Research and analysis

Child Maintenance Service: Direct Pay Research

Published 23 June 2025

Quantitative and Qualitative Research Report 

June 2025

DWP ad hoc research report no. 1098

A report of research carried out by Ipsos UK on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Crown copyright 2025.

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/

or write to:

Information Policy Team
The National Archives
Kew
London
TW9 4DU

or email psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

This document/publication is also available on our website at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions/about/research#research-and-analysis-publications

If you would like to know more about DWP research, email socialresearch@dwp.gov.uk

First published June 2025

ISBN 978-1-78659-849-3

Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of DWP or any other government department.

Acknowledgements

The research team wish to thank all the participants who gave their time to take part in this study and the DWP for their support throughout the project.

Authors

This report was written by researchers at Ipsos UK Public Affairs:

Joanna Crossfield, Research Director

Juliette Albone, Associate Director

Jack Watson, Research Manager

Noah Coltman, Senior Research Executive

Glossary of terms

Term	Definition
Child maintenance online calculator	An online tool which allows parents to calculate a child maintenance amount. This can be used to support the development of a Family Based Arrangement, or for parents to see how much may be due if a Child Maintenance Service arrangement is set up.
Collect and Pay arrangement	In Collect and Pay, the Child Maintenance Service collects the money from the paying parent and pays it to the receiving parent. There is a fee that is charged to parents for using the Collect and Pay Service – 20% (which is added to the payment) for paying parents and 4% (which is taken off the payment) for receiving parents. This means that if the Child Maintenance Service had calculated £10 of child maintenance was due, the paying parent would pay £12 and the receiving parent would receive £9.60. Collect and Pay is generally used in circumstances where the paying parent has not paid maintenance or not complied with a Direct Pay arrangement.
Direct Pay arrangement	This is an arrangement in which the Child Maintenance Service determines how much should be paid in child maintenance; however, the parents must organise their own payments. If one parent wishes to try Direct Pay but the other prefers Collect and Pay, the Child Maintenance Service is required to place the parents on Direct Pay unless there is explicit evidence that the paying parent is likely to be non-compliant.
Family Based Arrangement (FBA)	An arrangement in which the Child Maintenance Service does not have any involvement in child maintenance payments. The 2 parents independently agree the payment amount and a schedule that suits them. This can include a non-financial Family Based Arrangement, where the agreement does not involve money, for example providing care for the children or buying goods or services for them.
Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance	An online tool on GOV.UK which allows parents to find out their options for paying or getting support, information on making a Family Based Arrangement, and on applying to the Child Maintenance Service.
Paying parent	A parent who is responsible for making child maintenance payments, either through a Family Based Arrangement, or a Child Maintenance Service arrangement.
Receiving parent	A parent who receives child maintenance payments, either through a Family Based Arrangement, or a Child Maintenance Service arrangement.

Key Findings

Introduction

Ipsos was commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to understand Child Maintenance Service (CMS) customer perceptions of their Direct Pay arrangements. The research explored experiences of child maintenance arrangements as well as views on potential reforms to the Direct Pay service.

The research combined quantitative and qualitative approaches. The quantitative strand comprised a mixed mode survey. A total of 2,206 interviews were completed with parents using Direct Pay. The qualitative strand comprised 50 in-depth-interviews, split between paying parents and receiving parents who had agreed to be recontacted after completing the survey.

Experiences of Direct Pay and alternative arrangements.

Around 2 in 5 parents have only ever used Direct Pay. If they had used an alternative arrangement, it was most likely a Family Based Arrangement (FBA). Typically, parents who changed to Direct Pay did so because the other parent was not paying in an FBA, or they wanted to avoid charges in the Collect and Pay service.

Three in 5 (60%) of receiving parents reported that they received the full amount of maintenance calculated by the CMS, and only 2 in 5 (40%) said that payments were always on time. However, the perception was different from paying parents, over 9 in 10 (95%) reporting they pay the full amount and almost 9 in 10 (88%) reporting they always pay on time.

A significantly higher proportion of survivors of domestic abuse reported that the paying parent had not paid in an FBA. Receiving parents appreciated the third-party support that the CMS provides in helping to set up and support their arrangement, more so than paying parents.

Views on Family Based Arrangements (FBAs)

Overall confidence in having an FBA was low. More than 3 in 5 receiving parents were ‘not at all confident’ in having an FBA. More than 2 in 5 of paying parents (43%) were confident in having a successful FBA, but there is a considerable gap between this ambition and receiving parents’ willingness to move to one, with fewer than 1 in 5 (16%) confident in having an FBA.

Receiving parents would prefer to use Direct Pay rather than an FBA because they either think that the paying parent is more likely to pay with CMS involvement, they do not get along with the other parent, or they appreciate the fact that the CMS tells them how much needs to be paid and when. Using the CMS also avoids any discussions between parents about money, which could cause conflict.

Views on Collect and Pay

Collect and Pay was viewed as an effective deterrent and one which ensures that the paying parent pays in the Direct Pay arrangement. However, some receiving parents viewed the fees negatively as they believed the need for Collect and Pay was due to non-compliance of the paying parent in alternative arrangements. Paying parents were generally hostile towards Collect and Pay, viewing it as unneeded, intrusive, and likely to exacerbate the lack of trust between parents.

The fact that paying parents were more open to forming an FBA in the future was linked to the fact that they wanted to avoid the introduction of fees, if they were moved to Collect and Pay, or a new reformed Direct Pay service.

Views on CMS monitoring and payment transfer services

Parents currently in the Direct Pay Service were asked what impact the monitoring and transfer of child maintenance payments by the CMS would have on them. Receiving parents were more receptive than paying parents to the potential benefits associated with CMS monitoring and transferring payments. They felt that monitoring could lead to greater confidence in their child maintenance arrangement, would reduce the likelihood that the other parent could exercise financial control or exhibit abusive behaviours, and could make them more likely to pay on time.

Paying parents mostly felt that monitoring would make no difference to them and held no real benefits. In fact, it might lead them to feel like they were not trusted by the CMS, despite their reports that they were already paying on time and aspired to form an FBA.

The response to monitoring and payment transfers were largely determined by parents’ perceived need for this within their child maintenance agreement. Those who were closest to an FBA or were very happy with Direct Pay as it currently exists, did not feel it was needed and even viewed monitoring negatively, as it was more inflexible than Direct Pay.

Some parents felt they did not need monitoring but did still require involvement from the CMS to help them to agree financial terms with the other parent, for example, in the form of the annual statement they currently receive.

There was a wider acceptance of monitoring and transferring payments amongst those who were content with Direct Pay or more dependent on it, but they did not feel the suggested changes were the most important thing for the CMS to reform.

Those who were receptive to monitoring also felt positively about Collect and Pay, and would prefer to be on Collect and Pay, rather than their current Direct Pay arrangement.

Attitudes towards the CMS

Both paying and receiving parents lacked trust in the CMS and some parents chose not to contact the CMS in the event of missed or late payments, or issues with the receiving parent, because of past negative experiences. These included experiences of long wait times on the helpline or inconsistent responses from advisors. External support was valued by both parent types.

However, the existence of an independent third-party like the CMS was still valued, as they helped to mediate between parents. Some parents said they needed nothing more from the CMS other than a letter telling them how much to pay and when. They also wanted reassurance that they could get back into the CMS if an FBA arrangement did not work.

Views on other services and support

Parents reported they typically needed support in the early stages of setting up an arrangement. Paying parents were most likely to want additional support and over a quarter would have liked to have used the Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance tool (27%) or receive support from a charity (26%).

Despite more parents using the child maintenance online calculator, this was not deemed as the most useful tool in helping parents to set up their arrangements. Receiving parents were more certain than paying parents that the CMS should be able to access HMRC income to do a calculation, whereas paying parents hoped it would be able to take more details of their personal situation into account when creating a calculation.

Experiences and needs of victims and survivors of domestic abuse

Satisfaction levels with their Direct Pay arrangement were lower if a parent was a survivor of domestic abuse (59% of receiving parents and 54% of paying parents who were survivors of domestic abuse were satisfied, compared to 75% of receiving parents and 73% of paying parents who were not survivors of domestic abuse). Their relationships were still fraught, and they were unable to talk about money with the other parent.

A high proportion (79%) of receiving parents who were survivors of domestic abuse strongly agreed that the CMS was needed in their arrangement. Receiving parents particularly valued being referred to relevant organisations that can provide targeted support in dealing with challenges they might face as separated parents.

Additions to the service like collecting payments, initiating enforcement on non-payments, and reducing contact with the other parent were all of significantly more interest to receiving parents who were survivors of domestic abuse than those who were not survivors. These parents were significantly more likely than those who were not survivors of domestic abuse to be willing to pay a small fee for such a service and a higher proportion of these parents would stay within the CMS if a fee were introduced.

Research aims and methodology

Research context and aims

Ipsos was commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to understand CMS customer perceptions on their Direct Pay arrangements. This research intended to support a planned public consultation on potential reform to the Direct Pay service. The research aimed to understand:

• current use of Direct Pay - How do Direct pay customers find using the service?
• reasons for using Direct Pay and potential support - Why do customers use Direct Pay, and how could they be supported to move to an FBA?
• experiences of the online calculator and other support tools - What are customers’ experiences of using the online child maintenance calculator and other tools, and how could they be improved?
• opinions on a paid for monitoring service - what are Direct Pay customers’ views on the potential introduction of charges for using a payment monitoring and transfer service?
• domestic abuse - how can CMS work better for survivors of domestic abuse?

Monitoring and transfer service

When discussing views on a paid for monitoring service, the following information was shared with participants in the qualitative research:

DWP is exploring how the CMS collects and transfers maintenance payments and where potential improvements could be made. This includes an option where the CMS monitors and transfers maintenance payments for all parents using the service. This could mean a paying parent paying the maintenance payment to the CMS, who would then pass it on to the receiving parent.

The fee could be around 2% to 4% for each parent. For example, if the CMS had calculated the Child Maintenance liability as £50, a paying parent would pay £1 to £2 for each payment made and a receiving parent would have  £1 to £2 kept back from each payment received.

Methodology

The research combined quantitative and qualitative approaches.

Quantitative method

The quantitative strand comprised a mixed mode survey which was conducted between 24 January and 23 February 2024 using a sample provided by DWP.

A total of 2,206 interviews were completed. Of these, 1,002 were with paying parents and 1,204 with receiving parents. The survey data was weighted to match the population profile of Direct Pay customers with regard to gender, claim length, liability, and shared care characteristics.

Qualitative method

The qualitative strand comprised in-depth-interviews which were conducted with parents between 5 February and 4 March 2024 using a re-contact sample created from the quantitative survey.

A total of 50 in-depth interviews were conducted, 25 with paying parents and 25 with receiving parents. Quotas were used at recruitment stage to ensure a wide range of attitudes and experiences were captured.

Findings

Context for participants who are survivors of domestic abuse

The prevalence of survivors of domestic abuse among survey respondents in this research was high. These parents were typically more dissatisfied than other parents with their current child maintenance agreement but were not confident in forming an FBA. Their relationship difficulties were usually ongoing, with more than 4 in 5 receiving parents (85%) and more than 2 in 3 paying parents (69%) reporting that they do not get on well with the other parent.

Amongst survivors of domestic abuse, more than a quarter of receiving parents (27%) and more than 1 in 10 paying parents (13%) said they have already had support from a service to help them submit evidence of domestic abuse. However, around 2 in 5 of receiving parents (39%) and almost half of paying parents (45%) said they would not feel comfortable doing so.

Figure 1 Experience of Domestic Abuse

Figure 1 Survey Question: Have you experienced any domestic abuse from the other parent?

	Receiving Parents	Paying Parents
Yes	71%	51%
No	21%	38%
Don’t know	2%	3%
Prefer not to say	6%	8%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Experiences of Direct Pay

Around 2 in 5 receiving parents (41%) and paying parents (39%) had only ever used Direct Pay. Where an alternative child maintenance arrangement had been used in the past, it was most likely an FBA amongst both receiving parents (34%) paying parents (40%).

Figure 2 Other child maintenance arrangements

Figure 2 Survey Question: Prior to your existing child maintenance arrangement, which, if any, of these other options did you use?

	Receiving Parents	Paying Parents
A Family Based Arrangement (FBA)	34%	40%
A Collect and Pay Arrangement	12%	7%
A court-based arrangement	4%	4%
Other	9%	10%
None other than Direct Pay	41%	39%
Don’t know	3%	4%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Reasons for using Direct Pay

Most receiving parents said they changed to Direct Pay because the other parent was not paying in an FBA, with around 2 in 3 receiving parents (65%) reporting this as the reason for the change.

The main reason given for moving to Direct Pay among paying parents was wanting to avoid additional charges in a Collect and Pay arrangement (21%).

Appreciation for the third-party support provided by the CMS in helping to set up and support arrangements was higher among receiving parents (27%) than among paying parents (11%).

Figure 3 Reasons for change from other arrangements

Figure 3 Survey Question: Why did you change from your previous arrangement to a Direct Pay arrangement?

	Receiving Parents
Paying parent was refusing to pay / making incorrect payment (in a FBA)	65%
It is helpful to have a third party set up and support	27%
The Child Maintenance Service suggested it	15%
The paying parent did not want to pay additional charges in Collect and Pay	15%
DP offered a more flexible arrangement than court-based	9%

	Paying Parents
I did not want to pay additional charges in Collect and Pay	21%
It was suggested / changed - by another parent	18%
The Child Maintenance Service suggested it	14%
Receiving parent wanted more money / funds	14%
DP offered a more flexible arrangement than court-based	13%
It is helpful to have a third-party set up and support	11%

Base: CMS customers who had a previous child maintenance agreement – Receiving parents (671), Paying parents (594).

Note - sum of responses exceeds 100% as this was a multiple-choice response question.

The majority of receiving parents (63%) and paying parents (51%) reported no difference in the relationship with the other parent since moving to Direct Pay. A higher proportion of survivors of domestic abuse (66%) reported no difference in the relationship after moving to Direct Pay.

We speak when he picks the girls up… just from outside the car. For the girls’ sake we smile. Mostly it’s about arrangements for the girls, like organising their activities and holidays…It’s like a business arrangement.

Receiving parent

I see my child a few times a week, so I do talk to them [receiving parent], but it isn’t friendly. We don’t argue but we say what we have to say and that’s it.

Paying parent

Among paying parents, more than a third (36%) regarded their relationship with the other parent less favourably since starting Direct Pay. This was more likely to be reported by paying parents with newer claims (of less than 6 months) and by those who were survivors of domestic abuse. Among receiving parents, 1 in 5 (20%) reported a less favourable relationship since moving to Direct Pay.

Just over 1 in 10 receiving parents (13%) and 1 in 10 paying parents (10%) reported a more favourable relationship after moving to Direct Pay. Amongst both parent types, this was significantly higher when the child was spending time with the paying parent and a good relationship with the other parent was reported.

Figure 4 Impact of arrangement on relationship  

Figure 4 Survey Question: Following this move to Direct Pay, on balance do you now regard your relationship with the other parent more favourably, less favourably or has it made no difference?

	Receiving Parents	Paying Parents
More favourably	13%	10%
No difference	63%	51%
Less favourably	20%	36%

Base: CMS customers who had a previous child maintenance agreement – Receiving parents (671), Paying parents (594).

There were clear reported differences between receiving and paying parents when asked why a Direct Pay arrangement was chosen. Receiving parents cited it helped them calculate the amount due (51%) and that CMS involvement encouraged payments (50%). Both reasons were more likely to be given by receiving parents who also said they were not confident in using an FBA.

Among paying parents, the main reason given was wanting to avoid the charges associated with a Collect and Pay arrangement (36%). Around one-third of paying parents (34%) reported that they were willing to use an FBA, but the other parent chose to make a CMS application. This was significantly higher among those whose child spends time with the paying parent, those who report being dissatisfied with their current arrangement, and those who reported not having a good relationship with the other parent.

Figure 5 Reasons for having a Direct Pay arrangement

Figure 5 Survey Question: Which, if any, of the following are reasons you have a Direct Pay arrangement?

	Receiving parents
To calculate how much Child Maintenance was due	51%
Wanted CMS involvement in case the other parent did not make payments	50%
Experience of domestic abuse from the other parent	37%
Thought this would work for you and the other parent	28%
A Family Based Arrangement did not work	25%

	Paying parent
Wanted to avoid the charges for using Collect and Pay	36%
I was willing to pay via FBA but the other parent chose to make a CMS application	34%
To calculate how much Child Maintenance was due	33%
Thought this would work for you and the other parent	27%
Experience of domestic abuse from the other parent	16%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Note - sum of responses exceeds 100% as this was a multiple-choice response question.

In the qualitative interviews, both types of parents described multiple routes to a Direct Pay arrangement. These were:

1) At the outset of separation – one or both parents felt the need to have an independent input to help arrange payments.

2) Former Family Based Arrangements (FBAs) - usually, the receiving parent made a unilateral move into Direct Pay and some paying parents reported feeling alienated by the move.

3) Former Collect and Pay arrangements - paying parents disliked the additional charges and, after paying on time and in full, were moved into Direct Pay.

The second and third scenarios typically followed a breakdown in the parental relationship which led to new needs for them in their child maintenance arrangement. This included reducing or eliminating contact with the other parent or needing regularity of payments.

Among receiving parents, there was view that the move to Direct Pay was a result of the actions of the other parent. They reported that if the other parent had acted more appropriately, there might not have been the need to have used Direct Pay.

When we first separated, we had our own arrangement, but things changed, and he refused to pay… but I could see he was going on nice holidays with his new girlfriend.

Receiving parent

Paying parents often held the opinion that the decision to move to Direct Pay was not theirs, and some also said that the decision to make a claim had not been communicated by the other parent. These paying parents described a lack of agency in their relationship with their Direct Pay arrangement.

We weren’t on speaking terms so never spoke about Direct Pay. She just went straight to [CMS]. I assume she thought she could get more money.

Paying parent

Direct Pay was felt to give both parents an element of reassurance about the basis for the child maintenance calculation. In the qualitative interviews, Direct Pay arrangements seemed to be most effective in cases where the relationship between parents was fundamentally sound. Where the relationship was described as more challenging, parents were more likely to perceive downsides to using Direct Pay.

Perceived positives and negatives of Direct Pay

In the qualitative interviews, receiving parents felt that compared to an FBA, Direct Pay provided more security as they felt that paying parents were more likely to pay, to avoid being moved to Collect and Pay. Paying parents were positive about the lack of additional charges in the Direct Pay system as it meant more of the money went towards the child. 

In addition, both receiving and paying parents emphasised the positive impact that Direct Pay had by removing the need for conversations about money and being able to rely on the annual review to determine the maintenance amount. Some also appreciated having the option to reduce or remove any contact with the other parent in cases where the relationship was strained or distressing for them.

When discussing negative aspects of the Direct Pay system, receiving parents shared their perceptions about how the system could allow paying parents to manipulate the calculation or the maintenance amount. They also discussed experiences and concerns about the CMS’ ability to chase arrears and enforce payments.

Paying parents reported a perceived lack of flexibility in maintenance calculations and in payment options. They also discussed their experiences or concerns about the potential for receiving parents to repeatedly ask for re-evaluation of the maintenance amount.

For both parent types, it was felt there was a lack of clarity in the payment calculation and that the system could allow controlling and abusive behaviour to continue or worsen.

Payments in Direct Pay arrangements

In the quantitative strand, there was a clear disparity in perceptions of payments amongst parent types. Three in 5 receiving parents (60%) reported that they usually received the full amount while a high proportion of paying parents (95%) reported that they usually paid the full amount. Two in 5 receiving parents (40%) reported that they received their payment always on time. Reports of non-compliance with Direct Pay arrangements was significantly higher among receiving parents who also reported that the child did not spend any time with the paying parent.

Figure 6 Usual payment amount through Direct Pay

Figure 6 Survey Question: Thinking about the amount the Child Maintenance Service calculated that you are supposed to pay/receive, do you usually pay/receive?

	Receiving Parents	Paying Parents
All of it	60%	95%
Most of it	13%	1%
Some of it	9%	1%
None of it	5%	0%
It varies	9%	1%
I have not paid / been paid	3%	1%
Don’t know	1%	1%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Figure 7 Payment on time through Direct Pay

Figure 7 Survey Question: Thinking about when you/the paying parent should pay the receiving parent/you, how often are the maintenance payments on time?

	Receiving Parents	Paying Parents
Always on time	40%	88%
Usually on time	27%	9%
It varies	12%	2%
Usually late	6%	0%
Always late	9%	0%
Don’t know	5%	1%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

In the qualitative interviews, receiving and paying parents held differing perceptions around the use and impact of payment discrepancies, including paying late, and not paying the full amount.

Among receiving parents, there was a view that any divergence from the full amount or schedule determined by the CMS was a deliberate act of abusive or controlling behaviour by the other parent. For some receiving parents, payment discrepancies had serious implications for household budgets and finances. Survivors of domestic abuse perceived that the paying parent used their power over Direct Pay payments as a means of control.

Paying parents felt that Direct Pay offered them little flexibility if they were unable to pay the full amount on a certain date. Those with better parental relationships felt they could discuss arrangements between themselves, but for those with more antagonistic relationships, paying parents often said these conversations were not possible. However, paying parents still tended to report that they were paying the full amount on time. Paying parents felt that communications from the CMS assumed they were in the wrong if the other parent reported payment discrepancies or asked for a reassessment of income.

Contact with the CMS

In the survey, more than a third of receiving parents (36%) have not contacted the CMS if they received a late payment or no payment. They key reasons for this were the relationship with the other parent and low confidence in the CMS.

Figure 8 Receiving parents contact with the CMS about payment discrepancies

Figure 8 Survey Question: When you have not received a payment or it has been late, have you contacted or informed the Child Maintenance Service about this?

Yes	59%
No	36%
Don’t know	4%
Prefer not to say	2%

Base: Receiving parents who have not received their full amount of Child Maintenance, or the Child Maintenance payments are late (546).

Figure 9 Reasons for receiving parents not contacting the CMS about payment

Figure 9 Survey Question: Why have you not contacted or informed the CMS about the payment(s) that you have not received or that was late?

Relationship with other parent	39%
Low confidence in CMS	33%
Knowledge of service	17%

Base: Receiving parents that did not inform the Child Maintenance Service of late or non-made payments (195).

In the qualitative interviews, both receiving and paying parents reported barriers to communicating with the CMS, and some negative experiences of resolving issues. Being unable to properly communicate with the CMS had a negative impact on parents’ confidence in being able to rely on it as a service.

Parents described experiencing a range of challenges. The first was difficulty in contacting the CMS due to long waiting times on the helpline, with some reporting waiting a few hours before being able to speak with someone.

I called them, but the lines can take up to 1 hour to be answered. I just gave up in the end.

Paying parent

The second challenge was lack of online services and a perception that the existing services were poor. Parents felt an online option to contact the CMS might make communication easier. Both types of parents also held perceptions that the burden of proof fell on them, for example proof that a payment had, or had not been made, and that sharing this proof was not easy using the online account.

It’s quite hard to navigate the account. I’d prefer an app, it’s just easier to use on your phone to make changes or ask questions.

Paying parent

The third challenge was experiencing inconsistent responses from the CMS with a feeling that the outcome of a call was too dependent on the individual caseworker who answered it. Those who had experienced making multiple calls to the helpline about the same issue described frustration at having to explain their case each time and they felt that this created barriers to solutions. Some parents also felt that even if they were able to speak to a suitable caseworker, the individual would lack the power to act and resolve their issue.

You can phone them up and start a conversation about missed payments, but they can’t take action.

Receiving parent

Use of services and support

The child maintenance online calculator was the most used tool with 3 in 5 receiving parents (60%) and just under 2 in 3 paying parents (64%) reporting having used it.

Among receiving parents, the online calculator was significantly more likely to be used within the first 2 years of setting up an arrangement, especially within the first 6 months of a claim. It was also more likely be used by receiving parents when the child spends time with the other parent, and by survivors of domestic abuse.

Paying parents were more likely to have used the online calculator if they had a new partner (72% compared to 59% who did not have a new partner). Paying parents were more likely than receiving parents to want all forms of additional support and services. More than a quarter of paying parents would have liked to have used the Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance tool (27% compared to 17% of receiving parents) and to receive support from a charity (26% compared to19% of receiving parents).

Figure 10 Service and support options

Figure 10 Survey Question: The following questions will cover a range of services and support options available to separated parents. For each please tell me if you have used the support, or did not use it but would have liked to.

		I have used this	I have not used this but would have liked to use it	I have neither used this, nor would have liked to use it	Don’t know
Child Maintenance online calculator	Receiving parents	60%	17%	17%	6%
Child Maintenance online calculator	Paying parents	64%	13%	19%	4%
Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance	Receiving parents	37%	17%	28%	19%
Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance	Paying parents	18%	27%	41%	14%
A local mediator / arbitration / relationship support	Receiving parents	31%	14%	48%	6%
A local mediator / arbitration / relationship support	Paying parents	32%	23%	38%	8%
Support from a charity or public organisation	Receiving parents	30%	19%	43%	8%
Support from a charity or public organisation	Paying parents	18%	26%	48%	8%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Amongst users of services and support options, parents rated other tools more favourably than the online calculator in terms of being very useful. This included Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance, which almost 2 in 5 receiving parents (38%) described as very useful, compared with just over a quarter of paying parents (27%). This tool helped parents see the benefits of having a CMS Direct Pay arrangement and helped parents focus on the needs of their children.

Reasons for not using Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance or the online calculator were mostly due to low awareness with half of non-using parents (50%) being unaware of Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance and 2 in 5 (40%) being unaware of the calculator.  A third of non-using parents said they were ‘not interested’ in a local mediator or relationship support, this was the main reason for not using this type of support.

Figure 11 Usefulness of service and support options

Figure 11 Survey Question: And how useful, if at all, did you find…?

		Very useful	Fairly useful	Somewhat useful	Not useful at all
Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance	Receiving parents	38%	27%	22%	12%
Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance	Paying parents	27%	28%	19%	22%
Support from a charity or public organisation	Receiving parents	33%	28%	28%	9%
Support from a charity or public organisation	Paying parents	25%	23%	20%	30%
Child Maintenance online calculator	Receiving parents	27%	31%	24%	17%
Child Maintenance online calculator	Paying parents	26%	26%	25%	22%
A local mediator / arbitration / relationship support	Receiving parents	13%	13%	26%	47%
A local mediator / arbitration / relationship support	Paying parents	11%	14%	19%	54%

Base: All CMS customers to have used each service – Get Help Arranging Child Maintenance (Receiving Parents: 451; Paying Parents: 181), Charity or public organisation (Receiving Parents: 359; Paying Parents: 174), Online Calculator (Receiving Parents: 736, Paying Parents: 684), mediator (Receiving Parents: 384, Paying Parents: 346).

Satisfaction with current arrangement

Parents of both types reported similar levels of satisfaction with their current arrangement. More than 3 in 5 receiving parents (34%) and paying parents (62%) reported being ‘very satisfied’ or ‘fairly satisfied’. Both parent types were more satisfied with Direct Pay when the relationship with the other parent was reported as good and parents were not survivors of domestic abuse.

Just over a third of receiving parents (35%) and paying parents (34%) reported being ‘fairly dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’. They were equally both more likely to be dissatisfied with Direct Pay if they lacked confidence in forming an FBA or were survivors of domestic abuse.

Almost 3 in 5 receiving parents (59%) who were survivors of domestic abuse were satisfied, and more than half of paying parents (54%) were satisfied.

Figure 12 Satisfaction with current arrangement

Figure 12 Survey Question: Overall, how satisfied, or dissatisfied are you with how your current child maintenance arrangement works?

	Very satisfied	Fairly satisfied	Fairly dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	Too early to say
Receiving parents	26%	38%	13%	21%	1%
Paying parents	24%	37%	11%	24%	1%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Note: totals may not sum due to rounding.

There were key differences amongst those dissatisfied with Direct Pay. Receiving parents who were dissatisfied with Direct Pay felt they would stay within the CMS if there was an introduction of fees, whereas paying parents would prefer to form an FBA to avoid fees.

There was also a significant gap between receiving and paying parents whose current arrangement was working well when asked if the CMS was still needed. A high proportion of receiving parents (94%) felt that CMS support was necessary, compared with around 2 in 5 paying parents (42%).

Receiving parents who were survivors of domestic abuse were more likely to report they needed CMS involvement, with almost 4 in 5 (79%) saying they strongly agree that the CMS was needed to continue their current arrangement. The reported need for CMS involvement was also higher among receiving parents who reported that the child did not spend time with the other parent.

Paying parents were significantly more likely than receiving parents to feel that continued CMS support was not needed to maintain their arrangement with half (50%) disagreeing it was needed, compared with a low proportion of receiving parents (3%).

Figure 13 Need for CMS support to maintain arrangement

Figure 13 Survey Question: To what extent do you feel that the Child Maintenance Service is needed to continue your current maintenance arrangement?

	Very confident	Confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Don’t know
Receiving parents	4%	12%	17%	61%	6%
Paying parents	22%	21%	17%	32%	7%

Base: All CMS customers whose arrangement is working well – Receiving parents (1,011), Paying parents (993).

Attitudes towards other child maintenance arrangements

The main reason for not using an FBA, differed by parent type. Receiving parents were most likely to report that Direct Pay meant the paying parent was more likely to pay to the agreed schedule (47%), while paying parents were most likely to report that the other parent wants them to use the CMS (51%).

Parents of both types reported that using the CMS avoids discussions about money and as an independent third party, sets out how much needs to be paid and when, removing potential conflict.

Figure 14 Reasons for not using a Family Based Arrangement

Figure 14 Survey Question: Why don’t you use a Family Based Arrangement?

	Receiving parents
The paying parent is more likely to pay if the CMS is involved	47%
The other parent and I do not get along	43%
CMS tells us how much needs to be paid and when it needs to be paid	36%
Experience of domestic abuse from the other parent	33%
It is difficult for the 2 of us to talk about money	32%

	Paying parents
The other parent wants to use the CMS	51%
The other parent and I do not get along	38%
My current arrangement is working well for me / avoids any confrontation	23%
CMS tells us how much needs to be paid and when it needs to be paid	22%
It is difficult for the 2 of us to talk about money	22%

Base: All CMS customers whose arrangement is working well – Receiving parents (1,011), Paying parents (993).

Note - sum of responses exceeds 100% as this was a multiple-choice response question.

In the qualitative interviews, parents of both types felt that ongoing support from the CMS would be needed for an FBA to be successful. Overall some receiving parents felt an FBA would work, but those who were open to it highlighted clear barriers to setting one up. These parents described feeling a lack of trust that, without the security of the CMS and the potential use of Collect and Pay, payments might become inconsistent or stop all together. Some felt that in their circumstances, a move would not be possible because the parent would not pay in an FBA. Receiving parents said they would need more clarity, support and mediation from CMS than currently exists for FBA arrangements.

There is stability in the fact that CMS can actually see what he’s earning and so it goes on that basis. Without that, I don’t think he would be very honest.

Receiving parent

Paying parents viewed FBAs much more positively and this was typically their preference for any future arrangement. These parents felt that they could be trusted to make payments without CMS involvement and that Collect and Pay would be unnecessary for them. Paying parents also perceived that the CMS viewed them in a negative light.

However, as Direct Pay was typically initiated by the receiving parent and paying parents had settled into their arrangement, they had less of a desire to push towards moving to an FBA. Like receiving parents, they also valued the stability that their Direct Pay arrangement had provided.

I am fine with an FBA. If we are paying the same amount as Direct Pay, then happy to go back on it. But it would be up to her. I don’t have any contact with her, so don’t know how she would feel.

Paying parent

Support channels

In the survey, both receiving and paying parents had similar views on the support channels that would be useful. A third of parents (32% of receiving parents and 34% of paying parents) do not want support which reflects how many are happy with Direct Pay.

Figure 15 Types of support found useful

Figure 15 Survey Question: Thinking more generally about your own personal circumstances, when you are looking for support to help manage the challenges you might face as separated parents, which, if any, of the following types of support do you find useful?

	Receiving parents
One to one telephone advise	32%
Links to relevant organisations	22%
Online support groups e.g. mumsnet	21%
Reading articles on web pages	21%
Face to face support groups	16%
None of the above	32%
Don’t know	8%

	Paying parents
One to one telephone advise	29%
Reading articles on web pages	21%
Links to relevant organisations	19%
Face to face support groups	16%
Face to face courses	15%
None of the above	34%
Don’t know	6%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Note - sum of responses exceeds 100% as this was a multiple-choice response question.

Types of Direct Pay users

In the qualitative interviews, 3 broad groups of parents who were using Direct Pay were identified. These included those who were close to using an FBA, those who were happy with their current Direct Pay arrangement and those who wanted additional CMS monitoring.

Close to FBA – Parents who were closest to setting up an FBA said that their relationship with the other parent was no longer negative or antagonistic. They typically described having open channels of communication with the other parent, and the capacity to discuss finances. Their current communication with the CMS was limited to the annual letter they received confirming the amount that should be paid. This group could move to an FBA but would need more support and information on it from CMS, specifically on how much the paying parent should pay and agreeing any annual uplift.

Happy with Direct Pay – This group included parents who said that while they were happy with their Direct Pay arrangement and that their relationship with other parent was no longer hostile, tensions did remain, creating a barrier to an FBA. They felt their current arrangement works well for the relationship they have with the other parent. They reported that the security of Direct Pay, and the potential for further CMS involvement was a positive underpinning, which made their personal lives feel more secure. This group said they were concerned about the initial £20 fee in moving to Direct Pay, as they knew they might need to move back to the CMS service in an FBA did not work. Regulations came into force in February 2024, which removed the £20 fee for all Child Maintenance Service applicants.

Receptive to Monitoring – Parents who were receptive to monitoring from the CMS typically described having a negative, or no relationship at all with the other parent. Receiving Parents felt that Direct Pay had not stopped the other parent from varying payment amounts or timings of payments, which they typically perceived as abusive behaviour. These parents felt that moving to an FBA would mean that they would be unlikely to receive full, or regular payments at all.

Similarly, some paying parents who described being repeatedly challenged by the receiving partner, and those who required a more flexible schedule, for example, biweekly payments, said they would appreciate payments being monitored by a third party.

Confidence in a Family Based Arrangement

In the quantitative survey, overall confidence in having an FBA was low, with around 3 in 5 receiving parents (61%) saying they were ‘not at all confident’, and this rose to more than 4 in 5 among survivors of domestic abuse (83%).

While paying parents were more receptive, with around 1 in 5 saying they were ‘very confident’ (22%), or ‘confident’ (21%), almost a third were ‘not at all confident’ (32%).  

Figure 16 Confidence in a Family Based Arrangement

Figure 16 Survey Question: To what extent would you say you feel confident about having a successful Family-Based arrangement, with the other parent in your Direct Pay arrangement?

	Receiving parents	Paying parents
Very confident	4%	22%
Confident	12%	21%
Not very confident	17%	17%
Not at all confident	61%	32%
Don’t know	6%	7%

Base: All CMS customers whose arrangement is working well – Receiving parents (1,011), Paying parents (993).

More than 4 in 10 receiving parents (43%) felt that nothing could encourage them to use an FBA, reflecting the importance of CMS involvement and this was higher among survivors of domestic abuse (47%).

Around a third of both receiving parents (33%) and paying parents (31%) said that they would like reassurance that they could return to the CMS if an FBA did not work out.

Figure 17 What might encourage use of an FBA

Figure 17 Survey Question: If it were available, which, if any, of the following could encourage you to use a Family Based Arrangement?

	Receiving parents	Paying parents
Knowing that I can come back to the CMS if the arrangement does not work	33%	31%
An online calculator that could easily calculate the amount which should be	26%	40%
Support or intervention to reduce conflict	17%	30%
Mediation in my relationship with the other parent	11%	26%
A template to help us set this up (similar to what you might use when drafting a will)	11%	22%
None of the above	43%	18%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Note - sum of responses exceeds 100% as this was a multiple-choice response question.

Views on Collect and Pay

Parents in both the quantitative survey and the qualitative interviews expressed dislike for the costs associated with Collect and Pay, perceiving them to be unfair, unaffordable and likely to heighten conflict.

In the qualitative interviews, receiving parents viewed Collect and Pay as an effective deterrent, one which ensures that the paying parent makes payments in a Direct Pay arrangement. While some accepted the associated fees in Collect and Pay so they could ensure they received at least some money, others thought the fees were inappropriate as they did not feel they had control over the other parent’s compliance with an FBA or Direct Pay arrangement.

Paying parents were typically very hostile towards Collect and Pay. They saw it as unnecessary and intrusive. They did not think it was appropriate for their employer to know these details about them and for some, they felt this step would exacerbate the lack of trust between parents.

Figure 18 Feelings on changes to Collect and Pay

Figure 18 Survey Question: Which statements reflect your feelings on the charges in Collect and Pay?

	Receiving parents
The receiving parent charge is not fair when they have no control over the compliance of the paying parent	53%
The paying parent charge provides a consequence for non-compliance	35%
I accept that charges contribute to the cost of the service I’m using	31%
The charges heighten conflicts between parents	31%
The paying parent charge risks worsening existing abusive behaviours	25%

	Paying parents
The charges heighten conflict between parents	46%
It is not affordable	36%
The receiving parent charge provides and incentive to try Direct Pay	23%
The paying parent charge provides a consequence for non-compliance	22%
Current charges deter parents from moving to C&P when their DP arrangements are not working	22%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Note - sum of responses exceeds 100% as this was a multiple-choice response question.

Three in 10 receiving parents (31%) believed the possibility of additional fees through Collect and Pay encouraged ongoing payments through Direct Pay, compared with around 2 in 10 paying parents (19%).

More than 3 in 5 paying parents (62%) reported being self-motivated to pay. Paying parents also reported that they would make payments to avoid enforcement (16%) or avoid any involvement of their employer (11%).

Figure 19 Measures to encourage payments

Figure 19 Survey Question: What measures, if any, encourage the paying parent / you to make a payment?

	Receiving parents
The potential to be moved to Collect and Pay	31%
The potential use of enforcement actions against the other parent if moved to C&P	28%
The administration fee if moved to Collect and Pay	20%
The other parent’s employer having to be involved if moved to Collect and Pay	19%
They are motivated to make payments without additional encouragement	12%
Don’t know	25%

	Paying parents
I am motivated to make payments without additional encouragement	62%
The potential to be moved to Collect and Pay	19%
The administration fee if moved to Collect and Pay	19%
The potential use of enforcement action against me if moved to C&P	16%
My employer having to be involved if moved to C&P	11%
Don’t know	4%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Note - sum of responses exceeds 100% as this was a multiple-choice response question.

Views on changes to the Direct Pay Service

Improvements to the online calculator

Most receiving parents (58%) felt the calculator could be improved if it were able to access HMRC income without the need the parent needing to share it with the other parent. Most paying parents (57%) felt that being able to adjust the calculation flexibly to account for intricacies of their personal circumstances would most improve the calculator.

In the open responses for ‘another reason’ (provided by almost 1 in 5 paying parents - 19%), various reasons were provided. These included that the calculator:

• did not consider their pension payments
• did not consider other personal finances and the cost of living
• did not properly adjust for overtime
• based the calculation on the previous tax year and not what they were earning now
• sometimes provided and different amount to the CMS, using the same information.

Figure 21 Improvements to online calculator

Figure 21 Survey Question: How could the calculator be improved in the future to help support family-based arrangements?

	Receiving parents
Having access to HMRC income, so it doesn’t need to be shared	58%
Adjusting the calculation to personal circumstances	34%
Properly accounting for equal shared care	21%
Properly accounting for relevant other children	20%
Accounting for hidden / undeclared income / earnings falsified by paying parent	5%
Don’t know	21%

	Paying parents
Adjusting the calculation to personal circumstances	57%
Properly accounting for equal shared care	42%
Properly accounting for relevant other children	35%
Having access to HMRC income, so it doesn’t need to be shared	30%
Another reason	19%
Don’t know	13%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Note - sum of responses exceeds 100% as this was a multiple-choice response question.

Almost 2 in 5 paying parents (38%) disagreed that that the CMS should be able to access HMRC income information. This was particularly evident amongst paying parents who were dissatisfied in their current arrangement.

Figure 22 Views on the CMS accessing HMRC income information

Figure 22 Survey Question: To what extent do you agree or disagree that CMS should be able to access HMRC income to do a calculation, assuming adequate identity verification, even if you are not going to have an ongoing case?

	Receiving parents	Paying parents
Strongly agree	67%	17%
Agree	25%	33%
Disagree	2%	13%
Strongly disagree	1%	25%
Don’t know	5%	8%
Prefer not to say	0%	3%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Despite a positive reception to the improved calculator, parents in the qualitative interviews expressed concerns around privacy and about how this would work in practice. Some of these views linked with the findings of the qualitative research, including that the calculator does not consider enough details of their financial circumstances and intricacies of the shared care arrangement.

Drivers of positive and negative views on improved calculator

In the qualitative interviews, key drivers for positive views on the improved calculator included:

• ease of calculation - parents were positive about the idea that they could gain an accurate calculation for the amount they would pay or receive

• lack of need for communication – having CMS present as a third party in a potential FBA was well received, as it alleviated concerns about having to conduct this without support

• improvement on existing tools – parents who had positive experiences with the calculator saw this as an improvement on an already effective service

The key drivers for negative responses to the improved calculator were:

• privacy concerns – parents were concerned about how much of a breach of privacy the HMRC calculator would mean, especially about providing their National Insurance number

• practical workings – there was confusion over how the calculator would work in practice, especially how it would be different from what the calculator currently offers

• lack of trust in existing calculators – receiving parents who had negative experiences with the existing calculator were sceptical that it would work better for them than previous ones had

Views on additions to CMS services

Receiving and paying parents found different additional services appealing. Most receiving parents would like the CMS to collect payments to ensure they were paid on time (57%) and for the CMS to initiate enforcement to address non-payment (56%). Receiving parents who found these 2 services appealing were more likely to be those who reported that the child does not spend time with the other parent, and survivors of domestic abuse.

Paying parents would most like support to create an FBA (41%). The proportion of paying parents who found this appealing was higher amongst those who reported that the child spends time with them (45%) and those who previously had an FBA (49%).

Just over 1 in 10 paying parents (13%) said they would like the CMS to initiate enforcement of non-payment as needed. These paying parents were more likely to be those who were satisfied with their current arrangement and agreed with HMRC accessing their income information automatically, through an improved calculator.

Figure 24 Appeal of additions to the CMS service

Figure 24 Survey Question: Which, if any, of the following things would you find appealing additions to the service the Child Maintenance Service provides to you?

	Receiving parents
The CMS to collect payments so they are paid in full and on time	57%
The CMS to initiate enforcement to address non-payment as needed	56%*
The CMS to reduce the likelihood of my being financially controlled	48%*
The CMS to provide clear proof of payments being made	38%
The CMS to reduce contact with the other parent	33%*
None - happy with the current Direct Pay service	18%
Don’t know	2%

*significantly more appealing to parents who are survivors of domestic abuse

	Paying parents
Support from the CMS to create a family-based arrangement	41%
The CMS to provide clear proof of payments being made	23%
The CMS to reduce the likelihood of my being financially controlled	20%
The CMS to reduce contact with the other parent	18%
The CMS to initiate enforcement to address non-payment as needed	13%
None - happy with the current Direct Pay service	24%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Note - sum of responses exceeds 100% as this was a multiple-choice response question.

Views on fees for additional CMS services

If a fee were introduced to use the CMS with the additional features which respondents found appealing, receiving parents were more receptive to that fee, with half (50%) reporting they would be willing to pay. This was higher among survivors of domestic abuse (52%) and was lower among those who were not survivors of domestic abuse (43%).

Around 1 in 5 paying parents (19%) reported that they were willing to pay the fee. This was higher among parents who were not survivors of domestic abuse (23%) and was lower among survivors of domestic abuse (18%). Paying parents being less willing to pay a fee possibly links to their negative views on the Collect and Pay service and not seeing value in the additional services that the CMS could offer.

Figure 25 Willingness to pay fee for additional services

Figure 25 Survey Question: If the Child Maintenance Service started to provide some of the additional features, would you be willing to pay a small fee for using this service?

	Receiving parents	Paying parents
Prefer not to say	1%	2%
Don’t know	16%	10%
No	33%	70%
Yes	50%	19%

Base: All CMS customers that would find additions appealing – Receiving parents (957); Paying parents (693).

In the qualitative interviews, paying parents were generally more hostile to fees whilst receiving parents who valued CMS involvement were more receptive.

Among receiving parents, there was acceptance of fees for those who had a less functional Direct Pay arrangement. Parents were more receptive of fees if they felt this would guarantee payments and would reduce or eliminate contact with the other parent.

Receiving parents who were opposed to fees felt it should be the paying parent who should cover this cost as they felt their actions were the reason they were on Direct Pay. The fee was also viewed by these parents as taking money away from the children.

It does feel slightly frustrating that the receiving parents are paying the same…By virtue of going through the child maintenance service, there is an issue with the parent paying the money.

Receiving parent

Paying parents typically held the view that the receiving parent was the reason they were on Direct Pay, as they had initiated the arrangement, and in this context, the fee was not always seen as fair. Parents whose relationship had improved through Direct Pay did not want any introduction of fees to lead to difficult conversations between parents about money.

Parents who were unwilling to pay fees saw the additional services as an unnecessary addition. However, paying parents were more receptive a potential 2% to 4% fee than the 20% charge through Collect and Pay.

I think having a small fee and having it monitored, if it was less than 10% wouldn’t be a bad thing at all. It gives people a lot more security that the payment has happened… Obviously, the fee would be lower than in collect and pay.

Paying parent

Views on monitoring

Parents’ views on monitoring were determined by the perceived need for this within their child maintenance agreement and their level of confidence in the CMS. The lack of confidence that some parents had in the service that CMS provided meant they were highly sceptical of the success or impact that potential changes to the service could have.

Responses to monitoring services differed between the 3 groups of Direct Pay users.

Close to FBA – Monitoring was not seen as needed in by these parents, and on occasion parents viewed it negatively as they appreciated the flexibility that Direct Pay allowed. The introduction of monitoring as the only option available if using the CMS would exclude many parents for whom Direct Pay is working well.

Happy with Direct Pay – There was some acceptance of monitoring and transferring payments, but it was not seen as a priority for the Direct Pay service. These parents would accept it, but there was not overall enthusiasm for the proposal.

Receptive to Monitoring – As this group were positive about Collect and Pay, they were receptive to the transferring and monitoring of payments. Among survivors of domestic abuse, the removal of an abusive partner’s name from bank statements was highlighted as a particular benefit. As paying parents often only had proof of payments through their bank statements, the security of knowing that the CMS would have confirmation of their payments was also a major draw to this service.

Impact of fee

The likely impact of the fee varied by parent type, but it did not change parents’ perceptions on CMS involvement. Receiving parents reported that there is still a need for the CMS in situations where there is difficulty in receiving payments and some simply appreciated the added security that the CMS provides.

I would be very reluctant to step away from the formality of the CMS, because I’m in a situation where if he simply changes his phone number, I have no way to contact him.

Receiving parent

The majority of receiving parents (68%)  reported that they would continue to use the CMS if there was a small fee. Paying parents were less likely to  say that they would continue to use CMS (22%).

Around  1 in 10 receiving parents (12%) said they would prefer to move to an FBA, while most paying parents (58%) reported that they would prefer to move to an FBA if a fee is introduced for CMS services.

I don’t think it would be fair to pay a fee for what we need – we don’t need or want more CMS involvement; we just need the calculation and the schedule.

Paying parent

Figure 26 Impact of fee on maintenance arrangements

Figure 26 Survey Question: Would a small fee for using the service have any impact on how you would prefer your child maintenance arrangements to be conducted?

	Receiving parents	Paying parents
I would continue to use the Child Maintenance Service	68%	22%
I would prefer to move to a Family-Based Arrangement	12%	58%
Don’t know	18%	16%
Prefer not to say	1%	5%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Impact of monitoring and payment transfer measures

Receiving parents were more likely to see positives of payment monitoring and transferring payments than paying parents. More than a third of receiving parents (36%) said they would feel more confident in their arrangement and around a third (32%) said it would reduce the potential of abuse. However, around a third of paying parents (32%) reported it would make them feel less trusted.

Among receiving parents, all measures were more likely to be reported as impactful among survivors of domestic abuse.

Figure 27 Impact of monitoring and payment transfer measures

Figure 27 Survey Question: If the Child Maintenance Service monitored and transferred child maintenance payments from the paying parent to you / you to the receiving parent, what impact, if any, would that have on you?

	Receiving parents
I would feel more confident in our child maintenance arrangement	36%
I think it would reduce the ability of the other parent to exercise financial control over or abuse	32%
I think the other parent would be more likely to pay on time	31%
I think the other parent would be more likely to pay the full amount	28%
It would be more like Collect and Pay, which is what I would have preferred initially	21%

	Paying parents
It would make no difference to me	38%
I would feel I’m not trusted	32%
I would be happy that CMS can see what I’m doing to support my children	22%
It would make me want to leave the service	19%
I would be glad the other parent can feel confident I will pay the child maintenance	11%

Base: All CMS customers – Receiving parents (1,204), Paying parents (1,002).

Note - sum of responses exceeds 100% as this was a multiple-choice response question.

Conclusions

Parents were generally positive about the Direct Pay service, feeling that it provided clarity and security compared with an FBA, although not all receiving parents reported receiving all their maintenance. Parents were happy Direct Pay did not involve any charges, compared with Collect and Pay.

Parents’ confidence in having an FBA was low overall, although paying parents were significantly more willing to move to an FBA than receiving parents.  Receiving parents placed value in having the CMS involved, including in setting the maintenance amount and helping to reduce or remove the need for discussions with the other parent which could cause conflict.

Collect and Pay was viewed as an effective deterrent by receiving parents and one which ensures that the paying parent stays in the Direct Pay arrangement. However, some receiving parents viewed the Collect and Pay fees negatively and paying parents were hostile towards the idea of using the service, seeing it as unneeded, intrusive, and likely to exacerbate the lack of trust between parents.

Receiving parents were more receptive than paying parents to the potential benefits associated with monitoring and transferring payments. They felt that monitoring could lead to greater confidence in their child maintenance arrangement, would reduce the likelihood of the other parent exercising financial control or exhibiting abusive behaviours, and may make them more likely to pay on time.

Paying parents mostly felt that monitoring would make no difference to them and held no real benefits. In fact, it might even lead them to feel like they were not trusted by the CMS, despite their reports that they were already paying on time and had aspirations to form an FBA.

The response to monitoring and the enhanced offer was determined by parents’ perceived need for this within their child maintenance agreement. Those who were closest to an FBA or were very happy with Direct Pay as it currently exists did not feel it was needed and might even view monitoring negatively as it was more inflexible than Direct Pay.

Those who were receptive to monitoring also felt positively about Collect and Pay, and in fact, would prefer to be on Collect and Pay rather than their current Direct Pay arrangement.

Additions to the service like collecting payments, initiating enforcement on non-payments, and reducing contact with the other parent were all of significantly more interest to receiving parents who were survivors of domestic abuse than those who were not. Survivors of domestic abuse were also significantly more likely than those who were not to be willing to pay a small fee for such a service and a higher proportion of these parents would stay within the CMS if a fee were introduced.