Timing of Service Use, by Program Type and Custody Status 

Noncustodial parents  Custodial parents 

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=153 N=134 N=102 N=205 N=214 N=148

Page 35

Substance abuse counseling: 1% 3% 16% 0% 3% 5%

Before or after this program:

Before • • 71% 0% 71% 71%

After • • 29% 0% 29% 29%

• Fewer than 5 respondents, percent not calculated.  Chi square is significant at .05.

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%.

Exclusive Use of AV Programs for Assistance

For more than half the parents served, the AV program was the only form of assistance they received

with their access and visitation problems. Across the program types, this was the case for 52 percent

of the 970 parents interviewed in this assessment and an identical 52 percent of the 354 who used

parent education services. Among mediation participants, the proportion reporting the exclusive use

of AV program services was even higher, with 63 percent saying they received no other form of

assistance. 

As previously noted, supervised visitation clients were bigger consumers of community services.

More to the point, supervised visitation is almost always used because the court orders parents to

do so in high-conflict situations involving allegations of domestic violence and other forms of

serious parental misconduct. Accordingly, 64 percent of supervised visitation clients indicated that

they had pursued other service avenues, the most common of which were counseling, parent

education, and a private attorney. The remaining 36 percent reported that the AV program was the

only help they had received, a large proportion given the troubled nature of the population being

served and the seriousness of their issues. 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 36
Page 37

Chapter 5

Types of Services Received

and Parent Reactions 

Interviewed parents were asked about the types of services they recalled receiving in State Access

and Visitation Programs and their satisfaction with those services. Separate questions were asked

of parents who received mediation, education, and supervised visitation services, respectively. 

Mediation Services

The three mediation programs featured in this study aimed to help couples reach an agreement on

disputed issues dealing with their children. As in most mediation programs, the goal of the

intervention was to avoid litigation and produce a consensual settlement through the use of a neutral

third-party who helps parties isolate their disputes and consider alternative solutions. As noted in

Chapter 4, approximately two-thirds of interviewed parents viewed their mediation intervention as

mandatory. Most court-related mediation programs for domestic cases categorically mandate

participation or permit judges to mandate referrals on a case-by case basis. Indeed, 15 years ago,

the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Dispute Resolution estimated that 4,500

separate jurisdictions mandated mediation in contested custody and visitation disputes (Melamed,

1989).

Consistent with the access and visitation focus of the program, most parents who used mediation

services at the AV program sites reported spending time discussing the visitation arrangement. This

was reported by more than four-fifths of interviewed custodial and noncustodial parents (see Table

5-1). Visitation issues, however, were far from the only issues that parents discussed. About half

of interviewed parents also reported discussing where the children would be living and child support

matters during their mediation sessions, lending support to the observation that visitation problems

rarely stand alone and are intertwined with financial concerns and custody arrangements. 

Noncustodial and custodial parents reported that more than two-thirds of the issues discussed in

mediation resulted in an agreement. This falls squarely in the 50 to 85 percent range of agreement

rates reported for most private and court-based mediation programs (Kelly, 1996; Pearson, 1999).

Indeed, the 67 to 69 percent rate of agreement is identical to the 66 percent settlement rate estimated

for mandatory custody and visitation mediation interventions in California (Kelly, 1996), suggesting

that the mediation process in both these settings is not overly coercive even though both are
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 38

mandatory. As part of the OCSE-funded Responsible Fatherhood Program in San Mateo County,

California, child support workers referred 915 parents to mediation and 72 percent of those who

tried to mediate reached an agreement (Pearson, et al., 2003). The OIG found that 76 percent of

parents who mediated at four of the programs it studied produced an agreement (OIG, 2002). 

Rates of agreement that parents report differ somewhat from program records. According to

statistics maintained at the program sites, 79 percent of mediated cases result in a full or partial

agreement. Rates of agreement are higher for those who mediate on a voluntary rather than a

mandatory basis, with mandatory mediation cases producing agreements at a rate of 72 percent and

voluntary mediation cases demonstrating an agreement rate of 89 percent. 

While more than one-half to two-thirds of all agreements generated in mediation are promulgated

as court orders, a substantial proportion remain informal agreements that are not entered with the

court. Many, but not all, parents who file their agreements with the court report that mediators or

other program staff helped them to distill their understandings into written form.

Table 5-1: Mediation Issues and Agreements by Custody Status 

Noncustodial

parents

N=152

Custodial

parents

N=205

Percent reporting they discussed the following issues in mediation:

Where the children will live 56% 52%

The visitation arrangement 83% 84%

Child support 48% 54%

If the issue was discussed in mediation, percent reporting reaching an agreement:

Agreement about where the children will live 69% 73%

Agreement about visitation 69% 71%

Agreement about child support 67% 63%

If an agreement was produced, 

percent reporting the agreement was entered with the court:

Agreement on where the children will live entered with the court 63% 53%

Agreement on visitation entered with the court 54% 58%

Agreement on child support entered with the court 67% 78%

If an agreement was entered with the court, 

percent reporting the program helped them prepare something in writing for the court:

Help with written agreement on where the children will live 61% 77%

Help with written agreement on visitation 69% 71%

Help with written agreement on child support 63% 59%
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 39

Mediation often has “sleeper” effects, with settlements occurring after the conclusion of an

unsuccessful mediation attempt. Among this group of parents, more than half reported that an

agreement on visitation was reached after mediation ended with no resolution. This is higher than

the 20 percent post-mediation agreement rate reported in other evaluations of custody and mediation

disputes (Pearson and Thoennes, 1989), but consistent with the finding that the mediation process

opens up lines of communication that often lead to resolutions down the road.

Table 5-2: Of Those With No Agreement on Visitation in Mediation, 

Percent Reporting a Resolution of the Issue, by Custody Status 

Noncustodial

parents

N=119

Custodial

parents

N=159

If no agreement was reached on visitation during mediation,

was a formal or informal agreement on visitation produced after mediation:

No 49% 42%

Yes 51% 58%

Parent Education

National surveys of parent education programs find that the typical program is a single, four-hour

session attended by divorcing and re-litigating parents with minor-aged children who each pay a $30

fee, which can be waived in poverty cases (Geasler and Blaisure, 1998). Education programs funded

by State Access and Visitation grants tend to fit this pattern. The median number of hours of

education attended by parents at the three sites in this study was four. The average was 5.6 for

noncustodial parents and 4.6 for custodial parents. Although parents were discouraged from

attending the program together with the other parent in order to avoid the potential of domestic

violence, most (80%) reported that the other parent ultimately attended. Like parents in national

surveys of education programs, most (90 to 93%) parents who participated in State Access and

Visitation education programs characterized their participation as “mandatory.” Many states have

enacted statutes (25) or local court and administrative rules (19) authorizing or mandating parents

with minor children or those who contest custody or visitation to attend an education program

(Clement, 1998).
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 40

Table 5-3: Reported Hours of Parent Education, by Custody Status

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents

N=133 N=215

How many hours attended: mean: 5.6

median: 4.0

range: 1-36

mean: 4.6

median: 4.0

range: 1-36

Did other parent attend:

No 20% 21%

Yes 80% 79%

Consistent with national trends, the programs focused on children’s reactions to their parents’

separation and divorce (92%). Nearly all parents also report that the programs focused on coparenting (95%) and how to prevent and resolve conflicts with the other parent (92 to 93%). A

somewhat smaller proportion of parents reported that the programs focused on adult adjustment to

divorce (73 to 80%) and issues pertaining to new relationships or blended families (64 to 69%).

Child development and adjustment topics garnered the highest user satisfaction ratings, with half

of custodial and noncustodial parents characterizing them as “very helpful.” 

Co-parenting and conflict resolution issues attracted the next highest ratings, with about a third of

custodial and noncustodial parents rating them as “very helpful.” Parent adjustment issues and topics

pertaining to new relationships and family structures attracted somewhat lower ratings, with only

about a quarter of responding parents classifying them as “very helpful.” Previous studies on parent

education programs have found a range of user reactions and outcomes, leading one researcher to

conclude that their effectiveness may vary according to: “(1) the level of conflict that parents report

... (2) the timing of a parent’s attendance at the divorce education program ... or (3) the content and

teaching strategies used in the program” (Geasler and Blaisure, 1998). 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 41

Table 5-4: Parent Report of Topics in Parent Education and Rating of Usefulness 

Percent reporting they discussed:

Noncustodial

parents

Custodial

parents

N=115 N=193

How to resolve conflicts with other parent: 92% 93%

Degree of usefulness: Very 33% 35%

Somewhat 45% 42%

Not very 9% 10%

Not at all 13% 13%

N=72 N=131

How to deal with new relationships/blended families: 64% 69%

Degree of usefulness: Very 25% 34%

Somewhat 50% 47%

Not very 15% 12%

Not at all 10% 8%

N=119 N=189

Child development/adjustment to parents’ breaking up: 92% 92%

Degree of usefulness: Very 52% 51%

Somewhat 34% 39%

Not very 9% 6%

Not at all 5% 4%

N=88 N=151

Parents’ emotional adjustment to divorce/breakup: 73% 80%

Degree of usefulness: Very 28% 30%

Somewhat 56% 49%

Not very 8% 11%

Not at all 8% 10%

N=125 N=196

How to work together as parents: 95% 95%

Degree of usefulness: Very 32% 37%

Somewhat 41% 36%

Not very 14% 11%

Not at all 14% 16%

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 42

Supervised Exchange and Supervised Visitation

Three of the program sites in this evaluation offered supervised exchange and supervised visitation

services. In supervised exchange, a third party monitors families when children are dropped off and

picked up in order to avoid parental contact and/or conflict. In supervised visitation, a third party

monitors visitation episodes in order to ensure the safe conduct of visitation.

Only a small number of interviewed parents reported using supervised exchange services and about

half had stopped by the time of the interview, typically because they or the court believed that it was

no longer necessary. It was much more common for interviewed parents to report that they had used

supervised visitation services. Approximately four-fifths of these parents had terminated services

by the time they were interviewed. On average, interviewed parents had used supervised visitation

for 4.8 to 5.9 weeks, with half using it for three weeks or less. Although supervised visitation was

a short-term intervention for most parents, some did report longer periods of usage, ranging from

one to 48 weeks. A survey of 94 programs that provide supervised visitation services in the United

States and Canada found that on average, families receive approximately nine months of supervised

visitation, consisting of 4.3 visits per month each lasting 2.0 to 2.3 hours (Thoennes and Pearson,

1999).

The most common reason parents cite for stopping supervised visitation is a court determination that

it is no longer necessary. This was noted by 32 percent of noncustodial and 39 percent of custodial

parents. Other frequently mentioned reasons include parental decisions that it was no longer

necessary (8 to 15%) and/or missed appointments by a parent (15 to 24%). A prior study of 444

supervised visitation cases in four settings found that 48 percent terminated the service because the

parents simply stopped coming to scheduled visits, 19 percent ended because the court decided that

it was no longer needed or that visits should not occur at all, and 17 percent decided it was no longer

necessary or made other arrangements (Pearson and Thoennes, 2000).
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 43

Table 5-5: Current Status and Length of Time Using Supervised 

Exchange and Supervised Visitation 

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents

Using pick-up/drop-off services at the time of the interview:

No 44% 37%

Yes 56% 63%

(N=16) (N=19)

Reason no longer using pick-up/drop-off services:

Per court, not needed 22% 25%

Per parent, not needed 33% 25%

Costs too high 11% 8%

Moved to new level of service 11% 0%

Got tired of it 0% 0%

Distance/no transportation/bad hours 0% 8%

Other parent no-showed/stopped coming/missed too often 11% 17%

Other 11% 17%

N=9 N=12

Average number of weeks used supervised visitation:

Mean

Median

Range



4.8

3.0

.5-25



5.9

1.5

.3-48

Still using supervised visitation at the time of the interview:

No 80% 76%

Yes 20% 24%

If not still using supervised visitation, why not :

 

Per court, not needed 32% 39%

Per parent, not needed 15% 8%

Costs too high 10% 1%

Moved to new level of service 4% 1%

Got tired of it 1% 1%

Distance/no transportation/bad hours 1% 3%

Other parent no-showed/stopped coming/missed too often 15% 24%

Other 22% 23%

N=73 N=109

 Chi square is significant at .05. 

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%.

Parents overwhelmingly viewed supervised programs as providing a safe environment for

themselves and/or their children. Over 90 percent of custodial and noncustodial parents agreed that
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 44

the setting was safe for their children, and over 80 percent felt that it was safe for the adults

involved. In a previous study that involved interviews with 114 custodial parents and 87 visiting

parents who used supervised visitation services, 70 to 71 percent of each group characterized the

statement “The program can be trusted to protect children” as “very true,” and another 21 percent

of custodial parents and 7 percent of noncustodial parents termed it “somewhat true” (Pearson and

Thoennes, 2000).

Table 5-6: Perception of Safety Provided by Supervised Visitation

Noncustodial parents

N=90

Custodial parents

N=140

Program provided a safe environment for you:

No 16% 11%

Yes 84% 89%

Program provided safe environment for your children:

No 10% 9%

Yes 90% 91%

Since supervised visitation programs are typically used by a relatively small fraction of the

population for a short period of time, they are often placed in dense, geographical areas that are

inconvenient for families in outlying and/or rural settings. The parents interviewed in this project

reported living very close to supervised visitation facilities, with over 90 percent classifying the

distance as less than 50 miles from their home. It is unclear whether and how parents who live

further away are served. A 1997 survey of supervised visitation programs concluded that there were

only about 300 programs in the United States with an average capacity to serve 50 families per year.

Based on usage estimates generated in Canada, the United States would require 427 large programs

that each serve 300 families per year to meet the need for services (Thoennes and Pearson, 1999).

Table 5-7: Parents’ Proximity to the Supervised Visitation Center 

Noncustodial

parents

N=90

Custodial

parents

N=140

Number of miles you live from the Visitation Center:

Less than 50 90% 94%

51-75 2% 4%

76-100 4% 1%

101-200 0% 1%

201-300 1% 0%

Over 300 2% 1%

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 45

Satisfaction with Program Services

Approximately one-third of noncustodial parents who utilize access and visitation services report

being “very satisfied” with the services they received. Another one-third (for mediation and

supervised visitation) and one-half (for parent education) of noncustodial parents report being

“somewhat satisfied” with their program experiences. Taken together, approximately two-thirds of

mediation and supervised visitation clients and four-fifths of education clients report at least some

measure of satisfaction with the services they received at access and visitation programs. With few

exceptions, all studies of divorce mediation in all countries and settings indicate that client

satisfaction with both the mediation process and outcomes is quite high, in the 60 to 85 percent

range (Kelly, 1996). Although satisfaction is generally higher among those who reach agreements

than among those who do not, several studies found client satisfaction in the 40 to 60 percent range

even among those who were unable to reach agreement (Depner, et al., 1992; Kelly, 1989).

Custodial parents report slightly higher levels of satisfaction, with the proportion saying that they

were“very” or “somewhat” satisfied with their mediation, education, and supervised visitation

experiences standing at 76, 84, and 70 percent, respectively. More than a quarter of the noncustodial

parents who used mediation and supervised visitation services reported being “very dissatisfied”

with their service experience. These patterns differ somewhat from other mediation studies, most

of which find no gender differences in satisfaction in contrast to the adversarial process, in which

men are significantly more dissatisfied than women with the process and outcome (Emery, 1994;

Kelly, 1989). 

It is not surprising that substantial proportions of noncustodial parents would be dissatisfied with

supervised visitation, given the mandatory nature of the intervention and the serious nature of the

allegations that brought them into the program in the first place. A prior study that involved

interviews with noncustodial parents who used supervised visitation programs in four settings

revealed that 29 percent strongly disagreed with the statement, “I could relax and enjoy the visit,

even with the supervisor present,” and 25 percent, respectively, strongly agreed that “supervisors

are biased toward custodial parents” and that “program rules are too strict” (Pearson and Thoennes,

2000).
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 46

Table 5-8: Degree of Satisfaction with Services, by Program Type 

and Custody Status 

Noncustodial parents  Custodial parents 

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

Supervised

Exchange

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

Supervised

Exchange

N=152 N=133 N=92 N=16 N=205 N=215 N=144 N=19

Very satisfied 32% 36% 36% 44% 38% 43% 44% 47%

Somewhat Satisfied 28% 50% 27% 38% 38% 41% 26% 18%

Somewhat

dissatisfied 11% 8% 11% 6% 11% 9% 17% 29%

Very dissatisfied 29% 6% 27% 13% 13% 7% 13% 6%

 Chi square is significant at .05 (excludes supervised exchange).

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%.

Another way of looking at user satisfaction is to ask fee-paying clients whether the service was

worth the money they had paid. Utah was the only mediation site that charged a fee. Typically, this

was $75 per hour and was split by the parties. Colorado was the only site to charge for parent

education services; this was typically $40. California and Hawaii charged on average $25 per

supervised visit. 

Table 5-9 shows that about half the noncustodial parents and 44 percent of the custodial parents who

participated in mediation rated it as “definitely” or “probably” worth the money. To contrast, nearly

half of noncustodial parents and 57 percent of custodial parents felt that it was “probably” or

“definitely” not worth the money. Parent education programs were rated more favorably than

mediation and also carried a lower price tag. More than two-thirds of noncustodial (69%) and

custodial (65%) parents rated it as “definitely” or “probably” worth the money. With their lower

incomes, it is worth noting that 63 percent of noncustodial and 81 percent of custodial parents who

paid for supervised visitation services considered it “definitely” or “probably” worth the money.

This suggests that supervised visitation programs are highly valued and offer much-needed

assistance to parents who would otherwise be deprived of contact with their children or forced to

conduct it in unsafe circumstances.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 47

Table 5-9: Assessment that the Program Was Worth the Fee,

by Type of Program and Custody Status 

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents

Of parents who did pay for services,

percent who reported it was: 

Mediation

•

Parent

Education

• •

Supervised

Visitation

•••

Mediation

•

Parent

Education

• •

Supervised

Visitation

•••

(N=52) (N=30) (N=42) (N=48) (N=59) (N=59)

Definitely worth it 29% 27% 35% 31% 36% 56%

Probably worth it 22% 42% 28% 13% 29% 25%

Probably not worth it 5% 16% 9% 21% 22% 6%

Definitely not worth it 42% 13% 28% 36% 14% 14%

Not sure 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

• Utah only (no other sites had a fee for service).

• •Colorado only (no other site had a fee for service). •••California and Hawaii (no other site had a fee for service).

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%.

Parents who did not pay for services were asked whether they would consider paying and how much

they would spend. The results of this analysis appear in Figure 5-1. It suggests that parents would

only consider paying very modest amounts of money for access and visitation services, with many

unwilling to spend anything. Thus, mediation services would have to be available for $25 or less

before more than half of interviewed noncustodial and custodial parents would be willing to pay.

Parent education program fees would have to be in the $16 to $30 range before 55 percent of

noncustodial parents and 56 percent of custodial parents would be willing to pay. Supervised

visitation fees would have to be in the $5 to $10 range before at least half of interviewed parents

would be willing to use and pay for services. These fees are far below market rates and less than

programs require for their economic survival (Pearson and Thoennes, 2000). 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 48
Page 49
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 50

Chapter 6

Participant Outcomes 

The outcome articulated in the legislation funding State Access and Visitation Programs deals with

noncustodial parents’ “access to and visitation of their children.” In this chapter, we assess the extent

to which parents who participated in mediation, education, and supervised visitation services report

increases in noncustodial parenting time with children. We also assess whether they report

additional benefits such as improved child behavior, improved parent relationships, household

formation, and marriage. Finally, we gauge whether participants experienced increases in the

amount of child support paid. We assess changes in child support payment patterns two different

ways: (1) we queried all interviewed parents about child support behaviors before and after program

participation; and (2) at three program sites we extracted information on payment activity for

participating parents from automated child support records. 

Changes in Parenting Time

Parents were asked to describe the visitation status of the noncustodial parent at program entry and

when they were interviewed, an average of 17 months after they received services. Table 6-1

considers whether program participation was associated with changes in the noncustodial parents’

access rights as well as the amount of visitation that noncustodial parents exercised. More than twothirds of parents who used mediation and education services entered the programs with court orders

establishing visitation rights. Among those who enrolled in supervised visitation programs, the

proportions were even higher, with 95 percent reporting a court order dealing with visitation at

program entry. This contrasts sharply with access rights for users of mediation programs in four

states evaluated by the OIG, most of whom (69%) lacked access rights prior to mediation. 

In addition to having prior access rights, most parents in our study entered the programs without any

legal restrictions or limitations on their visitation. This was the case for nearly three-quarters of

parents who utilized mediation and education services. Among the minority of parents with legal

restrictions, the most common were orders prohibiting contact between the parents or limits on

overnight visits. Not surprisingly, parents who received supervised visitation services were more

apt to have court-imposed restrictions on visitation, the most common of which was the requirement

to conduct visits in a supervised setting. Although there was no difference in the incidence of legal
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 51

restrictions that parents experienced following their participation in the programs, the proportion

reporting that they were required to visit and/or exchange children in a supervised setting declined

and the proportion of custodial parents reporting that visits were unrestricted increased.

Both before and after program participation, most parents characterized noncustodial parent

visitation with the children as “regular, scheduled visits,” with relatively few terming it “informal”

or idiosyncratic. About a fifth (21%) of noncustodial parents who used mediation said that there was

no visitation, as did twice as many (39%) parents who used supervised visitation. Following

program participation, the proportion of parents reporting no visitation declined for all program

types, although the decline was most striking for those who used supervised visitation services. 

Following service delivery, noncustodial parents in every service type were significantly more apt

to report seeing the children as often as their court order allowed or more. Among mediation

participants, the proportion reporting this level of contact rose from 37 to 59 percent. Among those

who attended education programs, the proportion rose from 56 to 63 percent. Among noncustodial

parents who used supervised visitation services, the proportion went from 40 to 55 percent. 

Parents who used supervised visitation programs, however, were the only ones to consistently report

increases in the number of days the noncustodial parent saw the children following program

participation. The proportion of noncustodial parents estimating that they saw their children at least

once a week rose from 39 to 50 percent. The proportion of custodial parents estimating such high

contact levels was somewhat lower, but it also rose from 31 to 40 percent. There was also a drop

in the proportion of supervised visitation users reporting that they never saw their children. When

they enrolled in the programs, 36 percent of noncustodial parents reported a total lack of contact.

At the follow-up interview, this was reported by 25 percent of noncustodial parents. 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 52

Table 6-1: Access at Program Entry and at the Time of the Interview 

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents

All Mediation All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=152 N=134 N=102 N=204 N=216 N=150 Program Entry At Interview Program Entry At Interview Program Entry At Interview Program Entry At Interview Program Entry At Interview Program Entry At Interview

At entry to the program

was there a court order

allowing visits?

No 32% N/A 30% N/A 6% N/A 31% N/A 36% N/A 5% N/A

Yes 69% N/A 70% N/A 94% N/A 69% N/A 64% N/A 95% N/A

If there was a court order,

percent reporting the order

called for:

No visitation 4% 3% 2% 1% 22% 11% 6% 2% 6% 6% 29% 17%

No overnight visits 7% 3% 6% 5% 13% 15% 10% 6% 16% 8% 22% 17%

Supervised visits 5% 2% 8% 3% 37% 21% 12% 6% 7% 3% 41% 31%

Supervised 

pick-up/drop-off 2% 1% 8% 7% 18% 7% 7% 5% 8% 1% 13% 16%

No contact between

parents 9% 4% 12% 10% 21% 25% 8% 7% 13% 7% 27% 20%

No rules/restrictions on

visits 69% 73% 75% 81% 40% 40% 65% 69% 68% 76% 19% 31%

Visitation arrangement:

Regular 47% 55% 52% 61% 42% 59% 49% 55% 45% 55% 40% 47%

Informal 10% 8% 12% 9% 8% 6% 12% 10% 14% 11% 8% 8%

Both regular/informal 13% 11% 18% 10% 5% 4% 12% 15% 10% 7% 4% 6%

Nothing set up 5% 4% 9% 10% 5% 3% 7% 5% 15% 10% 5% 3%

Holidays/summer 3% 2% 1% 2% 0% 0% 3% 4% 1% 1% 0% 0%

No visits 22% 21% 8% 9% 39% 28% 16% 11% 14% 16% 44% 37%
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Table 6-1: Access at Program Entry and at the Time of the Interview 

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents

All Mediation All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=152 N=134 N=102 N=204 N=216 N=150

Page 53

Did NCP see children as

often as agreement or

order allowed?

          

Yes 20% 35% 31% 31% 23% 30% 33% 41% 28% 31% 23% 29%

Saw them more 17% 24% 25% 32% 17% 25% 13% 17% 14% 14% 6% 12%

Saw them less 36% 26% 13% 19% 28% 28% 28% 31% 26% 34% 36% 37%

N/A - no agreement 27% 16% 31% 19% 32% 18% 26% 12% 32% 22% 36% 22%

How often did the

noncustodial parent see

the children?

  

More than once a week 37% 34% 62% 58% 23% 31% 31% 30% 38% 37% 15% 21%

About once a week 12% 13% 11% 7% 16% 19% 14% 13% 17% 15% 16% 19%

About 3-4 days/month 13% 17% 8% 11% 1% 7% 15% 17% 11% 13% 9% 9%

About 1-2 days/month 9% 7% 3% 5% 11% 10% 7% 4% 11% 9% 11% 9%

Every few months 4% 3% 4% 2% 4% 3% 6% 5% 6% 4% 9% 1%

A few days a year 7% 3% 2% 1% 3% 0% 5% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3%

Never 12% 15% 5% 6% 36% 25% 14% 14% 9% 15% 31% 36%

Other 7% 7% 6% 10% 6% 6% 8% 11% 2% 5% 5% 3%

Chi square is significant at .05. 

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%.

Another way of assessing changes in noncustodial parents’ access is to ask them to compare the

amount of time they spent with their children prior to and following the receipt of services. Table

6-2 shows the responses that this line of questioning produced. With the exception of mediation

participants, who were almost equally apt to report that parent-child contact decreased, increased,

and remained the same following program participation, most noncustodial parents felt that their

contact levels had increased “a little” or “a lot.” Thus, among education participants, the proportion

reporting a decline versus an increase in contact was 29 and 41 percent, respectively. Among

supervised visitation program users, the proportion reporting a decline versus an increase was 37

and 45 percent, respectively. Custodial parents who mediated were most apt to report that contact

levels stayed the same following program participation. Their counterparts who attended education

programs and supervised visitation were equally apt to report decreased contact and no change.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 54

Only parents who used supervised visitation programs credited the programs for any changes in

parent-child contact levels that they had experienced. Nearly half of noncustodial parents in

mediation and education programs said that the program had played no role in the change in contact

that had occurred, and a third of the parents who used supervised visitation programs dismissed the

role of the program in explaining changes. Nevertheless, parents who used supervised visitation

were cognizant of the fact their levels of contact would have declined without participating in the

programs. This was the assessment of 55 percent of noncustodial and 59 percent of custodial parents

who were interviewed, and is consistent with other studies of visitation enforcement (Pearson and

Thoennes, 1998) and responsible fatherhood programs (Pearson, et al., 2003) that find the greatest

increases in parent-child contact among parents who enter the programs with the most limited

amounts of access. 

Table 6-2: Perceived Changes in Contact with Child from Program Entry to Interview

and Perceived Role of the Program in Producing Changes, 

by Program Type and Custody Status

Noncustodial parents  Custodial parents 

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=152 N=134 N=102 N=205 N=215 N=149

Compared to before services, time

NCP spends with children has:

Decreased a lot 23% 19% 31% 19% 29% 34%

Decreased a little 7% 10% 6% 9% 10% 5%

Stayed the same 38% 29% 18% 47% 40% 32%

Increased a little 19% 19% 13% 15% 9% 12%

Increased a lot 13% 22% 32% 10% 12% 17%

If changed, role of program:

Major role 28% 24% 48% 20% 14% 49%

Minor role 23% 31% 17% 29% 28% 15%

No role 49% 45% 35% 51% 58% 36%

Without program, would see

children:

More often than now 9% 12% 17% 5% 4% 6%

Same as now 64% 69% 28% 73% 71% 35%

Less often than now 27% 19% 55% 22% 24% 59%

 Chi square is significant at .05. 

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 55

Changes in Child Behavior

Improving child behavior was another goal posited for State Access and Visitation Programs. For

this assessment, we questioned parents about their youngest or only child and asked whether they

had perceived any changes in that child’s behavior since the parents had participated in the programs

offering assistance with access and visitation. More than half of the parents in all service categories

viewed their child’s behavior as unchanged following program participation. The exception to this

were custodial parents who utilized supervised visitation services. Only a quarter (23%) of these

parents characterized their child’s behavior as the same; more commonly these parents characterized

their child’s behavior as improved (41%) or worse (36%). Among those who perceived their child’s

behavior to have changed, the supervised visitation program was credited with playing a “major

role” by custodial (50%) and noncustodial parents (38%). Users of mediation and parent education

programs tended not to credit the program for changes in their child’s behavior. No studies of brief

and/or non-therapeutic interventions like mediation, parent education, or supervised visitation

programs have found statistically meaningful impacts on parent or child psychological adjustment

(Kelly, 1996). 

Table 6-3: Perceived Changes from Program Entry to Interview,

in Youngest Child’s Behavior

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents 

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=152 N=134 N=102 N=205 N=215 N=149

Compared to before services,

youngest child’s behavior has:

Improved 27% 22% 26% 27% 26% 41%

Stayed the same 55% 57% 47% 60% 56% 36%

Become worse 19% 21% 27% 14% 19% 23%

If changed, role of program:

Major role 24% 32% 38% 20% 18% 50%

Minor role 24% 21% 36% 19% 30% 23%

No role 52% 47% 27% 61% 52% 27%

 Chi square is significant at .05. 

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 56

Changes in Parental Relationships

Some proponents of mediation, education, and supervised visitation programs contend that they help

to improve parental relationships. The empirical research on the subject is mixed. In general,

mediation research in the U.S. and Canada has demonstrated small but more often short-lived

increases in cooperation and couple communication. Thus, some studies found benefits one year

post- divorce that were no longer apparent at two years post-divorce (Kelly, 1996). A prior

evaluation of users of parent education programs in five states found that most were skeptical about

whether program participation would change the way they interact with their ex-partner even though

they intellectually understood the need for behavior changes. Thus, the percent saying it was

“definitely true” that the parent education program “improved my relationship with the other parent”

ranged from 16.9 to 37.3 percent across the sites, with the average being 24.1 percent (Thoennes and

Pearson, 1999). 

Parents who used supervised visitation programs, on the other hand, were more apt to report

improvements in their relationships with the other parent, with about half of visiting (44%) and

custodial (52%) parents reporting that conflict between the parents was “less” following program

participation (Pearson and Thoennes, 2000). Given the higher levels of violence and conflict

reported for this population at program start and the more protracted nature of the supervised

visitation intervention, it is perhaps not surprising that this group of parents was more apt to report

improvements following their participation.

Interviews with users of State Access and Visitation Programs suggest that parental relationships

do improve following their participation, although the findings are mixed and substantial proportions

of parents report continued hostility or no contact. Table 6-4 shows that following participation in

every type of program, a higher proportion of noncustodial and custodial parents reported that their

relationships were “friendly and cooperative” or “strained but cooperative.” Similarly, the

proportion characterizing their relationship as “hostile and angry” declined. Among noncustodial

parents who participated in mediation, favorable characterizations of relationships went from 43 to

60 percent, while favorable assessments by education participants went from 47 to 59 percent. Even

parents who used supervised visitation services reported improvements in relationships. 

Among noncustodial parents, the percentage of favorable ratings went from 26 to 42 percent, while

the percent reporting hostile relationships was halved from 54 to 26 percent. Custodial parents

reported similar patterns. The percent reporting cooperative patterns doubled from 16 to 35 percent,

while the percent reporting hostile relationships dropped from 45 to 14 percent. At least some of

the improvement among supervised visitation clients appears to be due to their ability to avoid one
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 57

another since the proportion of noncustodial and custodial parents reporting “no contact” rose from

21 to 33 percent and from 39 to 55 percent, respectively.

Parents were less generous when they were asked to compare relationships with the other parent

before and after receiving services and note whether they had improved, stayed the same, or become

worse. In that assessment, most maintained that there had been no change and the rest were equally

divided between noting that relationships had improved and worsened. It is clearly difficult to

measure subjective outcomes such as couple relationships, child adjustment, and parent-child

contact, especially in a brief telephone interview format. Different questions yield somewhat

different pictures of outcome, making it hard to reach unequivocal conclusions.

Table 6-4: Reported Quality of the Relationship Between Parents Before and After

Program Services and Perceived Role of the Program in Creating Changes,

by Program Type and Custody Status

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=152 N=134 N=102 N=205 N=215 N=149

Before services, relationship with

other parent was:

    

Friendly and cooperative 11% 11% 8% 12% 12% 2%

Strained but cooperative 32% 36% 18% 38% 28% 14%

Hostile, angry 39% 39% 54% 36% 45% 45%

No contact 18% 14% 21% 14% 16% 39%

At interview, relationship with

other parent was:

    

Friendly and cooperative 26% 28% 20% 27% 24% 12%

Strained but cooperative 34% 31% 22% 39% 36% 23%

Hostile, angry 17% 26% 26% 14% 20% 14%

No contact 24% 15% 33% 21% 20% 51%

Compared to before services,

relationship with other parent has:

Improved 26% • 25% 27% 24% 20%

Stayed the same 51% 41% 52% 53% 60%

Become worse 24% 34% 21% 23% 21%
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Table 6-4: Reported Quality of the Relationship Between Parents Before and After

Program Services and Perceived Role of the Program in Creating Changes,

by Program Type and Custody Status

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=152 N=134 N=102 N=205 N=215 N=149

Page 58

If changed, program role:

Major role 25% • 28% 21% 19% 35%

Minor role 22% 26% 26% 36% 25%

No role 53% 46% 53% 44% 40%

• Information is missing for noncustodial parents in Parent Education Programs.

 Chi square is significant at .05. 

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%.

Changes in Child Support Payment Patterns: Parent Reports

Previous studies show that parents report child support payment behavior in self-serving ways, with

noncustodial parents claiming higher levels and custodial parents claiming lower levels of payment

(Braver, et al., 1991; Pearson and Anhalt, 1993). Parents served in State Access and Visitation

Programs appear to conform to these patterns. While both custodial and noncustodial parents tended

to agree on whether the obligation to pay child support exists and the amount of support due per

month, they disagreed quite substantially on whether it was paid. According to 85 percent of

interviewed noncustodial parents in mediation and education programs, all of it was paid. The

percentage of noncustodial parents reporting full payment was somewhat lower among users of

supervised visitation programs, although 69 percent reported full payment and another 10 percent

claimed that they paid “more than half.”

Custodial parents gave less favorable reports of child support payment, with only about half of

mediation and education users characterizing payment patterns as “full” and less than a third (27%)

of supervised visitation users giving it this characterization. The percentage saying that “nothing”

was paid stands at 32 percent among custodial parents who used supervised visitation and 16 and

24 percent among mediation and education users, respectively.

Few parents indicated that participation in the programs had precipitated a change in the amount of

child support they paid or received. Among those noting a change, noncustodial parents were more

apt to report that it had increased, while custodial parents were equally apt to report payment

increases and decreases. 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 59

Table 6-5: Self-Report of Child Support Obligations and Payment, at Interview

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=149 N=118 N=101 N=195 N=197 N=142

Noncustodial parent is

supposed to pay child

support:



Yes 83% 84% 72% 86% 78% 73%

No 17% 16% 28% 14% 22% 28%

If ordered, amount of child

support due per month:



Mean

Median

Range

$474

$400

$75 - $2400

$379

$351

$17 - $1000

$412

$373

$80 - $1000

$424

$372

$30 - $2400

$357

$300

$15 - $1000

$366

$360

$50 - $1000

Amount of child support paid: 

All (100%) 81% 82% 69% 55% 43% 27%

More than half 6% 4% 10% 12% 11% 17%

Less than half 5% 3% 10% 12% 18% 15%

Nothing 3% 6% 6% 16% 24% 32%

Other 6% 4% 6% 5% 4% 9%

Compared to before

services, change in child

support amount:



Decreased a lot 3% 8% 6% 10% 20% 8%

Decreased a little 1% 6% 7% 5% 6% 5%

Stayed the same 67% 59% 61% 62% 46% 59%

Increased a little 12% 13% 9% 10% 14% 13%

Increased a lot 17% 14% 18% 13% 14% 14%

If changed, role program

played: (N=40) (N=37) (N=28) (N=60) (N=82) (N=40)



Major role 10% 11% 11% 38% 15% 15%

Minor role 18% 22% 21% 10% 17% 20%

No role 73% 68% 68% 52% 68% 65%

Compared to before

services, payment is now:

More regular 12% 8% 11% 19% 19% 25%

About the same 84% 85% 89% 62% 63% 61%

Less regular 4% 6% 0% 19% 17% 14%
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Table 6-5: Self-Report of Child Support Obligations and Payment, at Interview

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=149 N=118 N=101 N=195 N=197 N=142

Page 60

If more regular, role program

played:

(N=12) (N=9) (N=3) (N=32) (N=29) (N=6)

Major role 25% 22% 0% 50% 35% 83%

Minor role 42% 0% 0% 13% 31% 0%

No role 33% 78% 100% 38% 35% 17%

 Chi square is significant at .05. 

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%.

Changes in Child Support Payment Patterns: Child Support Records

The most accurate information on child support obligations and payment patterns comes from the

automated records maintained by State Child Support Enforcement Agencies. Three sites collected

identifiers for parents who participated in State Access and Visitation Programs that permitted us

to determine whether they were known to their state child support agency and had records that could

be accessed. The sites that collected Social Security numbers or a child support case identification

number were Missouri (mediation), Arizona (education), and Pennsylvania (supervised visitation).

The following analysis is restricted to 80 families in Missouri, 72 families in Arizona, and 21

families in Pennsylvania who had at least one open child support case with a monthly obligation

both 12 months prior to and 12 months following their receipt of program services. In light of these

smaller sample sizes and the focus on a single site for each program type, we must be cautious about

making firm conclusions or generalizing the data to similar programs in other states.

One striking characteristic of families who received services and met the criteria for analysis was

their strong initial payment patterns. Across the program types, noncustodial parents paid 68.6

percent of the child support they owed during the 12 months prior to their project participation.

There was little variation by program type, with the mean standing at 66.8 percent for mediation

users, 70.3 percent for education users, and 69.3 percent for supervised visitation clients. On

average, parents owed $394 per month in child support and $27 per month in arrears payments.

Their average arrears balance was $3,995, with half owing less than $1,016 and balances ranging

from nothing to $56,515.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 61

During the 12 months following program participation, payment patterns improved among users of

all three programs, although the changes were only statistically significant for mediation users,

whose average percent of monthly obligations paid rose from 66.8 to 71.4 percent. Among parent

education program users, the average percent rose from 70.3 to 88.8 percent, and among supervised

visitation users, the average percent rose from 69.3 to 71.0 percent, changes that were not

statistically significant. Nationally, the child support system collected 58 percent of what was owed

in current support in FY 2003. In the OIG analysis, noncustodial parents paid 52 percent of what

they owed prior to mediation and 70 percent of what they owed following the intervention (OIG,

2002).

Looked at somewhat differently, the percent of parents whose payment compliance increased

following program participation was 44 percent for mediation users, 51 percent for parent education

users, and 38 percent for supervised visitation users. If we restrict the analysis to those cases in

which the noncustodial parent was paying less than 100 percent of what he owed during the 12

months prior to project participation and there was more room for improvement, the changes were

more impressive. Among this group of parents, the percentage showing increased child support

payments following program participation was 64 percent for mediation users, 93 percent for parent

education clients, and 53 percent for supervised visitation clients. In the OIG analysis, 61 percent

of noncustodial parents increased the percent they paid of their current child support obligation after

mediating (OIG, 2002).

Table 6-6: Child Support Information From Agency Records, by Program Type

Mediation

Missouri

(N=80)

Parent

Education

Arizona

(N=72)

Supervised

Visitation

Pennsylvania

(N=21)

Total

(N=173)

TANF status:

Never on TANF

Formerly on TANF

Currently on TANF

72%

17%

2%

69%

30%

1%

76%

24%

0%

75%

24%

1%

Number of children covered by child support order:

Mean

Median

Range

1.8

2.0

1-6

1.5

1.0

1-4

1.6

1.0

1-5

1.6

1.0

1-6

Current monthly support order amount:

Mean

Median

Range

$408

$369

$15-999

$373

$351

$10-944

$415

$345

$100-1,000

$394

$355

$0-1,000

Current monthly payment due towards arrears:

Mean

Median

Range

$31

$0

$0-999

$17

$0

$0-433

$49

$40

$4-145

$27

$0

$0-999
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Table 6-6: Child Support Information From Agency Records, by Program Type

Mediation

Missouri

(N=80)

Parent

Education

Arizona

(N=72)

Supervised

Visitation

Pennsylvania

(N=21)

Total

(N=173)

Page 62

Total arrears balance across all cases with NCP:

Mean

Median

Range

$4,287

$410

$0-56,515

$4,421

$2,029

$0-42,471

$1,428

$322

$0-7,695

$3,995

$1,016

$0-56,515

Total amount due in the 12 months prior to receiving

program services:

Mean

Median

Range

$5,422

$3,840

$74-39,384

$4,180

$3,642

$105-18,350

$4,348

$2,850

$70-12,950

$4,775

$3,684

$70-39,384

Total amount paid in the 12 months prior to receiving

program services:

Mean

Median

Range

$4,347

$2,584

$0-24,846

$3,824

$3,092

$0-27,049

$3,216

$2,022

$0-10,468

$3,992

$2,628

$0-27,049

Total amount due in the 12 months after receiving program

services:

Mean

Median

Range

$5,186

$4,406

$165-

33,102

$4,453

$4,147

$825-17,050

$5,810

$4,812

$276-13,540

$4,956

$4,400

$163-33,102

Total amount paid in the 12 months after receiving program

services:

Mean

Median

Range

$4,768

$3,408

$0-35,366

$4,735

$4,204

$0-27,306

$4,563

$4,304

$394-15,749

$4,729

$3,990

$0-35,366

Child support paid as a percentage of child support due in

the 12 months prior to services:

Mean

Median

Range

66.8%

83.5%

0-100%

70.3%

98.0%

0-100%

69.3%

73.0%

0-100%

68.6%

88/0%

0-100%

Child support paid as a percentage of child support due in

the 12 months after services:

Mean

Median

Range

71.4%

100%

0-100%

88.8%

100%

0-100%

71.0%

100%

0-100%

78.6%

100%

0-100%

Percent of all parents whose payments:

Increased

Stayed same

Decreased

44%

29%

28%

51%

40%

8%

38%

19%

43%

46%

32%

21%

Percent of parents paying less than 100% prior to program

entry whose payments:

Increased

Stayed same

Decreased

(55)

64%

11%

26%

(40)

93%

3%

5%

(15)

53%

7%

40%

(110)

73%

7%

20%

 Differences between pre and post program payment patterns significant for mediation programs at the .004 level.

 Rounding may result in percentages slightly above or below 100%.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 63

Summary of Outcomes and Changes in Household Formation and Marriage

Table 6-7 presents a summary of the changes parents perceived to have occurred following their

participation in State Access and Visitation Programs. It covers the key areas of outcome posited

for programs by Congress and the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. They include

increases in child support payment, increases in contact between the noncustodial parent and the

child, improvements in child behavior, improvements in parental relationships, household formation,

and marriage. 

As is readily discernible, the areas of change noted by the largest proportion of parents dealt with

visitation levels, child behavior, and parental relationships. Approximately one-half of responding

custodial and noncustodial parents who used supervised visitation services reported that their

youngest child’s behavior had improved since they began using program services. Somewhat lower,

but still substantial proportions of custodial (37-39%) and noncustodial (35-41%) parents who used

supervised visitation and education services noted such improvements. As for parent-child contact,

about one-third to one-half of noncustodial parents and one-quarter to one-third of custodial parents

felt that the noncustodial parent was seeing the children more often. And while the proportions

reporting that parental relationships had improved were somewhat lower, this was noted by at least

one-third of all parents using mediation and education services and nearly one-third and one-fifth

of noncustodial and custodial parents, respectively, who used supervised visitation services. Taken

together, between one-third to one-half of users of mediation, education and supervised visitation

services experienced subsequent improvements in parent-child contact, child behavior, and parental

relationships.

Although fewer parents perceived the programs to have affected child support payment patterns --

only one-fifth to one-quarter of responding custodial and noncustodial parents reported that they had

increased-- assessments based on a review of records maintained by state child support enforcement

agencies are more promising. When cases with monthly child support obligations in both the preand post-program study periods are compared, the percentage showing an increase in payment

stands at 44 percent for mediation users, 51 percent for education clients, and 38 percent for

supervised visitation participants.

Finally, there was little evidence of household formation or marriage between parents following

their participation in State Access and Visitation Programs. Fewer than 5 percent of custodial and

noncustodial parents using each program type reported that they had remarried or begun to live with

the other parent following their participation in mediation, education, or supervised visitation. Since

all three types of services aim to reduce conflict and promote cooperative parenting relationships

between parents who have evidenced high levels of hostility and conflict, it is not surprising that the
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 64

programs improve the ability of parents to communicate and manage their parental responsibilities

without rekindling romantic relationships.

One limitation of this analysis is the absence of a nontreatment, comparison group against which the

experiences of parents who received access and visitation services might be compared. Thus, we

cannot be certain whether non-served parents might report similar changes in contact, child

adjustments, and parental relationships simply as a function of the passage of time or other factors.

Table 6-7: Summary of Changes Since Program Enrollment, 

by Program Type and Custody Status

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

All

Mediation

All Parent

Education

All

Supervised

Visitation

N=153 N=134 N=102 N=205 N=216 N=150

Percent reporting that compared to

before services:

Child support payments increased 28% 20% 27% 20% 19% 22%

NCP saw the children more often 36% 44% 49% 25% 24% 32%

Youngest child’s behavior improved 35% 41% 52% 37% 39% 50%

The relationship between the 

parents improved 32% 35% 30% 33% 36% 21%

Parents began living together 1% 2% 2% 2% 5% 3%

Parents married each other 3% 3% 5% 5% 6% 2%

Child support records showing that

compared to before services child

support payments increase

44% 51% 38% N/A N/A N/A

Outcomes for Certain Sub-Groups

Are there some sub-groups of users for whom program participation produced more substantial

changes? This final step in the analysis considered whether the degree of improvement in child

support payment, contact between the noncustodial parent and child, child behavior, and quality of

the relationship between the parents varied based on:

# Whether the parents had ever been married to each other;

# The quality of the relationship/conflict level prior to program participation;

# Presence of domestic violence allegations;

# Amount of contact between the noncustodial parent and child prior to program entry;

# Distance between the noncustodial parent and child; 

# Whether participation in the program was mandatory or voluntary; and

# Whether participants in mediation produced an agreement.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 65

Ever and Never-married Parents

On several outcome measures, never-married parents show greater improvements than do formerlymarried parents. For example, never-married parents exhibited more dramatic changes in payment

following program participation as compared with their previously married counterparts. In the 12

months prior to their participation, never-married parents paid 59 percent of their child support

obligation. In the 12 months following their participation, the percent of child support that they paid

rose to 79 percent. The change was less dramatic for previously married noncustodial parents who

entered the programs paying 74 percent of their obligations. Twelve months later, they paid 78

percent of what they owed. 

Table 6-8: Percent of Child Support Paid Pre- and Post-Services, 

by Marital Status of Parents

Previously married

(N=109)

Never-married 

(N=64)

Pre-Services  PostServices

Pre-Services  PostServices

Child support paid as a percentage of child support due

Mean 74% 78% 59% 79%

 Differences between average amount paid pre- and post-services for never-married parents is significant at .00.

 Differences between average amount paid at pre-services by marital status is significant at .05. 

Table 6-9 indicates that never-married NCPs were also more likely than their formerly-married

counterparts to report that following the AV services they saw their children more often, had a better

relationship with the other parent, and saw improvements in their child’s behavior. Never-married

CPs, compared to previously-married CPs, also reported that the NCP saw the children more often

following services and reported improved parental relationships.

Table 6-9: Outcomes by Marital and Custody Status 

Previously married

(N=207)

Never-Married

(N=169)

Percent of NCPs reporting that after the AV program...

NCP saw children more frequently  36% 50%

Relationship between the parents improved  29% 36%

Youngest child’s behavior improved  37% 46%

Percent of CPs reporting that after the AV program...

NCP saw children more frequently  23% 33%

Relationship between the parents improved  29% 35%

Youngest child’s behavior improved 41% 41%

 Differences between average amount paid at pre-services by marital status is significant at .1. 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 66

These patterns suggest that State Access and Visitation Programs may have the most potent effects

on never-married parents, a group not traditionally served by access and visitation services in the

court system. 

Quality of the Relationship

In general, the quality of the parents’ relationship at the time they received AV services was not

related to participant outcomes. For example, parents with conflicted relationships prior to the start

of services were no more or less likely to report the NCP saw the children more often following

services than were more cooperative parents. The sole exception was custodial parents who reported

improved parental relationship following services. Custodial parents who reported some contact with

the noncustodial parent prior to the start of services were more apt to report that their post-program

relationships had improved. 

Presence of Domestic Violence Allegations

If the program file noted the presence of domestic violence allegations, the post-program interview

found that both the custodial and noncustodial parent were less likely to report an improved parental

relationship. In such cases, the noncustodial parent was less likely to report that he was seeing the

children more often.

Geographic Distance

As shown in Table 6-10, geographic distance between the custodial and noncustodial parent did have

an influence on parental reports that the program increased the amount of contact between the

noncustodial parent and the child. Those noncustodial parents living more than 100 miles from their

children were less likely to report increased contact compared to those living less than 100 miles

apart.

Table 6-10: Post-Program Contact by Geographic Distance and Custody Status 

CP and NCP

live 50

miles apart

or less

(N=292)

CP and

NCP live

51-100

miles apart

(N=20)

CP and

NCP live

101-200

miles apart

(N=13)

CP and NCP live

more than 200

miles apart

(N=36)

Percent of NCPs reporting that after the AV program...

NCP saw children more frequently  46% 45% 23% 23%

Percent of CPs reporting that after the AV program...

NCP saw children more frequently  32% 27% 20% 6%

 Differences between average amount paid at pre-services by marital status is significant at .1. 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 67

Mandatory Versus Voluntary Services

To determine whether outcomes are affected by the mandatory versus voluntary nature of the

mediation, education, and supervised visitation interventions that parents experienced, we compared

ratings for those who reported that their participation had been voluntary versus those who reported

it had been mandatory. With very few exceptions, there were no differences on key outcome

measures. The exceptions were that parents who reported that they had attended parent education

programs on a voluntary basis were significantly more apt to report that program participation led

to more frequent contact with their children (55% versus 32%) and improved relationships with the

other parent (61% versus 35%). On all other outcomes measures and for participants of all other

program types, patterns were identical for those reporting mandatory versus voluntary participation

circumstances. This suggests that the mandatory status of many interventions offered through State

Access and Visitation Grant Programs does not jeopardize desired outcomes dealing with

relationships, parent-child contact, and child support payment behaviors. 

Table 6-11: Outcomes and Satisfaction Levels, by Mandatory Program Participation

Mediation Supervised

Visitation

Parent Education Total

MandatoryN=216

VoluntaryN=139

MandatoryN=203

VoluntaryN=41

MandatoryN=255

VoluntaryN=38

MandatoryN=741

VoluntaryN=209

Compared to before services:

Child support payments increased 25% 21% 23% 20% 18% 8% 22% 19%

NCP saw the children more often 31% 30% 39% 45% 32% 55% 33% 37%

Youngest child’s behavior improved 37% 34% 51% 54% 39% 51% 41% 41%

The relationship between the parents

improved 31% 37% 24% 29% 35% 61% 30% 38%

Parents began living together 1% 2% 3% 0% 4% 3% 3% 2%

Parents reconciled/married each other 4% 5% 4% 0% 5% 3% 4% 4%

Satisfaction with Program Services:

Very satisfied 29% 45% 41% 40% 36% 58% 37% 46%

Somewhat satisfied 33% 35% 25% 32% 42% 21% 37% 34%

Somewhat dissatisfied 13% 7% 15% 16% 11% 8% 12% 8%

Very dissatisfied 24% 13% 19% 13% 12% 13% 15% 12%

 Chi square is significant at .05. 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 68

Mediation Outcome

Finally, we compared outcomes for those who reached an agreement in mediation versus those who

did not to gauge whether agreements reached in mediation translate into better outcomes.

Noncustodial parents who reached an agreement in mediation reported they saw their children more

often (41% versus 17%) and that their youngest child’s behavior had improved. Custodial parents,

who reached an agreement reported child support payments had increased compared to before

mediation and that their relationship with the other parent had improved (30% versus 7%). Results

are presented in Table 6-12. 

Table 6-12: Outcomes For Those Who Do and Do Not 

Reach Agreement in Mediation

Noncustodial parents Custodial parents

Agreement

Reached

No

Agreement

Agreement

Reached

No

Agreement

Percent reporting that compared to before services:

Child support payments increased 22% 4% 21% 4%

NCP saw the children more often 41% 17% 25% 21%

Youngest child’s behavior improved 46% 11% 39% 30%

The relationship between the parents improved 34% 17% 30% 7%

Parents began living together 0% 0% 2% 0%

Parents reconciled/married each other 4% 0% 3% 7%

 Chi square is significant at .05.

 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 69
Page 70

Chapter 7

Summary and Conclusions 

Since 1997, when the State Access and Visitation Program was initiated, Congress has appropriated

$10 million per year to promote the development of services to alleviate access problems and

promote contact between noncustodial parents and children. 

This evaluation examined the extent to which the most common types of programs funded by State

AV grants achieve the objectives posited for them by Congress and the Federal Office of Child

Support Enforcement. We focused on 18 mediation, parent education, and supervised visitation

programs in nine states and conducted telephone interviews with 970 parents (391 noncustodial and

579 custodial) who used the programs an average of 17 months earlier (with a range of six to 54

months) to assess whether their program experiences had led to increased parent-child contact;

improved child behavior; improved parental relationships; increased child support payments;

household formation; and marriage. In addition to relying on parental reports, we reviewed child

support records for program users at three program sites that offered mediation, parent education,

and supervised visitation services, respectively. 

This analysis, along with a 2002 assessment by the HHS Office of the Inspector General of 254

mediation cases in five states, are the only quantitative evaluations of the State Access and Visitation

Program and offer some clues about who the programs are serving and what effects they have.

In this chapter, we review key findings. The following chapter discusses the implications of these

findings for policy and practice, and highlights what this study indicates about the potential and

pitfalls of future research on Access and Visitation programs.

State AV programs serve a diverse group of parents, particularly those at the lower

socioeconomic levels.

The programs in nine states that we studied serve a diverse group of parents with different racial,

education, income, employment, and marital characteristics. While a substantial proportion of

served parents were white, college educated, and employed, most were less advantaged minorities.

Across the program types and settings, parents were African-American (5 to 24%) or Latino (2 to

23%), unemployed (14 to 29%) or employed less than full-time (5 to 23%), educated at the high

school level (15 to 26%) or below (4 to 11%), and in households that earn less than $20,000 per year

(25 to 52%). For example, nearly one-third to one-half of noncustodial parents using the three

program types reported gross, annual household income levels of $20,000 or less, one-fifth to onethird were educated to the high school level or less, and 20 to 41 percent were unemployed or
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 71

employed part- time. Interviewed parents were almost evenly divided between being previously

married and never married. 

Supervised visitation programs serve the most disadvantaged parents and those at greatest

risk.

Parents who use supervised visitation programs had the lowest education and income levels.

Compared with their counterparts in mediation and parent education programs, they also reported

the highest rates of non-marriage and among non-married parents, the lowest rates of cohabitation.

Across the sites, 37 percent of noncustodial parents in supervised visitation programs were educated

to the high school level or less, 41 percent were unemployed or partially employed, 50 percent

reported annual gross household income levels of 50 percent, 51 percent had never been married to

the other parent, and among those who were never married, 40 percent had never cohabited. Parents

who used supervised visitation programs were also at greatest risk for violence, with 67 percent of

interviewed custodial parents reporting that there had been physical violence in their relationships

with the other parent. They were also the biggest consumers of services and were more apt than

their mediation and education counterparts to report attending classes dealing with anger

management, domestic violence, and substance abuse counseling. 

State AV programs reach parents who cannot afford any other form of assistance and for

whom it is the only type of access help that they receive.

AV programs were the only source of access assistance for many parents, including 63 percent of

all mediation users, 52 percent of education clients, and 36 percent of supervised visitation clients.

State AV programs are clearly serving parents who would otherwise go only minimally or totally

unassisted and could not afford to pay for program services. In order to get at least half of

interviewed parents to say that they would pay for services, mediation would have to cost $25 or

less, education fees would have to be in the $5 to $15 range, and supervised visitation would have

to cost $5 to $10 per visit. This falls far below rates charged in most public and private programs

offering these types of services.

Child support programs currently play a negligible role in referring families for AV services.

Less than 10 percent of interviewed noncustodial parents reported that they had learned about AV

programs from someone at the child support agency. One-half to three-quarters were referred to the

programs by the court. Other common referral sources were attorneys (14 to 32%) and/or mediators

(7 to 28%). Although the State Access and Visitation Program is administered by the federal OCSE

and grants are awarded to State Child Support Enforcement Agencies, many states rely on the court

system for program implementation and oversight. 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 72

Two-thirds to almost three-quarters of parents report reaching agreements in mediation on

custody, visitation, and/or child support issues.

More than two-thirds of noncustodial parents reported reaching an agreement on the issues of

custody and visitation (69%) and/or child support (67%). Custodial parents reported higher rates

of agreement on custody and visitation (73%, 71%) and slightly lower rates on child support (63%).

According to program records, 79 percent of parents who attempted to mediate reached a full or

partial agreement, with those who mediated voluntarily reaching agreements at higher rates than

their mandated counterparts. These are equivalent to the 50 to 85 percent range of agreement rates

reported for most court and private mediation programs and the 76 percent agreement rate reported

for four states in the OIG study, and suggest that mediation programs funded by State AV grants are

performing to “industry standards.”

Nearly all parents report that education programs focused on the issues of child adjustment,

co-parenting, and conflict resolution, with three-quarters to 90 percent of respondents rating

these discussions as “very” or “somewhat” useful. 

Consistent with national trends, parents in education programs funded by AV grants are most

interested in material dealing with child development and their children’s adjustment to their breakup, with half characterizing it as “very helpful.” Other topics that are rated as “very” useful by at

least one-third of respondents are how to work together as parents and how to resolve conflicts with

the other parent. A recent review of research on education programs concludes that the perceived

effectiveness varies, with the most benefits accruing to parents who had the highest levels of conflict

(and lowest levels of adaptive parenting), those who used the programs earliest in the divorce

process, and those who attended programs that focused on skill building rather than information

sharing (Geasler and Blaisure, 1998). While several studies have found that parents give the

programs ratings that exceed 90 percent, others find much slimmer effects, especially over time.

Parents view supervised visitation programs as providing a safe environment for themselves

and their children.

Nearly all (90%) of custodial and noncustodial parents feel that supervised visitation programs

provide a safe environment for their children and themselves. The same percentage lives within 50

miles of the supervised visitation facility. Many parents who stop using the program do so because

the court determines that it is no longer necessary (32 to 39%) or because the parents decide it is no

longer necessary (8 to 15%) and less often because the other parent stopped coming or missed too

many visits (15 to 24%) or could no longer afford services (10%). A previous study of supervised

visitation in four settings found that 48 percent stopped because the parents simply stopped coming

(Pearson and Thoennes, 2000). 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 73

Although most parents perceive AV program services to be mandatory, this does not overly

reduce program effectiveness or the positive effects of participation.

Two-thirds of mediation users and approximately 90 percent of education and supervised visitation

users termed their participation in AV programs as “mandatory.” This is not unique to State AV

programs. The American Bar Association estimates that 4,500 separate jurisdictions mandate

mediation in contested custody and visitation disputes (Melamed, 1989); 25 states have enacted

statutes and 19 states have local court and administrative rules authorizing or mandating parents with

minor children or those who contest custody or visitation to attend an education program (Clement,

1998); and a survey of 94 supervised visitation programs found that the major source of referral for

all programs was the court, with half only accepting cases through a court order (Thoennes and

Pearson, 1999)

As in many other studies of mediation, education, and supervised visitation programs, we find that

the mandatory participation status of clients in AV programs does not overly affect the outcomes

that users experience. While those who mediated voluntarily were more apt to produce agreements

(89% versus 72%), the mediation agreement rates of 67 to 71 percent reported by all noncustodial

and custodial parents for various issues fall squarely within the range of agreement rates observed

in most court and private mediation programs (50 to 85%) and are virtually identical to the 72

percent agreement rate for families referred to a court-based mediation program on a voluntary basis

by child support workers in San Mateo county as part of its Responsible Fatherhood program

(Pearson, et al., 2003) and the 76 percent agreement rate reported by the OIG in its study of four AV

programs (OIG, 2002). 

More to the point, a comparison of major outcomes for program users who reported that their

participation was mandatory versus those who reported it was voluntary revealed few differences.

The exceptions to the overall finding of no differences were voluntary education clients who were

significantly more apt to report that program participation had led to more frequent contact with their

children (55% versus 32%) and improved relationships with the other parent (61% versus 35%).

It may well be the case that the small fraction of parents who voluntarily chose to attend an

education program were more cooperative and enjoyed higher levels of pre-program visitation.

Between 36 and 49 percent of noncustodial parents reported increases in child contact

following service delivery. 

Overall, the percent of noncustodial parents who reported an overall increase in visitation was 36

percent for mediation users, 44 percent for education users, and 49 percent for supervised visitation

users. Fewer custodial parents in every service category reported increases. 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 74

The percentage of supervised visitation users who reported seeing their children at least once a week

went from 39 to 50 percent, and noncustodial parents with no contact dropped from 36 to 25 percent;

45 percent reported that visitation had increased “a little or a lot.” Although the number of days of

contact did not change for mediation and education users, the percent reporting that they were seeing

their children at least as often as their court order or agreement allowed rose from 37 to 59 percent

among mediation users and 56 to 63 percent among education users. Since most parents entered the

program with visitation rights, participation did not lead to any gains in the legal right to contact.

Overall, 36 percent of all mediation users reported an increase in visits, while this was reported by

41 percent of those who reached an agreement. In the OIG study of mediation in four settings, 42

percent of mediation clients who reached an agreement reported an overall increase in visits, 33

percent reported that they stayed the same, and 11 percent reported a decrease (OIG, 2002). In a

similar vein, 41 percent of interviewed parents who mediated access disputes as part of San Mateo’s

Responsible Fatherhood project reported an increase in child contact (Pearson, et al., 2003). The

percentage of education and supervised visitation clients reporting an increase was 44 and 49

percent, respectively. Custodial parents were less apt to report changes in visit frequency, with only

25, 24, and 32 percent reporting that the noncustodial parent saw the children more often after

receiving mediation, education, and supervised visitation services, respectively.

Between 26 and 41 percent of custodial parents reported that their youngest child’s behavior

had improved.

While 26 and 27 percent of custodial parents who used education and mediation programs reported

that the behavior of the youngest child had improved in the 12 months following program

participation, this was reported by 41 percent of custodial parents who used supervised visitation.

Most of the other parents viewed their youngest child’s behavior as unchanged and 14 to 23 percent

said it was worse. No previous studies of brief and/or non-therapeutic interventions such as

mediation, parent education, or supervised visitation have found statistically meaningful program

impacts on parent or child psychological adjustment.

Most parents reported that their relationships were unchanged, although fewer characterized

them as “hostile and angry.”

While fewer characterized their relationships as “hostile and angry” following program participation,

most reported their relationships were “unchanged,” with those reporting change equally apt to note

improvements as declines.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 75

The percent of noncustodial parents who characterized their relationship with the other parent as

“hostile and angry” following program participation dropped from 39 to 17 percent for mediation

users, 39 to 26 percent for education clients, and 54 to 26 percent for supervised visitation clients.

Custodial parents gave similar assessments, with the percentages going from 36 to 14 for mediation

users, 45 to 20 for education users, and 45 to 14 for supervised visitation clients. At least some of

the change for supervised visitation clients was due to their ability to avoid one another, since the

proportion of noncustodial and custodial parents reporting “no contact” rose. At the same time,

about one-half of interviewed parents said their relationship with the other parent had “stayed the

same” following program participation, with the rest equally divided between characterizing the

relationship as improved and worse. Some mediation studies find small but often short-lived

increases in cooperation and couple communication, while parent education users are typically

skeptical about whether their participation will change the way they interact with their ex-partner

even though they intellectually understand the need for behavior changes. Past studies of supervised

visitation users are more apt to conclude that relationships improved, perhaps because such parents

enter the programs with extremely high levels of conflict and violence (Pearson and Thoennes,

2000). 

Child support records showed that payment activity improved, with never married parents

showing the most dramatic increases in compliance.

Consistent with past research, parents report child support payment behavior in self-serving ways,

with two-thirds to four-fifths of noncustodial parents reporting full payment, as compared with onequarter to one-half of custodial parents. Most interviewed parents reported that payments had stayed

the same following program participation, with only about one-fifth to one-quarter noting an

increase. 

A review of child support records for 173 families with monthly obligations both 12 months prior

to and following program participation, however, showed that payments improved. Payments

increased for 44 percent of mediation users, 51 percent of education clients, and 38 percent of

supervised visitation users. When we restricted the analysis to cases in which the noncustodial

parent had paid less than 100 percent of what he owed during the 12 months prior to project

participation and there was more room for improvement, payments increased for 64 percent of

mediation users, 93 percent of education clients, and 53 percent of supervised visitation clients. 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 76

Noncustodial parents also paid a higher percentage of what they owed following program

participation, although the differences were only statistically significant at the mediation site where

the average percent paid went from 66.8 to 71.4 percent. For education clients, payments rose from

70.3 to 88.8 percent and for supervised visitation users, they increased from 69.3 to 71.0 percent.

Compliance rates increased significantly for never-married parents, whose average percent of child

support paid following program participation rose from 59 to 79 percent. Payment compliance did

not significantly change for previously-married parents who entered the programs paying an average

of 74 percent of what they owed and who paid 78 percent during the following year.

The OIG’s review of child support records for 111 cases found that payments rose from 52 to 70

percent following mediation and that 61 percent increased the percent of current child support that

they paid.

There was no evidence that program participation led to increases in cohabitation or

marriage.

Less than 5 percent of interviewed parents reported that they had begun to live together or marry one

another following program participation. The OIG study found that parents in only two of 254 cases

began living together after mediation. Since mediation, education, and supervised visitation

programs aim to reduce conflict and promote cooperative parenting relationships between parents

who have evidenced high levels of hostility and conflict, it is not surprising that the programs

improve the ability of parents to handle their parental responsibilities without rekindling romantic

relationships.

Never-married parents exhibit the greatest improvements on many outcome measures.

Child support payment increases were particularly striking among never-married parents, whose

percentage of child support paid rose significantly from 59 to 79 percent when their pre- and postprogram payment behaviors were compared. Never-married parents were also more likely than

formerly-married parents to report improvements in the frequency of contact between the

noncustodial parent and the children, the quality of the parents’ relationship, and the youngest

child’s behavior.

These findings track with findings reported by the OIG and are generally consistent with findings

reported in previous evaluations of access programs (Pearson and Thoennes, 1998). Indeed,

regardless of whether they mediated, all families referred to free, court-based mediation for access

problems by child support workers as part of a Responsible Fatherhood Program conducted in San
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 77

Mateo County, California, during 1998 to 2000 showed uniform and significant increases in child

support payments following their referral. More to the point, never-married parents had similar rates

of appearance and agreement to those produced by their married and divorced counterparts (Pearson,

et al., 2003). Of course, since the OIG study, the Responsible Fatherhood evaluation and this

assessment all lack non-treatment comparison groups, against whose experiences families receiving

services might be compared, we cannot be certain that any and all improvements in contact and

payment were due to the passage of time, enforcement actions, or other factors. 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 78
Page 79

Chapter 8

Implications for Practice 

and Research

Implications for Practice and Policy

The findings suggest a variety of ways to improve services provided in State Access and Visitation

Programs and enhance the outcomes that participants experience.

# Encourage child support referrals.

Less than 10 percent of interviewed noncustodial parents reported that they had learned about AV

programs from someone at the child support agency; most were referred by the court. Since payment

behavior improves following program participation, child support workers should become familiar

with AV programs and refer noncustodial parents with access problems to them.

# Consider incorporating basic child support information into parent education. 

Parent education programs are primarily focused on helping parents to successfully transition into

a new parenting relationship. However, increased referrals from child support might argue for the

inclusion of very basic information about the importance of child support.

# Consider including in parent education curricula some discussion of the consequences of

geographic moves on access and visitation. 

As in past research, this study confirms that the distance that separates the noncustodial parent from

his child is a basic obstacle to frequent contact that cannot be easily remedied in AV programs.

When discussing the importance of both parents maintaining contact with their children following

a separation or divorce, parent education programs might want to underscore the barriers to contact

imposed by parental relocation. Future researchers in the field may also want to include measures

of parent-child interaction that capture contact other than in-person visits.

# Focus on serving never-married parents. 

AV programs have traditionally focused on serving divorcing and divorced parents. This study

demonstrates that never-married parents fare even better than formerly married parents on many

outcome measures. They show better child support payment outcomes, and (based on reports by

noncustodial parents) greater improvements in a variety of post-program behaviors including the
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 80

amount of contact between the noncustodial parent and the child, parental relationships and child

behavior. Programs should attempt to routinely serve never-married parents.

# Programs should be prepared to offer resources to parents with domestic violence

histories. 

Although some types of services, such as mediation, screen out parents with the most serious cases

of domestic violence, this study shows that AV programs serve some parents with alleged or

confirmed histories of prior domestic violence. While many of these parents experience

improvements on key outcomes following their participation in AV programs, it may be appropriate

for service providers to offer these parents the opportunity to pursue specialized resources dealing

with domestic violence, anger management and high conflict.

# Continue to mandate participation in AV programs. 

Although mediation agreement rates and satisfaction levels with mediation are higher for those who

participate on a voluntary, rather than a mandatory basis, mandating participation does not

jeopardize desired client outcomes. More to the point, mandated participation promotes the use of

helpful and effective AV services among parents who are in conflict and skeptical about finding

help.

# Determine services you offer based on the population you want to serve and the intensity

of services they require.

Mediation, parent education and supervised visitation programs are equally effective in promoting

positive outcomes in parent-child contact, child behavior and parental relationships. Although gains

in some areas are greater for users of supervised visitation programs, the families who enter these

programs generally have the lowest levels of contact and the highest rates of distress. Education,

mediation and supervised visitation programs serve parents with low, medium and high levels of

conflict, respectively, and parents who report low, moderate and high levels of parental conflict prior

to their participation in AV programs perform equally well on most outcome measures. When

selecting programs to fund, states should consider the population they want to serve and the intensity

of services they need.

# Look for ways to expand the number of AV programs and the population served. 

AV programs serve parents who do not hire lawyers, obtain counseling or hire other professionals.

For two-thirds of mediation and education program participants, AV programs are the only source

of assistance they receive with their access and visitation problems. They report that they are unable

to pay market rates for mediation, education and supervised visitation services. State Access and

Visitation Programs should be expanded and made available to a larger number of parents.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 81

Implications for Research

One objective of this project was to determine whether it is practical for states to reliably gauge

outcomes among users of their AV programs. Another objective was to identify the measures that

states might take to make future assessments of participant outcomes more feasible and reliable. The

following reviews the challenges that states will encounter in the evaluation process and discusses

the steps that programs should take to enhance their ability to be evaluated. 

# It would be very difficult for states to reliably assess outcomes on their own. 

Given current resources for AV programs and response rate requirements, states would find it

extremely challenging to reliably assess AV program outcomes. In this study, telephone interviewers

phoned 4,109 numbers to obtain 970 completed interviews. They made up to 16 call-back attempts

with an average of 3.9 attempts to reach an extremely mobile population, 41 percent of whom had

disconnected or wrong telephone numbers. Despite these extraordinary efforts, the cross-site

response rate was only 24 percent. Assessment efforts would clearly consume much of the limited

funds available for service delivery without delivering very satisfactory results.

# Collect primary and secondary contact information from program participants at intake.

Any future outcome assessment will require that program participants be contacted after they receive

services. While exit surveys can elicit information on client reactions to the program and their

immediate likes and dislikes, they cannot generate information on longer-term program impacts and

changes in behaviors that take time to evolve, including the outcomes which require at least 6 to 12

months and optimally 12 to 24 months or longer for reliable patterns to appear.

To preserve the opportunity to conduct follow-up assessments with program participants, AV

programs should amend their intake forms to elicit address information, telephone numbers, cell

numbers, and e-mail addresses for participants and a secondary contact. Secondary contacts are

relatives or friends who are likely to know the whereabouts of separating and divorcing parents who

are usually extremely mobile. Sending semi-annual post cards to participants requesting them to

indicate changes in their contact information helps to stay current with clients and stem attrition. 
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 82

# Collect Social Security numbers or child support case numbers at intake.

The most reliable way to assess child support obligations, payment patterns, and changes in payment

behavior is to review the automated child support records maintained by state child support

agencies. Parent reports are frequently distorted by genuine confusion and lack of knowledge about

their child support status, memory issues, social desirability factors, and anger towards the other

parent.

Certain identifiers, however, are needed in order to access child support records for AV program

participants. Minimally, programs need to collect a child support case identifier or the name and

Social Security number of a noncustodial parent. In this analysis, only three of the nine project sites

collected identifiers that were necessary to locate participants in the child support records.

# Obtain consent at intake for follow-up interviews and permission to review child support

records.

It is best to have program participants sign a consent form at intake that grants the program and/or

a qualified research entity permission to contact them and/or access their child support records for

a confidential assessment for research purposes. For example, the Guidelines of Mediation

developed for the M.A.R.C.H. Mediation program in Missouri and signed by both parents prior to

the commencement of mediation include a provision about research. With regard to the

confidentiality of the mediation process, parents agree that, “Statistical data may be given to

M.A.R.C.H. program evaluators for the sole purpose of determining the effectiveness of this

mediation program. Parents will not be identified by name in any report or presentation. The right

to privacy of all parents will be fully respected.” 

Lacking a signed consent form generated during project intake, programs have the option of

notifying parents about the research effort and offering them an opportunity to opt out of the

evaluation. As part of this “passive consent process,” which we pursued at every site in this study

except Missouri, parents were contacted by mail by the program, informed about the research,

assured of its confidential nature, and told to phone a designated person at the local program if they

wished to remove themselves from the study and not have their names forwarded to researchers or

telephone interviewers. In this study, which involved attempts to telephone and interview 4,109

individuals, only a negligible number of parents asked to be removed from the study and only 7

percent ultimately declined to be interviewed when contacted.

The least satisfactory approach to obtaining client consent is to contact participants following the

completion of services and ask them to mail back a consent form or provide verbal consent over the

telephone. Active consent processes are extremely time-consuming and ineffective. This approach
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 83

was attempted by one site in Hawaii, which mailed letters to 258 former participants and obtained

only 18 “active consents.” This site was ultimately dropped from the evaluation both because of low

volume and concerns about the representativeness of the few participants who were motivated

enough to contact the program and provide active consent. Rather than being typical of the client

population, we suspected that they were unusually pleased or discontented and were not reflective

of the vast majority of participants.

# Plan to devote adequate resources to telephone interviewing.

Telephoning and interviewing AV program participants is extremely time-consuming and difficult.

Two sites (Missouri and Utah) attempted to conduct some interviews using their own staff or

volunteer resources. Ultimately, Utah completed only 39 interviews and Missouri only 10 using inhouse resources. The remaining 61 interviews in Utah and 155 in Missouri, along with all interviews

at the other seven program sites, were done by interviewers at the Public Opinion Laboratory (POL)

of Northern Illinois University. POL interviewers phoned 4,109 numbers to obtain 970 completed

interviews, for a cross-site response rate of 24 percent. The average number of call attempts they

made for each completed interview was 3.9, with the range going from one to 16 call attempts.

Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish during day, evening, and weekend hours. The

scale of the interview effort expended by POL illustrates why it is so difficult to mount large survey

research efforts in a non-professional setting,

# Be prepared for low response rates.

Although the cross-site refusal rate was only 7 percent and ranged from 2 to 10 percent at individual

sites, many targeted respondents could not be reached. Forty-one percent of targeted parents had

disconnected/wrong telephone numbers; another 17 percent of call attempts resulted in no answer;

and 12 percent had no phone number listed and it was impossible for interviewers to locate one.

Despite the fact that POL made up to 16 call attempts with an average of 3.9, the response rate was

only 24 percent. Site response rates ranged from 32 percent in Utah to 18 percent in New Jersey and

Rhode Island, which served the most impoverished parents and the least recent program users,

respectively. For example, the Family Court in Rhode Island drew its list of potential telephone

respondents from dated participant lists, some of which were 54 months old, and consequently

included many disconnected and wrong phone numbers. Naturally, these response rates fall far

below the optimal rates for statistical surveys, although they are within rates observed in many

studies of unmarried, separated, and divorced parents, low-income populations, and other extremely

mobile groups.
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 84

Because response rates are so low, it is important to focus on high volume programs that will

generate an adequate number of participants for evaluation purposes. Alternatively, states should

be prepared to coordinate the evaluation across multiple program sites. 

# Collect information from both custodial and noncustodial parents since their perceptions

differ.

Measuring parent-child contact, parental relationships, and child adjustment is complicated. All are

subjective phenomena that are difficult to reliably gauge, especially in a relatively brief interview

or questionnaire. Custodial and noncustodial parents frequently give self-serving responses that are

conflicting and hard to interpret. And different questions yield different outcomes. For example, we

get different pictures of parent-child contact when we look at answers that custodial and

noncustodial parents gave to questions on how often the noncustodial parent saw the children,

whether the noncustodial parent saw the child as often as the order/agreement allowed or permitted,

and whether the noncustodial parent saw the children more often following program participation.

Child adjustment is even more difficult to assess. One of the most widely used instruments in prior

research with divorcing populations is the Behavior Problem Index. Although this 28-item

instrument developed by Nicholas Zill and James L. Peterson (1990) is much shorter than the earlier

112-item instrument by Thomas Achenbach and Craig Edelbroch (1981) from which it is derived,

it is still impractical to administer over the telephone along with many questions about other

outcomes. In addition, there are serious questions about its ability to distinguish adjustment patterns

in a non-clinical population. For example, among a sample of chronically litigating, high-conflict,

post-divorce families, the overall mean adjustment scores of the majority of children fell within the

normal range, with only 16 percent falling within the clinical range of disturbance (Johnston, et al.,

1989). It is clearly very difficult to measure patterns of child adjustment using paper-and-pencil

techniques. 

Programs and states interested in assessing the AV programs should review instruments used in

previous evaluations of similar programs and try to use identically worded questions. Effort should

also be made to use multiple measures of key outcome phenomena. Finally, surveys should be

administered to both custodial and noncustodial parents who often have differing views.

# Use child support records to assess payment patterns.

Several researchers have found that parental reports are unreliable for gauging child support

payment behavior. Noncustodial parents typically overstate the payments they make, while custodial
Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes

Page 85

parents under-report them. Parents are also misinformed and/or confused about their child support

status, including the number of open cases that they have, their monthly obligations, and arrears

balances. As a result, any reliable assessment of child support payment patterns must involve a

review of records maintained by the child support agency.

Reviewing child support records and extracting information on individual cases, however, is

extremely time-consuming and difficult. As previously noted, child support records can only be

accessed with appropriate identifiers such as a child support case number or the name and Social

Security number of a noncustodial parent. Child support information is confidential and access is

only permitted by the child support agency to authorized personnel for appropriate purposes.

In addition to the issue of access, evaluators will face many other challenges to reliably assessing

changes in payment behavior that may be due to participation in AV programs. Because automated

child support systems are very complex, were not designed for research purposes, and agency

programmers typically have many other priorities, it is generally faster to obtain information for a

relatively small number of cases by doing manual look-ups rather than generating a computerized

extract. Nevertheless, even a manual process performed by someone who is very experienced with

the system is slow and complex. Among the issues that must be addressed to reliably assess child

support payment performance over time are: multiple child support cases; case closures, new cases,

modified orders, and other changes in child support status; one-time payments due to intercepts,

liens, levies, and other attachments; and ledger adjustments, posting errors, and other patterns that

contribute to skew. 

One of the key ingredients of a successful assessment process is to involve personnel who are

thoroughly familiar with the automated child support system on an operational level. It is also

important to clarify and simplify assessment objectives. Finally, it is important to pre-test any data

collection form that is developed to ensure that it is workable and that it is generating the desired

information in an unambiguous fashion.
References

Achenbach, T. M. and C. W. Edelbrock (1981). “Behavioral Problems and Competencies Reported

by Parents of Normal and Disturbed Children Aged 4 Through 16.” Monographs of the Society

Research on Child Development. 46 (188).

Braver, S., P. Fitzpatrick, and R. C. Bay (1991). “Noncustodial Parent’s Report of Child Support

Payments.” Family Relations (4): 180-185.

Chambers, D. (1979). Making Fathers Pay: The Enforcement of Child Support. University of

Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Clement, D. A. (1998). “Nationwide Survey of the Legal Status of Parent Education.” Family and

Conciliation Courts Review, Vol. 37 (2), 219-239.

Depner, C., K. Cannata, and M. Simon (1992). “Building a Uniform Statistical Reporting System:

A Snapshot of California Family Court Services.” Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 30,

169-184.

Emery, R. (1994). Renegotiating Family Relationships: Divorce, Child Custody, and Mediation.

New York: Guildford.

Fender, L., K. Pisacane, and S. Ellison (1999). State Child Access and Visitation Programs: A

Preliminary Report for Fiscal Year 1997 Funding. American Institutes for Research, Pelavin

Research Center, Washington, D.C.

Fuger, K. L. and M. Duncan (1999). Evaluation of Mediation Achieving Results for Children

(M.A.R.C.H.). Center for Family Policy and Practice, University of Missouri, Kansas City, MO.

Geasler, M. J. and K. R. Blaisure. (1998). “A Review of Divorce Education Program Materials.”

Family Relations. Vol. 47 (2), 1-7.
Johnston, J., M. Kline, and J.M. Tschann (1989). “Ongoing Post-Divorce Conflict: Effects on

Children of Joint Custody and Frequent Access.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol.59

(4), 576-592.

Kelly, J.B. (1996). “Decade of Divorce Mediation Research: Some Answers and Questions.” Family

and Conciliation Courts Review, Vol. 34, (3) 373-385.

Kelly, J. (1989). “Mediated and Adversarial Divorce: Respondents’ Perceptions of Their Processes

and Outcomes. Mediation Quarterly, Vol. 24, 71-88.

Melamed, J. (1989). “Attorneys and Mediation: From Threat to Opportunity.” Mediation Quarterly,

Vol. 23, 13-22.

Neff, R. and K. Cooper (2003). “Parental Conflict Resolution: Six, Twelve and Fifteen-Month

Follow-Ups of a High-Conflict Program.” Report to Conciliation Services and the Office of the

Clerk of the Court, Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County, Phoenix, AZ. 

Office of the Inspector General (2002). Effectiveness of Access and Visitation Programs. OEI-05-

02-00300. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.

Pearson, J. (1999). “Meeting the Needs of Twenty-First Century Families.” Family Law Quarterly,

Vol. 33 (3), 617-636.

Pearson, J. and J. Anhalt (1993). “When Parents Complain About Visitation.” Mediation Quarterly,

Vol. 11 (2), 139-147.

Pearson, J. and D. A. Price (2002). Child Access and Visitation Programs: Promising Practices.

Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies Inc., Denver, CO.

Pearson, J. and N. Thoennes (1989). “Reflections on a Decade of Divorce Mediation Research.”

In Mediation Research: The Process and Effectiveness of Third Party Intervention. Eds. K.

Kressel and D. Pruitt. Jossey-Bass Publications.

Pearson, J. and N. Thoennes (1998. “Programs to Increase Fathers’ Access to Their Children.” In

Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement. Eds, I. Garfinkel, S. S.

McLanahan, D. R. Meyer, and J. Seltzer. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Pearson, J. and N. Thoennes (1999). “Supervised Visitation: A Profile of Providers.” Family and

Conciliation Courts Review, Vol. 37 (4), 460-477.
Pearson, J. and N. Thoennes (2000). “Supervised Visitation: The Families and Their Experiences.”

Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Vol. 38 (1), 123-142. 

Pearson, J., N. Thoennes, L. Davis, J. Venohr, D.A. Price, and T. Griffith (2003). OCSE Responsible

Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and Program Outcomes. Center for Policy

Research and Policy Studies Inc., Denver, CO.

Pearson, J., N. Thoennes, D. Price, and R. Williams (1996). Evaluation of the Child Access

Demonstration Projects: Report to Congress. Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies

Inc., Denver, CO.

Rogers, N. and C. McEwen (1998). Mediation: Law, Policy, Practice. 2d ed. Cum. Supp.

Seltzer, J. (1991). “Relationships Between Fathers and Children Who Live Apart: The Father’s

Role After Separation.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53 (1), 79-101.

Thoennes, N. and J. Pearson (1999). “Parent Education in the Domestic Relations Court: A Multisite

Assessment.” Family Courts Review, Vol. 37 (2), 195-218.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2003). “Custodial Mothers and Fathers and their Child Support: 2001.”

Current Population Reports, 60-225.

U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement (2004). “Preliminary Data on State Child Access and

Visitation Grants: Information on Parents Served, Services Provided, and Connections to Courts

and Community-Based Organizations.” State Profiles Report for FY 2003, Washington, D.C.

Zill, N. and J. Peterson (1990). “Behavioral Problems Index Based on Parent Report.” Child Trends,

Inc., Washington, D.C.
Appendix A

Information Supplied by Program 
Task Order 27 July 2003

Evaluating Outcomes of the States’ Access and Visitation Program

Parent Survey

Information Supplied by Program

Noncustodial Parent Custodial Parent

Site:

Program name:

Which parent does program show as CP /

NCP?

1 - Father 

2 - Mother

1 - Father 

2 - Mother

Name:

Address:

Telephone number:

Date of Birth: _______/______/_______ _______/______/_______

Social Security Number (if applicable):

Child Support Case Number (if known):

Alternate case numbers:(ATLAS Number,

other):

Language of Interview: 1 - English 2 - Spanish 1 - English 2 - Spanish

Is this a IV-D or non-IV-D case? 1 - IV-D 2 - Non IV-D 3 - No information

Any allegation of domestic violence? 1 - Yes 2 - No 1 - Yes 2 - No 

Services Program shows as provided:

1 - Mandatory mediation/develop parenting plan

2 - Voluntary mediation/develop parenting plan

3 - Pick-up/dropoff

4 - Supervised/unsupervised visits

5 - Non-monitored visits

6 - Parent education

7 - Counseling

8 - Help you file legal forms/papers

9 - Other visitation enforcement 

10 - Other ___________________

11 - None

1 - Mandatory mediation/develop parenting plan

2 - Voluntary mediation/develop parenting plan

3 - Pick-up/dropoff

4 - Supervised visits

5 - Non-monitored visits

6 - Parent education

7 - Counseling

8 - Help you file legal forms/papers

9 - Other visitation enforcement 

10 - Other ___________________

11 - None

Date first received services: _________ 9 NA, did not receive _________ 9 NA, did not receive

Parent continuing to receive services? 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

Has this parent moved on to a different

visitation arrangement?

1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

Was this client terminated by the program? 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

Program provided information/ reports to

court?

1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

Was this parent charged fees for services? 1 - No fee 2 - Set Fee 3 - Sliding scale 1 - No fee 2 - Set Fee 3 - Sliding scale

If fees were charged, indicate amount:

Mediation $_____/per hr/total

(circle)

Pick-up/dropoff $ _____/per visit

Supervised visits $ _____/per visit

Parent education $______ 

Counseling $_____/per visit

Help with legal forms $_____total

Other visitation enforcement $_____

Other _______________ $_____

Mediation $_____/per hr/total (circle)

Pick-up/dropoff $ _____/per visit

Supervised visits $ _____/per visit

Parent education $______ 

Counseling $_____/per visit

Help with legal forms $_____total

Other visitation enforcement $_____

Other _______________ $_____

In CA only: 

Did the client exhaust their 6 month benefit?

Was client charged a higher fee when

program ran out of money?

1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

For mediation only: Mediation outcome

1 - Full Agreement

2 - Partial Agreement

3 - No Agreement

1 - Full Agreement

2 - Partial Agreement

3 - No Agreement
Appendix B

Letter From Programs to Clients 
Sent out on Program Letterhead 

July 1, 2003 

Dear Parental Conflict Resolution Class participant, 

The Parental Conflict Resolution Class (PCR) has been selected for a study on how 

parent education programs serve families. We need you to help by talking with telephone 

researchers about your experiences with the PCR class and its impact. 

The study is being done by professional researchers. Interviewers will call you to talk 

about how the parent education class can do a better job serving families. 

You should know that: 

3⁄4 The study is completely confidential. Your name will never be used in any report. 

No one will know what you say. 

3⁄4 The telephone interview will take approximately 10 to 15 minutes. 

3⁄4 If you do NOT wish to participate, you should call PCR at 602-506-1448 and let us 

know that you do not wish to participate in the study. 

3⁄4 You can change your mind and decide not to be interviewed when a telephone 

interviewer calls you. 

3⁄4 Your participation in the study has no effect on the benefits you receive from PCR. 

I hope you will take part in this important study. Programs all over the country need 

information from parents like you about how education programs can better serve 

families. This research can help improve programs and provide funding. 

Please note! You must call PCR at 602-506-1448 if you do NOT want to be 

interviewed. If you do not call the program and let us know you do not want to 

participate, you will be telephoned by a researcher. 

Thank you for your time and help on this important project. 

Sincerely, 

PCR program
Appendix C

Parent Survey 
July 2003 

Evaluating Outcomes of the States’ Access and Visitation Program

Parent Survey

Identification Number: ______

Introduction

I’m calling for the Center for Policy Research. We are trying to find out how well programs designed to help parents with

visitation problems are working. You have been selected for this survey because the(name of program) shows that you

received services from them.

Do you remember receiving these services?

 1 - Yes 

 2 - No

Would you be willing to answer some questions about your

experiences with the program? 

Go to START INTERVIEW on the next page.

[Read description of the program from reference

sheet]

Do you remember receiving these services around 

[insert date from information on Page 1]?

1 - Yes 

Would you be willing to answer some questions about

your experiences with the program? Go to START

INTERVIEW on the next page.

2 - No

We are only interviewing program participants. Thank

you for your time.

Call Record

Noncustodial Parent: Total Number of Call Attempts: Custodial Parent: Total Number of Call Attempts: 

Final disposition:

G Completed interview

G Last number tried was wrong number or disconnect, 

 never reached this parent

G Left message on machine, no return call

G Left message with person, no return call

G Parent refused 

Final disposition:

G Completed interview

G Last number tried was wrong number or disconnect, 

 never reached this parent

G Left message on machine, no return call

G Left message with person, no return call

G Parent refused 
July 7, 2003

Section A: Ask All Parents

Noncustodial Parent Custodial Parent

Do you have primary physical custody of your child(ren)? 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

How many children did you have with 

[other parent’s name from Page 1] ? _____ _____

If one, how old is this child? _____ _____

If more than one, how old is the youngest child?

How old is the oldest?

_____

_____

_____

_____

Were you and the children’s mother/father ever married? 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

If no, did you live together? 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

If married or lived together

 About how long did you live together?

What year did you separate?

_____

_____

_____

_____

At the time the program provided you/the NCP services did you

have an order from the court allowing for visits? 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

Was there ever any physical violence in the relationship? 1 - No 2 - Yes 3- Refused 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - Refused

Let me double check, did you receive the following services

from (program name):

Mediation/help developing a parenting plan? 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

Supervised/Neutral pick-up and drop-off of children? 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

Supervised/Unsupervised visits? 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

Parent education classes? 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

Help you file legal forms or papers to set up or enforce visits? 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

Did you receive any other types of services (e.g. counseling) 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

If yes, what were these other services?

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

If the parent mentions receiving any services:

How did you hear about (program name)? 

Did you hear about it...

1 - From someone at court 

(judge, clerk)

2 - From a mediator

3 - From an attorney

4 - From child support 

5 - From friend/family

6 - Saw flier, ad, etc

7 - Other ____________

1 - From someone at court 

(judge, clerk)

2 - From a mediator

3 - From an attorney

4 - From child support 

5 - From friend/family

6 - Saw flier, ad, etc

7 - Other ____________
July 7, 2003

Section B: Parents Who Mediated/Developed Parenting Plan

[If parent did not mediate, go to Section C] 

Noncustodial Parent Custodial Parent

In mediation, did you talk about where the children

will live?

1 - No [GO TO NEXT BLOCK]

2 - Yes 

3 - DK

1 - No [GO TO NEXT BLOCk]]

2 - Yes 

3 - DK

If yes, did you reach some sort of an agreement about this? 1 - No [GO TO NEXT BLOCK]

2 - Yes

1 - No [GO TO NEXT BLOCK]

2 - Yes

If there WAS an agreement

Was this agreement entered with the court or was it just between

the parents?

1 - Not sure

2 - Inter-party agreement only

3 - Entered with court 

1 - Not sure

2 - Inter-party agreement only

3 - Entered with court 

If it was entered with the court, did the program help you write up

something to present to the court? 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

Did you talk about visitation (when each parent will

see the children)?

1 - No [GO TO NEXT BLOCK]

2 - Yes 

3 - DK

1 - No [GO TO NEXT BLOCK]

2 - Yes 

3 - DK

If yes, did you reach some sort of an agreement about this? 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

If there WAS an agreement

Was this agreement entered with the court or was it just between

the parents?

1 - Not sure

2 - Inter-party agreement only

3 - Entered with court 

1 - Not sure

2 - Inter-party agreement only

3 - Entered with court 

If it was entered with the court, did the Program help you write up

something to present to the court? 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

If NO agreements on visits ask:

Were you able to reach any agreements after mediation ended? 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

Did you talk about child support?

1 - No [GO TO NEXT BLOCK]

2 - Yes 

3 - DK

1 - No [GO TO NEXT BLOCK]

2 - Yes 

3 - DK

If yes, did you reach some sort of an agreement about this? 1 - No [GO TO NEXT BLOCK]

2 - Yes

1 - No [GO TO NEXT BLOCK]

2 - Yes

If there WAS an agreement

Was this agreement entered with the court or was it just between

the parents?

1 - Not sure

2 - Inter-party agreement only

3 - Entered with court 

1 - Not sure

2 - Inter-party agreement only

3 - Entered with court 

If it was entered with the court, did the program help you write up

something to present to the court? 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

Were you required to go to mediation? 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

Overall, how satisfied were you with mediation?

1 - Very satisfied

2 - Somewhat satisfied

3 - Somewhat dissatisfied

4 - Very dissatisfied

1 - Very satisfied

2 - Somewhat satisfied

3 - Somewhat dissatisfied

4 - Very dissatisfied
July 7, 2003

Section B [Parents Using Mediation] continued

If parent did NOT pay for mediation ask:

Would you be willing to pay for mediation if your share of the total

cost was:

Probably Not sure Probably 

 would not

Probably Not sure Probably 

 would not

$200

$100

$50

$25

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

If parent DID pay for mediation ask:

Overall, would you say mediation was worth the money you paid?

1 - Definitely worth it

2 - Probably worth it

3 - Probably not worth it

4 - Definitely not worth it

5 - Don’t know, not sure

1 - Definitely worth it

2 - Probably worth it

3 - Probably not worth it

4 - Definitely not worth it

5 - Don’t know, not sure
July 7, 2003

Section C: Parents Using Pickup-Dropoff

Noncustodial Parent Custodial Parent

Were you court ordered to use

supervised/neutral pickup-dropoff

services?

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

Approximately how many

weeks/months did you use

pickup/dropoff services?

_____ Weeks/Months (circle) _____ Weeks/Months (circle)

Are you still doing pickup/dropoff? 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

If NOT still using pickup/dropoff

services:

Why are you no longer using this

service?

1 - Court/agency said wasn’t needed anymore

2 - We get along fine, don’t need it anymore

3 - Costs were too high

4 - Moved to another level of service

5 - Just got tired of it

6 - Distance, no transportation, bad hours

7 - Other parent didn’t show/stopped coming/ 

 missed too often

8 - Other _______________

1 - Court/agency said it wasn’t needed anymore

2 - We get along fine, don’t need it anymore

3 - Costs were too high

4 - Moved to another level of service

5 - Just got tired of it or inconvenient

6 - Distance,no transportation, bad hours

7 - Other parent didn’t show/stopped 

coming/missed too often

8 - Other _______________

Overall, how satisfied were you with

the services you received?

1 - Very satisfied

2 - Somewhat satisfied

3 - Somewhat dissatisfied

4 - Very dissatisfied

1 - Very satisfied

2 - Somewhat satisfied

3 - Somewhat dissatisfied

4 - Very dissatisfied

If parent did NOT pay for pickup/drop-off ask:

Would you be willing to pay for the

exchange if you had to pay.. 

Probably Not sure Probably 

 would not

Probably Not sure Probably 

 would not

$50 per exchange

$25 per exchange

$15 per exchange

$10 per exchange

$5 per exchange

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

If parent DID pay for pickup/drop-off ask:

Overall, would you say the pickup/drop-off service was worth the

money you paid?

1 - Definitely worth it

2 - Probably worth it

3 - Probably not worth it

4 - Definitely not worth it

5 - Don’t know, not sure

1 - Definitely worth it

2 - Probably worth it

3 - Probably not worth it

4 - Definitely not worth it

5 - Don’t know, not sure
July 7, 2003

Section D: Parents Using Supervised/Unsupervised Visitation 

Noncustodial Parent Custodial Parent

Were you court ordered to use

supervised/unsupervised visits?

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

If court ordered: How long were you required

to do supervised/unsupervised visits?

1 - Not specified, until court/agency said

otherwise

2 - For ____ months/weeks

3 -Other_______________

1 - Not specified, until court/agency said

otherwise

2 - For ____ months/weeks

3 - Other_____________

Approximately how many weeks/months 

did you use supervised/ unsupervised visitation? _____ Weeks/Months (circle) _____ Weeks/Months (circle)

Are you still doing supervised/ unsupervised

visits? 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Yes

If NOT still using supervised/unsupervised visits:

Why are you no longer using this service?

1 - Court/agency said wasn’t needed now

2 - We get along fine, don’t need now

3 - Costs were too high

4 - Moved to another level of service

5 - Just got tired of it

6 - No transportation, distance, bad 

 hours 

7 - Other parent didn’t show/stopped 

 coming/ missed too often

8 - Other _______________

1 - Court/agency said wasn’t needed now

2 - We get along fine, don’t need now

3 - Costs were too high

4 - Moved to another level of service

5 - Just got tired of it

6 - No transportation, distance, bad 

 hours 

7 - Other parent didn’t show/stopped 

 coming/ missed too often

8 - Other _______________

Overall, how satisfied were you with the

supervised/unsupervised visitation services

you received?

1 - Very satisfied

2 - Somewhat satisfied

3 - Somewhat dissatisfied

4 - Very dissatisfied

1 - Very satisfied

2 - Somewhat satisfied

3 - Somewhat dissatisfied

4 - Very dissatisfied

Did the program provide a safe environment

for you?

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

Did the program provide a safe environment

for your child(ren)?

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

About how many miles do you live from the

Supervised Visitation Center?

1 - Less than 50 miles

2 - Between 51-75 miles

3 - Between 76-100 miles

4 - Between 101-200 miles

5 - Between 201-300 miles

6 - Over 300 miles

1 - Less than 50 miles

2 - Between 51-75 miles

3 - Between 76-100 miles

4 - Between 101-200 miles

5 - Between 201-300 miles

6 - Over 300 miles

If parent did NOT pay for services ask: 

Would you be willing to pay for supervision if

you had to pay.. 

Probably Not sure Probably 

 would not

Probably Not sure Probably 

 would not

$50 per visit

$25 per visit

$15 per visit

$10 per visit

$5 per visit

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

If parent DID pay for services ask: 

Overall, would you say the supervision service

was worth the money you paid?

1 - Definitely worth it

2 - Probably worth it

3 - Probably not worth it

4 - Definitely not worth it

5 - Don’t know, not sure

1 - Definitely worth it

2 - Probably worth it

3 - Probably not worth it

4 - Definitely not worth it

5 - Don’t know, not sure
July 7, 2003

Section E: Parents Using Parent Education

Noncustodial Parent Custodial Parent

Were you required to attend parent education classes? 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

Approximately how many parent education hours did you attend? _____ Hours _____ Hours

Did the other parent attend? 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK 1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

I’m going to mention some topics sometimes included in parent education 

classes, please tell me if it was not covered, 

or if you found it very useful, somewhat useful, not very useful or not at all useful.

How to resolve conflicts with the other parent

1 - Very useful

2 - Somewhat useful

3 - Not very useful

4 - Not at all useful

5 - Not included/covered

1 - Very useful

2 - Somewhat useful

3 - Not very useful

4 - Not at all useful

5 - Not included/covered

How to deal with new relationships/blended families

1 - Very useful

2 - Somewhat useful

3 - Not very useful

4 - Not at all useful

5 - Not included/covered

1 - Very useful

2 - Somewhat useful

3 - Not very useful

4 - Not at all useful

5 - Not included/covered

Child development and their adjustment to parents’ breaking up

1 - Very useful

2 - Somewhat useful

3 - Not very useful

4 - Not at all useful

5 - Not included/covered

1 - Very useful

2 - Somewhat useful

3 - Not very useful

4 - Not at all useful

5 - Not included/covered

Parents’ emotional adjustment to divorce/breakup

1 - Very useful

2 - Somewhat useful

3 - Not very useful

4 - Not at all useful

5 - Not included/covered

1 - Very useful

2 - Somewhat useful

3 - Not very useful

4 - Not at all useful

5 - Not included/covered

How to work together as parents

1 - Very useful

2 - Somewhat useful

3 - Not very useful

4 - Not at all useful

5 - Not included/covered

1 - Very useful

2 - Somewhat useful

3 - Not very useful

4 - Not at all useful

5 - Not included/covered

Overall, how satisfied were you with the services you received?

1 - Very satisfied

2 - Somewhat satisfied

3 - Somewhat dissatisfied

4 - Very dissatisfied

1 - Very satisfied

2 - Somewhat satisfied

3 - Somewhat dissatisfied

4 - Very dissatisfied

If parent did NOT pay for Parent Education ask:

Would you be willing & able to pay for Parent Education if it cost you.. 

Probably Not sure Probably 

 would not

Probably Not sure Probably 

 would not

$101 or more

$76-100

$61-75

$46-60

$31-45

$16-30

$5-15

 1 2 3 

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3 

 1 2 3 

 1 2 3 

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3

 1 2 3 

 1 2 3 

If parent DID pay for Parent Education ask:
July 7, 2003

Overall, was the Parent Education Program worth the money you paid?

1 - Definitely worth it

2 - Probably worth it

3 - Probably not worth it

4 - Definitely not worth it

5 - Don’t know, not sure

1 - Definitely worth it

2 - Probably worth it

3 - Probably not worth it

4 - Definitely not worth it

5 - Don’t know, not sure

Section F to End of Survey Ask All Parent 

Section F: 

Other than the services you received through the program, did you ever get help from the following...

Noncustodial 

Parent 

Was this before or after you used

[Program name]?

Custodial

Parent 

Was this before or after you used

 [Program name]?

Other Mediation program 1 - No 

2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure

Other parent education

program

1 - No 

2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure

Other Supervised visitation

program 

1 - No 

2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure

Counseling (Individual or

Family)

1 - No 

2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure

A private attorney 1 - No 

2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure

A legal clinic 1 - No 

2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure

Anger management class 1 - No 

2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure

Domestic violence class 1 - No 

2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure

Substance abuse counseling 1 - No 

2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure 1 - No 2 - Yes 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure

Anything else? 1 - No 

2 - Yes_______ 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure 1 - No 2 - Yes_______ 1 - Before 2 - After 3 - Not sure
July 7, 2003

Section G

Noncustodial Parent Custodial Parent

Which of these best describes the visitation arrangement

for your children in the months before you

received program services?

1 - Regular, scheduled visits

2 - Informal, set up each time

3 - Some regular, some informal

4 - Not set up, noncustodial parent 

just came by 

5 - Only during holidays or summer

6 - No visits

1 - Regular, scheduled visits

2 - Informal, set up each time

3 - Some regular, some informal

4 - Not set up, noncustodial parent 

just came by 

5 - Only during holidays or summer

6 - No visits

Which of these best describes the visitation arrangement

today?

1 - Regular, scheduled visits

2 - Informal, set up each time

3 - Some regular, some informal

4 - Not set up, noncustodial 

parent just came by 

5 - Only during holidays or summer

6 - No visits

1 - Regular, scheduled visits

2 - Informal, set up each time

3 - Some regular, some informal

4 - Not set up, noncustodial 

parent just came by 

5 - Only during holidays or summer

6 - No visits

In the months before you received program

services, about how often did you/the NCP see the

children?

1 - More than once a week

2 - About once a week

3 - About 3-4 days per month

4 - About 1-2 days a month

5 - Every few months

6 - Few days a year

7 - Never

8 - Other__________________

1 - More than once a week

2 - About once a week

3 - About 3-4 days per month

4 - About 1-2 days a month

5 - Every few months

6 - Few days a year

7 - Never

8 - Other__________________

What about today, about how often do you/the NCP

see the children?

1 - More than once a week

2 - About once a week

3 - About 3-4 days per month

4 - About 1-2 days a month

5 - Every few months

6 - Few days a year

7 - Never

8 - Other__________________

1 - More than once a week

2 - About once a week

3 - About 3-4 days per month

4 - About 1-2 days a month

5 - Every few months

6 - Few days a year

7 - Never

8 - Other__________________

In the months before you received program

services, had the court ordered....

No visitation allowed

No overnight visits allowed

Only supervised visits

Supervised pick-up/drop-off

No contact between the parents

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

What about today, has the court ordered....

No visitation allowed

No overnight visits allowed

Only supervised visits

Supervised pick-up/drop-off

No contact between the parents

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

1 - No 2 - Yes 3 - DK

In the months before you received program

services, did you/noncustodial parent see the children as

often as your visitation agreement or court order allowed?

1 - Yes

2 - Seeing them more

3 - Seeing them less

4 - Not applicable, no agreement

1 - Yes

2 - Seeing them more

3 - Seeing them less

4 - Not applicable, no agreement

What about today, Are you/noncustodial parent seeing

the children as often as your visitation agreement or court

order allows?

1 - Yes

2 - Seeing them more

3 - Seeing them less

4 - Not applicable, no agreement

1 - Yes

2 - Seeing them more

3 - Seeing them less

4 - Not applicable, no agreement
July 7, 2003

Section H

The next few questions are about any changes you’ve noticed in your relationship with the other parent, and your children since

you first received program services.

Noncustodial Parent Custodial Parent

Compared to before you received services, 

would you say the amount of time 

you spend/the NCP spends with the children has...

1 - Decreased a lot

2 - Decreased a little

3 - Stayed same

4 - Increased a little

5 - Increased a lot

1 - Decreased a lot

2 - Decreased a little

3 - Stayed same

4 - Increased a little

5 - Increased a lot

If it has changed

How much of a role do you think the program played in this change?

1 - Major role

2 - Minor role

3 - No role

1 - Major role

2 - Minor role

3 - No role

Compared to before you received services, 

Has your youngest [only] child’s behavior improved, stayed the same

or become worse?

1 - Improved

2 - Stayed the same

3 - Become worse

1 - Improved

2 - Stayed the same

3 - Become worse

If it has changed

How much of a role do you think the program played in this change?

1 - Major role

2 - Minor role

3 - No role

1 - Major role

2 - Minor role

3 - No role

Compared to before you received services, 

Has your relationship with the other parent improved, stayed the

same or become worse?

1 - Improved

2 - Stayed the same

3 - Become worse

1 - Improved

2 - Stayed the same

3 - Become worse

If it has changed

How much of a role do you think the program played in this change?

1 - Major role

2 - Minor role

3 - No role

1 - Major role

2 - Minor role

3 - No role

Which of these phrases best describes your relationship with the

other parent before you received program services?

1 - Friendly and cooperative

2 - Strained but able to 

cooperate

3 - Hostile, angry

4 - No contact

1 - Friendly and cooperative

2 - Strained but able to 

cooperate

3 - Hostile, angry

4 - No contact

Which of these phrases best describes your relationship with the

other parent today?

1 - Friendly and cooperative

2 - Strained but able to 

cooperate

3 - Hostile, angry

4 - No contact

1 - Friendly and cooperative

2 - Strained but able to 

cooperate

3 - Hostile, angry

4 - No contact

Without this program, how often do you think you would see your

children?

1 - More often than currently 

 seeing 

2 - Same as currently seeing

3 - Less often than currently 

 seeing

1 - More often than currently 

 seeing 

2 - Same as currently seeing

3 - Less often than currently 

 seeing
July 7, 2003

Section I

The next questions are about child support. Noncustodial Parent Custodial Parent

Are you currently supposed to pay or receive child support?

1 - Supposed to pay support

2 - Supposed to receive support

3 - No [GO TO NEXT BLOCK]

1 - Supposed to pay support

2 - Supposed to receive support

3 - No [GO TO NEXT BLOCK]

If there is a child support order, ask

What is the amount of child support due per month? $__________ G Don’t know $__________ G Don’t know

In the last few months how much of the child support that was

due was actually paid? 

1 - Everything (100%)

2 - More than half

3 - Something, but less than half

4 - Nothing paid

5 - Don’t know

6 - Other __________________

1 - Everything (100%)

2 - More than half

3 - Something, but less than half

4 - Nothing paid

5 - Don’t know

6 - Other __________________

Compared to before you received services, 

Has the amount of child support paid... 

1 - Decreased a lot

2 - Decreased a little

3 - Stayed same

4 - Increased a little

5 - Increased a lot

1 - Decreased a lot

2 - Decreased a little

3 - Stayed same

4 - Increased a little

5 - Increased a lot

If it has changed

How much of a role do you think the program played in this

change?

1 - Major role

2 - Minor role

3 - No role

1 - Major role

2 - Minor role

3 - No role

Compared to before you received services, 

Has the payment of child support become more regular? 

1 - More regular

2 - About the same

3 - Less regular

1 - More regular

2 - About the same

3 - Less regular

If payment has been more regular

How much of a role do you think the program played in this

change?

1 - Major role

2 - Minor role

3 - No role

1 - Major role

2 - Minor role

3 - No role

Section J

Overall, compared to before 

you received services... Noncustodial Parent Custodial Parent

Has there been an increase in the amount of child support paid? 1 - Yes 2 - No 1 - Yes 2 - No

Has the noncustodial parent been seeing the child more often? 1 - Yes 2 - No 1 - Yes 2 - No

Has your youngest/only child’s behavior improved? 1 - Yes 2 - No 1 - Yes 2 - No

Has your relationship with the other parent improved? 1 - Yes 2 - No 1 - Yes 2 - No

Have you and the other parent started living together? 1 - Yes 2 - No 1 - Yes 2 - No

Have you and the other parent married/reconciled? 1 - Yes 2 - No 1 - Yes 2 - No
July 7, 2003

Section K

Finally, we have a few background questions about you so that we understand who the visitation programs are serving.

Noncustodial Parent Custodial Parent

Are you currently married, separated, divorced, or never married?

1 - Married

2 - Separated

3 - Divorced

4 - Never married

1 - Married

2 - Separated

3 - Divorced

4 - Never married

Is there a racial/ethnic group (or groups) that you identify with?

1 - American Indian/Alaska 

Native

2 - Asian American/Pacific 

Islander

3 - Black/African American

4 - White

5 - Hispanic/Latino

6 - Other

1 - American Indian/Alaska 

Native

2 - Asian American/Pacific 

Islander

3 - Black/African American

4 - White

5 - Hispanic/Latino

6 - Other

Which of these best describes your level of education?

1 - Less than high school

2 - High school graduate

3 - Some technical training 

beyond high school

4 - Some college

5 - B.A./B.S. degree

6 - Graduate degree

1 - Less than high school

2 - High school graduate

3 - Some technical training 

beyond high school

4 - Some college

5 - B.A./B.S. degree

6 - Graduate degree

Are you currently employed full or part-time?

1 - No

2 - Yes, full-time

3 - Yes, part-time

1 - No

2 - Yes, full-time

3 - Yes, part-time

Which of these best describes your annual gross household

income?

1 - Less than $10,000 a year

2 - Between $10-$19,000

3 - Between $20-$29,000

4 - Between $30-$39,000

5 - Between $40-$50,000

6 - Between $50-$70,000

7 - Between $70-$90,000

8 - Over $90,000

1 - Less than $10,000 a year

2 - Between $10-$19,000

3 - Between $20-$29,000

4 - Between $30-$39,000

5 - Between $40-$50,000

6 - Between $50-$70,000

7 - Between $70-$90,000

8 - Over $90,000

About how many miles do you live from your child/children?

1 - Less than 50 miles

2 - Between 51-75 miles

3 - Between 76-100 

4 - Between 101-200

5 - Between 201-300

6 - Over 300

[If the other parent has not been interviewed]

Finally, do you have a phone number or know of a way to reach the other parent? ________________________________________

If secondary contact: provide name, relationship to parent, and phone number: __________________________________________
Appendix D

Child Support Record Review Form
Task Order 27 October 2003

Evaluating Outcomes of the States’ Access and Visitation Program

Child Support Record Review

Site: Survey Identification Number(s):

Child Support Case Number: Alternate case numbers:(ATLAS Number, other):

Name of Father: Father’s Date of Birth: Father’s Social Security Number:

Name of Mother: Mother’s Date of Birth: Mother’s Social Security Number:

In the target case (the case involving this father and this mother) which parent is the NCP? G Father G Mother

Date first received services:_____/_____/_____

General Information About All the NCP’s Cases

Is the NCP in the target case listed above in the child support system?

G No [Data collection stops]

G Yes, but only as custodial parent [Data Collection stops]

G Yes, as a noncustodial parent in one or more cases

On the date of your file review:

On how many cases is this parent listed as the NCP? _____ (including the target case listed above)

How many of the cases with this parent as the NCP have current support due?_____

How many of the cases with this parent as the NCP have arrears?_____

What is the total due in arrears across all cases with this NCP? $__________

Is there an open child support case in the system with the NCP and CP listed above?

G No (data collection stops)

G Yes

All Remaining Questions are Specific to the Target Case 

(the case listed with the NCP and the CP listed above).

What is the TANF status of the target case?

G Never on TANF 

G Formerly on TANF 

G Currently on TANF

On what date was the target case first opened 

to the child support agency?_____/_____/_____

On what date was paternity established?____/____/____

G Not applicable, married

G Not established

On what date was a child support order established?

Established on _____/_____/_____

G Not applicable, no order established

How many children are covered by this order?_____

G Not applicable, no order established

If there is a current order, what is the order amount?

$______________ 

It is to be paid

G monthly 

G weekly 

G bi-weekly

G Other ____________________

G Not applicable, no order established

Is there a payment amount due towards arrears?

G No

$______________ 

To be paid:

G monthly 

G weekly 

G bi-weekly

G Other ____________________
Date first received services (from page 1) _____/_____/_____

Enter 12 months prior to services. 

Start with the month immediately prior to services 

(e.g., if services began August 15, 2002,

 the first month prior would be July 2002)

Enter 12 months following the start of services. 

Start with the first full month after the start of services 

(e.g., if services began August 15, 2002

 the first full month after would be September 2002)

_____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________ _____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________

_____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________ _____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________

_____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________ _____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________

_____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________ _____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________

_____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________ _____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________

_____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________ _____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________

_____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________ _____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________

_____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________ _____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________

_____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________ _____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________

_____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________ _____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________

_____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________ _____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________

_____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month

$___________

$___________ _____/_____

Amount due this month

Amount paid this month _____/_____