ȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱ
ȱȬȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱŗŜǰȱŘŖŖŝȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
řŗŖŘśȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
In 2005, 23% of families with children were maintained by mothers. According to some
estimates, 60% of children born during the 1990s will spend a significant portion of their
childhood in a home without their father. Research indicates that children raised in single-parent
families are more likely than children raised in 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 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 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, welfare-to-work
funds, Child Support Enforcement (CSE) funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX)
funds.
Beginning with the 106th Congress, the House but not the Senate passed bills containing specific
funding for responsible fatherhood initiatives (in the 107th and 108th Congresses as part of welfare
reauthorization bills). Moreover, from the start President Bush has been a supporter of responsible
fatherhood programs; each of his budgets has included funding for such programs. In the 109th
Congress, P.L. 109-171—the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005—was enacted. It included a
provision that provides 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.
Most fatherhood programs include media campaigns that emphasize the importance of emotional,
physical, psychological, and financial connections of fathers to their children. Most fatherhood
programs include parenting education; responsible decision-making; mediation services for both
parents; providing an understanding of the CSE program; conflict resolution, coping with stress,
and problem-solving skills; peer support; and job-training opportunities (skills development,
interviewing skills, job search, job-retention skills, job-advancement skills, etc.). To help fathers
and mothers meet their parental responsibilities, many policy analysts and observers support
broad-based collaborative strategies that go beyond welfare and child support agencies and
include schools, work programs, prison systems, churches, community organizations, and the
health care system.
The federal government’s support of fatherhood initiatives raises a wide array of issues. This
report briefly examines the role of the CSE agency in fatherhood programs, discusses initiatives
to promote and support father-child interaction outside the framework of the father-mother
relationship, and summarizes the debate over whether fatherhood programs should include the
“promotion of marriage.”
ȱȱȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
What Are Fatherhood Initiatives?.................................................................................................... 2
Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Research and Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 5
MDRC Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration Project................................................................... 5
Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study............................................................................. 7
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Responsible Fatherhood Programs ................. 9
Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration .......................................................................... 10
Issues ..............................................................................................................................................11
CSE System and Noncustodial Parents Often At Odds........................................................... 12
Noncustodial Father Involvement vs. Promotion of Marriage vs. Maintenance of
Fragile Families.................................................................................................................... 13
Legislative Action.......................................................................................................................... 15
106th Congress......................................................................................................................... 16
107th Congress......................................................................................................................... 16
108th Congress......................................................................................................................... 17
109th Congress......................................................................................................................... 18
110th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 20
ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 20
ȱȱȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
In 2005, 28% of families with children (under age 18) were maintained by one parent;1 this figure
is up from 11% in 1970. Most of the children in these single-parent families were being raised by
their mothers; in 2005, 23% were in mother-only families and 5% in father-only families.
According to some estimates, 60% of children born during the 1990s will spend a significant
portion of their childhood in a home without their biological father. Research indicates that
children raised in 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.2 Nonetheless, it is
widely acknowledged that most of these mothers, despite the added stress of being a single
parent, do a good job raising their children. That is, although children with absent fathers are at
greater risk of having the aforementioned problems, most do not experience them. In hopes of
improving the long-term outlook for children in single-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 fatherhood-
related goals are: ending welfare dependence by employment and marriage; reducing out-of-
wedlock pregnancies; and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Thus, states may spend TANF and TANF state Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds on fatherhood
programs. Further, any services that are directed to the goal of reducing nonmarital births or the
goal of encouraging two-parent families are free of income eligibility rules.
With the exception of the federal Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program, fathers historically
have been ignored with regard to their input or participation in welfare programs. Moreover, it
was not until 1996 that Congress broadened its view to acknowledge the non-economic
contributions that fathers make to their children by authorizing the use of CSE funds to promote
access and visitation programs. With the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law, which helped
reduce the welfare rolls, increase the employment of low-income mothers, and strengthen the
CSE program, Congress began focusing its attention on the emotional well-being of children.
Historically, Congress had treated visitation and child support as legally separate issues, with only
child support enforcement activities under the purview of the federal government. The 1996 law
authorized an annual $10 million entitlement of CSE funds to states to establish and operate
access and visitation programs.3
1 U.S. Census Bureau. Family and Living Arrangements. Table FM-1: Families, by Presence of Own Children Under
18: 1950-2004. Internet Release Date: June 29, 2005. See http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/fm1.pdf.
2 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).
3 The child access and visitation program (Section 391 of P.L. 104-193) funded the following activities in FY2005:
mediation, counseling, parental education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement, monitored
visitation, neutral dropoff and pickup, supervised visitation, and development of guidelines for visitation and custody.
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
It appears that a consensus has occurred
While fathers must fulfill their financial commitments, they
regarding the need to connect or reconnect
must also fulfill their emotional commitments. Dads play
noncustodial parents to their children. During
indispensable roles that cannot be measured in dollars and
the 106th Congress, Representative Nancy
cents: nurturer, mentor, disciplinarian, moral instructor, and
Johnson, then chair of the Ways and Means
skills coach, among other roles.
Subcommittee on Human Resources, stated,
Source: Executive Office of the President, A Blueprint for
“To take the next step in welfare reform we
New Beginnings—A Responsible Budget for America’s
must find a way to help children by providing
Priorities (February 2001), chap. 12, p. 75.
them with more than a working mother and
sporadic child support.” She noted that many low-income fathers have problems similar to those
of mothers on welfare—namely, they are likely to have dropped out of high school, to have little
work experience, and to have significant barriers that lessen their ability to find and/or keep a job.
She also asserted that in many cases these men are “dead broke” rather than “dead beats” and that
the federal government should help these noncustodial fathers meet both their financial and
emotional obligations to their children.
During the 106th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, legislation was passed by the House but not by the
Senate that would have established categorical competitive grants to community and faith-based
organizations for responsible fatherhood programs. Moreover, each of President Bush’s budgets
has included grant programs for responsible fatherhood programs to help reconnect noncustodial
parents to their children by providing job-related services to them and by improving their
parenting and social interaction skills. During the period from 2002-2004, the responsible
fatherhood bills that were passed by the House were part of welfare reauthorization legislation.
The 109th Congress introduced several welfare reauthorization bills that included funding for
responsible fatherhood grant programs. P.L. 109-171—the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (S.
1932; H.Rept. 109-362)—which was enacted on February 8, 2006, included a provision that
provides up to $50 million per year (FY2006-FY2010) for competitive responsible fatherhood
grants. (For a more detailed legislative history of fatherhood initiatives, see the discussion of
Legislative Action later in this report.)
ȱȱȱ ǵȱ
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. 104-
193) requires states to have laws under which the state has the authority to issue an order or
(...continued)
In FY2005, about 69,000 individuals received services. The most common services were parenting education,
supervised visitation, and mediation. 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, State
Child Access and Visitation Grants: State/Jurisdiction Profiles for FY2005 (Washington, April 2007).
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
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 only recently authorized federal funding specifically earmarked for
responsible fatherhood programs, many states and localities, private organizations, and nonprofit
agencies have been operating fatherhood programs for several years.4 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, 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 child-
rearing;
• understanding male-female relationships;
• peer support;
• practical tasks to stimulate involvement—discussing ways to increase parent-
child interactions such as fixing dinner for children, taking children to the park,
playing a game, helping children with school work, listening to children’s
concerns, setting firm limits on behavior; and
• job training opportunities (skills development, interviewing skills, job search, job
retention skills, job advancement skills, etc.).
4 National Governors Association, Promoting Responsible Fatherhood: An Update (Washington, August 3, 1998).
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Although most people refer to programs that seek to help fathers initiate or maintain contact with
their children and become emotionally involved in their lives as “fatherhood” programs, the
programs generally are gender-neutral. Their underlying goal is participation of the noncustodial
parent in the lives of his or her children.
ȱ
For FY2001, Congress appropriated $3 million for a nongovernmental national fatherhood
organization named the National Fatherhood Initiative (P.L. 106-553), and an additional $500,000
for the National Fatherhood Initiative and $500,000 for another non-governmental organization
called the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization (P.L. 106-554).
However, the House and Senate failed to reach agreement on H.R. 4678 in the 106th Congress, a
bill that included funding for a nationwide fatherhood grants program ($140 million over four
years). Similarly, during the 107th and 108th Congress the House and the Senate did not reach
agreement on legislation that included a responsible fatherhood grant program.
Nevertheless, several sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs already existed and
continue to exist. They include the TANF program, TANF state Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE)
funding, welfare-to-work funds, CSE funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds.5
According to HHS, about half of all states use TANF funds for responsible fatherhood programs.6
In addition, many private foundations are providing financial support for fatherhood programs.
As mentioned earlier, states can use TANF block grant funds and state MOE funds on programs
or services that accomplish the broad purposes of the TANF program. These sources of funding
are potentially the largest sources of funding for fatherhood initiatives.7 Pursuant to P.L. 109-171,
the TANF block grant program to states was reauthorized through FY2010 at a funding level of
$16.5 billion annually. In addition, the state funding or MOE requirement (at the 75% level) is
about $10.4 billion.8
The cash welfare caseload declined from a peak of 5.0 million Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) families in 1995 to 1.9 million TANF families in 2005. The 62% reduction in
the cash welfare caseload, together with the fixed block grant funding, means that 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.9
5 “Funding Sources for Fatherhood Programs,” Welfare Information Network, vol. 5, no. 2 (January 2001).
6 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Fact Sheet: Promoting Responsible Fatherhood (Washington,
April 26, 2002).
7 In addition to long-term welfare recipients, the $2.7 billion in welfare-to-work funds appropriated for FY1998 and
FY1999 could have been used to provide services for certain noncustodial parents who were unemployed,
underemployed, or having difficulty making their child support payments. States and localities were allowed to
continue to spend their welfare-to-work funds through FY2004.
8 The TANF block grant program also has a MOE requirement that states continue to spend at least 75% (80% if they
fail to meet TANF work requirements) of what they spent under prior law cash welfare-related programs in FY1994 on
families that meet TANF eligibility requirements.
9 Dana Reichert, Broke but Not Deadbeat: Reconnecting Low-Income Fathers and Children (Washington, National
Conference of State Legislatures, July 1999).
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
P.L. 109-171, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (S. 1932; H.Rept. 109-362), was enacted during
the 109th Congress. It included a provision that provides up to $50 million per year (for each of
the five fiscal years 2006 through 2010) for competitive responsible fatherhood grants to states,
territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community
organizations, including religious organizations, for responsible fatherhood initiatives.
According to data from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 99 grantees were awarded five-year contracts
to implement responsible fatherhood programs. The contracts (in aggregate) amounted to $41
million per year.10
ȱȱȱ
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.11
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.
ȱȂȱȱȱȱȱ
The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration was a national demonstration project that combined
job training and placement, peer support groups, and other services with the goal of increasing the
earnings and child support payments of unemployed noncustodial parents (generally fathers) of
children on welfare, improving their parenting and communication skills, and providing an
opportunity for them to participate more fully and effectively in the lives of their children.12
Between 1994 and 1996, over 5,000 noncustodial parents who were eligible to participate in the
seven-site PFS demonstration were randomly assigned to either a program (experiment) group
10 Information on the responsible fatherhood grants in each of the 10 HHS regions is available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/hmabstracts/index.htm.
11 Meeting the Challenge: What the Federal Government Can Do to Support Responsible Fatherhood Efforts—A
Report to the President [...] (Washington, January 2001), http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/guidance01.
12 The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) demonstration was funded by a consortium of private foundations (the Pew Charitable
Trusts, the Ford Foundation, the AT&T Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, and the Northwest Area Foundation)
and federal agencies (the U.S. Department of Human Services and the U.S. Department of Labor).The PFS
demonstration was conducted in seven cities: Dayton, Ohio; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Jacksonville, Florida; Los
Angeles, California; Memphis, Tennessee; Springfield, Massachusetts; and Trenton, New Jersey.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
that would receive PFS services or a control group that would not receive PFS services. The
interim report on the PFS demonstration, which was designed by MDRC and conducted and
funded by public and private organizations, found that parents who received PFS services were
more likely to pay child support through the CSE system than those who remained in the control
group. In all seven sites, the proportion of parents who paid child support during the 18-month
follow-up period increased significantly; but the amount of child support paid over the 18 months
increased by a statistically significant amount in only two of the seven sites.
The final report on the PFS demonstration concluded that the program did not significantly
increase employment or earnings among the full sample of PFS participants during the 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).13 In addition, another of the final reports found that although
PFS did not affect the frequency of fathers’ visits with their children, it did increase the level of
disagreement between parents about child-rearing. According to the researchers, this finding
might suggest that some noncustodial parents were becoming more involved in new areas of
decision-making about the child, which the researchers viewed as a positive development. The
report noted that the increased level of disagreements between the parents was not accompanied
by an increased level of aggressive forms of conflict or domestic violence which researchers
surmise might indicate that the parents were able to distinguish between legitimate parental
differences of opinion versus latent animosity in their male-female relationship.14
One of the reports noted the following as lessons learned from the PFS demonstration.
Low-income noncustodial fathers are a disadvantaged group. Many live on the edge of
poverty and face severe barriers to finding jobs, while those who can find work typically
hold low-wage or temporary jobs. Despite their low, irregular income, many of these fathers
are quite involved in their children’s lives and, when they can, provide financial and other
kinds of support.... Some services, such as peer support proved to be very important and
valuable to the men and became the focal point of the program. Other services, such as skill-
building, were hard to implement because the providers had little experience working with
such a disadvantaged group; it was difficult to find employers willing to hire the men, and
the providers were not equipped to deal with the circumstances of men who often were
simply trying to make it from one day to the next. Finally, we learned about the challenges of
implementing a program like PFS, which involves the partnership of various agencies with
different goals, and about the difficulty of recruiting low-income fathers into such a
program.15
Some of the recommendations for future programs included structure the program to encourage
longer-term participation and to include job retention services; provide fathers who cannot find
private sector employment with community service jobs; earmark adequate funding for
employment services, involve custodial mothers in the program and provide fathers with legal
13 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).
14 Virginia Knox and Cindy Redcross, Parenting and Providing: The Impact of Parents’ Fair Share on Paternal
Involvement (New York: MDRC, October 2000).
15 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.
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
services to help them gain visitation rights; and encourage partnerships between CSE agencies
and fatherhood programs.16
Some researchers of the PFS approach contend that a broader array of intensive employment
services, such as skills training combined with part-time work and community service
employment for persons who were unable to get job, might have improved the outcomes of the
program. Other analysts maintain that most of the fathers who participated in the PFS
demonstration were estranged from their children when they entered the program and that some
of them participated in lieu of serving time in jail. They assert that new unwed fathers are
generally very attached to their children around the time of the child’s birth and probably are
more motivated than fathers of older children to take advantage of the opportunities and/or
services offered by fatherhood programs.17
ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
A “fragile” family consists of low-income children born outside of marriage whose two natural
parents are working together to raise them—either by living together or frequent visitation.
According to the 1997 National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF), 25% of poor children
under the age of two who were born outside of marriage lived with both of their biological
parents; another 35% lived with their mother and saw their father at least every week.18
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is following a group of 4,700 children who were
born in 20 large U.S. cities.19 The total sample size is 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 1, 2, and 5. In addition, in-home assessments of the children and their home
environments were performed when the children were ages 3 and 5. 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?
• 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?
16 Ibid., p. v.
17 Sara McLanahan, Testimony before the Mayor’s Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, National Fatherhood
Summit, Washington, D.C., June 14, 1999.
18 Elaine Sorensen, Ronald Mincy, and Ariel Halpern, Redirecting Welfare Policy Toward Building Strong Families
(Washington: Urban Institute, March 2000).
19 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).
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
• 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?20
Initial analysis of the baseline data collected in 16 of the 20 cities from April 1998 through
August 2000 indicated that 51% of unmarried parents live together (i.e., are cohabiting), and
another 31% are romantically involved with each other. Further, 74% of the participant mothers
said that they expect to marry the baby’s father. The data also indicated that 30% of fathers had
earnings of less than $10,500 per year, and 62% of mothers had earnings of less than $10,000 per
year; about 43% of the mothers and 38% of the fathers lacked a high school degree. Although the
data indicated that 85% of mothers and 98% of fathers worked at some point during the past year,
20% of fathers said that they were out of work during the week before the interview. The initial
analysis also showed that 39% of the mothers drank alcohol, used drugs, or smoked during their
pregnancies.21
A 2007 report that examined data pertaining to the surveyed children at age 5 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.22
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 is to combine the core telephone surveys, in-home study, and teacher surveys into one
larger project. Data collection began in 2007 and will continue through 2009.23
20 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.
21 Sara McLanahan, Irwin Garfinkel, Nancy E. Reichman, Julien Teitler, Marcia Carlson, and Christina Norland Audigier,
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study: Baseline Report (Princeton: Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on
Child Wellbeing, August 2001; rev. March 2003), at http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/.
22 Fragile Families Research Brief, June 2007, Number 39. Parents’ Relationship Status Five Years After a Non-
Marital Birth. Princeton University and Columbia University.
23 For more information on the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, see
http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/about.asp.
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱǻǼȱȱ
ȱȱ
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 under- and unemployed noncustodial
parents, and to motivate them to become more financially and emotionally involved in the lives of
their children. Although the projects 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. A report on the implementation of the programs (from initial start-up in
late 1997 through December 1999) noted the following:
The success of the Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Projects appears to be tied to the
commitment of the staff. Reaching alienated and disenfranchised populations and convincing
them to change their attitudes and behaviors is hard work. It takes time, persistence, repeated
contacts, fast action, patience, firmness, and endless resourcefulness. Programs need to
recruit key program staff who are inspired and inspiring. They also need to be
knowledgeable about community services in order to maximize opportunities for
participants. First-hand knowledge is key. The best referrals are not made out of directories,
but result from long-standing familiarity with community services, eligibility requirements,
available resources, and relevant personnel. Dedicated, knowledgeable, and energetic staff
can better counsel and steer parents into a course of action that makes them more financially
and emotionally responsible for their children.24
A second, outcome report on the programs found that (1) low-income noncustodial fathers are a
difficult population to recruit and serve; (2) many of the participants found jobs with the
programs’ help, but they were low-paying jobs and relatively few of the participants were able to
increase earnings enough to meet their financial needs and those of their children; (3) child access
problems were hard to define and resolve, and that mediation should be used more extensively;
(4) child support guidelines result in orders for low-income noncustodial parents that are
unrealistically high; (5) CSE agencies should collaborate with fatherhood programs and pursue
routine enforcement activities, as well as adopt policies and incentives that are responsive to low-
income fathers; and (6) criminal history was the norm rather than the exception among the
program participants, many participants faced ongoing alcohol and substance abuse problems,
many did not have reliable transportation, and many lacked a court-ordered visitation
arrangement.25
24 Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes, with David Price and Jane Venohr, OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs:
Early Implementation Lessons (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies, June 2000) p. 9.
25 Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes, and Lanae Davis, with Jane Venohr, David Price, and Tracy Griffith, OCSE
Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and Program Outcomes (Washington: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies
[HHS Contract No. 100-98-0015], September 2003).
ȱȱȱ
şȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
On a more positive note, the outcome report found that employment rates and earnings increased
significantly especially for noncustodial parents who were previously unemployed. In addition,
child support compliance rates increased significantly especially for those who had not been
paying previously. Moreover, the report found that 27% of the fathers reported seeing their
children more often after completion of the program.
ȱȱȱȱȱ
HHS has an ongoing partnership with the private-sector initiative called Partners for Fragile
Families (PFF). The Partners for Fragile Families Project is an initiative of the National Center
for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership (NPCL), a nonprofit organization
based in Washington, D.C. The PFF was designed to help poor single fathers pull themselves out
of poverty and build stronger links to their children and their children’s mothers. The PFF was
established in 1996 to provide support for these “fragile families,” which are defined as low-
income, never-married parents and their children. Research indicated that although many of the
fathers in these families are involved with their children during the early childhood years, this
involvement tends to diminish over time, often with negative consequences for the children. The
PFF initiative is aimed at helping fathers work with the mothers of their children in sharing the
legal, financial, and emotional responsibilities of parenthood.
In March 2000, HHS approved 10 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 (age 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 enable
then to work with the mothers of their children to build stronger parenting partnerships. The PFF
demonstration operated from 2000 to 2003 in 13 projects in 9 states.26 The demonstration project
sites were located in California, Colorado, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New
York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.27 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.
The underlying theory of the PFF demonstration projects was that by targeting new fathers at a
point when they had little or no previous involvement with the CSE system and when they still
had an opportunity to develop a positive relationship with the mother of their children and the
children themselves, the projects could better assist these young parents to become strong
financial and emotional resources for their children. A recent 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
26 The Chicago, Illinois project withdrew from the demonstration.
27 See http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/index.shtml and http://www.npcl.org/program/pff.htm.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
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.28
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has sponsored several other evaluations of
the PFF demonstration projects. According to HHS, subsequent reports will include case studies
of selected fathers and their families and an analysis of economic and child support outcomes.
ȱ
An underlying tension in the debate on fatherhood initiatives is the concern of some women’s and
mothers’ rights groups, such as the National Women’s Law Center and the National Organization
for Women (NOW), that an emphasis on the importance of fathers may lead to undervaluing
single-parent families maintained by mothers, that services for fathers may be at the expense of
services for mothers, and that the “pro-fatherhood” discourse might give fathers’ rights groups
some leverage in challenging child custody, child support, and visitation arrangements. Some
analysts contend that the policy debate on fatherhood initiatives must be based on the view that
the welfare of fathers, mothers, and children are intertwined and interdependent; otherwise, the
debate will be very divisive and unproductive.29
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?
The discussion below examines two issues that will likely impact the success of congressional
fatherhood initiatives. The first deals with the role of the CSE agency in fatherhood programs.
Presently, the CSE program is the starting place for many fatherhood programs. Some analysts
contend that since many noncustodial parents have a negative view of the CSE program, the use
of the CSE program to recruit fathers does not bode well for the success of such programs.
Several of the fatherhood bills would make competitive grants available to community
organizations and other groups that have experience in working with low-income men. Many of
the fatherhood bills introduced in recent Congresses included evaluation components. The second
issue examines father involvement in the context of the father’s relationship to the child’s mother.
The second issue is based on the premise that formal marital relationships last longer and are
28 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/.
29 William J. Doherty, Edward F. Kouneski, and Martha Farrell Erickson, Responsible Fathering: An Overview and
Conceptual Framework—Final Report Washington, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies [HHS-100-93-0012], September 1996).
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
more conducive to long-term interaction between fathers and children than other types of
relationships.
ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
During the period FY1978-FY2006, child support payments collected by the CSE agencies
increased from $1 billion to $23.9 billion. Moreover, the program has made significant
improvements in other program measures as well, such as the number of parents located,
paternities established, and child support orders established. Advocates of the CSE program say
that this dramatic program performance is aside from the indirect and intangible benefits of the
program, such as increased personal responsibility and welfare cost-avoidance. Critics of the CSE
program contend that even with an unprecedented array of “big brother” enforcement tools such
as license (professional, driver’s, recreational) and passport revocation, seizure of banking
accounts, retirement funds, and lottery winnings, and automatic income withholding from pay
checks, the program still collects only 19% of child support obligations for which it has
responsibility and collects payments for only 54% of its caseload.
Although the CSE program has historically been the policy answer to the problem of father
absence, because its focus until recently was exclusively on financial support, it has had the
practical effect of alienating many low-income fathers who are unable to meet their child support
obligations. Some policy analysts maintain that fathers are in effect devalued when their role in
their children’s lives is based solely on their cash contributions. They argue that public policies
are needed to support the father’s role as nurturer, disciplinarian, mentor, and moral instructor.30
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 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.31
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,
30 Wade F. Horn and Isabel V. Sawhill, Making Room for Daddy: Fathers, Marriage, and Welfare Reform, Brookings
Institution Working Paper (Washington, April 26, 2001), p. 4.
31 Maureen Waller and Robert Plotnick, “A Failed Relationship? Low-Income Families and the Child Support
Enforcement System,” Focus (University of Wisconsin-Madison. Institute for Research on Poverty), vol. 21, no. 1
(spring 2000), pp. 12-17. See also Family Ties: Improving Paternity Establishment Practices and Procedures for Low-
Income Mothers, Fathers and Children (Washington: National Women’s Law Center and Center on Fathers, Families,
and Public Policy, 2000), pp. 9-11.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
the noncustodial parents’ rights to have their child support payments modified if they incur a
financial change in circumstances, and that they as noncustodial parents have a moral and societal
responsibility to have (to build) a loving relationship with their children.32 If the CSE program
continues to be the entrance to fatherhood programs, most observers contend that the fact that the
CSE program has not been effective in gaining the cooperation and trust of many noncustodial
parents must be acknowledged and addressed. Several analysts suggest that to be successful,
fatherhood programs may need to operate independently of the formal CSE system.
Others assert that more than any other agency of state government, the CSE program has the
responsibility and is in the position to reach out to fathers who need supportive services. They
state that CSE agencies are already involved in forging relationships with fathers through
partnerships with community-based organizations. They also note that CSE agencies provide a
natural link to coordinate with TANF agencies to help families achieve self-sufficiency.33
Although we do not have any evaluations on the effectiveness of fatherhood programs delivered
through a CSE framework versus fatherhood programs that place little emphasis on the formal
CSE system, all of the fatherhood bills introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses included
funding for evaluation, and so did many of the fatherhood bills in the 109th Congress. (Readers
should note that P.L. 109-171 does not include funding for the evaluation of responsible
fatherhood grant programs.)
ȱȱ ȱǯȱȱȱȱǯȱ
ȱȱȱȱ
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 which promotes the interests of children.34 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
32 Waller and Plotnick,” A Failed Relationship?”
33 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.
34 The majority of pre-TANF evaluations of welfare initiatives that examine family formation decisions have found
little, if any, impact of state policies on decisions to marry. One recent exception is an evaluation of the Minnesota
Family Investment Program (MFIP). In this program, compared to those who were subject to the AFDC requirements,
more single-parent participants subject to new policies under MFIP got married and fewer of the two-parent
participants had divorced within three years after the program began.
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
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.35 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 also could result in supporting situations where a biological parent is
absent if all of the children in the household are not all from the same union.
Some pro-marriage analysts point out that about 75% of children born to cohabiting parents will
see their parents separate before they reach age 16, compared to about 33% of those born to
married parents. Some observers note that even with supports it is unlikely that fragile families
(unmarried couple) will remain together as long as married families. Thus, they argue that the
promotion of marriage should be incorporated into fatherhood programs if the goal is lifetime
involvement of fathers in the lives of their children.
In contrast, fatherhood initiatives are sometimes viewed as incompatible with initiatives that
encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families, and with initiatives that
promote marriage. In fact, many observers argue that the focus should be the participation of
fathers in their children’s lives, regardless of the marital status of the parents. As mentioned
earlier, the TANF law states that the second purpose of the block grant is to “end the dependence
of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage.” The
fourth purpose of the TANF block grant is to “encourage the formation and maintenance of two-
parent families.” There has been some discussion about whether the fourth purpose means
married-couple families or just two parents who are involved in their children’s lives, regardless
of whether they are married or even living together. In late 1999, the Clinton Administration
issued A Guide on Funding for Children and Families through the TANF program which broadly
interpreted two-parent families to mean not only married-couple families, but also never-married,
separated, and divorced parents, whether living together or not. Thus, many states classify their
fatherhood programs and programs that encourage visitation by noncustodial parents under the
rubric of fulfilling the purposes of the TANF program.36
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 2005, 69.5% of black births
were to unmarried women, whereas only 25.4% of white births were to unmarried women. Given
this demographic reality of black and white families in the U.S., the authors of the study37
contend that proposals that earmark five times as much money for marriage promotion as for
responsible fatherhood promotion38 seem “racially insensitive.” (Readers should note that P.L.
35 See “Is Marriage a Viable Objective for Fragile Families?” Fragile Families Research Brief 9 (Princeton: Bendheim-
Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, July 2002).
36 Wade Horn, “Wedding Bell Blues: Marriage and Welfare Reform,” Brookings Review, summer 2001, pp. 40-41.
37 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.
38 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
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
109-171 funds marriage promotion grants at twice the amount of responsible fatherhood grants
(i.e., $100 million per year for five years versus $50 million per year for five years).)
ȱȱ
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.
The proposed “Fathers Work” grant program was designed to help low-income noncustodial
parents who were not living with their children carry out their financial and emotional
responsibilities to their children. The proposed “Families Win” grant program was designed to
help “hard-pressed” working families obtain the supports and skills they need to get a job and
succeed in the job and avoid TANF assistance. These funds were intended to leverage existing
resources to help families retain jobs and upgrade skills and get connected to critical work
supports, such as child care, child support, health care, food stamps, earned income tax credit,
housing, and transportation. Neither the House nor Senate FY2001 appropriations bill (H.R.
4577, 106th Congress) for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,
and Related Agencies included funding for the Fathers Work/Families Win proposal.
From the beginning of his presidency, President Bush has indicated his support for responsible
fatherhood initiatives. President Bush’s FY2002 budget (issued in February 2001, 107th Congress)
proposed $64 million in 2002 ($315 million over five years) to strengthen the role of fathers in
the lives of families. This initiative would have provided competitive grants to faith-based and
community organizations that help unemployed or low-income fathers and their families avoid or
leave cash welfare, as well as to programs that promote successful parenting and strengthen
marriage. The initiative also would have funded projects of national significance that support
expansion of state and local responsible fatherhood efforts.
President Bush’s FY2003 budget proposed $20 million (for FY2003) for competitive grants to
community and faith-based organizations for programs that help noncustodial fathers support
their families to avoid or leave cash welfare, become more involved in their children’s lives, and
promote successful parenting and encourage and support healthy marriages and married
fatherhood.
President Bush’s FY2004 budget proposed $20 million annually (for FY2004-FY2008) for
promotion and support of responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage. The funding was
expected to promote and support involved, committed, and responsible fatherhood and encourage
the formation and stability of healthy marriages. The FY2004 budget proposal also would have
(...continued)
activities. In contrast, H.R. 4737 (107th Congress) authorized $20 million annually for five years for responsible
fatherhood grants.
ȱȱȱ
ŗśȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
increased the annual funding of the CSE access and visitation grant program gradually from $10
million annually to $20 million annually by FY2007.
President Bush’s FY2005 budget proposed $50 million (for FY2005) for 75 competitive grants to
faith-based and community organizations, together with Indian tribes and tribal organizations, to
encourage and help fathers to support their families, avoid welfare, improve fathers’ ability to
manage family business affairs, and support healthy marriages and married fatherhood.
President Bush’s FY2006 budget proposed $40 million (for FY2006) for a grant program to
public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious organizations, and Indian
tribes and tribal organizations, for demonstration service projects to help noncustodial fathers
become more involved in their children’s lives and to encourage and support healthy marriages
between parents raising children.
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.
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.
ŗŖŜȱȱ
During the 106th Congress, legislation was twice passed by the House (but not acted on by the
Senate: H.R. 3073, the proposed Fathers Count Act of 1999, and H.R. 4678, the proposed Child
Support Distribution Act of 2000) that would have authorized funding ($140 million over 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.
ŗŖŝȱȱ
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. 409039, S. 2524, and H.R. 4737) that included fatherhood initiatives
were introduced, but none were enacted.
39 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:
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
ŗŜȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
The purposes of the fatherhood programs in the bills introduced generally were the same:
fatherhood programs must be designed to promote marriage through counseling, mentoring, and
other activities; promote successful parenting through counseling, providing information about
good parenting practices including payment of child support, and other activities; and help
noncustodial parents and their families avoid or leave cash welfare by providing work-first
services, job training, subsidized employment, career-advancing education, and other activities.
However, the structure of the fatherhood programs differed. For example, H.R. 4737 as amended
and passed by the House would have added a new part C to Title IV of the Social Security Act to
provide competitive grants to public and private entities to operate an array of fatherhood
programs. The competitive grants would have been administered by the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS). The appropriation amount for the fatherhood grants was set at $20
million a year for each of the five fiscal years FY2003 through FY2007; up to 15% of the annual
appropriation was to be available for the cost of various demonstration projects and evaluations of
the competitive grants.
In contrast, H.R. 4737 as amended in the nature of a substitute by the Senate Finance Committee
appeared to have more of an emphasis on helping low-income noncustodial parents find and
retain work. It would have amended part D of title IV of the Social Security Act (i.e., the Child
Support section) to provide grants to states to (1) establish a noncustodial parent employment
grant program and (2) conduct policy reviews and develop recommendations, and conduct
demonstration projects with the goals of obtaining and retaining employment for low-income
noncustodial parents, increasing child support payments, increasing the involvement of low-
income noncustodial parents with their children, and coordinating services for low-income
noncustodial parents. The HHS Secretary and the Secretary of Labor would have jointly awarded
grants to eligible states for the purpose of establishing, in coordination with counties and other
local governments, supervised employment programs for noncustodial parents who have a history
of irregular payment or nonpayment of child support obligations and who are determined to be in
need of employment services in order to pay their child support obligations. The appropriation
amount for the noncustodial parent employment program was set at $25 million a year for each of
the four fiscal years FY2004 through FY2007. The appropriation amount for the grants,
administered by the HHS Secretary, to states for policy reviews, recommendations, and
demonstration projects also was set at $25 million a year for each of the four fiscal years FY2004
through FY2007.
Although H.R. 4737, amended, was passed by the House on May 16, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-460, Part
1), and reported favorably in the nature of a substitute by the Senate Finance Committee (S.Rept.
107-221) on July 25, 2002, it was not passed by the full Senate.
ŗŖŞȱȱ
The 108th Congress introduced several bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions (i.e.,
S. 5, S. 448, S. 604, and S. 657, S. 1443, and S. 2830; H.R. 4 and H.R. 936). None of the bills
became law.
(...continued)
H.R. 4737, a bill that included identical “fatherhood” provisions, passed the House on May 16, 2002.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŝȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
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 the fiscal years 2004-2008: (1) a $20 million grant program for up
to 10 eligible states to conduct demonstration programs; (2) a $30 million grant for eligible
entities to conduct demonstration programs; (3) $5 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit
fatherhood promotion organization to develop and promote a responsible fatherhood media
campaign; and (4) a $20 million block grant for states to conduct responsible fatherhood media
campaigns. 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 needed 60 votes. The Senate did not bring the bill back to the floor before the end of
the session.
During the period from 2002-2004, the responsible fatherhood bills that were passed by the
House were part of welfare reauthorization legislation. (The funding for the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, mandatory child care, and the abstinence
education block grant—which were part of the 1996 welfare reform legislation (P.L. 104-193)
whose funding authority expired on September 30, 2002—continued under a number of
temporary extension measures.)
ŗŖşȱȱ
The 109th Congress introduced several welfare reauthorization bills that included responsible
fatherhood provisions (i.e., H.R. 240/S. 105, S. 6, and S. 667). S. 1932 (the Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005) also included a provision that provided competitive grants for responsible fatherhood
activities.
On January 4, 2005, a TANF reauthorization bill (H.R. 240) was introduced in the 109th
Congress. It included provisions that authorized the HHS Secretary to make competitive grants
totaling $20 million for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to public and nonprofit
community organizations, including religious organizations, and Indian tribes and tribal
organizations for responsible fatherhood demonstration programs. The purposes of the fatherhood
programs were to (1) promote responsible, caring and effective parenting and encouraging
positive father involvement, including the positive involvement of nonresident fathers; (2)
enhance the abilities and commitment of unemployed or low-income fathers to provide support
for their families and to avoid or leave welfare; (3) improve fathers’ ability to effectively manage
family business affairs; and (4) encourage and support healthy marriages and married fatherhood.
Not more than 15% of the annual appropriation would have been available for the costs of two
multicity, multistate demonstration projects, projects of national significance that support
expansion of state and local responsible fatherhood efforts, and an evaluation of the programs.
The fatherhood provisions in H.R. 240 were identical to those that were included in H.R. 4 as
passed by the House on February 13, 2003 (108th Congress). S. 105, which is identical to H.R.
240, was introduced in the Senate on January 24, 2005.
On January 24, 2005, another TANF reauthorization bill (S. 6) was introduced in the 109th
Congress. It would have established a $75 million responsible fatherhood program composed of
ȱȱȱ
ŗŞȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
four components for each of the fiscal years 2006-2010: (1) a $20 million grant program for up to
10 eligible states to conduct demonstration programs; (2) a $30 million grant for eligible entities
to conduct demonstration programs; (3) $5 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit
fatherhood promotion organization to develop and promote a responsible fatherhood media
campaign; and (4) a $20 million block grant for states to conduct responsible fatherhood media
campaigns. The purposes of the demonstration grants were 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.), and (3) fostering economic stability of fathers (through work first services, job
search, job training, subsidized employment, education, etc.). The fatherhood provisions in S. 6
were identical to those that were included in H.R. 4 as passed by the Senate Finance Committee
on October 3, 2003 (H.Rept. 108-162, 108th Congress).
On March 17, 2005, the Senate Finance Committee reported S. 667, a TANF reauthorization bill.
It would have established a $76 million responsible fatherhood program composed of five
components for each of the fiscal years 2006-2010. It would have (1) appropriated $20 million
for a grant program for up to 10 eligible states to conduct demonstration programs; (2)
appropriated $30 million for grants for eligible entities to conduct demonstration programs; (3)
authorized $5 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to
develop and promote a responsible fatherhood media campaign; (4) authorized a $20 million
block grant for states to conduct responsible fatherhood media campaigns; and (5) authorized $1
million for a nationally recognized nonprofit research and education fatherhood organization to
establish a national resource center for responsible fatherhood. The fatherhood provisions in S.
667 were almost identical to those in S. 6, except that funding for the demonstration grants to
states and eligible entities would have been assured because money was appropriated in the bill
for those activities (S.Rept. 109-51, 109th Congress).
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. 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 the five
fiscal years 2006 through 2010) 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 can 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
parents in the lives of their children, particularly focusing 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.
ȱȱȱ
ŗşȱ
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ŗŗŖȱȱ
Two bills that include responsible fatherhood provisions have been introduced in the 110th
Congress. S. 1626 was introduced by Senator Bayh and Senator Obama and 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 increase funding for
the responsible fatherhood grants (authorized by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, P.L. 109-171)
from no more than $50 million per year for each of the fiscal years 2006-2010 to at least $100
million per year for those fiscal years. (The total for the Healthy Marriage Promotion and
Responsible Fatherhood grants would increase from $150 million to $200 million per year for
each of the years FY2008-FY2010.)
ȱȱ ȱ
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Policy
csolomonfears@crs.loc.gov, 7-7306
ȱȱȱ
ŘŖȱ