Order Code RL31025
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Fatherhood Initiatives:
Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Updated January 23, 2004February 17, 2005
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Fatherhood Initiatives:
Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Summary
In 2000, 262003, 24% of families with children were maintained by mothers. According
to some estimates, 60% of children born during the 1990s will spend a significant
portion of their childhood in a home without their father. Research indicates that
children raised in single-parent families are more likely than children raised in twoparent families (with both biological parents) to do poorly in school, have emotional
and behavioral problems,
become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes.
In hopes of improving the
long-term outlook for children in single-parent families,
federal, state, and local
governments governments, along with public and private organizations, are
supporting programs
and activities that promote the financial and personal
responsibility of noncustodial
fathers to their children and increase the participation
of fathers in the lives of their
children. These programs have come to be known as
“responsible “fatherhood” programs.
Sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs include the Temporary Assistance
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, TANF state Maintenance-of-Effort
(MOE)
funding, welfare-to-work funds, Child Support Enforcement (CSE) funds,
and Social
Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds.
President Bush’s FY2004 Budget included $20 million annually (for FY2004FY2008) for competitive grants to community and faith-based organizations for
responsible fatherhood programs. On February 13, 2003, the House passed H.R. 4
(108th Congress), a welfare reauthorization bill (that is essentially identical to H.R.
4737 as passed by the House in 2002) that provides $20 million per year for each of
FY2004-FY2008 for a responsible fatherhood grant program. On September 10,
2003, the Senate Finance Committee approved its version of H.R. 4, which
establishes a $75 million responsible fatherhood program comprised of four
components for each of the fiscal years 2004-2008. The Senate is expected to vote
on H.R. 4 during the second session of the 108th Congress Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds.
Beginning with the 106th Congress, the House but not the Senate passed bills
containing responsible fatherhood initiatives (in the 107th and 108th Congresses as
part of welfare reauthorization bills). Moreover, from the start President Bush has
been a supporter of responsible fatherhood programs; each of his budgets has
included funding for such programs. In the 109th Congress, several welfare
reauthorization bills that provide funding for responsible fatherhood grant programs
have been introduced.
Most fatherhood programs include media campaigns that emphasize the
importance of emotional, physical, psychological, and financial connections of
fathers to their children. Most fatherhood programs include parenting education;
responsible decision-making; mediation services for both parents; providing an
understanding of the CSE program; conflict resolution, coping with stress, and
problem-solving skills; peer support; and job -training opportunities (skills
development, interviewing skills, job search, job -retention skills, job -advancement
skills, etc.). To help fathers and mothers meet their parental responsibilities, many
policy analysts and observers support broad-based collaborative strategies that go
beyond welfare and child support agencies and include schools, work programs,
prison systems, churches, community organizations, and the health care system.
The federal government’s support of fatherhood initiatives raises a wide array
of issues. This report briefly examines the role of the CSE agency in fatherhood
programs and discusses whether father-child interaction can be promoted and
supported , discusses initiatives to promote and support father-child interaction
outside the framework of the father-mother relationship, and whether
summarizes the debate
over whether fatherhood programs should include the “promotion of marriage.”
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
What Are Fatherhood Initiatives? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Research and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
MDRC Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Responsible
Fatherhood Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. 9
Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1210
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1211
CSE System and Noncustodial Parents Often At Odds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Non-Custodial12
Noncustodial Father Involvement Versusvs. Promotion of Marriage
Versus vs.
Maintenance of Fragile Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Fatherhood Initiatives:
Connecting Fathers To Their Children
Introduction
In 2000, 31. . . . . . 14
Legislative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Fatherhood Initiatives:
Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Introduction
In 2003, 30% of families with children were maintained by one parent; this
figure is up from 11% in 1970. Most of the children in these single-parent families
were being raised by their mothers.1 According to some estimates, 60% of children
born during the 1990s will spend a significant portion of their childhood in a home
without their biological father. Research indicates that children raised in singleparent families are more likely than children raised in two-parent families (with both
biological parents) to do to do
poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems,
become teenage parents,
and have poverty-level incomes as adults.2 Nonetheless, it
is widely acknowledged
that most of these mothers, despite the added stress of being
a single parent, do a
good job raising their children. That is, although children with
absent fathers are at
greater risk of having the aforementioned problems, most do not
experience them.
In hopes of improving the long-term outlook for children in single-parentsingleparent families,
federal, state, and local governments along with public and private
organizations are
supporting programs and activities that promote the financial and personal
personal responsibility of noncustodial fathers to their children and reduce the
incidence of
father absence in the lives of children.
The third finding of the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) states:
“Promotion of responsible fatherhood and motherhood is integral to successful child
rearing and the well-being of children.” Moreover, three of the four goals of the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program are consistent with the
components of most fatherhood programs. The three fatherhood-related goals are:
ending welfare dependence by employment and marriage; reducing out-of-wedlock
pregnancies; and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Thus, states may spend TANF and TANF state Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds
on fatherhood programs. Further, any services that are directed to the goal of
reducing nonmarital births or the goal of encouraging two-parent families are free of
income eligibility rules.
1
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, P20-537.Jason Fields and Lynne M. Casper, America’s Families
and Living Arrangements: 2000, by Jason Fields and Lynne M. Casper. June 2001. p. 5-7.
2
McLanahan, Sara, and Gary Sandefur.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P20-537 (June 2001), pp. 5-7.
2
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts,
What Helps. (Cambridge, MA,: Harvard University Press, 1994. See also: Bumpass, L.
(1984) ), see also L. Bumpass,
“Children and Marital Disruption: A Replication and Update.,” Demography, v. 21.
71-82. See also: Maynard, Rebecca A.vol. 21(1984),
pp. 71-82; Rebecca A. Maynard, ed., Kids Having Kids –: A Robin Hood Foundation
Special Special
Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing. 1996 (New York, 1996).
CRS-2
With the exception of the federal Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program,
fathers historically have been ignored with regard to their input or participation in
welfare programs. Moreover, it was not until 1996 that Congress broadened its view
to acknowledge the non-economic contributions that fathers make to their children
by authorizing the use of CSE funds to promote access and visitation programs.
With the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law, which helped reduce the welfare
rolls, increase the employment of low-income mothers, and strengthen the CSE
program, Congress began focusing its attention on the emotional well-being of
children. Historically, Congress had treated visitation and child support as legally
separate issues, with only child support enforcement activities under the purview of
the federal government. The 1996 law authorized an annual $10 million entitlement
of CSE funds to states to establish and operate access and visitation programs.3
It appears that a consensus
“While fathers must fulfill their financial
has occurred regarding the need
commitments, they must also fulfill their emotional
to connect or reconnect
commitments. Dads play indispensable roles that
noncustodial parents to their
cannot be measured in dollars and cents:
children. During the 106th
nurturer, mentor, disciplinarian, moral instructor,
Congress, Representative Nancy
and skills coach, among other roles.”
Johnson, then chair of the Ways
Source: U.S. Executive Office of the President. A, A Blueprint
and Means Subcommittee on
Blueprint for New Beginnings– — A Responsible Budget for
Human Resources, stated: “To
for America’s Priorities. Chapter 12. February 2001 (Feb. 2001), chap. 12, p. 75.
take the next step in welfare
p. 75.
reform we must find a way to
help children by providing them
with more than a working
mother and sporadic child support.” She noted that many
low-income fathers have
problems similar to those of mothers on welfare. Namely, — namely,
they are likely to have
dropped out of high school, to have little work experience, and
to have significant
barriers that lessen their ability to find and/or keep a job. She also
asserted that in
many cases these men are “dead broke” rather than “dead beats” and
that the federal
government should help these noncustodial fathers meet both their
financial and
emotional obligations to their children.
During the 106th Congress, 107th, and 108th Congresses, legislation was
twice passed by the
House (but not acted on by the Senate — H.R. 3073 and H.R.
4678) that would have authorized funding ($140 million over 4 years) to establish a
program (usually referred to as fatherhood initiatives) to make grants to public or
private entities for projects designed to promote marriage, promote successfulby the Senate that would have established categorical competitive
grants to community and faith-based organizations for responsible fatherhood
programs. Although a responsible fatherhood program has not yet been enacted, each
3
The child access and visitation program (Section 391 of P.L. 104-193) funded the
following activities in FY1999FY2003: mediation, counseling, parental education, development of
parenting plans, visitation enforcement, monitored visitation, neutral drop off and pickup,
supervised visitation, and development of guidelines for visitation and custody. In FY1999FY2003,
about 47,00069,500 individuals received services. Most common services: supervised visitation,
parenting education, counseling, and mediation. Most states used a mix of services. Most
of the service
providers were Human Service Agencies. Individuals were referred to
services by the
courts, CSE or welfare agencies, and others, as well as by self-referral.
Services were both
mandatory and voluntary, as determined by the state. Source: U.S.
Department of Health
and Human Services., Administration for Children and Families.
, Office of Child Support Enforcement.
Enforcement, State Child Access and Visitation Grants: State
Profiles (FY1999). October 2002.
CRS-3
parenting and the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, and help
fathers improve their economic status by providing job-related services to them.
During the 107th Congress, several bills (H.R. 1300/S. 653, H.R. 1471, S. 685,
S. 940/H.R. 1990, H.R. 2893, H.R. 3625, H.R. 4090, S. 2524, and H.R. 4737) that
included fatherhood initiatives were introduced. The purposes of the fatherhood
programs in the bills introduced generally were the same: fatherhood programs must
be designed to promote marriage through counseling, mentoring, and other activities;
promote successful parenting through counseling, providing information about good
parenting practices including payment of child support, and other activities; and help
noncustodial parents and their families avoid or leave cash welfare by providing
work-first services, job training, subsidized employment, career-advancing education,
and other activities.
However, the structure of the fatherhood programs differed. For example, H.R.
4737 as amended and passed by the House would have added a new part C to Title
IV of the Social Security Act to provide competitive grants to public and private
entities to operate an array of fatherhood programs. The competitive grants would
have been administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The appropriation amount for the fatherhood grants was set at $20 million a year for
each of the five fiscal years FY2003 through FY2007; up to 15% of the annual
appropriation was to be available for the cost of various demonstration projects and
evaluations of the competitive grants.
In contrast, H.R. 4737 as amended in the nature of a substitute by the Senate
Finance Committee appeared to have more of an emphasis on helping low-income
noncustodial parents find and retain work. It would have amended part D of title IV
of the Social Security Act (i.e., the Child Support section) to provide grants to states
to (1) establish a noncustodial parent employment grant program and (2) conduct
policy reviews and develop recommendations, and conduct demonstration projects
with the goals of obtaining and retaining employment for low-income noncustodial
parents, increasing child support payments, increasing the involvement of lowincome noncustodial parents with their children, and coordinating services for lowincome noncustodial parents. The HHS Secretary and the Secretary of Labor would
have jointly awarded grants to eligible states for the purpose of establishing, in
coordination with counties and other local governments, supervised employment
programs for noncustodial parents who have a history of irregular payment or
nonpayment of child support obligations and who are determined to be in need of
employment services in order to pay their child support obligations. The
appropriation amount for the noncustodial parent employment program was set at
$25 million a year for each of the four fiscal years FY2004 through FY2007. The
appropriation amount for the grants, administered by the HHS Secretary, to states for
policy reviews, recommendations, and demonstration projects also was set at $25
million a year for each of the four fiscal years FY2004 through FY2007.
Although H.R. 4737, amended, was passed by the House on May 16, 2002
(H.Rept. 107-460, Part 1), and reported favorably in the nature of a substitute by the
Senate Finance Committee (S.Rept. 107-221) on July 25, 2002, it was not passed by
the full Senate.
CRS-4
President Bush also has indicated his support for fatherhood initiatives.
President Bush’s FY20024 and FY2003 budgets both included responsible fatherhood
initiatives. President Bush’s FY2003 Budget included $20 million (for FY2003) for
competitive grants to community and faith-based organizations for programs that
help noncustodial fathers support their families to avoid or leave cash welfare,
become more involved in their children’s lives, and promote successful parenting and
encourage and support healthy marriages and married fatherhood.
The 108th Congress has introduced several bills that include responsible
fatherhood provisions (i.e., S. 5, S. 448, S. 604, and S. 657, S. 1443; H.R. 4 and H.R.
936). President Bush's FY2004 budget includes $20 million annually (for FY2004FY2008) for promotion and support of responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage.
This funding is expected to promote and support involved, committed, and
responsible fatherhood and encourage the formation and stability of healthy
marriages. The proposed budget would also increase the annual funding of the CSE
access and visitation grant program gradually from $10 million annually to $20
million annually by FY2007.
On February 13, 2003, the House passed H.R. 4 (108th Congress), a welfare
reauthorization bill (that is essentially identical to H.R. 4737 as passed by the House
in 2002) that provides $20 million per year for each of FY2004-FY2008 for a
responsible fatherhood grant program.
On September 10, 2003, the Senate Finance Committee approved its version of
H.R. 4 (S.Rept. 108-162), which establishes a $75 million responsible fatherhood
program comprised of four components for each of the fiscal years 2004-2008: (1)
a $20 million grant program for up to 10 eligible states to conduct demonstration
programs; (2) a $30 million grant for eligible entities to conduct demonstration
programs; (3) $5 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion
organization to develop and promote a responsible fatherhood media campaign; and
(4) a $20 million block grant for states to conduct responsible fatherhood media
campaigns.
What Are Fatherhood Initiatives?
The realization that one parent, especially a low-income parent, often can’t
meet the financial needs of her or his children is not new. In 1975, Congress viewed
the CSE program as a way to make noncustodial parents responsible for the financial
support of their children. In more recent years, Congress has viewed the CSE
program as the link that could enable single parents who are low-wage earners to
4
President Bush’s FY2002 Budget included $64 million in 2002 ($315 million over five
years) to strengthen the role of fathers in the lives of families. This initiative would have
provided competitive grants to faith-based and community organizations that help
unemployed or low-income fathers and their families avoid or leave cash welfare, as well
as to programs that promote successful parenting and strengthen marriage. The initiative
also would have funded projects of national significance that support expansion of state and
local responsible fatherhood efforts.
CRS-5 Profiles (FY2003)
(Washington, July 2004).
CRS-3
of President Bush’s budgets included grant programs for responsible fatherhood
programs to help reconnect noncustodial parents to their children by providing jobrelated services to them and by improving their parenting and social interaction skills.
During the period from 2002-2004, the responsible fatherhood bills that were passed
by the House were part of welfare reauthorization legislation. As expected, the 109th
Congress has introduced several welfare reauthorization bills that include funding for
responsible fatherhood grant programs. (For a more detailed legislative history or
recent fatherhood initiatives, see the discussion of Legislative Action, beginning on
page 15 of this report.)
What Are Fatherhood Initiatives?
The realization that one parent, especially a low-income parent, often can’t
meet the financial needs of her or his children is not new. In 1975, Congress viewed
the CSE program as a way to make noncustodial parents responsible for the financial
support of their children. In more recent years, Congress has viewed the CSE
program as the link that could enable single parents who are low-wage earners to
become self-supporting. With the advent of welfare reform in 1996, Congress agreed
that many noncustodial parents were in the same financial straits as the mothers of
their children who were receiving cash welfare. Thus, the 1996 welfare reform law
(P.L. 104-193) requires states to have laws under which the state has the authority to
issue an order or request that a court or administrative process issue an order that
requires noncustodial parents who were unable to pay their child support obligation
for a child receiving TANF benefits to participate in TANF work activities. As noted
earlier, the 1996 law also provided funding for states to develop programs that
supported the noncustodial parent’s right and responsibility to visit and interact with
his or her children.
To help fathers and mothers meet their parental responsibilities, many policy
analysts and observers support broad-based collaborative strategies that go beyond
welfare and child support agencies and include schools, work programs, prison
systems, churches, community organizations, and the health care system.
Although Congress has not authorized federal funding specifically earmarked
for responsible fatherhood programs, many states and localities, private organizations
and nonprofit agencies operate fatherhood programs.54 Most fatherhood programs
include media campaigns that emphasize the importance of emotional, physical,
psychological, and financial connections of fathers to their children. To
counterbalance some of the procedural, psychological, emotional, and physical
barriers to paternal involvement, most fatherhood programs include many of the
following components:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
54
Parenting education –— a course that describes the responsibilities of
parents to their children; it discusses the need for affection, gentle
guidance, financial support; the need to be a proud example and
National Governors Association, Promoting Responsible Fatherhood: An Update
(Washington, Aug. 3, 1998).
CRS-4
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
respectful of the child’s mother; and the need to recognize
developmentally appropriate behavior for children of different ages
and respond appropriately to children’s developmental needs;
responsible decision-making (with regard to sexuality, establishment
of paternity, and financial support);
mentoring relationships with successful fathers and successful
couples;
mediation services (communicating with the other parent, supervised
visitation, discipline of children, etc.);
providing an understanding of the CSE program;
conflict resolution, coping with stress, problem-solving skills;
developing values in children, appropriate discipline, participation
in child-rearing;
understanding male-female relationships;
peer support;
practical tasks to stimulate involvement –— discussing ways to
increase parent-child interactions such as fixing dinner for children,
taking children to the park, playing a game, helping children with
National Governor’s Association. Promoting Responsible Fatherhood: An Update.
August 3, 1998.
CRS-6
!
school work, listening to children’s concerns, setting firm limits on
behavior; and
job training opportunities (skills development, interviewing skills,
job search, job retention skills, job advancement skills, etc.).
Although most people refer to programs that seek to help fathers initiate or
maintain contact with their children and become emotionally involved in their lives
as “fatherhood” programs, the programs generally are gender-neutral. Their
underlying goal is participation of the noncustodial parent in the lives of his or her
children.
Funding
For FY2001, Congress appropriated $3 million for a non-governmentalnongovernmental national
fatherhood organization named the National Fatherhood Initiative (P.L. 106-553),
and an additional $500,000 for the National Fatherhood Initiative and $500,000 for
another non-governmental organization called the Institute for Responsible
Fatherhood and Family Revitalization (P.L. 106-554). However, the House and
Senate failed to reach agreement on H.R. 4678 in the106ththe 106th Congress, a bill that
included funding for a nationwide fatherhood grants program ($140 million over 4four
years).
Several sources of funding for fatherhood programs already exist. They include
Similarly, during the 107th and 108th Congress the House and the Senate did
not reach agreement on legislation that included a responsible fatherhood grant
program.
Nevertheless, several sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs
already exist. They include the TANF program, TANF state Maintenance-of-Effort
(MOE) funding, welfare-toworkto-work funds, CSE funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds.6 In
addition, many private foundations are providing financial support for fatherhood
(Title XX) funds.5 According to HHS, about half of all states use TANF funds for
5
“Funding Sources for Fatherhood Programs,” Welfare Information Network, vol. 5, no. 2
(Jan. 2001).
CRS-5
responsible fatherhood programs.6 In addition, many private foundations are
providing financial support for fatherhood programs.
As mentioned earlier, states can use TANF block grant funds and state MOE
funds on programs or services that accomplish the broad purposes of the TANF
program. These sources of funding are potentially the largest sources of funding for
fatherhood initiatives.7 To review, P.L.104-193 created the TANF block grant
program which providesprovided grants (approximately $16.5 billion annually) to states
through FY2002 to meet the broad purposes of the program. The TANF program
also has a MOE requirement that states continue to spend at least 75% (80% if they
fail to meet TANF work requirements) of what they spent under prior law cash
welfare-related programs in FY1994 on families that meet TANF eligibility
requirements. The 75% MOE is about $10.4 billion.
6
Funding Sources for Fatherhood Programs. Welfare Information Network, v. 5, no. 2,
January 2001.
7
In addition to long-term welfare recipients, the $2.7 billion in welfare-to-work funds may
also provide services for certain noncustodial parents who are unemployed, underemployed,
or having difficulty making their child support payments. At the end of FY2001, only about
half of welfare-to-work funds had been expended by the states and localities. States and
localities can continue to spend their welfare-to-work funds through FY2004. For more
information see CRS Report RS20207, Welfare Reform: Competitive Grants in the
Welfare-to-Work Grant Program, Shannon Harper and Christine Devere.
CRS-7
The cash welfare caseload declined from a peak of 5.1
The cash welfare caseload declined from a peak of 5.0 million Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) families in 1994FY1995 to 2.02 million TANF families in
March 2002. The
in FY2003. The nearly 60% reduction in the cash welfare caseload together with the fixed
fixed block grant funding means that funds which otherwise would have been spent for
for cash assistance are now available for other purposes.8 These other purposes could
include fatherhood initiatives, which are allowable uses of TANF and state MOE
funds. Moreover, fatherhood initiatives wouldare not be subject to many of the
the requirements that apply
to spending for ongoing cash assistance such as work
requirements and time limits.98
Research and Evaluation
Research findings indicate that father absence affects outcomes for children, in
terms of schooling, emotional and behavioral maturity, labor force participation, and
nonmarital childbearing. These findings hold when income is taken into account, so
the negative effects of father absence are not limited to those created by reduced
family income.109
Both advocates and critics of the CSE program agree that parents should be
responsible for the economic and emotional well-being of their children. They agree
that many low-income noncustodial parents are unable to meet their financial
responsibility to their children and are barely able, or unable, to support themselves.
They also agree that some noncustodial parents do not know how to be responsible
parents because they were not taught that knowledge or were not exposed to enough
positive role models that they could emulate. Below are several examples of
demonstration programs that seek to, or sought to, help low-income men become
responsible fathers by helping them to gain employment or job mobility and by
teaching them life skills so that they might reconnect with their children in a positive
sustained manner.
8
The reader should note that according to the Center for Law and Social Policy, in the last
quarter of FY2002 (July-September 2002), the TANF caseload increased in 39 states.
However, even with the estimated 0.9% reduction in caseload during the quarter, the
national caseload declined 3.3% over the past fiscal year. (Center for Law and Social
Policy. Welfare Caseloads Increased in Most States in Third Quarter, by Elise Richer,
Hedieh Rahmanou, and Mark Greenberg. December 30, 2002.)
9
Congressional Research Service. CRS Report RL30723, Welfare Reform: Federal Grants
and Financing Rules Under TANF, by Gene Falk. April 5, 2002. See also: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services. National Conference of State Legislatures – The Forum for
America’s Ideas: Broke But Not Deadbeat–Reconnecting Low-Income Fathers and
Children, by Dana Reichert, July 1999.
10
Meeting the Challenge: What the Federal Government Can Do to Support Responsible
Fatherhood Efforts. A Report to the President from Various Executive Agencies. January
2001. [http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/guidance01]
CRS-8
6
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Fact Sheet: Promoting Responsible
Fatherhood (Washington, Apr. 26, 2002).
7
In addition to long-term welfare recipients, the $2.7 billion in welfare-to-work funds
appropriated for FY1998 and FY1999 could have been used to provide services for certain
noncustodial parents who were unemployed, underemployed, or having difficulty making
their child support payments. States and localities were allowed to continue to spend their
welfare-to-work funds through FY2004.
8
Dana Reichert, Broke but Not Deadbeat: Reconnecting Low-Income Fathers and Children
(Washington, National Conference of State Legislatures, July 1999).
9
Meeting the Challenge: What the Federal Government Can Do to Support Responsible
Fatherhood Efforts — A Report to the President [...] (Washington, Jan. 2001),
[http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/guidance01].
CRS-6
responsibility to their children and are barely able, or unable, to support themselves.
They also agree that some noncustodial parents do not know how to be responsible
parents because they were not taught that knowledge or were not exposed to enough
positive role models that they could emulate. Below are several examples of
demonstration programs that seek to, or sought to, help low-income men become
responsible fathers by helping them to gain employment or job mobility and by
teaching them life skills so that they might reconnect with their children in a positive
sustained manner.
MDRC Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration Project
The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration was a national demonstration
project that combined job training and placement, peer support groups, and other
services with the goal of increasing the earnings and child support payments of
unemployed noncustodial parents (generally fathers) of children on welfare,
improving their parenting and communication skills, and providing an opportunity
for them to participate more fully and effectively in the lives of their children.1110
Between 1994 and 1996, over 5,000 noncustodial parents who were eligible to
participate in the seven-site PFS demonstration were randomly assigned to either a
program (experiment) group that would receive PFS services or a control group that
would not receive PFS services. The interim report on the PFS demonstration, which
was designed by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC)MDRC and
conducted and funded by public and private
organizations, found that parents who
received PFS services were more likely to pay
child support through the CSE system
than those who remained in the control group.
In all seven sites, the proportion of
parents who paid child support during the 18-month18month follow-up period increased
significantly; but the amount of child support paid
over the 18 months increased by
a statistically significant amount in only two of the
seven sites.
The final report on the PFS demonstration concluded that the program did not
significantly increase employment or earnings among the full sample of PFS
participants during the 2two years after they entered the program. However, the program
program did increase earnings among a subgroup of men who were characterized as
“less
employable” (i.e., those without a high school diploma and with little recent work
work experience).1211 In addition, another of the final reports found that although PFS did
did not affect the frequency of fathers’ visits with their children, it did increase the level
level of disagreement between parents about child-rearing. According to the
researchers,
this finding might suggest that some noncustodial parents were becoming more
involved in new areas of decision-making about the child, which the researchers
viewed as a positive development. The report noted that the increased level of
disagreements between the parents was not accompanied by an increased level of
aggressive forms of conflict or domestic violence which researchers surmise might
indicate that the parents were able to distinguish between legitimate parental
differences of opinion versus latent animosity in their male-female relationship.13
11 this finding might suggest that some noncustodial parents were
10
The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) demonstration was funded by a consortium of private
foundations (the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Ford Foundation, the AT&T Foundation, the
McKnight Foundation, and the Northwest Area Foundation) and federal agencies (the U.S.
Department of Human Services and the U.S. Department of Labor).The PFS demonstration
was conducted in seven cities: Dayton, Ohio; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Jacksonville,
Florida; Los Angeles, California; Memphis, Tennessee; Springfield, Massachusetts; and
Trenton, New Jersey.
12
Martinez, 11
John M. Martinez and Cynthia Miller., Working and Earning: The Impact of Parents’
Fair Fair
Share on Low-Income Fathers’ Employment, MDRC, October 2000.
13
MDRC. Parenting and Providing: The Impact of Parents’ Fair Share on Paternal
Involvement, by Virginia Knox and Cindy Redcross. October 2000.
CRS-9 (New York: MDRC, Oct. 2000).
CRS-7
becoming more involved in new areas of decision-making about the child, which the
researchers viewed as a positive development. The report noted that the increased
level of disagreements between the parents was not accompanied by an increased
level of aggressive forms of conflict or domestic violence which researchers surmise
might indicate that the parents were able to distinguish between legitimate parental
differences of opinion versus latent animosity in their male-female relationship.12
One of the reports noted the following as lessons learned from the PFS
demonstration.
Low-income noncustodial fathers are a disadvantaged group. Many live on the
edge of poverty and face severe barriers to finding jobs, while those who can find
work typically hold low-wage or temporary jobs. Despite their low, irregular
income, many of these fathers are quite involved in their children’s lives and,
when they can, provide financial and other kinds of support. ... Some services,
such as peer support proved to be very important and valuable to the men and
became the focal point of the program. Other services, such as skill-building,
were hard to implement because the providers had little experience working with
such a disadvantaged group; it was difficult to find employers willing to hire the
men, and the providers were not equipped to deal with the circumstances of men
who often were simply trying to make it from one day to the next. Finally, we
learned about the challenges of implementing a program like PFS, which
involves the partnership of various agencies with different goals, and about the
difficulty of recruiting low-income fathers into such a program.1413
Some of the recommendations for future programs included: structure the
program to encourage longer-term participation and to include job retention services;
provide fathers who cannot find private sector employment with community service
jobs; earmark adequate funding for employment services, involve custodial mothers
in the program and provide fathers with legal services to help them gain visitation
rights; and encourage partnerships between CSE agencies and fatherhood programs.1514
Some researchers of the PFS approach contend that a broader array of intensive
employment services, such as skills training combined with part-time work and
community service employment for persons who were unable to get job, might have
improved the outcomes of the program. Other analysts maintain that most of the
fathers who participated in the PFS demonstration were estranged from their children
when they entered the program and that some of them participated in lieu of serving
time in jail. They assert that new unwed fathers are generally very attached to their
children around the time of the child’s birth and probably are more motivated than
12
Virginia Knox and Cindy Redcross, Parenting and Providing: The Impact of Parents’
Fair Share on Paternal Involvement (New York: MDRC, Oct. 2000).
13
Cynthia Miller and Virginia Knox, The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers
Support Their Children: Final Lessons from Parents’ Fair Share (New York: MDRC, Nov.
2001), pp. v-vi.
14
Ibid., p. v.
CRS-8
fathers of older children to take advantage of the opportunities and/or services
offered by fatherhood programs.1615
Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study
A “fragile” family consists of low-income children born outside of marriage
whose two natural parents are working together to raise them– — either by living
together or frequent visitation. According to the 1997 National Survey of America’s
Families (NSAF), 25% of poor children under the age of two who were born outside
14
MDRC. The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children–Final
Lessons from Parents’ Fair Share, by Cynthia Miller and Virginia Knox. November 2001.
p. v-vi.
15
16
Ibid, p. v.
Princeton University. Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. Congressional Testimony
before the Mayor’s Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, by Sara McLanahan. June 14,
1999.
CRS-10
of marriage lived with both of their biological parents; another 35% lived with their
mother and saw their father at least every week.1716
The Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study is designed to sample new
births in 20 U.S. cities.1817 The study began in January 1997 and iswas scheduled to end
in June 2004. The total sample size is 4,700 families, including 3,600 unmarried
couples and 1,100 married couples. The data will be representative of nonmarital
births in each of the 20 cities, and they also will be representative of all nonmarital
births in U.S. cities with populations over 200,000. Follow-up interviews with both
parents are scheduled for when the child is 12, 3036, and 48 months-old. Data on child
health and development will be collected from the parents during each of the
follow-up interviews, and in-home assessments of child well-being will be performed
at 30 and 48 months60 months-old to collect data
on the child’s health and development. The study is expected to provide previously unavailable
unavailable information on questions such as:
!
!
!
!
What are the conditions and capabilities of new unwed parents,
especially fathers? How many of these men hold steady jobs? How
many want to be involved in raising their children?
What is the nature of the relationship between unwed parents? How
many couples are involved in stable, long-term relationships? How
many expect to marry? How many experience high levels of conflict
or domestic violence?
What factors push new unwed parents together? What factors pull
them apart? How do public policies affect parents’ behaviors and
living arrangements?
What are the long term consequences for parents, children, and
society of new welfare regulations, stronger paternity establishment,
and stricter child support enforcement? What roles do child care and
health care policies play? How do these policies play out in
different labor market environments?19
17
Urban Institute. Redirecting Welfare Policy Toward Building Strong Families, by Elaine
Sorensen, Ronald Mincy, and Ariel Halpern, March 2000.
18
15
Sara McLanahan Testimony before the Mayor’s Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion,
National Fatherhood Summit, Washington, D.C., June 14, 1999.
16
Elaine Sorensen, Ronald Mincy, and Ariel Halpern, Redirecting Welfare Policy Toward
Building Strong Families (Washington: Urban Institute, March 2000).
17
The Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study is supported by grants from the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the Office of Population Research
at Princeton University and by funding provided by: California Health Care Foundation, the
Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society at the University of Pennsylvania,
Commonwealth Fund, Ford Foundation, Foundation for Child Development, Fund for New
Jersey, William T. Grant Foundation, Healthcare Foundation of New Jersey, William and
Flora Hewlett Foundation, Hogg Foundation, Christian A. Johnson Endeavor Foundation,
Kronkosky Charitable Foundation, Leon Lowenstein Foundation, John D., and Catherine
T. MacArthur Foundation, A.L. Mailman Family Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott
Foundation, National Science Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Public
Policy Institute of California, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, St. David’s Hospital
Foundation, St. Vincent Hospital and Health Services, and the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
19
University of Wisconsin – Madison. Institute for Research on Poverty. Focus, v. 21, no.
1, spring 2000. Garfinkel, Irwin and Sara McLanahan. Fragile Families and Child WellBeing: A Survey of New Parents. p. 9-11.
CRS-11
Initial findings of the study, based on the data from Oakland, California and
Austin, Texas at the 12-month point, indicate that 50% of unmarried parents live
together (i.e., are cohabiting), and another 30% are romantically involved with each
other. Further, more than 66% of the participant parents in the two cities said that
they expect to marry. The data also indicate that generally fathers had income of less
than $12,500 per year, and mothers had income of less than $5,000 per year; about
50% of both parents lacked a high school degree; and that 25% of the fathers and
40% of the mothers did not work in the previous year. The initial findings also
showed that about 20% of the mothers drank alcohol, used drugs, or smoked during
their pregnancies.20
CRS-9
!
!
What factors push new unwed parents together? What factors pull
them apart? How do public policies affect parents’ behaviors and
living arrangements?
What are the long term consequences for parents, children, and
society of new welfare regulations, stronger paternity establishment,
and stricter child support enforcement? What roles do child care and
health care policies play? How do these policies play out in
different labor market environments?18
Initial analysis of the baseline data collected in 16 of the 20 cities from April
1998 through August 2000 indicate that 51% of unmarried parents live together (i.e.,
are cohabiting), and another 31% are romantically involved with each other. Further,
74% of the participant mothers said that they expect to marry the baby’s father. The
data also indicate that 30% of fathers had earnings of less than $10,500 per year, and
62% of mothers had earnings of less than $10,000 per year; about 43% of the
mothers and 38% of the fathers lacked a high school degree. Although the data
indicated that 85% of mothers and 98% of fathers worked at some point during the
past year, 20% of fathers said that they were out of work during the week before the
interview. The initial analysis also showed that 39% of the mothers drank alcohol,
used drugs, or smoked during their pregnancies.19
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Responsible
Fatherhood Programs
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) provides $1.5provided $2.0 million
annually to fund Responsible Fatherhood demonstrations under Section 1115 of the
Social Security Act. Projects are currently being funded in the following eight states:
Social
Security Act. The programs operated in eight states between September 1997 and
December 2002. The following eight states received Section 1115 grants or waivers
from OCSE/Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to implement and test
responsible fatherhood programs: California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Missouri, New Hampshire,
Washington, and Wisconsin. These projects attempt attempted
to improve the employment and
earnings of under- and unemployed noncustodial
parents, and to motivate them to
become more financially and emotionally involved
in the lives of their children.
Although the projects shareshared common goals, they vary
varied with respect to service
components and service delivery. An early report on the implementation of the
OCSE also provided
about $500,000 for an evaluation of the demonstration projects. A report on the
implementation of the programs (from initial start-up in late 1997 through December
1999) noted the
following:
The success of the Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Projects appears to
be tied to the commitment of the staff. Reaching alienated and disenfranchised
18
Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, “Fragile Families and Child Well-Being: A Survey
of New Parents,” Focus (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on
Poverty), vol. 21, no. 1 (spring 2000), pp. 9-11.
19
Sara McLanahan, Irwin Garfinkel, Nancy E. Reichman, Julien Teitler, Marcia Carlson, and
Christina Norland Audigier, The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study: Baseline Report
(Princeton: Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Aug. 2001; rev. Mar.
2003), at [http://crcw.princeton.edu/fragilefamilies/nationalreport.asp].
CRS-10
populations and convincing them to change their attitudes and behaviors is hard
work. It takes time, persistence, repeated contacts, fast action, patience,
firmness, and endless resourcefulness. Programs need to recruit key program
staff who are inspired and inspiring. They also need to be knowledgeable about
community services in order to maximize opportunities for participants.
First-hand knowledge is key. The best referrals are not made out of directories,
but result from long-standing familiarity with community services, eligibility
requirements, available resources, and relevant personnel. Dedicated,
knowledgeable, and energetic staff can better counsel and steer parents into a
course of action that makes them more financially and emotionally responsible
for their children.21
20
See [http://crcw.princeton.edu/fragilefamilies/]. See also The Fragile Families and Child
Wellbeing Study Baseline Report, by Sara McLanahan, Irwin Garfinkel, Nancy E. Reichman,
Julien Teitler, Marcia Carlson, Christina Norland Audigier. August 2001. The one-year
follow-up study is expected to be released in the Spring of 2003.
21
Policy Studies, Inc. Center for Policy Research. OCSE Responsible Fatherhood
Programs: Early Implementation Lessons, by Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes. June
2000. p. 9.
CRS-12
Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration
HHS has an ongoing partnership with the private-sector initiative called Partners
for Fragile Families (PFF). The Partners for Fragile Families Project is an initiative
of the National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership
(NPCL), a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. The PFF was designed
to help poor single fathers pull themselves out of poverty and build stronger links to20
A second, outcome report on the programs found that (1) low-income
noncustodial fathers are a difficult population to recruit and serve; (2) many of the
participants found jobs with the programs’ help, but they were low-paying jobs and
relatively few of the participants were able to increase earnings enough to meet their
financial needs and those of their children; (3) child access problems were hard to
define and resolve, and that mediation should be used more extensively; (4) child
support guidelines result in orders for low-income noncustodial parents that are
unrealistically high; (5) CSE agencies should collaborate with fatherhood programs
and pursue routine enforcement activities, as well as adopt policies and incentives
that are responsive to low-income fathers; and (6) criminal history was the norm
rather than the exception among the program participants, many participants faced
ongoing alcohol and substance abuse problems, many did not have reliable
transportation, and many lacked a court-ordered visitation arrangement.21
On a more positive note, the outcome report found that employment rates and
earnings increased significantly especially for noncustodial parents who were
previously unemployed. In addition, child support compliance rates increased
significantly especially for those who had not been paying previously. Moreover, the
report found that 27% of the fathers reported seeing their children more often after
completion of the program.
Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration
HHS has an ongoing partnership with the private-sector initiative called Partners
for Fragile Families (PFF). The Partners for Fragile Families Project is an initiative
of the National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership
(NPCL), a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. The PFF was designed
to help poor single fathers pull themselves out of poverty and build stronger links to
20
Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes, with David Price and Jane Venohr, OCSE
Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Early Implementation Lessons (Washington: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies, June 2000) p. 9.
21
Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes, and Lanae Davis, with Jane Venohr, David Price, and
Tracy Griffith, OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and
Program Outcomes (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies
[HHS Contract No. 100-98-0015], Sept. 2003).
CRS-11
their children and their children’s mothers. The PFF was established in 1996 to
provide support for these “fragile families,” which are defined as low-income,
never-married parents and their children. Research indicated that although many of
the fathers in these families are involved with their children during the early
childhood years, this involvement tends to diminish over time, often with negative
consequences for the children. The PFF initiative is aimed at helping fathers work
with the mothers of their children in sharing the legal, financial, and emotional
responsibilities of parenthood.
In March 2000, HHS approved ten state waivers for the Partners for Fragile
three-year Partners for
Fragile Families Demonstration projects. The demonstration projects seek to sought to
develop new
ways for CSE agencies and community-based non-profitnonprofit and faith-based
organizations to work together to help young noncustodial fathers obtain
employment, health, and social services; make child support payments to their
children; learn parenting skills; and enable then to work with the mothers of their
children to build stronger parenting partnerships. The demonstration project sites are
were located in California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.22 According to HHS, of the
$9.7 million in federal funding budgeted for the projects, $7.1 million was spent. An
additional $1.4 million was spent for an evaluation of the projects.
Issues
An underlying tension in the debate on fatherhood initiatives is the concern of
some women’s and mothers’ rights groups, such as the National Women’s Law
Center and the National Organization for Women (NOW), that an emphasis on the
importance of fathers may lead to undervaluing single-parent families maintained by
mothers, that services for fathers may be at the expense of services for mothers, and
that the “pro-fatherhood” discourse might give fathers’ rights groups some leverage
in challenging child custody, child support, and visitation arrangements. Some
analysts contend that the policy debate on fatherhood initiatives must be based on the
view that the welfare of fathers, mothers, and children are intertwined and
interdependent; otherwise, the debate will be very divisive and unproductive.23
Many issues are associated with the federal government’s support of fatherhood
initiatives. A few examples are Is the goal of federal policy to promote and support
22
23
See [http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/fi-prog.htm].
Doherty, William J., Edward F. Kouneski, and Martha Farrell Erickson. Responsible
Fathering: An Overview and Conceptual Framework. Final Report. September 1996.
Prepared for the Administration for Children and Families and the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; contract HHS-100-93-0012 to the Lewin Group.
CRS-13
the involvement of fathers in their children’s lives regardless of the father’s
relationship with the children’s mother? What if the father has children by more than
one woman? What is the federal policy with regard to incarcerated parents and
parents recently released from prison? Does the federal government support
the involvement of fathers in their children’s lives regardless of the father’s
relationship with the children’s mother? What if the father has children by more than
one woman? What is the federal policy with regard to incarcerated parents and
parents recently released from prison? Does the federal government support
22
23
See [http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/index.shtml] and [http://www.npcl.org/program/pff.htm].
William J. Doherty, Edward F. Kouneski, and Martha Farrell Erickson, Responsible
Fathering: An Overview and Conceptual Framework — Final Report Washington, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies [HHS-100-93-0012], Sept. 1996).
CRS-12
counseling, education, and supervised visitation for abusive fathers so that they can
reconnect with their children?
The discussion below examines two issues that will likely impact the success
of congressional fatherhood initiatives. The first deals with the role of the CSE
agency in fatherhood programs. Presently, the CSE program is the starting place for
many fatherhood programs. Some analysts contend that since many noncustodial
parents have a negative view of the CSE program, the use of the CSE program to
recruit fathers does not bode well for the success of such programs. Several of the
fatherhood bills would make competitive grants available to community
organizations and other groups that have experience in working with low-income
men. All of the fatherhood bills introduced in the 107th Congress and 108th Congresses
included evaluation
components. The second issue examines father involvement in
the context of the
father’s relationship to the child’s mother. The second issue is
based on the premise
that formal marital relationships last longer and are more
conducive to long-term
interaction between fathers and children than other types of
relationships.
CSE System and Noncustodial Parents Often At Odds
During the period FY1978-FY2002FY2003, child support payments collected by the
CSE agencies increased from $1 billion to $2021.2 billion. Moreover, the program has
made significant improvements in other program measures as well, such as the
number of parents located, paternities established, and child support orders
established. Advocates of the CSE program say that this dramatic program
performance is aside from the indirect and intangible benefits of the program, such
as increased personal responsibility and welfare cost-avoidance. Critics of the CSE
program contend that even with an unprecedented array of “big brother” enforcement
tools such as license (professional, driver’s, recreational) and passport revocation,
seizure of banking accounts, retirement funds, and lottery winnings, and automatic
income withholding from pay checks, the program still collects only 18% of child
support obligations for which it has responsibility and collects payments for only
4950% of its caseload.
Although the CSE program has historically been the policy answer to the
problem of father absence, because its focus until recently was exclusively on
financial support, it has had the practical effect of alienating many low-income
fathers who are unable to meet their child support obligations. Some policy analysts
maintain that fathers are in effect devalued when their role in their children’s lives
is based solely on their cash contributions. They argue that public policies are
needed to support the father’s role as nurturer, disciplinarian, mentor, and moral
instructor.24
24
The Brookings Institution. Horn, Wade F., and Isabel V. Sawhill. Making Room For
Daddy: Fathers, Marriage, and Welfare Reform. Working Paper, April 26, 2001. p. 4.
CRS-14
Information obtained from noncustodial fathers for various surveys and studies
consistently tells the same story. Not surprisingly, noncustodial parents, especially
low-income fathers, prefer informal child support agreements between themselves
Information obtained from noncustodial fathers for various surveys and studies
consistently tells the same story. Not surprisingly, noncustodial parents, especially
low-income fathers, prefer informal child support agreements between themselves
24
Wade F. Horn and Isabel V. Sawhill, Making Room for Daddy: Fathers, Marriage, and
Welfare Reform, Brookings Institution Working Paper (Washington, Apr. 26, 2001), p. 4.
CRS-13
and the child’s mother wherein they contribute cash support when they can and
provide noncash aid such as taking care of the children from time to time and buying
food, clothing, presents, etc. as often as they can. Many noncustodial fathers
maintain that the CSE system is dismissive of their financial condition and continues
to pursue child support payments (current as well as arrearages) even when it knows
that many of them can barely support themselves. They argue that for welfare
families, the CSE program generally does not improve their child’s well-being
because their child support payments are used to benefit the state and federal
government (i.e., welfare reimbursement) rather than their child. They contend that
the CSE program causes conflicts between them and their child’s mother because the
women often use it as leverage by threatening to report them to CSE authorities, take
them back to court, have more of their wages garnished, or have them arrested.25
Many observers maintain that noncustodial parents and the CSE program have
irreconcilable differences and that the most that should be expected is for the
noncustodial parent to clearly understand the purposes of the CSE program, the
requirements imposed on the custodial parent, the noncustodial parents’ rights to
have their child support payments modified if they incur a financial change in
circumstances, and that they as noncustodial parents have a moral and societal
responsibility to have (to build) a loving relationship with their children.26 If the CSE
program continues to be the entrance to fatherhood programs, most observers
contend that the fact that the CSE program has not been effective in gaining the
cooperation and trust of many noncustodial parents must be acknowledged and
addressed. Several analysts suggest that to be successful, fatherhood programs may
need to operate independently of the formal CSE system.
Others assert that more than any other agency of state government, the CSE
program has the responsibility and is in the position to reach out to fathers who need
supportive services. They state that CSE agencies are already involved in forging
relationships with fathers through partnerships with community-based organizations.
They also note that CSE agencies provide a natural link to coordinate with TANF
agencies to help families achieve self-sufficiency.27
25
University of Wisconsin–Madison. Institute for Research on Poverty. Focus, v. 21, no.
1, spring 2000. A failed relationship? Low-income families and the child support
enforcement system, by Maureen Waller and Robert Plotnick. p. 12-17. See also:
Although we do not have any evaluations on the effectiveness of fatherhood
programs that are delivered through a CSE framework versus fatherhood programs
that place little emphasis on the formal CSE system, all of the fatherhood bills
introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses included funding for evaluation. The
fatherhood bills pending in the 109th Congress also include funding for evaluation.
25
Maureen Waller and Robert Plotnick, “A Failed Relationship? Low-Income Families and
the Child Support Enforcement System,” Focus (University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Institute for Research on Poverty), vol. 21, no. 1 (spring 2000), pp. 12-17. See also Family
Ties: Improving Paternity Establishment Practices and Procedures for Low-Income
Mothers,
Fathers and Children. (Washington: National Women’s Law Center and Center
on Fathers, Families, and
Public Policy. p. 9-11.
26
University of Wisconsin–Madison. Institute for Research on Poverty. Focus, v. 21, no.
1, spring 2000. A failed relationship? Low-income families and the child support
enforcement system, by Maureen Waller and Robert Plotnick. p. 12-17.
27 Public Policy, 2000), pp. 9-11.
26
27
Waller and Plotnick,”A Failed Relationship?”
National Child Support Enforcement Association., Resolution on Fatherhood Initiatives,
Adopted by the NCSEA Board of Directors on July 29, 2000.
CRS-15
Although we do not have any evaluations on the effectiveness of fatherhood
programs that are delivered through a CSE framework versus fatherhood programs
that place little emphasis on the formal CSE system, all of the fatherhood bills
introduced in the 107th Congress included funding for evaluation.
Non-Custodial Father Involvement Versus Promotion of
Marriage Versusadopted by the NCSEA Board of Directors on July 29, 2000, [http://www.ncsea.org/
pdf/2000fatherhood.pdf].
CRS-14
Noncustodial Father Involvement vs. Promotion of Marriage
vs. Maintenance of Fragile Families
The first finding of the 1996 welfare reform law is that marriage is the
foundation of a successful society. The second finding is that marriage is an essential
institution of a successful society which promotes the interests of children.28
However, some child welfare advocates argue that marriage is not necessarily the
best alternative for all women and their children. It is generally agreed that singleparent families are a better alternative for children than living with an abusive father.
Many observers caution that government must be careful about supporting programs
that provide cash incentives to induce people to marry or that coerce people into
marrying. They note the problems associated with child-bride marriages and the
short-term and often unhappy nature of the so-called “shot gun” marriage. Others
respond that many long-lasting marriages were based on financial alliances (e.g., to
increase economic status, family wealth, status in the community, etc.). They also
point out that most government programs are sensitive to the issues of domestic
violence and include supports to prevent or end such actions.
Many young children live with both of their parents who are not married but
who are cohabiting. Noting this, some analysts argue that coercive policies designed
to promote certain types of family structures (e.g., nuclear families) at the expense
of others may undermine non-traditionalnontraditional family relationships. They contend that
more more
emphasis should be placed on trying to meet the needs of these fragile families
to to
enable them to stay together for longer periods of time. They maintain that if these
parents wanted to be married they would be married.29 They also point out that
because of the complexity of many family relationships, there are no easy answers.
A single-focus policy, no matter whether it aims to support traditional family
relationships or fragile families, can place children in less desirable situations. For
instance, promoting marriage of biological parents may result in supporting situations
where some children in the household have a stepparent if all the children are not
from the same union. Similarly, promoting fragile families also could result in
supporting situations where a biological parent is absent if all of the children in the
household are not all from the same union.
Some pro-marriage analysts point out that about 75% of children born to
cohabiting parents will see their parents separate before they reach age 16, compared
to about 33% of those born to married parents. Some observers note that even with
supports it is unlikely that fragile families (unmarried couple) will remain together
as long as married families. Thus, they argue that the promotion of marriage should
28
The majority of pre-TANF evaluations of welfare initiatives that examine family
formation decisions have found little, if any, impact of state policies on decisions to marry.
One recent exception is an evaluation of the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP).
In this program, compared to those who were subject to the AFDC requirements, more
single-parent participants subject to new policies under MFIP got married and fewer of the
two-parent participants had divorced 3within three years after the program began.
29
See: Fragile Families Research Brief, July 2002, Number 9. “Is Marriage Aa Viable
Objective for Fragile Families?
CRS-16
Some pro-marriage analysts point out that about 75% of children born to
cohabiting parents will see their parents separate before they reach age 16, compared
to about 33% of those born to married parents. Some observers note that even with
supports it is unlikely that fragile families (unmarried couple) will remain together
as long as married families. Thus, they argue that the promotion of marriage should Objective for Fragile Families?” Fragile Families Research
Brief 9 (Princeton: Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, July 2002).
CRS-15
be incorporated into fatherhood programs if the goal is lifetime involvement of
fathers in the lives of their children.
In contrast, fatherhood initiatives are sometimes viewed as incompatible with
initiatives that encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families, and
with initiatives that promote marriage. In fact, many observers argue that the focus
should be the participation of fathers in their children’s lives, regardless of the
marital status of the parents. As mentioned earlier, the TANF law states that the
second purpose of the block grant is to “end the dependence of needy parents on
government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage.” The fourth
purpose of the TANF block grant is to “encourage the formation and maintenance of
two-parent families.” There has been some discussion about whether the fourth
purpose means married-couple families or just two parents who are involved in their
children’s lives, regardless of whether they are married or even living together. In
late 1999, the Clinton Administration issued A Guide on Funding for Children and
Families through the TANF program which broadly interpreted two-parent families
to mean not only married-couple families, but also never-married, separated, and
divorced parents, whether living together or not. Thus, many states classify their
fatherhood programs and programs that encourage visitation by noncustodial parents
under the rubric of fulfilling the purposes of the TANF program.30
In addition, it should be noted that recent research indicates that there may be
a racial component in the marriage promotion versus fatherhood involvement debate.
In 20012003, 68.65% of black births were to unmarried women whereas only 2223.5% of
white births were to unmarried women. Given this demographic reality of black and
white families in the U.S., the authors of the study31 contend that proposals that
earmark five times as much money for marriage promotion as for responsible
fatherhood promotion 32promotion32 seem “racially insensitive.”
30
Horn, Wade. Wedding Bell Blues: Marriage and Welfare Reform. Brookings Review,
summer 2001. p. 40-41.
31
Mincy, Ronald B. and Chien-Chung Huang. The M Word: The Rise and Fall of
Interracial Coalitions on Fathers and Welfare Reform. February 25, 2002. pLegislative Action
During the 106th Congress, President Clinton’s FY2001 budget included $255
million for the first year of a proposed “Fathers Work/Families Win” initiative to
help low-income noncustodial parents and low-income working families work and
support their children. The “Fathers Work/Families Win” initiative would have been
30
Wade Horn, “Wedding Bell Blues: Marriage and Welfare Reform,” Brookings Review,
summer 2001, pp. 40-41.
31
Ronald B. Mincy and Chien-Chung Huang, The M Word: The Rise and Fall of Interracial
Coalitions on Fathers and Welfare Reform. Bowling Green State University Working Paper
02-7 (Feb. 25, 2002), pp. 1-5, 32.
32
H.R. 4737 as passed by the House in the 107th Congress authorized $100 million annually
for five years for competitive matching grants for marriage promotion activities and
authorized $20 million annually for five years for responsible fatherhood grantsthat require a dollar-for-dollar match for
marriage promotion activities, resulting in total funding of $200 million dollars annually for
five years. Further, an additional $100 million per year for five years was authorized for
research and demonstration grants and technical assistance related to the healthy marriage
promotion activities. In contrast, H.R. 4737 authorized $20 million annually for five years
for responsible fatherhood grants.
CRS-16
administered by the Department of Labor (DoL). The “Fathers Work” component
($125 million) would have been limited to noncustodial parents (primarily fathers)
and the “Families Win” component ($130 million) would have been targeted more
generally to low-income families.
The proposed “Fathers Work” grant program was designed to help low-income
noncustodial parents who were not living with their children carry out their financial
and emotional responsibilities to their children. The proposed “Families Win” grant
program was designed to help “hard-pressed” working families obtain the supports
and skills they need to get a job and succeed in the job and avoid TANF assistance.
These funds were intended to leverage existing resources to help families retain jobs
and upgrade skills and get connected to critical work supports, such as child care,
child support, health care, food stamps, earned income tax credit, housing, and
transportation. Neither the House nor Senate FY2001 appropriations bill (H.R. 4577,
106th Congress) for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies included funding for the Fathers Work/Families
Win proposal.
From the beginning of his presidency, President Bush has indicated his support
for responsible fatherhood initiatives. President Bush’s FY2002 budget (issued in
February 2001, 107th Congress) proposed $64 million in 2002 ($315 million over five
years) to strengthen the role of fathers in the lives of families. This initiative would
have provided competitive grants to faith-based and community organizations that
help unemployed or low-income fathers and their families avoid or leave cash
welfare, as well as to programs that promote successful parenting and strengthen
marriage. The initiative also would have funded projects of national significance that
support expansion of state and local responsible fatherhood efforts.
President Bush’s FY2003 budget proposed $20 million (for FY2003) for
competitive grants to community and faith-based organizations for programs that
help noncustodial fathers support their families to avoid or leave cash welfare,
become more involved in their children’s lives, and promote successful parenting and
encourage and support healthy marriages and married fatherhood.
President Bush’s FY2004 budget proposed $20 million annually (for FY2004FY2008) for promotion and support of responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage.
The funding was expected to promote and support involved, committed, and
responsible fatherhood and encourage the formation and stability of healthy
marriages. The FY2004 budget proposal also would have increased the annual
funding of the CSE access and visitation grant program gradually from $10 million
annually to $20 million annually by FY2007.
President Bush’s FY2005 budget proposed $50 million (for FY2005) for 75
competitive grants to faith-based and community organizations, together with Indian
tribes and tribal organizations, to encourage and help fathers to support their families,
avoid welfare, improve fathers’ ability to manage family business affairs, and support
healthy marriages and married fatherhood.
President Bush’s FY2006 budget proposes $40 million (for FY2006) for a grant
program to public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious
CRS-17
organizations, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations, for demonstration service
projects to help noncustodial fathers become more involved in their children’s lives
and to encourage and support healthy marriages between parents raising children.
106th Congress
During the 106th Congress, legislation was twice passed by the House (but not
acted on by the Senate — H.R. 3073, the proposed Fathers Count Act of 1999, and
H.R. 4678, the proposed Child Support Distribution Act of 2000) that would have
authorized funding ($140 million over five years in H.R. 3073 and million over four
years in H.R. 4678) to establish a program (usually referred $140 to as fatherhood
initiatives) to make grants to public or private entities for projects designed to
promote marriage, promote successful parenting and the involvement of fathers in
the lives of their children, and help fathers improve their economic status by
providing job-related services to them.
107th Congress
During the 107th Congress, several bills (H.R. 1300/S. 653, H.R. 1471, S. 685,
S. 940/H.R. 1990, H.R. 2893, H.R. 3625, H.R. 409033, S. 2524, and H.R. 4737) that
included fatherhood initiatives were introduced, but none were enacted.
The purposes of the fatherhood programs in the bills introduced generally were
the same: fatherhood programs must be designed to promote marriage through
counseling, mentoring, and other activities; promote successful parenting through
counseling, providing information about good parenting practices including payment
of child support, and other activities; and help noncustodial parents and their families
avoid or leave cash welfare by providing work-first services, job training, subsidized
employment, career-advancing education, and other activities.
However, the structure of the fatherhood programs differed. For example, H.R.
4737 as amended and passed by the House would have added a new part C to Title
IV of the Social Security Act to provide competitive grants to public and private
entities to operate an array of fatherhood programs. The competitive grants would
have been administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The appropriation amount for the fatherhood grants was set at $20 million a year for
each of the five fiscal years FY2003 through FY2007; up to 15% of the annual
33
H.R. 4090, as amended, was ordered reported by the House Ways and Means Committee
on May 2, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-460, Part 1). The bill would have provided $20 million in
grants per year for a five-year period (FY2003-FY2007) to public entities and nonprofit
community entities, including religious organizations, and to Indian tribes and tribal
organizations to promote responsible, caring and effective parenting and to encourage
positive father involvement, including the positive involvement of nonresident fathers;
enhance the abilities and commitment of unemployed or low-income fathers to provide
support for their families and to avoid or leave welfare; improve fathers’ ability to
effectively manage family business affairs; and encourage and support healthy marriages
and married fatherhood. Note: H.R. 4737, a bill that included identical “fatherhood”
provisions, was passed by the House on May 16, 2002.
CRS-18
appropriation was to be available for the cost of various demonstration projects and
evaluations of the competitive grants.
In contrast, H.R. 4737 as amended in the nature of a substitute by the Senate
Finance Committee appeared to have more of an emphasis on helping low-income
noncustodial parents find and retain work. It would have amended part D of title IV
of the Social Security Act (i.e., the Child Support section) to provide grants to states
to (1) establish a noncustodial parent employment grant program and (2) conduct
policy reviews and develop recommendations, and conduct demonstration projects
with the goals of obtaining and retaining employment for low-income noncustodial
parents, increasing child support payments, increasing the involvement of lowincome noncustodial parents with their children, and coordinating services for lowincome noncustodial parents. The HHS Secretary and the Secretary of Labor would
have jointly awarded grants to eligible states for the purpose of establishing, in
coordination with counties and other local governments, supervised employment
programs for noncustodial parents who have a history of irregular payment or
nonpayment of child support obligations and who are determined to be in need of
employment services in order to pay their child support obligations. The
appropriation amount for the noncustodial parent employment program was set at
$25 million a year for each of the four fiscal years FY2004 through FY2007. The
appropriation amount for the grants, administered by the HHS Secretary, to states for
policy reviews, recommendations, and demonstration projects also was set at $25
million a year for each of the four fiscal years FY2004 through FY2007.
Although H.R. 4737, amended, was passed by the House on May 16, 2002
(H.Rept. 107-460, Part 1), and reported favorably in the nature of a substitute by the
Senate Finance Committee (S.Rept. 107-221) on July 25, 2002, it was not passed by
the full Senate.
108th Congress
The 108th Congress introduced several bills that included responsible fatherhood
provisions (i.e., S. 5, S. 448, S. 604, and S. 657, S. 1443, and S. 2830; H.R. 4 and
H.R. 936). None of the bills became law.
On February 13, 2003, the House passed H.R. 4 (108th Congress), a welfare
reauthorization bill (that was essentially identical to H.R. 4737 as passed by the
House in 2002) that would have provided $20 million per year for each of FY2004FY2008 for a responsible fatherhood grant program.
On September 10, 2003, the Senate Finance Committee approved its version of
H.R. 4 (S.Rept. 108-162), which would have established a $75 million responsible
fatherhood program comprised of four components for each of the fiscal years 20042008: (1) a $20 million grant program for up to 10 eligible states to conduct
demonstration programs; (2) a $30 million grant for eligible entities to conduct
demonstration programs; (3) $5 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit
fatherhood promotion organization to develop and promote a responsible fatherhood
media campaign; and (4) a $20 million block grant for states to conduct responsible
fatherhood media campaigns. Although H.R. 4 was debated on the Senate floor
CRS-19
during the period March 29-April 1, 2004, consideration of the bill was not
completed when a motion to limit debate on the bill failed to garner the needed 60
votes. The Senate did not bring the bill back to the floor before the end of the session.
During the period from 2002-2004, the responsible fatherhood bills that were
passed by the House were part of welfare reauthorization legislation. (The funding
for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, mandatory
child care, and the abstinence education block grant — which were part of the 1996
welfare reform legislation (P.L. 104-193) whose funding authority expired on
September 30, 2002 — has continued under a number of temporary extension
measures.)
109th Congress
The 109th Congress has introduced several welfare reauthorization bills that
include responsible fatherhood provisions (i.e., H.R. 240/S. 105, and S. 6).
On January 4, 2005, a TANF reauthorization bill (H.R. 240) was introduced in
the 109th Congress. It includes provisions that authorize the HHS Secretary to make
competitive grants totaling $20 million for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010
to public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious organizations,
and Indian tribes and tribal organizations for responsible fatherhood demonstration
programs. The purposes of the fatherhood programs would be to (1) promote
responsible, caring and effective parenting and encouraging positive father
involvement, including the positive involvement of nonresident fathers; (2) enhance
the abilities and commitment of unemployed or low-income fathers to provide
support for their families and to avoid or leave welfare; (3) improve fathers’ ability
to effectively manage family business affairs; and (4) encourage and support healthy
marriages and married fatherhood. Not more than 15% of the annual appropriation
would be available for the costs of two multicity, multistate demonstration projects,
projects of national significance that support expansion of state and local responsible
fatherhood efforts, and an evaluation of the programs. The fatherhood provisions in
H.R. 240 are identical to those that were included in H.R. 4 as passed by the House
on February 13, 2003 (108th Congress). S. 105, which is identical to H.R. 240, was
introduced in the Senate on January 24, 2005.
On January 24, 2005, another TANF reauthorization bill (S. 6) was introduced
in the 109th Congress. It would establish a $75 million responsible fatherhood
program comprised of four components for each of the fiscal years 2006-2010: (1)
a $20 million grant program for up to 10 eligible states to conduct demonstration
programs; (2) a $30 million grant for eligible entities to conduct demonstration
programs; (3) $5 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion
organization to develop and promote a responsible fatherhood media campaign; and
(4) a $20 million block grant for states to conduct responsible fatherhood media
campaigns. The purposes of the demonstration grants are to promote responsible
fatherhood through (1) marriage promotion (through counseling, mentoring,
disseminating information about the advantages of marriage and two-parent
involvement for children, etc., (2) parenting activities (through counseling,
mentoring, mediation, disseminating information about good parenting practices,
CRS-20
etc.), and (3) fostering economic stability of fathers (through work first services, job
search, job training, subsidized employment, education, etc.). The fatherhood
provisions in S. 6 are identical to those that were included in H.R. 4 as passed by the
Senate Finance Committee on October 3, 2003 (H. Rept. 108-162, 108th Congress).