Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to
Their Children
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Policy
December 7, 2012October 22, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL31025
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Summary
In 2012, 25% of families with children (under age 18) were maintained by mothers. According to
some estimates, about 60% of children born during the 1990s spent 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 two-parent 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 singleparent families, federal, state, and local 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 for Needy
Families (TANF) program, TANF state Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) funding, Child Support
Enforcement (CSE) funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds.
In the 106th, 107th, and 108th CongressesBeginning with the 106th Congress, bills containing specific funding for responsible
fatherhood fatherhood
initiatives were debated. President George W. Bush, a supporter of responsible
fatherhood fatherhood
programs, included funding for such programs in each of his budgets. In the 109th
Congress, Likewise, President Obama
has also included responsible fatherhood initiatives in each of his budgets.
P.L. 109-171 (the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005) was enacted. It, enacted February 8, 2006) included a provision
that provided up to $50 million per year (FY2006-FY2010) in competitive grants to states,
territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community groups
(including religious organizations) for responsible fatherhood initiatives. The Obama
Administration’s FY2011 budget included a proposal to substantially increase funding for
responsible fatherhood programs under a proposed new Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families
Innovation Fund. Under the proposal, the new fund would have received $500 million for
FY2011 (this proposal was not passed by either the House or the Senate). Instead, P.L. 111-291
P.L. 111-291 (enacted
December 8, 2010) extended funding for the Title IV-A Healthy Marriage and
Responsible Responsible
Fatherhood grants for an additional year (i.e., through FY2011). For FY2011, itP.L. 111-291
appropriated $75 million for awarding funds for healthy marriage promotion activities and $75
million for awarding funds for activities promoting responsible fatherhood. Pursuant to P.L. 11278 (enacted December 23, 2011), the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant
programs were extended at their FY2011 funding level (on a pro rata basis) through February 29,
2012. Pursuant to P.L. 112-96 (enacted February 22, 2012),Since FY2012,
several continuing resolutions have extended funding for the Healthy Marriage and
Responsible Fatherhood grant programs were extended (at their FY2011 funding level) through
the end of FY2012 (on a pro rata basis). P.L. 112-175 (the government-wide continuing resolution
enacted on September 28, 2012) extended funding (on a pro rata basis) for the Healthy Marriage
and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs through March 2013 (the first six months of
FY2013) Responsible
Fatherhood grant programs at $150 million per year on a pro rata basis, divided equally between
the programs.
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.).
Congressional Research Service
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
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
initiatives to promote and support father-child interaction outside the parents’ relationship.
Congressional Research Service
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
What Are Fatherhood Initiatives? .................................................................................................... 34
Research and Evaluation.................................................................................................................. 5
MDRC Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration Project ................................................................... 5
Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study ............................................................................. 6
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Responsible Fatherhood Programs .................. 78
Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration............................................................................. 8
Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated
and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners........................................................................... 10
Other Evaluations .................................................................................................................... 11
Issues.............................................................................................................................................. 11
CSE System and Noncustodial Parents Often at Odds ............................................................ 12
Noncustodial Father Involvement vs. Promotion of Marriage vs. Maintenance of
Fragile Families .................................................................................................................... 14
Appendixes
Appendix. Legislative History of Federally Funded Responsible Federal Fatherhood
Programs ..................................................................................................................................... 1617
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 2223
Congressional Research Service
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Introduction
In 2012, 25% of families with children (under age 18) were maintained by mothers. In 2012, 32%
of the 35.0 million families with children (under age 18) were maintained by one parent;1 this
figure is up from 10% in 1970. Most of the children in these single-parent families were being
raised by their mothers; in 2012, 79% of single-parent families were mother-only families and
21% were father-only families.2 According to some estimates, about 60% of children born during
the 1990s spent a significant portion of their childhood in a home without their biological father.
Research indicates that children raised in single-parent families are more likely than children
raised in two-parent families (with both biological parents) to do poorly in school, have emotional
and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes as adults.3
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-parent families, federal, state,
and local 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 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 fatherhoodrelated goals are ending welfare dependence by employment and marriage, reducing out-ofwedlock 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 toward the goal of reducing
nonmarital births or the goal of encouraging two-parent families are free of income eligibility
rules.
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.
1
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, America’s Families and
Living Arrangements: 2012, Table F2. Family Households, By Type, Age of Own Children, and Educational
Attainment of Householder: 2012, Internet release date: November 2012. See http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/
data/cps2012.html.
2
Ibid.
3
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1994), see also L. Bumpass, “Children and Marital Disruption: A Replication and Update,”
Demography, vol. 21 (1984), pp. 71-82; Rebecca A. Maynard, ed., Kids Having Kids: A Robin Hood Foundation
Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing (New York, 1996). Also see Fragile Families Working Paper
WP12-20-FF, The Causal Effects of Father Absence, by Sara McLanahan, Laura Tach, and Daniel Schneider, October
10, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
1
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their 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.4
During the 106th Congress, Representative
While fathers must fulfill their financial commitments, they
must also fulfill their emotional commitments. Dads play
Nancy Johnson, then chair of the Ways and
indispensable roles that cannot be measured in dollars and
Means Subcommittee on Human Resources,
cents: nurturer, mentor, disciplinarian, moral instructor, and
stated, “To take the next step in welfare
skills coach, among other roles.
reform we must find a way to help children by
Source: Executive Office of the President, A Blueprint for
providing them with more than a working
New Beginnings—A Responsible Budget for America’s
mother and sporadic child support.” She noted
Priorities (February 2001), chap. 12, p. 75. (Administration
that many low-income fathers have problems
of President George W. Bush)
similar to those of mothers on welfare—
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.5
During the 106th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, responsible fatherhood bills were passed by the
House (part of welfare reauthorization legislation), but not by the Senate. During the 109th
Congress, P.L. 109-171—the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (S. 1932/H.Rept. 109-362) was
enacted on February 8, 2006. It included a provision (in Title IV-A of the Social Security Act) that
provided up to $50 million per year (FY2006-FY2010) for competitive responsible fatherhood
grants.6
P.L. 111-291 (enacted December 8, 2010) extended funding for Title IV-A responsible fatherhood
grants through FY2011. For FY2011, it appropriated $75 million for awarding funds for activities
promoting responsible fatherhood.
P.L. 112-78 (enacted December 23, 2011) provided funding for the Responsible Fatherhood
Program (and the Healthy Marriage Program) through February 29, 2012. P.L. 112-96 (enacted
February 22, 2012) provided funding for the Responsible Fatherhood Program (and the Healthy
Marriage Program) through September 30, 2012 (i.e., through FY2012). FY2012 funding for the
two programs amounted to $150 million for the year, with half of the funds ($75 million) for the
4
The child access and visitation program (Section 391 of P.L. 104-193) funded the following activities in FY2008:
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 FY2008, about 85,000 individuals received services. The most common services were parent education, mediation,
parenting plans, and supervised visitation. Most states used a mix of services. Most of the service providers were
Human Services 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, Child Access and Visitation Grants: State/Jurisdiction Profiles for FY2008 (Washington DC, March 8,
2010).
5
U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, “Hearing on Fatherhood Legislation,”
Statement of Chairman Nancy Johnson, 106th Congress, 1st Session (October 5, 1999), p. 4.
6
It also included about $100 million per year (FY2006-FY2010) for competitive healthy marriage promotion grants.
Congressional Research Service
2
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Responsible Fatherhood program and the other half of the funds for the Healthy Marriage
program.
P.L. 112-175 (the government-wide continuing resolution enacted on September 28, 2012)
extended funding for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs (at $150
million per year on a pro rata basis, divided equally between the two programs) through March
2013 (the first six months of FY2013).
P.L. 113-6 (the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, enacted on March
26, 2013) extended funding for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs
through September 30, 2013 (at $150 million per year on a pro rata basis, divided equally
between the programs).
P.L. 113-46 (the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, enacted on October 17, 2013) funds the
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs through January 15, 2014 (at $150
million per year on a pro rata basis, divided equally between the programs).
See the Appendix of this report for a detailed legislative history of federally funded responsible
fatherhood programs.7
In addition to federal funds exlicitlyexplicitly provided for responsible fatherhood programs, there are
several other potential sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs. They include the
TANF program, TANF state MOE funding, CSE funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title
XX) funds. According to HHS, about half of all states use some TANF funds for responsible
fatherhood programs. In addition, many private foundations are providing financial support for
fatherhood programs.
As mentioned above, 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. Pursuant to P.L. 112-175113-6, the
TANF block grant to states is currently funded through MarchSeptember 2013 at an annual level of
$16.5
billion. In addition, the state funding or MOE requirement (at the 75% level) is about $10.4
billion annually.8 The cash welfare caseload declined from a peak of 5.1 million Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) families in 1994 to 1.98 million TANF families in December
20112012.9 The 63% reduction in the cash welfare caseload, together with the fixed block grant
funding, means funds that otherwise would have been spent for cash assistance are now available
for other purposes. These other purposes could include fatherhood initiatives, which are allowable
uses of TANF and state MOE funds. Moreover, fatherhood initiatives are not subject to the
requirements that apply to spending for ongoing cash assistance such as work requirements and
time limits.
7
For a detailed history of the responsible fatherhood policy arena, see Kathleen Sylvester and Kathleen Reich,
“Making Fathers Count: Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood Efforts,” Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2002.
8
For additional information, see CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block
Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk.
9
See CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions, by Gene Falk, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
3
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
What Are Fatherhood Initiatives?
The realization that one parent, especially a low-income parent, often cannot 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. 1047
For a detailed history of the responsible fatherhood policy arena, see Kathleen Sylvester and Kathleen Reich,
“Making Fathers Count: Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood Efforts,” Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2002.
8
For additional information, see CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block
Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk.
9
See CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions, by Gene Falk.
Congressional Research Service
3
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
193104193) 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 authorized federal funding specifically designated for responsible
fatherhood programs, many states and localities, private organizations, and nonprofit agencies
also operate responsible fatherhood programs. 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:
•
parenting education—a course that describes the responsibilities of parents to
their children; it discusses the need for affection, gentle guidance, and financial
support; the need to be a proud example and 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 childrearing;
•
understanding male-female relationships;
•
peer support;
Congressional Research Service
4
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
•
practical tasks to stimulate involvement—discussing ways to increase parentchild interactions such as fixing dinner for children, taking children to the park,
playing a game, helping children with schoolwork, listening to children’s
concerns, and 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
Congressional Research Service
4
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
programs generally are gender-neutral. Their underlying goal is participation of the noncustodial
parent in the lives of his or her children.
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.10
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.
MDRC Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration Project
The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration was a large-scale scientifically-designed (with
experimental and control groups) national demonstration project conducted from 1994-1996 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.11
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 two years
after they entered the program. However, the 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 experience).12
One of the reports noted the following as lessons learned from the PFS demonstration:
10
Meeting the Challenge: What the Federal Government Can Do to Support Responsible Fatherhood Efforts—A
Report to the President [ ... ] (Washington, DC, January 2001), http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/guidance01.
11
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, OH; Grand Rapids, MI; Jacksonville, FL; Los Angeles, CA;
Memphis, TN; Springfield, MA; and Trenton, NJ.
12
John M. Martinez and Cynthia Miller, Working and Earning: The Impact of Parents’ Fair Share on Low-Income
Fathers’ Employment (New York: MDRC, October 2000).
Congressional Research Service
5
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Congressional Research Service
5
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
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 two years
after they entered the program. However, the 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 experience).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 skillbuilding, 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.13
Some of the recommendations for future programs included structuring the program to encourage
longer-term participation and to include job retention services; providing fathers who cannot find
private sector employment with community service jobs; earmarking adequate funding for
employment services, involving custodial mothers in the program, and providing fathers with
legal services to help them gain visitation rights; and encouraging partnerships between CSE
agencies and fatherhood programs.14
Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing 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 through frequent
visitation.
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study followed a group of 4,700 children who were
born in 20 large U.S. cities.15 The total sample size was 4,700 families, including 3,600 unmarried
couples and 1,100 married couples. The data were intended to be representative of nonmarital
births in each of the 20 cities and also representative of all nonmarital births in U.S. cities with
populations over 200,000. Both parents were interviewed at the child’s birth and again when the
child was age one, two, and five. In addition, in-home assessments of the children and their home
12
John M. Martinez and Cynthia Miller, Working and Earning: The Impact of Parents’ Fair Share on Low-Income
Fathers’ Employment (New York: MDRC, October 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, November 2001), pp. v-vi.
14
Ibid., p. v.
15
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is a joint effort by Princeton University’s Center for Research on
Child Wellbeing (CRCW) and Center for Health and Wellbeing, and Columbia University’s Social Indicators Survey
Center and National Center for Children and Families (NCCF).
Congressional Research Service
6
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
environments were performed when the children were ages three and five. The parent interviews
provided information on attitudes, relationships, parenting behavior, demographic characteristics,
health (mental and physical), economic and employment status, neighborhood characteristics, and
public welfare program participation. The in-home interview collected information on children’s
cognitive and emotional development, health, and home environment. The study was expected to
provide previously unavailable information on questions such as the following:
•
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?
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, November 2001), pp. v-vi.
14
Ibid., p. v.
15
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is a joint effort by Princeton University’s Center for Research on
Child Wellbeing (CRCW) and Center for Health and Wellbeing, and Columbia University’s Social Indicators Survey
Center and National Center for Children and Families (NCCF).
Congressional Research Service
6
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to 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?16
A 2007 report that examined data pertaining to the surveyed children at age five found that 16%
of participant mothers were married to the father at the time of the five-year interview. Despite
not marrying, about 40% of the parents were still romantically involved at the five-year interview.
In cases where the couple were no longer romantically involved, 43% of the fathers had seen their
children in the month previous to the interview. According to the report:
Fatherhood programs, such as education, training, support services, and content addressing
issues of shared parenting, may also be appropriate for many new unmarried fathers.
Engaging parents in responsible fatherhood programs (and weaving these programs into
marriage promotion curriculums) early in their child’s life may also help new fathers develop
important parenting skills crucial to their child’s healthy development. These programs may
help fathers establish and maintain positive connections with their child and encourage their
active participation in raising their child.17
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing in Middle Childhood Study received a $17 million
grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the
Department of Health and Human Services to field a nine-year follow-up. The purpose of this
project was to combine the core telephone surveys, in-home study, and teacher surveys into one
larger project. Data collection began in 2007 and continued through the spring of 2010.18 Short
summaries, based on data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, highlight recent
research findings and suggest policy implications on issues related to child well-being and the
social and economic circumstances faced by unwed parents.19
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Responsible
Fatherhood Programs
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) provided $2.0 million to fund
Responsible Fatherhood demonstrations under Section 1115 of the 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
16
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.
17
Fragile Families Research Brief, June 2007, Number 39. Parents’ Relationship Status Five Years After a NonMarital Birth. Princeton University and Columbia University.
18
For more information on the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, see
http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/about.asp.
19
See the following webpage for more information: http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/briefs2.asp.
Congressional Research Service
7
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
16
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.
17
Fragile Families Research Brief, June 2007, Number 39. Parents’ Relationship Status Five Years After a NonMarital Birth. Princeton University and Columbia University.
18
For more information on the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, see
http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/about.asp.
Congressional Research Service
7
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
research findings and suggest policy implications on issues related to child well-being and the
social and economic circumstances faced by unwed parents.19
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Responsible
Fatherhood Programs
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) provided $2.0 million to fund
Responsible Fatherhood demonstrations under Section 1115 of the 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
attempted to improve the employment and earnings of underemployed and unemployed
noncustodial parents, and to motivate them to become more financially and emotionally involved
in the lives of their children. Although the projects shared common goals, they varied with respect
to service components and service delivery. OCSE also provided about $500,000 for an
evaluation of the demonstration projects.
An 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 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 lowincome 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.20
The outcome report also 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
19
See the following webpage for more information: http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/briefs2.asp.
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, DC: 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), September 2003).
20
Congressional Research Service
8
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership (NPCL), a nonprofit organization
based in Washington, DC.
In March 2000, HHS approved state waivers for the three-year Partners for Fragile Families
(PFF) Demonstration projects. The purpose of the demonstration projects was to develop new
ways for CSE agencies and community-based nonprofit and faith-based organizations to work
together to help young noncustodial fathers (ages 16 to 25—who had not yet established paternity
and who had little or no involvement with the CSE program) obtain employment, health, and
social services; make child support payments to their children; learn parenting skills; and work
with the mothers of their children to build stronger parenting partnerships. The PFF
demonstration operated from 2000 to 2003 in 13 projects in nine states.21 The demonstration
project sites were located in California, Colorado, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
20
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, DC: 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), September 2003).
21
The Chicago, IL, project withdrew from the demonstration.
Congressional Research Service
8
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
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.
An evaluation of the implementation of the PFF projects included the following statement:
Although the concept of PFF was unique when it was developed in 1996, by the time the
demonstration was fully implemented, other responsible fatherhood programs had started in
many communities nationwide. Independent of PFF, the child support enforcement system
was already incorporating more “father-friendly” approaches to service delivery at about the
same time PFF was in its developmental stages. The child support system had begun to
absorb the lessons learned from earlier fatherhood initiatives (such as the Parents’ Fair Share
project and the Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration). By the time PFF was operational,
some may have viewed it as less pioneering than when it was conceived several years earlier.
In addition, the number of young fathers who had not established paternity for their children
decreased in the mid- to late-1990s as a result of the success of in-hospital paternity
establishment initiatives across the country that established paternity at the time of a child’s
birth. The pool of young fathers without paternity established for their children had
diminished in the PFF sites by the time the projects were implemented.23
HHS also sponsored two other evaluations of the PFF demonstration projects. Both of the
evaluations were conducted by the Urban Institute. One of the Urban Institute reports includes
case studies of selected fathers and their families, and the other report provides an analysis of
economic and child support outcomes. The outcomes report indicated mixed results. The Urban
Institute conducted a process and outcome evaluation interviewing all service providers
(including child support enforcement, community-based organizations, and partner agencies) and
analyzing client data matched with administrative wage data before and after the PFF program.
This evaluation did not have a control group. According to the report, employment rates for
participants before and after the program were basically low and unchanged (about 58% of PFF
participants were employed 6 months before the demonstration and 59% of PFF participants were
employed 6-12 months after enrollment in the demonstration). Although quarterly earnings of
PFF participants increased after enrollment in the demonstration, at the end of 12 months,
21
The Chicago, IL, project withdrew from the demonstration.
See http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/index.shtml and http://www.npcl.org/program/pff.htm.
23
The Urban Institute. The Implementation of the Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Projects, by Karin
Martinson, John Trutko, Demetra Smith Nightingale, Pamela A. Holcomb, and Burst S. Barnow, June 2007. See
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/PFF/imp/.
22
Congressional Research Service
9
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
participants generally had poverty-level incomes. In contrast, the report indicated that there was a
substantial increase in child support orders. At enrollment, about 14% of PFF participants had a
child support order, whereas two years after enrollment, 35% of PFF participants had a child
support order. For those PFF participants who paid child support, the average child support
payment was $1,569 for the first year after enrollment and $2,296 for the second year after
enrollment. The report also noted that, on average, about five monthly child support payments
were made in the first year after enrollment and about seven monthly payments were made in the
second year after enrollment.24
22
See http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/index.shtml and http://www.npcl.org/program/pff.htm.
The Urban Institute. The Implementation of the Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Projects, by Karin
Martinson, John Trutko, Demetra Smith Nightingale, Pamela A. Holcomb, and Burst S. Barnow, June 2007. See
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/PFF/imp/.
24
Karin Martinson, Demetra Smith Nightingale, Pamela Holcomb, Burt Barnow, and John Trutko, “Partners for Fragile
Families Demonstration Projects: Employment and Child Support Outcomes and Trends,” The Urban Institute,
September 2007.
23
Congressional Research Service
9
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Strengthening
Grants for Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners
An HHS-sponsored evaluation of responsible fatherhood programs, called the National
Evaluation of the Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Strengthening Grants for
Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners (MFS-IP), began in 2006. The evaluation
is a multiyear (quasi-experimental) study that is expected to run from 2006 through 2013.25
The Evaluation of MFS-IP is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) initiative to support healthy marriage and
responsible fatherhood. Thirteen grantees in 12 different states have received five-year grants
from the Office of Family Assistance of ACF to implement multiple activities to support and
sustain marriages and families of fathers during and after incarceration. Grantees may also
provide support for reentering the family and community from prison, parenting support
including visitation during incarceration, and education and employment services during and after
incarceration. To evaluate the overall effectiveness of the 13 MFS-IP grantees, the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), awarded a contract to RTI to conduct an
implementation evaluation as well as a multi-site, longitudinal, impact evaluation of selected
grantees.26
According to an HHS Research Brief:
The implementation experiences of the MFS-IP grantees can inform future efforts to build
healthy relationship skills among families affected by incarceration. While incarcerated,
many individuals are interested in improving themselves and their relationships with their
partners, children, and other family members. Although not all incarcerated persons are
married or in intimate relationships, healthy relationship skills broadly apply to many types
of interpersonal relationships. As observed by several grantees, relationships such as parentchild, correctional officer-inmate, inmate-inmate, and employer-employee could be
improved by healthy relationship skills training.
The impact study component of the MFS-IP evaluation, concluding in 2015, will determine
the effectiveness of relationship education and other MFS-IP program components in
strengthening relationship quality and stability and facilitating successful community reentry.
Research suggests that healthy relationships contribute to reentry success, yet little is known
about how to improve relationship quality for couples affected by incarceration. Relationship
education that builds healthy relationship skills could play an important role in relationship
quality throughout incarceration and during the critical reentry period. Even for lengthy
periods of incarceration, communication and conflict resolution skills could result in more
supportive relationships, improved co-parenting, and increased familial contact—all of
which could be beneficial upon the individual’s eventual release.27
25
U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative—Further
Progress Is Needed in Developing a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach to Help HHS Improve Program Oversight,”
GAO-08-1002, September 2008. Also see National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse, “What Works in
Fatherhood Programs? Ten Lessons From Evidence-Based Practice,” by Jacinta Bronte-Tinkew, Allison Horowitz, and
Allison Metz, at http://www.fatherhood.gov.
26
See the following webpage for additional information: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/MFS-IP/index.shtml.
27
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
ASPE Research Brief, Strategies for Building Healthy Relationship Skills Among Couples Affected by Incarceration, by
Christine Lindquist, Tasseli McKay, and Anupa Bir of RTI International, March 2012, p. 12.
Congressional Research Service
10
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
24
Karin Martinson, Demetra Smith Nightingale, Pamela Holcomb, Burt Barnow, and John Trutko, “Partners for Fragile
Families Demonstration Projects: Employment and Child Support Outcomes and Trends,” The Urban Institute,
September 2007.
25
U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative—Further
Progress Is Needed in Developing a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach to Help HHS Improve Program Oversight,”
GAO-08-1002, September 2008. Also see National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse, “What Works in
Fatherhood Programs? Ten Lessons From Evidence-Based Practice,” by Jacinta Bronte-Tinkew, Allison Horowitz, and
Allison Metz, at http://www.fatherhood.gov.
26
See the following webpage for additional information: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/MFS-IP/index.shtml.
Congressional Research Service
10
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
The impact study component of the MFS-IP evaluation, concluding in 2015, will determine
the effectiveness of relationship education and other MFS-IP program components in
strengthening relationship quality and stability and facilitating successful community reentry.
Research suggests that healthy relationships contribute to reentry success, yet little is known
about how to improve relationship quality for couples affected by incarceration. Relationship
education that builds healthy relationship skills could play an important role in relationship
quality throughout incarceration and during the critical reentry period. Even for lengthy
periods of incarceration, communication and conflict resolution skills could result in more
supportive relationships, improved co-parenting, and increased familial contact—all of
which could be beneficial upon the individual’s eventual release.27
A final report on the impact of the program is expected in 2015 or 2016.
Other Evaluations
The Obama Administration supports evidence-based programs as a way to use limited resources
more effectively. The 201128 application announcement for responsible fatherhood programs (in
accordance with P.L. 111-291) indicated that as a condition of acceptance of a responsible
fatherhood award, grantees are required to participate fully in HHS-sponsored evaluations. HHS
is investing resources in multiple federal evaluations to document successes, challenges, and
lessons from responsible fatherhood programs that will provide useful information to program
operators and policymakers. The 2011 application announcement for responsible fatherhood
programs required that grantees operate comprehensive responsible fatherhood programs that
integrate robust economic stability services, healthy marriage activities, and activities designed to
foster responsible parenting.29
Thus, even though the emphasis of the Obama Administration was on more robust programs that
could demonstrate effectiveness, the 2011 application announcement indicated that preference
was to be given to grantees that operated DRA responsible fatherhood programs. According to
HHS, on October 3, 2011, 120 grantees were awarded responsible fatherhood grants pursuant to
P.L. 111-291.The grants are three-year grants, scheduled to run through September 2014.
Issues
In the late 1990s when interest in federally funding responsible fatherhood programs first gained
national attention, some women’s rights groups, such as the National Women’s Law Center and
the National Organization for Women (NOW), were concerned that an emphasis on the
importance of fathers could lead to undervaluing single-parent families maintained by mothers;
that services for fathers might be at the expense of services for mothers; and that the “profatherhood” discourse could give fathers’ rights groups more leverage in challenging child
custody, child support, and visitation arrangements. Although that underlying tension has not
disappeared completely, then and now, it was thought that the policy debate on responsible
fatherhood initiatives had to be based on the view that the welfare of fathers, mothers, and
children were intertwined and interdependent. Many analysts asserted that otherwise the debate
would be very divisive and unproductive.30
27
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
ASPE Research Brief, Strategies for Building Healthy Relationship Skills Among Couples Affected by Incarceration, by
Christine Lindquist, Tasseli McKay, and Anupa Bir of RTI International, March 2012, p. 12.
28
The grant awards were effective beginning October 2011 and are scheduled to run for three consecutive years up
through September 2014. They are made for a three-year project period; funding for years 2 through 3 is not
competitive and depends upon satisfactory performance, availability of funds, and the best interest of the government.
29
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family
Assistance, Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood Grants, June 28, 2011, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/foa/view/
HHS-2011-ACF-OFA-FK-0194. Also see Virginia Knox, Philip A. Cowan, Carolyn Pape Cowan, and Elana Bildner,
“Policies That Strengthen Fatherhood and Family Relationships: What Do We Know and What Do We Need to
Know?” MDRC, 2009.
30
William J. Doherty, Edward F. Kouneski, and Martha Farrell Erickson, Responsible Fathering: An Overview and
Conceptual Framework—Final Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies (HHS-100-93-0012),
September 1996).
Congressional Research Service
11
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Congressional Research Service
11
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
importance of fathers could lead to undervaluing single-parent families maintained by mothers;
that services for fathers might be at the expense of services for mothers; and that the “profatherhood” discourse could give fathers’ rights groups more leverage in challenging child
custody, child support, and visitation arrangements. Although that underlying tension has not
disappeared completely, then and now, it was thought that the policy debate on responsible
fatherhood initiatives had to be based on the view that the welfare of fathers, mothers, and
children were intertwined and interdependent. Many analysts asserted that otherwise the debate
would be very divisive and unproductive.30
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 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 counseling, education, and supervised visitation for abusive fathers so that they can
reconnect with their children?31
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 responsible fatherhood
programs. The CSE program has the potential to impact more children and for longer periods of
time than most other federal programs. In many cases, the CSE program may interact with
parents and children for 18 years and, in some cases for up to 30 years if the noncustodial parent
owes past-due child support. 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. Most federally funded responsible fatherhood programs
are currently provided through competitive grants that are available to community organizations
and other groups that have experience in working with low-income men. Moreover, many of the
responsible fatherhood bills introduced in recent Congresses included evaluation components.
The second issue examines father involvement in the context of the father’s relationship with 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 from FY1978 to FY2011, child support payments collected by the CSE
agencies increased from $1 billion to $27.3 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
30
William J. Doherty, Edward F. Kouneski, and Martha Farrell Erickson, Responsible Fathering: An Overview and
Conceptual Framework—Final Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies (HHS-100-93-0012),
September 1996).
31
For additional information, see Maria Cancian, Daniel R. Meyer, and Eunhee Han, “Child Support: Responsible
Fatherhood and the Quid Pro Quo,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 635, no.
140, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
12
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
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 20% of child support obligations for which it has
responsibility32 and collects payments for only 57% 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
31
For additional information, see Maria Cancian, Daniel R. Meyer, and Eunhee Han, “Child Support: Responsible
Fatherhood and the Quid Pro Quo,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 635, no.
140, 2011.
32
This percentage accounts for arrearages (past-due child support). If child support arrearages are not taken into
account the percentage is 62%. In FY2011, $144.6 billion in child support obligations ($33.3 billion in current support
and $111.3 billion in past-due support) was owed to families receiving CSE services, but only $28.5 billion was paid
($20.8 billion in current support and $7.7 billion in past-due support).
Congressional Research Service
12
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
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.33
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 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 support 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.34
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 (or build) a loving relationship with their children.35 If the CSE program
continues to be the entrance to fatherhood programs (even in a recruitment capacity), 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
point out 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.3632
This percentage accounts for arrearages (past-due child support). If child support arrearages are not taken into
account the percentage is 62%. In FY2011, $144.6 billion in child support obligations ($33.3 billion in current support
and $111.3 billion in past-due support) was owed to families receiving CSE services, but only $28.5 billion was paid
($20.8 billion in current support and $7.7 billion in past-due support).
33
Wade F. Horn and Isabel V. Sawhill, Making Room for Daddy: Fathers, Marriage, and Welfare Reform, Brookings
Institution Working Paper (Washington, DC, April 26, 2001), p. 4.
34
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 LowIncome Mothers, Fathers and Children (Washington, DC: National Women’s Law Center and Center on Fathers,
Families, and Public Policy, 2000), pp. 9-11. Also see Fragile Families Research Brief 15 (Princeton University:
Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Child Support Enforcement and Fragile Families, April
2003.
35
Waller and 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.
36
National Child Support Enforcement Association, Resolution on Fatherhood Initiatives, adopted by the NCSEA
Board of Directors on July 29, 2000, http://www.ncsea.org/files/2000_fatherhood_resol-final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Congressional Research Service
13
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
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
point out 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.36
Noncustodial Father Involvement vs. Promotion of Marriage vs.
Maintenance of Fragile Families
The first finding included in 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 that promotes the interests of children.37 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 single-parent 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 “shotgun” 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 nontraditional
family relationships. They contend that more emphasis should be placed on trying to meet the
needs of these fragile families 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.38 They also point out
that because of the complexity of many family relationships, there are no easy answers. From
their perspective, 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 could also 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 65% of children born to cohabiting parents will
see their parents separate before they reach age 12, compared to about 24% of those born to
married parents.39
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
36
National Child Support Enforcement Association, Resolution on Fatherhood Initiatives, adopted by the NCSEA
Board of Directors on July 29, 2000, http://www.ncsea.org/files/2000_fatherhood_resol-final.pdf.
37
The majority of pre-TANF evaluations of welfare initiatives that examined family formation decisions found little, if
any, impact of state policies on decisions to marry. One exception was 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 within three years after the program began.
38
See “Is Marriage a Viable Objective for Fragile Families?” Fragile Families Research Brief 9 (Princeton University:
Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, July 2002).
39
David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know
about Cohabitation before Marriage, A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research,” Second Edition, 2002. See also
the Institute for American Values and the National Marriage Project, the State of Our Union—Marriage in America
2011, When Baby Makes Three: How Parenthood Makes Life Meaningful and How Marriage Makes Parenthood
Bearable, by Brad Wilcox & Elizabeth Marquardt, December 8, 2011, p. 11.
Congressional Research Service
14
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Congressional Research Service
14
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
promoting fragile families could also 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 65% of children born to cohabiting parents will
see their parents separate before they reach age 12, compared to about 24% of those born to
married parents.39
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 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 twoparent families.” There was some discussion about whether the fourth purpose means marriedcouple 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.40
In addition, it should be noted that some research indicates that there may be a racial component
in the marriage promotion versus fatherhood involvement debate. In 2011, 72.3% of black births
were to unmarried women, whereas only 29.1% of white births were to unmarried women. Given
this demographic reality of black and white families in the United States, the authors of the
study41 maintained that proposals that earmark five times as much money for marriage promotion
as for responsible fatherhood promotion42 seemed “racially insensitive.” (Readers should note
that P.L. 109-171 funded marriage promotion grants at twice the amount of responsible
fatherhood grants, i.e., $100 million per year versus $50 million per year for the five fiscal years
FY2006-FY2010.43) Pursuant to P.L. 111-291, beginning in FY2011, the funding for responsible
fatherhood grants was made equal to that of marriage promotion grants.
40
39
David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know
about Cohabitation before Marriage, A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research,” Second Edition, 2002. See also
the Institute for American Values and the National Marriage Project, the State of Our Union—Marriage in America
2011, When Baby Makes Three: How Parenthood Makes Life Meaningful and How Marriage Makes Parenthood
Bearable, by Brad Wilcox & Elizabeth Marquardt, December 8, 2011, p. 11.
40
Wade Horn, “Wedding Bell Blues: Marriage and Welfare Reform,” Brookings Review, summer 2001, pp. 40-41.
41
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 (February 25, 2002), pp. 1-5, 32.
42
H.R. 4737, as passed by the House in the 107th Congress, authorized $100 million annually for five years for
competitive matching grants that require a dollar-for-dollar match for marriage promotion activities, resulting in total
funding of $200 million 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 (107th Congress) authorized $20 million annually for five years for responsible
fatherhood grants.
Congressional Research Service
15
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
FY2006-FY2010.43) Pursuant to P.L. 111-291, beginning in FY2011, the funding for responsible
fatherhood grants was made equal to that of marriage promotion grants.
43
In contrast, S. 1309 and H.R. 2979, which were introduced in the 111th Congress, would have equalized funding in
the healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs; both programs would have been funded at $100 million per
year for specific years.
41
Congressional Research Service
1516
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Appendix. Legislative History of Federally Funded
Responsible Federal Fatherhood Programs
Beginning with the 106th Congress and with each subsequent Congress, responsible fatherhood
programs have received both presidential and Congressional attention.
106th Congress (1999-2000)
For FY2001, Congress appropriated $3 million for a nongovernmental national fatherhood
organization named the National Fatherhood Initiative (P.L. 106-553), as well as 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. 106554).
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 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. 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.
In addition, during the 106th Congress, legislation that included funding for a nationwide
responsible fatherhood grants program 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 would have authorized funding ($140 million over two years in
H.R. 3073 and $140 million over four years in H.R. 4678) 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 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 (2001-2002)
From the beginning of his presidency, President George W. Bush 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. 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.
Congressional Research Service
1617
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
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. 409044, 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.
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 (2003-2004)
President Bush’s FY2004 budget proposed $20 million annually (for FY2004-FY2008) for
promotion and support of responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage. The FY2004 budget
proposal also would have gradually increased the annual funding of the CSE access and visitation
grant program 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, and improve their ability to
manage family business affairs, and to support healthy marriages and married fatherhood.
During the 108th Congress several bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions (S. 5, S.
448, S. 604, S. 657, S. 1443, and S. 2830; H.R. 4 and H.R. 936) were introduced. 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 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 would have established a $75 million responsible fatherhood program composed
of four components for each of FY2004-FY2008: (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
44
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, passed the House on May 16, 2002.
Congressional Research Service
1718
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
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 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 necessary 60 votes. The Senate did not bring the bill back to the floor before the end of
the session.45
109th Congress (2005-2006)
President Bush’s FY2006 budget proposed $40 million (for FY2006) for a responsible fatherhood
competitive grant program.
President Bush’s FY2007 budget proposed $100 million for competitive matching grants to states
for marriage promotion. It also included the $150 million for healthy marriage and responsible
fatherhood programs that was included in P.L. 109-171 as part of welfare reauthorization. As
noted in this report, pursuant to P.L. 109-171, $50 million is specifically allocated for responsible
fatherhood programs.
During the 109th Congress several bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were
introduced. A couple of the bills were standalone bills that had been introduced in a previous
Congress (S. 3607 and S. 3803) and some responsible fatherhood provisions were included in
welfare reauthorization bills (H.R. 240/S. 105, S. 6, and S. 667). The Deficit Reduction Act of
2005 (S. 1932), which also included a provision that provided competitive grants for responsible
fatherhood activities, was passed by Congress and enacted into law.46
Among other things, P.L. 109-171 reauthorized the TANF block grant at $16.5 billion annually
through FY2010 and included a provision that provides up to $50 million per year (for each of
FY2006-FY2010) in competitive grants to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations,
and public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious organizations, for
responsible fatherhood initiatives.
Under P.L. 109-171, responsible fatherhood funds could be spent on activities 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, etc.), (3) fostering economic stability of fathers
(through work first services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, education, etc.), or
(4) contracting with a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to
develop, promote, or distribute a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of
45
During the period from 2002 to 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—continued under a number of
temporary extension measures.) Welfare reauthorization legislation was not enacted during this period.
46
On December 19, 2005, the House passed the conference report on S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(H.Rept. 109-362). On December 21, the Senate passed the conference report on S. 1932 with amendments. The
conference report was subsequently passed again by the House on February 1, 2006. On February 8, 2006, President
Bush signed S. 1932 into P.L. 109-171.
Congressional Research Service
1819
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
parents in the lives of their children, focusing particularly on responsible fatherhood; and/or to
develop a national clearinghouse to help states and communities in their efforts to promote and
support marriage and responsible fatherhood.
110th Congress (2007-2008)
President Bush’s FY2008 budget included the $150 million for healthy marriage and responsible
fatherhood programs that was included in P.L. 109-171 as part of welfare reauthorization. As
noted, pursuant to P.L. 109-171, $50 million is specifically allocated for responsible fatherhood
programs for each of FY2006-FY2010.
Two bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were introduced in the 110th Congress.
S. 1626 was introduced by Senator Bayh, Senator Obama, and Senator Lincoln, and a House
companion bill, H.R. 3395, was introduced by Representative Danny Davis (et al.). Among other
things, S. 1626/H.R. 3395, the proposed Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of
2007, would have increased funding for the responsible fatherhood grants (authorized by the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, P.L. 109-171) to $100 million per year for each of FY2008FY2010. (The total for the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood grants
would have increased from $150 million to $200 million per year for each of FY2008-FY2010.)
The bills (S. 1626 and H.R. 3395) did not move out of committee.
111th Congress (2009-2010)
President Obama also is a supporter of responsible fatherhood programs. As a Senator, he was a
cosponsor of a responsible fatherhood bill in both the 109th and 110th Congresses. As President, he
has included in each of his budgets proposals to revise and fund responsible fatherhood programs.
The Obama Administration’s FY2011 budget included a proposal to redirect funds from the
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Programs ($150 million per year through FY2010;
the responsible fatherhood portion is $50 million per year) to the proposed $500 million
Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund. The proposed Fatherhood, Marriage, and
Families Innovation Fund would have been available for one year (FY2011) to provide three-year
competitive grants to states.47 According to one budget document, “The Fatherhood, Marriage,
and Families Innovation Fund will serve as a catalyst for innovative service models that integrate
a variety of service streams. The results from these demonstrations could form the basis for
possible future TANF and CSE program changes at the federal or state level based on a
multidimensional picture of the dynamics of family functioning and material self-sufficiency and
child well-being.”48 The Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund proposal was not
passed by either the House or the Senate.
During the 111th Congress, three bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were
introduced. All three of the bills had been introduced in a previous Congress. None of the bills
were passed by Congress.
47
U.S. Department of Health And Human Services (ACF), “FY2011 Congressional Justification: Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),” pp. 304-305 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2011/TANF.pdf.
48
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
1920
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
S. 1309, the proposed Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009, was introduced
on June 19, 2009, by Senators Bayh, Lincoln, and Burris. The House companion bill, H.R. 2979,
was also introduced on June 19 by Representative Danny K. Davis (et al.). The House bill was
referred to as the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009. (These
bills are almost identical to bills that were introduced in the 110th Congress.) The bills would have
amended the TANF title of the Social Security Act (Title IV-A) to (1) increase funding for
responsible fatherhood programs from $50 million per year to $100 million per year (for each of
FY2008-FY2010); (2) expand procedures to address domestic violence; (3) expand activities
promoting responsible fatherhood; (4) provide grants to healthy family partnerships for domestic
violence prevention, for services for families and individuals affected by domestic violence, and
for developing and implementing best practices to prevent domestic violence; and (5) eliminate
the separate TANF work participation rate for two-parent families. The bills would have also
made several changes to the CSE program (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act). It would have
prohibited a state from collecting any amount owed to it by reason of costs it had incurred for the
birth of a child for whom support rights have been assigned. They would have required a state to
make a full distribution of collected child support to the family. They would have conditioned
continued approval of a state plan under Title IV-D on state assessment of its policies with respect
to barriers to employment and financial support of children. The bills also would have directed
the HHS Secretary to award grants to states for an employment demonstration project involving a
court- or state child support agency-supervised program for noncustodial parents so they can pay
child support obligations. In addition, the bills would have directed the Secretary of Labor to
award grants for transitional jobs programs and for public-private career pathways partnerships to
help disadvantaged parents obtain employment.
S. 939, the proposed Protecting Adoption and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2009,
was introduced by Senator Landrieu on April 30, 2009. S. 939 would have required the HHS
Secretary to establish an automated National Putative Father Registry. Among other things, S. 939
would have directed the Secretary to establish a nationwide responsible fatherhood and putative
father registry educational campaign designed to (1) inform men about the National Putative
Father Registry, the advantages of registering with a State Putative Father Registry, and the rights
and responsibilities of putative fathers; and (2) inform women about the National Registry and its
potential role in a pending or planned adoption or a termination of a putative father’s rights. In
addition, it would have required each state that desired to receive such a grant to develop and
implement a state plan for promoting responsible fatherhood and permanency for children.
Pursuant to P.L. 111-291 (the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, enacted December 8, 2010), the
responsible fatherhood program was extended for another year and its funding was increased
from $50 million to $75 million. P.L. 111-291 extended funding for the Title IV-A Healthy
Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grants through FY2011. For FY2011, P.L. 111-291
appropriated $75 million for awarding funds for healthy marriage promotion activities and $75
million for awarding funds for activities promoting responsible fatherhood. The result was that
the Title IV-A Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood programs, which were funded at
$150 million annually49 from FY2006 through FY2010, continued to be funded for an additional
year (FY2011) on an equal basis.50
49
As mentioned earlier, the healthy marriage grants were funded at about $100 million annually and the responsible
fatherhood grant were funded at $50 million annually.
50
Pursuant to P.L. 111-291, the $75 million in Responsible Fatherhood funds provided for FY2011 could be used for
fatherhood activities intended to promote or sustain marriage, responsible parenting, economic stability, and media
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2021
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
112th Congress (2011-2012)
The Obama Administration’s FY2012 budget proposed continued funding of $150 million to
support Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fatherhood programs for FY2012. These funds
would have been split equally among Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood activities.
The Administration’s FY2012 budget proposal also would have made changes to the purpose
clause of the CSE program to include access and visitation and other fatherhood involvement
activities. These activities would have become core parts of the CSE program and thereby states
would have been reimbursed by the federal government for expenditures on such activities at an
open-ended 66% matching rate. The budget proposal would have required states to establish
access and visitation responsibilities in all initial child support orders. It would have encouraged
states to undertake activities that support access and visitation, implementing domestic violence
safeguards as a critical component of this new state responsibility. (The estimated cost of the
proposal was $570 million over 10 years.)
The Obama Administration’s FY2013 budget proposal was very similar to its FY2012 proposal
with regard to responsible fatherhood programs.
During the 112th Congress, H.R. 2193, the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy
Families Act of 2011, was introduced on June 15, 2011, by Representative Danny Davis (et al.).
Similar to the bill introduced in the 111th Congress, H.R. 2193, among other things, would have
reauthorized and provided $75 million per year for responsible fatherhood programs for each of
the years FY2011 through FY2015.
P.L. 112-78, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (enacted December 23,
2011), provided funding for the Responsible Fatherhood Program (and the Healthy Marriage
Program) through February 29, 2012. Thus, for the first five months of FY2012, the Healthy
Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs were extended at their FY2011 funding
level (i.e., $150 million per year on a pro rata basis, divided equally between the two programs).
P.L. 112-96, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (enacted February 22,
2012), provided funding for the Responsible Fatherhood Program (and the Healthy Marriage
Program) through September 30, 2012 (i.e., through FY2012; at $150 million per year on a pro
rata basis, divided equally between the two programs).
P.L. 112-175 (the government-wide continuing resolution enacted on September 28, 2012)
extended funding for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs (at $150
million per year on a pro rata basis, divided equally between the two programs) through March
2013 (i.e., the first six months of FY2013).
(...continued)
campaigns that reach families with important messages about responsible fatherhood.
Congressional Research Service
21
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Author Contact Information
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Policy
csolomonfears@crs.loc.gov, 7-7306
Congressional Research Service
2222
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
113th Congress (2013-2014)
The Obama Administration’s FY2014 budget proposed continued funding of $150 million to
support Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fatherhood programs for FY2014. These funds
would have been split equally among Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood activities.
The Obama Administration’s FY2014 budget proposal was very similar to its FY2012 and
FY2013 proposals with regard to responsible fatherhood programs. (However, the FY2013
budget provided $580 million over 10 years to support the increased access and visitation services
while the FY2014 budget provided $448 million over 10 years for such services.)
P.L. 113-6 (the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, enacted on March
26, 2013) extended funding for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs
through September 30, 2013 (at $150 million per year on a pro rata basis, divided equally
between the programs).
P.L. 113-46 (the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, enacted on October 17, 2013) funds the
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs through January 15, 2014 (at $150
million per year on a pro rata basis, divided equally between the programs).
During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2359, the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy
Families Act of 2013, was introduced on June 13, 2013, by Representative Danny Davis (et al.).
Similar to the bill (H.R. 2193) introduced in the 112th Congress, H.R. 2359, among other things,
would have reauthorized and provided $75 million per year for responsible fatherhood programs
for each of the years FY2014 through FY2018.
Author Contact Information
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Policy
csolomonfears@crs.loc.gov, 7-7306
Congressional Research Service
23