In the United States almost all state governments have developed institutional processes for the resolution of consumer-business disputes. These processes do not necessitate the filing of a civil or criminal complaint as a prelude to possible adversary trial. Although these "alternative" methods for dispute processing vary in their institutional form among the states, most of them feature the adjustment of disputes by a consumer protection unit operating in an attorney general's office, a commerce or agriculture department, or as a separate agency.

The West Virginia legislature established the Consumer Protection Division within the attorney general's office in 1974 during the high tide of the adoption of the "new" social regulation at the national level. Prior to the creation of the division, West Virginia had no state agency with direct responsibility for most consumer disputes. Although the primary aim of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act of 1974 was the definition of the substantive consurnersales law, it also charged the Consumer Protection Division with achieving voluntary compliance with consumer sales laws, counseling citizens and businesses on their rights and duties under these laws, and conducting consumer education. The attorney general was left to detail the operational procedures of the division.

Although the Consumer Protection Division is a small agency, normally operating with fewer than twenty full-time employees, its services are typical of those provided in a majority of the states. Results from a multistate survey of consumer protection services indicates that the division is legally and functionally similar to the consumer protection services operated by the offices of twenty-five other attorney generals and to twelve state consumer affairs departments attached to departments of agriculture or commerce.

The West Virginia division, like consumer protection units in most other states, has developed a workload focusing on consumer sales practices in the areas of automobile sales and repairs, mail order sales, sales on credit, home repairs, travel services, and durable goods sales and warranties. Assorted additional duties in professional and real estate regulation are sometimes assigned to consumer protection units, but this is not the case in West Virginia. The West Virginia division does have some special duties under the state's Pre-need Burial Contracts Act and Solicitation of Charitable Funds Act. Also, like most states, the emphasis of the West Virginia unit is on the resolution of consumer complaints filed with a central office through the use of letters and telephone contacts. Only a few states use face-toface mediation or arbitration of complaints, and even then they use it in only a small percentage of cases (Conn. Dept. of Consumer Protection, 1988; Hyman, 1983; MacCoun et al., 1988; McGillis, 1987; Md. Attorney General, 1988; Mass. Dept. of the Attorney General, 1987; New York. Attorney General, 1988; New York. Consumer Protection Board, 1987; Serber, 1980; Silbey, 1980-1). In all states, small consumer protection staffs process large numbers of complaints.

RESEARCH PROCEDURES

In preparing this article the authors first conducted interviews with the chief of staff of the attorney general's office, the director of the Consumer Protection Division, and the directorof Consumer Services. This information was used to develop a mail questionnaire which was sent to all state consumer protection offices during the fall of 1988. Second, in December 1988 the authors mailed 2108 questionnaires to individuals who had requested complaint forms from the division during the months of July and August 1988. Because the questionnaire generated only 330 responses (a response rate of 15%), 104 of the individuals previously mailed a questionnaire were called and asked to complete the questionnaire over the telephone. This increased the total number of responses to 434 (a response rate of 21%). Although this response rate is normal for a mail survey of the general public, some bias may exist in the results. Following the completion of the client surveys, we again contacted the division to complete the final stage of the study. During a two-day visit to the division, interviews were conducted with every member of the mediation section staff, the director of the division, the chief of staff of the attorney general's office, and an additional attorney from the legal section of the division. As a part of each interview, respondents were asked to rank a series of statements about mediation which required reflection on their personal perspective and values and their view of the agency's perspective and values. Analysis of the results consisted of cluster analysis on these items and simple univariate and bivariate analysis of survey data.

THE DIVISION'S INSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIVES

In the Spring of 1989, when the authors conducted their interviews, Attorney General Charlie Brown expressed the view that it was the duty of the division to protect the public interest and, in particular, for the Consumer Protection Division to empower citizens at minimal cost who might be economically abused. However, these general objectives were not articulated in written communications to agency personnel. Because the attorney general never provided a written set of measurable objectives for the division, it was left to the director of consumer services to determine such objectives. In fact, no measurable objectives were ever formally established for the division and no comprehensive, formal procedural manual existed. Consequently, new employees had to learn about the statutes they were to enforce and the procedures they were to follow through an informal process of observation and assistance with pending cases.

An informally structured process can easily lead to the use of personal standards by agency staff. To determine whether personal standards influenced staff behavior, the authors interviewed staff about their perceptions of their duties, their attitudes and beliefs about the division, and their attitudes toward divisional procedures. As part of the interview each staff member completed a Q sort. A Q sort is a form of attitude survey in which respondents are asked to rank a series of items rather than simply respond on an agree-disagree scale to each item (Brown, 1980). The set of fifty-four items used in this study covered attitudes about mediation as a process, the consumers and businesses with which staff have contact, the division's procedures, conceptions of fairness and justice, and the relationship of mediation and litigation.

To examine whether it was possible to sort staff into groups with similar overall beliefs, the authors used a clustering statistical procedure. The number clusters then serve as a measure of the amount of attitudinal diversity among staff. For the eleven staff members completing Q sorts, four

clusters developed, indicating considerable diversity in beliefs among people with the same job duties. Although all staff members agreed on many items (e.g. "form letters to businesses is a real mediation activity," and "mediation does not require face-to-face meetings"), some definite differences of opinion existed. The following cluster descriptions summarize the differences:

Cluster 1: This cluster contained six staff members and was the largest cluster. Their views were positive toward consumers and businesses alike. They believed that businesses are willing to cooperate, even without a threat of litigation, and that their role was to remain neutral and to represent the public interest.

Cluster 2: This cluster had only one member. This person was very "pro-consumer," but believed the mediator's role was to push for compromise. This person believed that mediators should not be concerned about whether businesses are engaging in illegal practices and that the mediator's most difficult job is to help consumers define their real problems.

Cluster 3: Three people shared the views of this cluster. These staff members believed mediators should take an active role in solving problems. They also believed mediation can solve a wide variety of problems, and that it does prevent litigation. They also were anti-business, believing that bad faith often exists, so their role must be more proconsumer.

Cluster 4: This cluster had two members, who shared an inability to form much of an opinion about any of the cluster items. They did not believe consumers need to be involved in the mediation process, and they agreed that the threat of legal action improves mediation's prospects.

These differences in value structures did not appear to affect job performance. No differences were observed among mediators with regard to the outcomes in cash or services they obtained for consumers, or with regard to respondents' perceptions of their degree of involvement, fairness of the outcome, or their treatment by the agency. As is evidenced by the differences of views among mediators, no "office ideology," or agreement on mediation practices, exists. This analysis indicates, therefore, that while the division has no clear objectives and has failed to convey them to its staff, no serious impact on job performance can be discerned.

PERSONNEL POLICIES

Perhaps a partial explanation for the lack of uniform objectivesamong thedivision's mediation staff istheirlackof professional allegiance to the agency. Mediators are poorly paid, have no career path, and generally do not plan to stay very long in their jobs. Thus, they often do not develop a professional commitment to their careers, the agency, or its objectives.

The director of the division is an attorney, who spends much of his workday on coordinating division activities and on litigation. Three otherattorneys devote most of theirwork to the division as well. The mediation services staff consists of a director of consumer services, four mediators, and two mediator/investigators. These individuals have education ranging from graduate work in criminal justice to the completion of high school. All mediators have at least an associate degree from a college. Two full-time and two part-time temporary personnel perform data entry and clerical duties, two secretaries serve the director and the attorneys, and two receptionists manage telephone calls.

The personnel of the division are appointed by the attorney general. Salaries in the division are extremely low, even in comparison to other state agencies. Because of the competition for legal talent, it has been the policy of the attorney general to allocate fiscal resources to the salaries of the attorneys in the office rather than to the mediation staff. Mostly younger persons are attracted to other staff positions, and mediators and clerical staff often hold the job only long enough to either "burn out" from the demands of thejob orto improve their resumes. Promotions are virtually impossible given the structure of the office. The result is extremely high turnover, with only the director of consumer services, one attorney, two secretaries, and one data entry staffer having more than two years' experience in the division. Because of employee turnover, additional problems result: consumers frequently must work with inexperienced mediators; and the division lacks an institutional memory because no one can recall how similar disputes, especially of an unusual nature, were handled in the past.

With the exception of the mediators/investigators, who take course work at the state police academy, the division's personnel receive no formal classroom training on their duties. Most mediators learn their jobs by watching the activities of another mediator for less than a week, reading the consumer protection statute, answering the hotline, and taking a few complaints and processing them under the eye of another mediator. Only two of the mediators or mediator/ investigators reported receiving sufficient training for their jobs. Divisional personnel also receive little evaluation of their work. Those interviewed reported being evaluated only through informal comments on work that drew the attention of the director of consumer services orthe division's director. Except for divisional attorneys, who receive yearly written evaluations couched in nonspecific language, no formal evaluation system exists.

THE INTERVENTION PROCEDURES OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION

The process of consumer protection in West Virginia is largely passive: cases almost always begin with a complaint by an aggrieved consumer rather than through proactive divisional investigation (compare Silbey, 1980-1). Thereafter, the intervention of the division in consumer complaints is a multistage process as indicated by Figure 1. However, some operational problems exist because procedural standards for the disposition of complaints are not clearly articulated in official documents. Particularly when the office isshort-handed, the directorof consumer services will adjust duties, often leading to a situation where clerical and mediation personnel are performing receptionist duties.

Since most complaints are initially received by telephone, either at the local number (35.0%) or on the toll-free hotline (52.6%), receptionists are the first divisional personnel in contact with consumers. The division assigns two staff to receive incoming calls, give nonlegal advice to consumers, make referrals to other state and federal agencies or private dispute resolution services when appropriate, and mail out complaint forms. Unlike many bureaus which attempt to conserve resources by control of access, the receptionists report that when in doubt about what to do with a complaint, they simply send the consumer a complaint form.

No written procedures guide the decisions of receptionists; they learn the standard operating procedures of their task on the job by watching an experienced receptionist. New receptionists report that such learning on the job leads to many initial errors in advice to consumers. In addition, to relieve receptionists for lunch and breaks, other personnel, including those in data entry, answer calls. In effect, the services of the division are rationed and demand is controlled at the discretion of receptionists, a discretion shaped as much by co-workers as by law or supervisors.

The division does not maintain a log or records of the disposition of local or hotline telephone calls so no accurate data on consumer calls exists. To obtain data regarding the number of calls, the authors recorded the number of calls that came into the office over a one-week period in April 1989. During that period, a daily average of forty-five calls were received on the hotline and a nearly equivalent number relating to new complaints were received on toll lines. This totals approximately 24,000 calls per year dealing with new consumer complaints and requests for information. The division estimates a higher volume of calls (40,000 in 1988), but a portion of these calls appear to be unrelated to new complaints. With the existing recordkeeping on calls, the exact number, nature, and disposition of telephone calls is impossible to determine; and it is also impossible to make a reliable measurement of the demands on the division, to double-check the services provided to consumers referredto other agencies or institutions, or to determine why persons do not submit complaint forms.

The division receives very few complaints by means other than the telephone. Field or regional offices (actually the visit of a mediatorto one of nine locations around the state once a month for four hours and the visit of staff of the attorney general's director of field services to nine other locations), generate small numbers of complaints for each visit (55 for the year 1988). Approximately one or two complaints a day are filed by individuals who walk into the division's headquarters (185 in 1988). In 1988 only 46 complaints were received by referral from other state agencies.

After this initial contact with the consumer, the division takes no action until the consumer returns a complaint form. The division reported the receipt of 6,745 complaint forms in the 1986 reporting year, 5,510 in 1987, and 6,101 in 1988 (for more detailed statistics, see W. Va. Attorney General, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989). The difference between the estimated 24,000 calls about consumer problems coming into the office and the 6,000 orso complaint forms returned is due to several factors. A large number of calls are referred to other agencies, some calls are for information only, and many consumers change their mind about filing a formal complaint. For example, the authors' survey sample of consumers revealed that the primary reasons for failure to return the form were the solution of the problem in the interim (35.8% of forms not returned) and the time and trouble it took to complete the form (20.8%).

Although different complaint forms exist fordifferent types of complaints, all forms require certain basic information which can be coded for computerization of files and afford the complainant a space to describe the problem in writing. Once a complaint is received and coded for computer entry by a receptionist, information on the parties and the nature of the complaint is recorded into computerized files by data entry personnel. The complaint is usually then assigned to a mediator according to the letter of the alphabet of the complainant's last name. All complainants are then sent a form letter acknowledging the receipt of their complaint. Mediators keep their own files and record every action taken on a special cover sheet. Mediators then can check records pulled from the computerized file to see if other complaints exist against the firm. The mediator then must decide whetherthecase is appropriate for mediation bythedivision. If the case by law should be handled by another agency or private legal action, a letter is sent to the consumer explaining appropriate actions. Unless further information is required, or the consumer contacts the mediator, no direct contact is made with the complainant.

The constant demands on the division and the unbounded time frame governing the consideration of complaints gives an endless, routinized character to the consumer disputing process. The open files of complaints especially symbolize the endless character of the tasks confronting divisional personnel. The typical case takes 84 days to close, 18.2% of cases take more than three months to close. Moreover, each mediator has approximately 125 open complaint files on any given day plus four or five open investigations. This caseload only allows time for some contact with every consumer approximately every three weeks. Mediators/investigators have about 20 open investigations on any day plus open complaint files. Time to show sympathy and concern to clients and to address complaints in a personalized fashion is scarce. The time allocated to a typical complaint is difficult to measure, but probably less than one half-hour is devoted to the initial review of the complaint. Later responses demand the attention of the mediator for brief periods of time. As one mediator put it, "You get'em in and you move'em out."

If the business does not respond to the complaint in 30 days, a second form letter will be sent which might threaten potential legal action. It is not common for personal letters to be sent to either party or telephone calls to be made to parties to a dispute unless circumstances emerge regarding a potential settlement, specific information is needed to complete the complaint form, or the complaint remains unsettled over a long period of time and the mediator wants to check on its status. Although no divisional rules govern the use of the telephone to assist in any stage of complaint disposition, telephone calls are discouraged in orderto keep down costs.

Emergency or crisis complaints are rare in the agency, but these complaints, together with complaints indicating clear violations of the law, are referred to the director of consumer services and the director of the division for review and possible investigation. Such complaints comprised 1665 of the 6101 complaints in 1988, but many of the 1665 complaints selected for investigation were against the same firm, producing a much smaller number of actual investigations

against offenders. Figures on the total number of firms investigated were not available.

Most investigations involve 10 to 50 complaints about a single firm, although as many as 300 complaints have been addressed in an investigation of a single firm. Investigations follow one of two patterns. First, the mediators/investigators allocate about a quarter of their workdays to going around the state and randomly checking car dealers and shopping malls for obvious violations of statutes on sales prices, conditions, warranties, and the costs charged for returned checks. On afull day in thefield theycan checkasmanyas30 auto dealers and an even greater number of other retailers. Mediators and the director of consumer services, when assigned tofield offices, also allocate a few hoursof theirday to checking auto dealers and businesses in malls. Usually violators are given a warning to begin corrective action. On return to the office the investigators file a preliminary investigative form and create a file on the firm. Violations discovered in the field may also be compared to office records to determine if additional corrective action is necessary.

The second pattern of investigation often begins as divisional personnel share information on businesses who are thesubjectof verysevere complaints (forexample, threatsof violence by the business), frequent complaints, or obvious violations of the law. This information is communicated to the director of consumer services. Also, the director of consumer services checks the data files approximately every quarterto look for businesses frequently involved in disputes. Once evidence begins to accumulate about a pattern of violations or a severe violation, the director of consumer services normally assigns the case to one of the mediators/investigators. Theycompletea preliminary investigative form and create a file. All additional investigative action is also recorded on updateforms. It isentered in summaryform into the data system by data entry personnel.

After a preliminary investigation identifies a potential offender business, an office-based "administrative investigation" occurs over a period varying from a week to several months, usually with some consultation with staff attorneys or the director of the division. The investigation typically involves office research into complaints against the firm, calls to recheck complaints with consumers, checks on the firm's corporate status, licenses, and legal difficulties with other state agencies, calls to local prosecutors and other local officials, and calls to consumer protection services, public and private, in other states. Less frequently, mediators/investigators employ "field investigations" which can involve observation and photography of firm practices, the accumulation of affidavits from consumers, the questioning of citizensand informants about a firm's practicesand reputation, and the useof undercover techniques to splicit statutory violations from businesses. Field investigations are largely confined to auto dealerships.

Thedivision reserves litigation fora handful of complaints. The attorneys in the division receive case assignments from the director of the division, who also assumes some of the caseload. Usuallythe attorneys know about the development of cases through daily informal consultation with the mediators and investigators, and they may directly address consumer calls about cases two or three times a week. The attorneys tend to become more involved in cases when the director of consumer services determines an investigation is needed. Because the attorneys pursue suits on the basis of patterns of action more frequently than on a single incident, evidentiary development is the vital part of their task. Especially during the investigation the attorneys want the investigator to take care and see that admissible evidence is discovered. They are also concerned about the location of witnesses and the clarification of the nuances of the treatment of consumers by a business over time. An attorney normally has about ten cases in litigation with a complaint having beenfiled, butaboutseven oreightof thesecaseswill be settled prior to trial. About ten cases assigned to an attorney are in active investigation prior to the filing of a complaint, and an attorney is pursuing assurances of discontinuance (a voluntary agreement to cease and desist from practices) in about thirty-five cases. Since state law affords few misdemeanor and no felony penalties for violations of the consumer protection statutes, the attorneys normally aim to obtain from businesses the assurance of discontinuance. These are normally arranged by negotiation with the counsel for the firm, Most of these efforts result in counsel forthe firm spontaneously agreeing to discontinue practices or negotiating a settlement of the consumer complaint with the division, as is typical in American civil practice. If a case goes to trial, the most the division can win is a cease-and-desist order, civil penalties, fees, and costs, restitution, and bad publicity about the business. The division also participates as amicus curiae or as a party in multistate suits against businesses once or twice a year. Information about multistate litigation is obtained by telephone calls between the attorneys and consumer protection personnel in other states or from the National Association of Attorney Generals' Newsletter.

CONSUMER EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

The division has no organized system of consumer education to either increase or reduce the volume of consumer disputes. The public also has no means of gaining information about the volume and nature of complaints against a firm before purchasing goods or services. State statutes prohibit the division from directly informing consumers about past complaints or investigations about businesses. Although mediators can be referred calls about business practices by the receptionists, they are able to give consumers only generalized advice. Forexample, mediators may state what the law of warranties requires or what the provisions of the automotive lemon law require, or they may offer a few "hints" about good business practices. Unfortunately, West Virginia has no Better Business Bureau or other source of detailed information about specific businesses to which divisional staff can refer consumers.

Divisional personnel prepare and distribute pamphlets to citizens, schools, and libraries about consumer law and divisional procedures; speak to civic bodies, trade associations, and school and college classes; and give advice to consumers at the field offices, events at malls, special workshops, and fairs. But, because of limited staff, most of the consumer education activity is concentrated on the annual April Consumer Awareness Month. Pamphlets are also sent on request to consumers and civic and educational bodies, but no mailing list is employed for the general and regular distribution of informational materials. The division's director or director of consumer services, through the attorney general's press secretary, address specific media requests for information. Occasional informational radio spots are prepared and aired. Nevertheless, the division has no systematic scheme for the communication of information to the public on business practices or products or on its own services and procedures. Although the lack of organized consumer education creates information costs forconsurners as they seek remedies to their disputes, these remain unaddressed by the division. Consumer education remains a stepchild to the division's primary task of processing complaints.

HOW CONSUMERS EVALUATE CONSUMER
PROTECTION DIVISION SERVICES

In a representative system of government, citizen reaction to the functioning of any governmental service should be an essential determinant of the existence, modification, or correction of the delivery of the service. Thus, an evaluation of the Consumer Protection Division must include measurement of citizen use and satisfaction with its services. The division utilizes several measures of its performance, but all are instrumental or "market" measures of dispute outcomes in terms of dollars awarded complainants or numbers of cases processed. Statistics on litigation and mediation services only detail the numbers of complaints, complaint mediation actions, and civil actions. The division does give special attention to thetotal dollar amounts of recoveries and its annual reports devote considerable space to the details of suits commenced by the division's attorneys. Yet, missing from the division's evaluation of its performance is information on clientele reactions to services.

Citizen reactions to the operations of the division were derived from data gathered from the survey of citizens using the agency. Results of the mail questionnaire indicate general satisfaction with the operations of the division. The information indicates that 66% of consumers said they were treated very well by divisional personnel, and an additional 20.7% indicated adequate treatment. Also, as ndicated in Table 2, 62.9% of all respondents reported that they were adequately involved in the mediation process. Of the respondents, 73% reported that they had filed a complaint form with the agency. This is a much higher percentage than the 50% that the agency personnel estimated actually did return complaint forms to them. This indicates misreporting on the part of the survey's respondents or that the data of this report may represent the extremes of the client population (those most satisfied and dissatisfied) rather than the entire population.

Only 39.9% of the respondents who filed complaint forms perceived the solution to their problem to be fair. The percentage of all respondents who perceived a fair outcome was 42.5%, and the percentage of those who did not file a complaint form who perceived a fair outcome was 49.5%. This indicates that other avenues of solution (such as legal action orcontactingthe business directly) were perceivedto produce results that are at least as fair as the mediation program in the division. In addition, only 38.3% of the respondents who both filed a complaint form and took other actions perceived the outcome to be fair. One possible explanation for their relatively low level of satisfaction is that respondents who did not file a complaint form were more likely to have obtained a favorable outcome fairly quickly. Moreover, those who filed a complaint form and took other actions as well were likely to have been involved with lesscooperative companies and were faced with more paperwork.

The relatively low percentage of respondents who perceived the solution to their problem to be fair can be explained by examining the types of outcome. Only about 45% of the participants in the mediation process reported receiving some value, either cash or services, as a result of these activities. Of the respondents, only 40% of those who only filed the complaint form, 44.2% of those who filed the form plus took other actions, and 49% of those who did not return a complaintform received either compensatory money or services. The mean dollar value reported returned to respondents was $566.30, afigure higherthan that calculated by divisional personnel. In comparing respondents' report of value received to division records, it was discovered that respondent self-reports differ significantly from agency records. Some of this is explained by outcomes obtained through other actions, but it also appears that respondents often differ with the division about the value of services received. Importantly, only 39% of the respondents who returned complaint forms believed that the agency's actions solved their problem. Of these respondents, 62% also took some other action to solve their problem, and 25% believed their problem was solved solely by the other actions taken.

Despite some dissatisfaction with dispute outcomes, most respondents reported that they would use the services of the agency again (79.4%). This information indicates that no clear link exists in consumers' minds between problem outcomes and the value of the Consumer Protection Division as a useful governmental service. In orderto develop a better understanding of respondents' attitudes, an attempt was made to discover whether the outcome, degree of involvement in the process, or perceived treatment by agency personnel affected respondents' perceptions of the division. The survey data indicate that there is a definite relationship between a perception that the division solved the problem and a perception that the problem was solved fairly. Of the consumers reporting a fair outcome to their dispute, 73.5% said that divisional action had definitely solved their problem and 10.3% reported that divisional action had almost solved their problem. In contrast, of the consumers reporting no fair outcome to the dispute, 18.7% said that divisional action had not really solved their problem and 70.2% said that divisional action had definitely not solved their problem.

Whether the consumer received money or services did not affect the perception of fairness; 82% who received services perceived the solution to be fair and 85% of those who received cash also perceived the solution to be fair. Consumers who received nothing or who ended up paying for the problem correction themselves saw the outcome as unfair (96.7%). The perception of fairness was inversely related to

Source: Survey data.

the dollar amount received. Respondents receiving higher amounts were less likely to ratethe outcome as fairthan were respondents receiving lesser amounts (Pearson correlation of .79), probably because automobile problems yield the highest return but the greatest dissatisfaction.

The literature on procedural justice indicates that a voice or "process control" in a case may matteras much or moreto individuals than whether the decision favored them (Casper, et al, 1988; Lind and Tyler, 1988; Thibaut and Walker, 1975-1 Tyler, 1988). Participation through consultation orconsideration of their interests during the process of dispute resolution thus positively affects evaluations of dispute processing institutions. Interestingly, despite the bureaucratic mode of divisional operations, a majority of consumers in West Virginia reported adequate involvement in the disposition of their complaints. Also, the perception of involvement does affect perceptions of the fairness of the outcome. Of the respondents, 62.5% reporting involvement in the outcome stated the outcome was fair. In contrast, 94.2% of consumers reporting no involvement found the outcome to be unfair.

To secure any administrative changes in an agency, there must be a desire for change and the institutional capacity to inaugurate the changes. Nearly all personnel interviewed for this study were willing to offer candid advice on the areas of divisional operations where they believed improvement was necessary. From the discussions it is clear that divisional personnel have the desire to improve the operations of the division.

It is evident from the research conducted, here that several management changes might be recommended as improvements in the Consumer Protection Division: (1) the establishment of clear objectives for the division; (2) the creation of a comprehensive procedural manual-, and (3) the regular, thorough evaluation of personnel. These changes should help control the discretion of the mediators, provide a basis for evaluating adequate staff performance, and afford staff uniform guidance on how to treat clientele. Changes are also recommended in regard to personnel policy, including higher salaries for all personnel, internal training programs, avoidance of using personnel outside their job descriptions in tasks such as manning the hotline, and an increase in the number and professionalism of receptionists. These changes should encourage experienced personnel to stay with the division, provide a more skilled staff, encourage improved staff morale, and promote more informed treatment of complainants who call the division.

Also, a number of changes are recommended to improve the division's operating procedures: (1) logging of telephone calls; (2) double-checking on referrals; (3) surveying on a regular basis clientele, and callers not returning complaint forms, in order to identify service problems; (4) developing mediator specialization on specific categories of businesses; (5) extending computerization of record management; (6) more frequent personal telephone contacts with consumers; (7) more frequent spot-checking of records to identify firms or business practices deserving investigation; and (8) more effective monitoring of investigations. These changes should improve the division's ability to satisfy complainant demands, locate problem firms or business practices, administer complaints more rapidly, and investigate more firms. The authors also recommend greater interagency, interstate, and state-federal communication about consumer affairs, the creation of private consumer information services in the state, and the establishment of a governmental body to coordinate all consumer protection services in the state. These contacts should improve the ability of the division to locate problem business practices and to prevent the introduction of illegal or questionable sales practices in the state.

It would also be highly desirableforthe Consumer Protection Division to create the post of consumer education specialist to expand the informational resources about consumer issues available to the public. The specialist could help prevent some consumer abuses while encouraging the use of division services. Finally, although the rudimentary use of volunteers was made in the early years of the division, the agency might explore alternatives in the use of volunteers and interns. Especially using the successful schemes adopted in states like Massachusetts, these persons could be used to staff the field offices. This would enable the state to significantly expand the availability of the face-to-face services which are preferred by consumers, according to other studies in other states, with a minimal investment of state funds.

These recommendations require expanded personnel and procedural and operational changes that will cost money. Because of the serious fiscal problems confronting West Virginia's state government, such requests are likely to go unanswered. However, grantsfrom organizations such as the National Center for Dispute Resolution, user fees for face-toface mediation, and the employmentof volunteers could help to contain costs and fund some of these recommendations,

The thrust of this evaluation of consumer protection is that existing consumer protection efforts by the attorney general are only in need of incremental modification.