Research and analysis

Child Maintenance Service: Direct Pay Research - Executive Summary

Published 23 June 2025

Joanna Crossfield, Juliette Albone, Jack Watson and Noah Coltman (Ipsos UK Public Affairs)

Background

Child maintenance can be arranged privately between parents in a Family Based Arrangement (FBA) or through the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) via Collect and Pay or a Direct Pay arrangement. In Collect and Pay, the CMS collects money from the paying parent and pays it to the receiving parent. In Direct Pay, the CMS determines how much should be paid in child maintenance, and parents organise their own payments. There are fees associated with the Collect and Pay service, however there are no fees in a Direct Pay arrangement.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) commissioned Ipsos to understand customer perceptions of 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?

Key Findings

• Around 2 in 5 parents had only ever used Direct Pay. If they had used an alternative arrangement, it was most likely an 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 the fees in Collect and Pay.
• 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 among 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.
• Collect and Pay was viewed as an effective deterrent and one which ensures that the paying parents pay in a Direct Pay arrangement. Paying parents were generally more hostile towards Collect and Pay, viewing it as unneeded and intrusive. Paying parents were more open to forming an FBA in the future, this was linked to the desire to avoid the introduction of fees, if they were moved to Collect and Pay or a new reformed Direct Pay service.
• Receiving parents appreciated the third-party support that the CMS provides in helping to set up and support their arrangement.
• Receiving parents were more receptive than paying parents to the potential benefits associated with CMS monitoring and transferring payments. Paying parents mostly felt that monitoring would make no difference and had no real benefits for them.
• Both parent types lacked trust in the CMS, and some parents chose not to contact the CMS in the event of missed or late payments because of past experiences. However, the existence of a third-party like the CMS was still valued, as they helped to mediate between parents.
• Parents reported they typically needed support in the early stages of setting up an arrangement. Paying parents were most likely want additional support.
• Satisfaction levels with their Direct Pay arrangement were lower if a parent was a survivor of domestic abuse. 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.

Methodology

The research combined quantitative and qualitative approaches.

Quantitative method

The quantitative strand comprised a mixed mode survey conducted in January – 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 in February to 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. Quotes were used at recruitment stage to ensure a wide range of attitudes and experiences were captured.

Findings Explained

Experiences of Direct Pay

• Around 2 in 5 parents 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%) and paying parents (40%).
• Most receiving parents (65%) said they changed to Direct Pay because the other parent was not paying in an FBA. The main reason for moving to Direct Pay among paying parents was wanting to avoid additional charges in a Collect and Pay arrangement (21%).
• 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%). Amongst 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

Attitudes towards other child maintenance arrangements

• 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.
• Overall, some receiving parents felt an FBA would work, but those who were open to it highlighted clear barriers to setting one up. 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.
• 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.
• Around 3 in 5 receiving parents (61%) saying they were ‘not at all confident’ in having an FBA, and this rose to more than 4 in 5 among survivors of domestic abuse (83%). 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%).
• 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. 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.
• Three in 10 receiving parents (31%) believed the possibility of additional payments through Collect and Pay encouraged ongoing payments through Direct Pay, compared with around 2 in 10 paying parents (19%).

Views on changes to the Direct Pay Service

• 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.
• 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%). Paying parents would most like support to create an FBA (41%).
• 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.
• Parents views on monitoring were determined by the perceived need for this within their child maintenance agreement and their level of confident in the CMS. Generally, those who were close to an FBA did not feel monitoring was needed for them, whereas those who were positive about Collect and Pay were receptive to the idea of transferring of payments and monitoring of payments.
• 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.