A NEW LOOK AT AN OLD ISSUE: : An Evaluation of the State Access and Visitation Grant Program

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 43 No. 3, July 2005 372–386© 2005 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.Oxford, UKFCREFamily Court Review1531-2445© Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, 2005July 2005433Original Article

Pearson et al. / STATE ACCESS AND VISITATION GRANT PROGRAMFAMILY COURT REVIEW

A NEW LOOK AT AN OLD ISSUE: An Evaluation of the State Access and Visitation Grant Program

*

Jessica PearsonLanae Davis

Nancy Thoennes

Center for Policy Research Denver, Colorado

In 1997, the Office of Child Support Enforcement initiated the State Child Access and Visitation (AV) Grant Program,which involves annual awards of $10 million to states to promote the development of programs to alleviate accessproblems. Telephone interviews with 970 parents who used mediation, parent education, and supervised visitationprograms funded by AV grants in nine states revealed that the programs are reaching diverse groups of parentsincluding many low-income, non-White, and unmarried parents who receive no other type of access assistance.The programs also appear to be achieving the major objectives posited for them by the federal government. One-third to one-half of noncustodial parents in every program type reported that parent–child contact increasedfollowing program participation, with supervised visitation users who typically had the lowest levels ofparent–child contact reporting a significant increase in the number of days of contact. A review of child supportrecords for 173 program users in three states revealed that child support payments increased among participantsfollowing program participation, especially for never-married parents who paid a significantly higher proportionof what they owed. These findings are similar to results reported in a five-state study of mediation programsfunded by AV grants that was conducted by the Office of the Inspector General. However, both studies havesome serious limitations, including low response rates and the absence of a nontreatment comparison group.

Keywords:

access and visitation

;

child support payment

;

parent–child contact

INTRODUCTION

Federal and state child support agencies are playing a more active role in trying toaddress the practical relationship between visitation

1

and child support payment withoutundermining their legal distinctions. Spurred by advocacy groups representingnoncustodial

2

parents who noted the imbalance in legislative attention to the enforcementof child support and parental access rights, the Family Support Act of 1988 (PL 100–485)authorized the federal government to fund demonstration projects to “increase compliancewith child access provisions of court orders.” In 1990, following a congressional appro-priation, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) sponsored a series ofdemonstration projects in seven states that offered parents mediation, parent education, andcounseling to increase the involvement of nonresident fathers in the lives of their children.OCSE also funded a cross-site evaluation of the projects which concluded with a Report toCongress that recommended that courts and other agencies promote parent involvement

*This article is based on a report prepared for the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration forChildren and Families of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, underContract 105-00-8300: Task Order 27 with Policy Studies Inc. The findings and conclusions in this report arethose of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the Department of Healthand Human Services or its agencies.

Pearson et al. / STATE ACCESS AND VISITATION GRANT PROGRAM 373

and payment by developing no- and low-cost dispute resolution interventions like media-tion (Pearson, Thoennes, Price, & Williams, 1996). In 1997, OCSE initiated the State ChildAccess and Visitation (AV) Grant Programs, which involve annual awards of $10 millionto states to promote the development of programs to alleviate access problems. By 2009,funding for the AV program is projected to double to $20 million per year.

Under the regulations for AV grants, states receive annual awards based on the numberof children in the state living with only one biological parent. Twenty-five states receive theminimum award of $100,000 and another 17 receive awards that range from $101,000 to$200,000. The maximum award to date was $970,431. The congressional goal of the pro-gram is to “. . . enable states to establish and administer programs to support and facilitatenon-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children.” States have broad discretionin how they accomplish this goal and are directed to engage in a broad range of activities,including, but not limited to, voluntary and mandatory mediation, counseling, parent educa-tion, development of parenting plans, development of guidelines for visitation, supervisedvisitation and/or exchange, and visitation enforcement. In 2003, states reported devoting atleast some grant resources to parent education (39), mediation (38), supervised visitation(38), supervised exchange (30), parenting plan development (40), and counseling (26).

The limited research on the implementation and effectiveness of programs funded withAV grants has been promising. In its first year, AV grants supported 131 local programs in30 states that served 19,454 individuals (Fender, Pisacane, & Ellison, 1999). The programcurrently serves an estimated 69,500 parents per year (OCSE, 2004). In addition to servingmany parents, the program has augmented the access and visitation resources available tothe courts. While the grants are awarded to state child support enforcement agencies, moststates have interagency agreements with their court systems that enable funds to be trans-ferred and administered by state court agencies. In some states, the courts utilize the grantsto help support existing court-based or court-affiliated programs dealing with access. Inmost states, the courts and/or the state child support agency select a geographical and/orservice-delivery focus, release a request for proposals, and make awards to a select numberof community-based service providers. Under both scenarios, the AV grant programs are atremendous resource for the courts. Two-thirds of the parents served in 2003 for which datawere available (30,781) were referred by the court.

The program has also stimulated the development of new service delivery approachesand the extension of access services to new populations. A 2002 assessment of promisingprograms showed that some states were using their grants to extend mediation and otheraccess services to previously underserved populations and subgroups, including never-married parents in the child support system who frequently lack court-ordered visitationrights and need help in both gaining and exercising visitation (Pearson & Price, 2002).According to data reported by the states, nearly half of the parents served in AV programsin 2003 were never-married (22,744), as compared to divorced (18,188), or separated(8,644) parents (OCSE, 2004).

As the AV program comes of age, federal interest has grown in measuring programimpacts. The outcomes of chief interest to OCSE are: increased child support payment,increased parenting time and access, improved parental relationships, improved child well-being, and increased family formation and marriage. This article presents the results of anassessment commissioned by OCSE that aimed to develop ways of measuring outcomesfor users in areas of interest to OCSE, and to gauge the actual experiences of users in alimited number of settings. We focused on 18 AV programs in nine states, with three statesoffering mediation, parent education, and supervised visitation, respectively. This assessment,

374 FAMILY COURT REVIEW

along with a 2002 study conducted by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) thatfocused on 254 families in five states who received mediation services to deal with accessproblems (OIG, 2002), are the only quantitative investigations of the state AV grant programto date. One limitation common to both studies is the lack of a nontreatment comparisongroup, making it impossible to rule out the possibility that any observed outcomes were dueto nonprogram factors such as the passage of time or enforcement actions by the child sup-port agency.

METHODOLOGY

SITE SELECTION

Our study focused on users of the three most common types of services funded withstate AV grants: mediation, parent education, and supervised visitation. After contacting AVprogram directors in every state offering these services, we selected nine (three that offeredeach type of service) that met certain volume and record-keeping criteria. The programs weselected serve more than 300 families per year, maintain telephone contact information forparticipants, and agreed to use a passive consent process that involved notifying partici-pants about the telephone evaluation and offering them the possibility of opting out of thestudy rather than requiring them to actively authorize the program to release their namesand numbers to telephone interviewers. Three of the sites maintained Social Securitynumbers or child support case numbers permitting the reliable assessment of child supportobligations and payment patterns using agency records. Finally, we eliminated from con-sideration all mediation programs in Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, and Oklahomabecause they were included in the OIG’s 2002 assessment.

The following briefly describes the nine state programs included in this study.

MEDIATION SITES

Missouri’s AV grant is administered by the child support agency, which contracts witha community-based organization, Mediation Achieving Results for Children (M.A.R.C.H.),to provide up to four hours of free mediation services to divorced or never-married parentsin the child support system.

Rhode Island’s

AV grant is administered by the family court, which uses the majority ofits funds to pay two court-based mediators to provide never-married, noncustodial parents,who file pro se visitation petitions in Providence County, with up to two mandatory sessionsaimed at generating a visitation schedule.

Utah

used its AV grant funds to create a Co-Parenting Mediation Program in the Third Judi-cial District in Salt Lake County. The program funds community mediators to offer a man-datory mediation intervention, typically consisting of a single session lasting 2 to 3 hours,for indigent parents who have disputes about court-ordered parent time.

PARENT EDUCATION SITES

Arizona

used its AV grant to create and conduct a mandatory, 4-hour parent educationclass for parents who have long-standing conflict and are noncompliant with the court’sorders regarding access.


Colorado

used some of its AV grant funds to support the development and conduct of acourt-ordered, 3.5-hour class for separating or divorcing parents with minor-aged childrenin unserved or underserved areas, including rural settings.

New Jersey

used its AV grant to develop a 90-minute class for unmarried litigants withcustody and parenting time disputes. The class is offered on a daily basis at the EssexFamily Division of the Superior Court.

SUPERVISED VISITATION SITES

California

used most of its AV grant to support supervised visitation and neutralexchange services in 30 of its 58 counties, including the nonprofit agency, Safe Access andFriendly Exchanges for Kids (SAFE for Kids), in Los Angeles County. The program offerscourt-ordered families up to 2 hours of visits per week for 6 months, at six geographicallydiverse sites, all of which have Spanish-speaking staff available.

Pennsylvania’s

AV grant supported five community-based organizations, selected througha competitive bid process, that offer supervised visitation and exchange services to familiesprimarily referred by the courts.

Hawaii

also used its AV grant to support programs at four sites that offer child visitationand exchange services for families in divorce, paternity, and child support cases withdomestic violence issues.

SAMPLE GENERATION

The study targeted parents who had received services at each program at least 6 monthsprior to being contacted for a follow-up telephone interview. Across the sites, parents wereinterviewed an average of 17 months following service delivery with the median length oftime between service delivery and the interview being 14 months. At most of the sites,potential respondents were mailed a brief letter alerting them to the fact that they would becontacted by telephone interviewers to conduct an interview aimed at improving services.They were invited to contact the program to request that their names and phone numbersnot be released for interview. Very few parents phoned the programs to opt out, and ulti-mately, the sites identified and provided relevant information to researchers on 4,109 parentparticipants.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

The research tool consisted of a 10 minute, close-ended questionnaire, with fixed-choiceresponses that gathered information that was common to all program types, as well as infor-mation that was unique to mediation, parent education, and supervised visitation programs,respectively. The survey was translated into Spanish and administered on an as-neededbasis, mostly with parents at the California site in Los Angeles. Consistent with OCSE’sobjectives, the instrument focused on participant outcomes in the areas of child supportpayments, parenting time, parent relationships, child behavior, household formation, andmarriage. It also repeated some of the same outcome questions on parent–child contactand child support payment compliance that the OIG had used in its assessment of mediationprograms in five states. Finally, the survey elicited some information of interest to theprograms themselves including client willingness to pay for services, client satisfaction, andclient use of other dispute resolution or access services.


THE INTERVIEW PROCESS

All interviews were conducted during September to December 2003, by the PublicOpinion Laboratory of Northern Illinois University, using its computer-assisted telephoneinterviewing system. Interviewers made up to 16 attempts to contact targeted program par-ticipants and conduct telephone interviews, with the average completed interview requiring3.9 attempts. Completed interviews were ultimately conducted with 970 of the 4,109 (391noncustodial and 579 custodial) parents who participated in the programs. The cross-siteresponse rate was 24 percent and was significantly higher for custodial parents (23%) ascompared with noncustodial parents (20%). Looked at somewhat differently, interviewswere conducted with at least one parent in 40% of the families targeted for assessment.Client mobility was the biggest barrier to conducting interviews with 41% of targeted parentshaving a disconnected or wrong telephone number. The cross-site refusal rate averaged only7%. A limited analysis comparing interviewed and noninterviewed noncustodial parentsshowed that the only factors that differentiated the two groups were that interviewed parentswere significantly more likely to be more recent AV program clients and somewhat older.The OIG experienced similar mobility problems in its 2002 study and achieved a cross-siteresponse rate of 29%.

REVIEW OF CHILD SUPPORT RECORDS

The programs in Missouri, Arizona, and Pennsylvania collect identifiers such as SocialSecurity numbers that allowed cases to be cross-checked with child support records.Experienced child support workers in Arizona and Missouri did manual searches of theautomated records to extract information on child support obligations and payments in the12 months prior to and following program enrollment. In Pennsylvania, an experiencedchild support worker collected some information and payment information was providedby an automated computer extract.

The following summarizes key client characteristics and experiences and participantoutcomes. We conclude with recommendations to improve program services and enhanceclient outcomes.

CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS

While a substantial proportion of parents served in the programs were White, college-educated, and employed, most were less advantaged. Nearly one-third to one-half ofnoncustodial parents using all three program types reported gross annual household incomelevels of $20,000 or less, one-fifth to one-third were educated to the high school level orless, and 20 to 41% were unemployed or employed part-time. Interviewed parents werealmost evenly divided between those previously married and never married.

Parents who used supervised visitation programs had the lowest education and income levels.Compared with their counterparts in mediation and parent education programs, they alsoreported the highest rates of nonmarriage, and among nonmarried parents, the lowest rates ofcohabitation. For example, 51% had never been married to the other parent, and among thosewho were never married, 40% had never cohabited. Parents who used supervised visitationprograms were also at greatest risk for violence, with 67% of interviewed custodial parentsreporting that there had been physical violence in their relationships with the other parent.


One-half to three-quarters of the interviewed parents were referred to the AV programsby the court, and less than 10% by child support workers. Other common referral sourceswere attorneys (14 to 32%) and/or mediators (7 to 28%). Not surprisingly, two-thirds ofmediation users and approximately 90% of education and supervised visitation userstermed their participation in AV programs as mandatory. This is not unique to state AV pro-grams. The American Bar Association estimates that 4,500 separate jurisdictions mandatemediation in contested custody and visitation disputes (Melamed, 1989); 25 states haveenacted statutes and 19 states have local court and administrative rules authorizing or man-dating parents with minor children, or those who contest custody or visitation, to attend aneducation program (Clement, 1998); and a survey of supervised visitation programsfound that the major source of referral for all programs was the court (Thoennes & Pearson,1999).

Table 1Selected Characteristics of Parents Served by Access and Visitation Programs

Percent of parents reporting . . .

Noncustodial Parents Custodial Parents

Mediation (n = 153)

Parent Education (n = 134)

Supervised Visitation (n = 102)

Mediation (n = 205)



High school education or less 31% 20% 37% 25% 23% 31%Full-time employment 80% 76% 59% 67% 66% 59%Household income of $19,000 or less

30% 29% 50% 25% 39% 42%

Never-married to other parent of child

40% 44% 51% 43% 38% 49%

Physical violence during relationship with other parent

22% 27% 28% 37% 37% 67%

Table 2Referral Source and Mandatory/Voluntary Status

Percent of parents reporting they heard about the program from1 . . .


Mediation (n = 155)

Parent Education(n = 134)


Mediation (n = 208)



Someone at the court 52% 69% 56% 54% 78% 72%Mediator 7% 28% 20% 10% 21% 21%Attorney 28% 15% 24% 32% 14% 21%Child Support Worker 9% 9% 7% 14% 15% 2%Friend/Flier/Other 15% 11% 25% 20% 13% 24%

Percent of parents reporting their participation in the program was . . . Mandatory 63% 90% 85% 60% 93% 82%Voluntary 37% 10% 15% 40% 7% 18%

1Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.


CLIENT EXPERIENCES

More than two-thirds of noncustodial parents reported reaching an agreement in media-tion on the issues of custody and visitation (69%) and/or child support (67%). Accordingto records maintained by mediation programs in Missouri, Rhode Island, and Utah, 79% ofparents who attempted to mediate reached a full or partial agreement, with those who mediatedvoluntarily reaching agreements at higher rates than their mandated counterparts (89% vs.72%). These rates are within the 50 to 85% range of agreement rates reported for most courtand private mediation programs (Pearson, 1994), the 76% agreement rate reported for statesin the OIG study (OIG, 2002), and the 72% agreement rate for families referred to a court-based mediation program on a voluntary basis by child support workers in San MateoCounty as part of its Responsible Fatherhood program (Pearson et al

.

, 2003). Mediationprograms funded by state AV grants clearly appear to be performing to industry standards.

Consistent with national trends, parents in education programs funded by AV grantswere most interested in material dealing with child development and their children’s adjust-ment to their breakup, with half characterizing this information as very helpful. Othertopics that were rated as very useful by at least one-third of respondents were how to worktogether as parents and how to resolve conflicts with the other parent.

Nearly all (90%) parents who used supervised visitation programs reported that it hadprovided a safe environment for their children and themselves. It is encouraging that manyparents who stopped using the program reported that they did so because the court deter-mined that it was no longer necessary (32 to 39%), or because the parents decided it wasno longer necessary (8 to 15%), and less often because the other parent stopped coming ormissed too many visits (15 to 24%), or could no longer afford services (10%).

Overall, approximately one-third of noncustodial parents and 40% of custodial parentsreported being very satisfied with the AV services they received. Another one-third (formediation and supervised visitation) and one-half (for parent education) of noncustodialparents reported being somewhat satisfied with their program experiences. Taken together,approximately two-thirds of mediation and supervised visitation clients and four-fifths of parenteducation clients reported being somewhat or very satisfied with the services they received.

These patterns are consistent with other research. With few exceptions, all studies ofdivorce mediation find client satisfaction, with both the process and outcome, for those whoreach agreements, falls in the 60 to 85% range (Kelly, 1996), and in the 40 to 60% rangefor those who are unable to reach agreement (Depner, Cannata, & Simon, 1992; Kelly,1989). An analysis of exit surveys completed by 3,282 parent education clients in Utahfound that 93% rated it as useful (Loveridge, 1995), while follow-up interviews conductedwith 602 program users in five states found that 61.2% thought it should definitely be man-datory, and another 26.5% thought it should probably be mandatory (Thoennes & Pearson,1999). Although parent ratings of supervised visitation in a cross-site study that involved676 families were mixed (e.g., 29% of interviewed noncustodial parents disagreed with thestatement “I could relax and enjoy the visit, even with the supervisor present”), mostreported feeling they were treated with respect by supervisors. More to the point, 40% ofvisiting parents said they were seeing more of their children, having fewer visitation prob-lems, and experiencing less conflict over visitation (Pearson & Thoennes, 2000).

AV programs were the only source of access assistance for many parents. Fully 63%of mediation users, 52% of education clients, and 36% of supervised visitation clientsreported that they had received no help from any other source including private attorneys.Supervised visitation users were the biggest consumers of access services and more likely

Pearson et al. / STA

TE

AC

CE

SS

AN

D V

ISITA

TIO

N G

RA

NT

PR

OG

RA

M379

Table 3

Degree of Satisfaction with 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)

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).


than their mediation and education counterparts to report having attended classes dealingwith anger management, domestic violence, and substance abuse counseling. Despite thefact that most clients were extremely pleased with their AV experiences, few indicated thatthey could afford to pay for services. In order to get at least half of interviewed parents tosay that they would pay for services, mediation would have to cost $25 or less, educationfees 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 programsoffering these types of services.

CLIENT OUTCOMES

CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

A review of child support records for 173 families with monthly obligations, both 12months prior to and following program participation, showed that most (75%) had neverhad children on public assistance and were relatively good child support payers. During the12 months prior to their participation in the AV programs, they paid an average of 68.6%of their child support obligations, which averaged $394 per month. Although they had childsupport balances ranging from $0 to $56,515, their average arrearage was $3,995 and themedian was only $1,016.

Table 4Child 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)

Child support paid as a percentage of child support due in the 12 months prior to services:

Mean 66.8%1 70.3% 69.3% 68.6%Median 83.5% 98.0% 73.0% 88.0%Range 0–100% 0–100% 0–100% 0–100%

Child support paid as a percentage of child support due in the 12 months after services:

Mean 71.4% 88.8% 71.0% 78.6%Median 100% 100% 100% 100%Range 0–100% 0–100% 0–100% 0–100%

Percent of all parents whose payments:Increased 44% 51% 38% 46%Stayed same 29% 40% 19% 32%Decreased 28% 8% 43% 21%

Percent of parents paying less than 100% prior to program entry whose payments:

(55) (40) (15) (110)

Increased 64% 93% 53% 73%Stayed same 11% 3% 7% 7%Decreased 26% 5% 40% 20%

1Differences between pre- and postprogram payment patterns significant for mediation programs at the .004 level.


Payments improved following program participation, with the child support recordsshowing increases for 44% of mediation users, 51% of education clients, and 38% ofsupervised visitation users. When we restricted the analysis to cases where the noncustodialparent entered the AV programs paying less than 100% of what they owed and there wasroom for improvement, payment gains were even more substantial with 64% of mediationusers, 93% of education clients, and 53% of supervised visitation clients registering gains.Noncustodial parents also paid a higher percentage of what they owed following programparticipation although the differences were only statistically significant at the mediation sitewhere the average percent paid went from 66.8 to 71.4%. These patterns are consistent withthose observed in the OIG’s review of child support records for 111 cases, which foundthat payments rose from 52 to 70% following mediation, and that 61% increased thepercent of current support that they paid.

The improved payment pattern is especially noteworthy for never-married parents, whopaid a significantly greater proportion of what they owed in child support in the 12 monthsafter than in the 12 months before receiving services, with the average percent paid risingfrom 59 to 79%. Improvements were more difficult to produce among previously marriedparents, obviously because they entered the programs already paying a relatively high pro-portion of what they owed (74%). According to the child support records, their paymentcompliance rate improved modestly from 74 to 78% of what they owed. As previously noted,neither our study nor the OIG assessment included a nontreatment control group, making itimpossible to rule out the possibility that improvements in payment were due to nonprogramfactors such as the passage of time or enforcement actions by the child support agency.

LEVEL OF CHILD CONTACT

The percentage of noncustodial parents who reported an overall increase in visitationwas 36% for mediation users (41% among those who reached agreement), 44% for educa-tion users, and 49% for supervised visitation users. Supervised visitation users entered theprograms with the lowest levels of parent–child contact, but reported a significant increasein the number of days of contact. The percentage who reported seeing their children at leastonce a week went from 39 to 50%, and those with no contact dropped from 36 to 25%.Custodial parents in every program type were less likely than noncustodial parents to reportchanges in visit frequency with only 25, 24, and 32% reporting that the noncustodial parentsaw the children more often after receiving mediation, education, and supervised visitationservices, respectively.

Table 5Percent of Child Support Paid Pre- and Postprogram by Marital Status

Average amount of child support paid as a percentage of child support due

Previously married to other parent (n = 109)

Never-married to other parent1 (n = 64)

Pre-Program2 Postprogram Pre-Program2 Postprogram

74% 78% 59% 79%

1Differences in the averages paid pre- and postprogram for never-married parents significant at .00.2Differences in the averages paid pre-program by never-married and ever-married parents significant at .00.


In the OIG study of mediation in four settings, 42% of mediation clients who reachedan agreement reported an overall increase in visits, 33% reported that they stayed the same,and 11% reported a decrease (OIG, 2002). In a similar vein, 41% of interviewed parents whomediated access disputes as part of San Mateo’s Responsible Fatherhood Project reportedan increase in child contact (Pearson et al., 2003).

CHILD BEHAVIOR, PARENTAL RELATIONSHIPS, AND OTHER OUTCOMES

While 26 and 27% of custodial parents who used education and mediation programs,respectively, reported that the behavior of the youngest child had improved in the 12 monthsfollowing program participation, this was reported by 41% of custodial parents who usedsupervised visitation. Most of the other parents viewed their youngest child’s behavior asunchanged. Although this finding is consistent with other studies of brief and/or nonthera-peutic AV interventions, which failed to find statistically meaningful program impacts onparent or child psychological adjustment (Kelly, 1996), it is also relevant to note that ourassessment was exclusively based on a global perception by parents and did not involvemore sophisticated behavioral measures.

Approximately 25% of parents reported that their relationship with the other parent hadimproved following program participation; most reported that it was unchanged. Fewerparents characterized their relationships as “hostile and angry” following program partici-pation, with the percentage dropping from 39 to 17% for mediation users, 39 to 26% foreducation clients, and 54 to 26% of supervised visitation clients. Custodial parents gavesimilar assessments, with the percentage terming their relationship “hostile and angry”dropping from 36 to 14% for mediation users, 45 to 20% for education users, and 45 to14% for supervised visitation clients. At least some of the improvements for supervisedvisitation clients were due to their ability to avoid one another during visits, as the propor-tion of parents reporting “no contact” rose following program participation.

There was no evidence that program participation led to increases in cohabitation ormarriage, with less than 5% of interviewed parents reporting that they chose to live togetheror marry following program participation. The OIG study found that parents in only 2 of

Table 6Summary of Changes Since Program Enrollment, by Program Type and Custody Status

Percent reporting that compared to before services . . .


All Mediation (n = 153)

All Parent Education (n = 134)

All Supervised Visitation (n = 102)

All Mediation (n = 205)

All Parent Education (n = 216)

All Supervised Visitation (n = 150)

NCP saw the children more often

36% 44% 49% 25% 24% 32%

Youngest child’s behavior improved

35% 41% 52% 37% 39% 50%

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%


254 cases studied began living together after mediation. Because mediation, education, andsupervised visitation programs aim to reduce conflict and promote cooperative parentingrelationships between parents who have evidenced high levels of hostility and conflict, it isnot surprising that the programs improve the ability of parents to handle their parentalresponsibilities without rekindling romantic relationships.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE

Our examination of participant outcomes in state AV programs involved interviews with970 parents who used the programs an average of 17 months earlier, and a review of childsupport records for 173 families, with child support obligations during the 12 months priorto and following program participation. Although it is the largest study of state AV programsto date, like a preceding study of 254 mediation users in five states (OIG, 2002), it hadsome serious limitations including a low response rate (24%), and the absence of anontreatment comparison group. This makes it impossible to rule out the possibility thanany observed outcomes were due to nonprogram factors such as the passage of time, sampleselection, or enforcement actions by the child support agency. With these important caveats,we concur with the OIG (2002) that the state AV programs appear to be achieving the twomost important objectives posited for them.

• Child support payments increased among participants following program participation, espe-cially for never-married parents who paid a significantly higher proportion of what they owed.

• One-third to one-half of noncustodial parents in every program type reported that parent–childcontact increased following program participation, with supervised visitation users whotypically had the lowest levels of parent–child contact reporting a significant increase in thenumber of days of contact.

Other desired outcomes were more mixed, as has been the case with many other studieson mediation, parent education, and supervised visitation.

• While a quarter of custodial parents who used mediation and education programs reportedthat the behavior of the youngest child had improved following program participation, mostreported no change, although a higher percentage (41%) of supervised visitation users reportedimprovements.

• While a quarter of parents reported that their relationships with the other parent had improvedfollowing program participation, most reported no change, although fewer parents characterizedtheir relationships as “hostile and angry.”

Like users of other mediation, education, and supervised visitation programs, AV pro-gram users rated their program experiences very highly and reported strong satisfaction.They produced agreements in mediation at rates that are consistent with industry standards,regarded the material presented in education programs as useful, and credited supervisedvisitation with providing a safe environment for themselves and their children.

Finally, the programs appear to be effective in reaching an extremely diverse group ofparents, including many low-income, non-White, and unmarried parents, who were oftenunserved in traditional court and community-based programs for separating and divorcedparents. More to the point, the AV programs are frequently the only form of access assist-ance that participants say they received.

The federal OCSE is taking the connection between parent–child contact and childsupport payment to heart. In addition to including a provision to double funding for the AV


program to $20 million as part of the pending legislation authorizing the Temporary Assist-ance for Needy Families program, OCSE has used its annual grant program to encouragestates to explore ways of incorporating attention to access and visitation issues in childsupport agencies and operations. Its 2004 solicitation included a priority area specificallydedicated to the “integration of access and visitation and child support enforcement,” andurged states to “design, implement and test an access and visitation program aimed at non-paying child support cases where the complaint is related to child access, and providingappropriate access and visitation services” (OCSE, 2004). Grants in this area wereawarded to Texas and Colorado, the latter of which has hired a “child access specialist” inchild support offices, to help to identify parents with access and visitation problems, facilitateresolution of these issues, and/or refer them for mediation and other appropriate communityand court-based treatments. Access issues also featured in the 2005 grant announcementreleased by OCSE, which dedicates Priority Area 1 to the goal of reducing adversarialproceedings in cases that involve children born out of wedlock, and lists as the possiblestrategies “providing mediation services for low-income parents” (OCSE, 2005).

While the state AV grant programs are producing strong results, the findings presentedin this study suggest a variety of ways they can be improved.

ENCOURAGE CHILD SUPPORT REFERRALS

Less than 10% of interviewed noncustodial parents reported that they had learned aboutAV programs from someone at the child support agency; most were referred by the court.Because payment behavior improves following program participation, child support workersshould become familiar with AV programs, and refer noncustodial parents with accessproblems to them.

CONSIDER INCORPORATING BASIC CHILD SUPPORT INFORMATION INTO PARENT EDUCATION

Parent education programs primarily focused on helping parents to successfully transitioninto a new parenting relationship. However, increased referrals from child support mightargue for the inclusion of very basic information about the importance of child support.

FOCUS ON SERVING NEVER-MARRIED PARENTS

AV programs have traditionally focused on serving divorcing and divorced parents. Thisstudy demonstrates that never-married parents fare even better than formerly married par-ents on many outcome measures. They show better child support payment outcomes, and(based on reports by noncustodial parents) greater improvements in a variety of postpro-gram behaviors, including the amount of contact between the noncustodial parent and thechild, parental relationships, and child behavior. Programs should attempt to routinely servenever-married parents.

DECIDE ON THE POPULATION TO SERVE AND THE INTENSITY OF SERVICES TO PROVIDE

Mediation, parent education and supervised visitation programs are equally effec-tive in promoting positive outcomes in parent–child contact, child behavior, and parental


relationships. Although gains in some areas are greater for users of supervised visitationprograms, the families who enter these programs generally have the lowest levels of contactand the highest rates of distress. Education, mediation, and supervised visitation programsserve parents with low, medium, and high levels of conflict, respectively, and parents whoreport low, moderate, and high levels of parental conflict prior to their participation in AVprograms perform equally well on most outcome measures. When selecting programs tofund, states should consider the population they want to serve and the intensity of servicesthey want to provide.

RECOGNIZE HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO RELIABLY ASSESS PARTICIPANT OUTCOMES

In this study, telephone interviewers phoned 4,109 numbers to obtain 970 completedinterviews. They made up to 16 call attempts, with an average of 3.9 attempts to reach anextremely mobile population, 41% of whom had disconnected or wrong telephone numbers.Despite these extraordinary efforts, the cross-site response rate was only 24%. State-levelassessment efforts would clearly consume much of the limited funds available for servicedelivery and might yield disappointing results. To make future assessments more feasible andreliable, programs should collect primary and secondary contact information at intake as wellas Social Security numbers or child support case identifiers. Programs should also obtainconsent at intake for follow-up interviews and permission to review child support records.

EXPAND THE NUMBER OF AV PROGRAMS AND THE POPULATION SERVED

AV programs serve parents who do not hire lawyers, obtain counseling, or hire other pro-fessionals. For two-thirds of mediation and education program participants, it is the onlysource of assistance they receive with their problems of access and visitation. They cannotafford to pay market rates for mediation, education, and supervised visitation services. StateAV programs should be expanded and made available to a larger number of parents.

NOTES

1. States use a variety of terms such as access, visitation, and parenting time, to describe parent–child contact.These phrases are used interchangeably in this article.

2. Custodial and noncustodial parent are terms commonly used in the child support community to describethe parent with whom the child primarily lives and the parent with a child support obligation. They are used inthis article as a convenience.

REFERENCES

Clement, D. A. (1998). Nationwide survey of the legal status of parent education. Family and Conciliation CourtsReview, 37, 219–239.

Depner, C., Cannata, K., & Simon, M. (1992). Building a uniform statistical reporting system: A snapshot ofCalifornia family court services. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 30, 169–184.

Fender, L. M., Pisacane, K., & Ellison, S. (1999). State child access and visitation programs: A preliminary reportfor fiscal year 1997 funding. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, Pelavin Research Center.

Kelly, J. B. (1989). Mediated and adversarial divorce: Respondents = perceptions of their processes and outcomes.Mediation Quarterly, 24, 71–88.


Kelly, J. B. (1996). Decade of divorce mediation research: Some answers and questions. Family and ConciliationCourts Review, 34, 373–385.

Loveridge, K. (1995). Statewide mandatory divorce education program evaluation results. Available from Admin-istrative Office of the Courts, 230 South 500 East, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT 84102.

Melamed, J. (1989). Attorneys and mediation: From threat to opportunity. Mediation Quarterly, 23, 13–22.Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families. (2004). Preliminary data: Child

access and visitation grants: State profiles (FY 2003). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services.

Office of Inspector General. (2002). Effectiveness of access and visitation grant programs. OEI-05-02-00300.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Pearson, J. (1994). National symposium on court-connected dispute resolution research: A report on currentresearch findings-implications for courts and future research needs. Family Mediation. National Center forState Courts, State Justice Institute.

Pearson, J., Davis, L., & Thoennes, N. (2004). An evaluation of participant outcomes in access and visitationprograms. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research.

Pearson, J., & Price, D. A. (2002). Child access and visitation programs: Promising practices. Denver, CO: Centerfor Policy Research.

Pearson, J., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Supervised visitation: The families and their experiences. Family and Con-ciliation Courts Review, 38, 123–142.

Pearson, J., Thoennes, N., Davis, L., Venohr, J., Price, D. A., & Griffith, T. (2003). OCSE responsible fatherhoodprograms: Client characteristics and program outcomes. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research.

Pearson, J., Thoennes, N., Price, D., & Williams, R. (1996). Evaluation of the child access demonstration projects:Report to congress. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research.

Thoennes, N., & Pearson, J. (1999). Parent education in the domestic relations court: A multi-site assessment.Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 37, 195–218.

Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., Lanae Davis, M.A., and Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D., are Director, Research Asso-ciate, and Associate Director, respectively, of the Center for Policy Research in Denver, Colorado. Theyhave conducted many studies dealing with child support, including the factors associated with paymentand nonpayment, programs to promote responsible fatherhood, and efforts to address access and visitationproblems. They have also evaluated programs aimed at enhancing parent–child contact, including mediation,parent education, and supervised visitation.

Documents

A NEW LOOK AT AN OLD ISSUE: : An Evaluation of the State Access and Visitation Grant Program