.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Policy
Gene Falk
Specialist in Social Policy
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
September 28, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41431
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Summary
The structure of a family plays an important role in children’s well-being. A contributing factor to
the high rates of child poverty over the long-term, and the increase in child poverty during the
period from 2001-2007, was the increasing likelihood of children living in families headed by a
single female. In 2009, about one-third of all children lived in families without their biological
father present. According to some estimates, about 50% of children (who are currently under age
18) will spend or have spent a significant portion of their childhood in a home without their
biological father.
In 2008, the poverty rate for children living in female-headed families (usually headed by a single
mother) was 43%, compared to 10% for children living in married-couple families. Policies
enacted in the mid-1990s focused on moving single mothers from the welfare rolls to work; with
these policies in place and the economic expansion of the late 1990s, child poverty rates fell.
However, these gains in the economic well-being of children were limited and temporary, as child
poverty increased again in the period from 2001 to 2007, even before the onset of “the Great
Recession.”
An option to improve the well-being of children living in single-mother families is to seek greater
financial and social contributions from fathers, particularly noncustodial fathers. However, the
ability of noncustodial fathers to support their children has been complicated by certain economic
and social trends. Over the past three decades, changes in the labor market have led to less
employment and lower typical wages for men. The wages of men with lower levels of educational
attainment have fallen since the mid-1970s. Criminal justice policies have changed, leading to
increases in the rate of incarceration of men. These trends, while affecting all racial and ethnic
groups, had a disproportionate impact on African American men. “The Great Recession,” which
began in December 2007, has hit men’s employment hard; and it has hit employment of young,
African American men particularly hard.
Although social science research and analysis acknowledge a father’s influence on the overall
well-being of his children, federal welfare programs have to a large extent minimized or
underplayed the role of fathers in the lives of children. Noncustodial fathers and other men are
largely invisible to these programs as clients or recipients. They become visible only in their role
as family income producers (e.g., payers of child support). Other federal programs and/or systems
that have included many men on their rolls (such as employment and training programs and the
criminal justice system) have not fully addressed the unique needs and circumstances of fathers,
particularly those who do not have custody of their children.
Social policy programs could be used to help noncustodial parents stay connected to their
children and thereby improve the well-being of their children. Potential policy options include
establishing an Innovation Fund that provides services to both noncustodial and custodial parents;
examining strategies for reducing child support arrearages; changing the financing structure of
Child Support Enforcement (CSE) access and visitation programs for noncustodial parents;
modifying the earned income tax credit (EITC) to make noncustodial parents eligible; enhancing
or expanding job training and education programs to assist low-income men and youth, which in
turn can help them in providing for their (current or future) families; and redefining eligibility for
certain programs so that disadvantaged young adults can receive more holistic training and other
services that can better prepare them for adulthood.
Congressional Research Service
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Background: Social and Economic Trends................................................................................... 4
Child Poverty Rates .............................................................................................................. 4
Living Arrangements of Children .......................................................................................... 6
Challenges of Increasing Involvement of Noncustodial Parents with their Children ............... 7
Earnings.......................................................................................................................... 7
Employment ................................................................................................................. 10
The Great Recession ..................................................................................................... 12
Incarceration Rates.............................................................................................................. 13
African American Families.................................................................................................. 14
Selected Federal Programs: Barriers Encountered by Noncustodial Fathers and Other
Men ....................................................................................................................................... 18
Economic Assistance Programs ........................................................................................... 18
Cross-Cutting Issues Affecting Economic Assistance Programs ..................................... 20
TANF ........................................................................................................................... 20
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)................................................................................. 21
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)..................................................... 22
Family Support ................................................................................................................... 23
Child Support Enforcement (CSE) ................................................................................ 23
Healthy Marriage Programs .......................................................................................... 31
Responsible Fatherhood Programs................................................................................. 36
Human Capital Programs .................................................................................................... 39
One-Stop Delivery System ............................................................................................ 40
WIA State Formula Grant Programs .............................................................................. 40
Reintegration of Ex-Offenders Program ........................................................................ 42
Youth Programs .................................................................................................................. 43
Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Programs ...................................................................... 44
Select Youth Workforce Programs ................................................................................. 46
Select Education Programs............................................................................................ 50
Federal Policy Options .............................................................................................................. 54
Competitive Grant Funds (with an Evaluation Component) to Improve Family Well-
Being ............................................................................................................................... 54
Child Support Arrearage Reduction Strategies ..................................................................... 56
Federal Matching Funds for CSE Access and Visitation Programs ....................................... 59
Job Training, Workforce Support, and Education ................................................................. 60
Job Training and Workforce Programs........................................................................... 60
Subsidized Employment................................................................................................ 62
Work Requirements for Noncustodial Parents................................................................ 63
Education Programs ...................................................................................................... 64
Encouraging States to Serve Noncustodial Parents in TANF ................................................ 65
Making Work Pay for Noncustodial Parents: EITC for Noncustodial Parents ....................... 66
Increasing the Age for Youth Employment and Training Services ........................................ 67
Concluding Remarks................................................................................................................. 68
Congressional Research Service
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Figures
Figure 1. Poverty Rates for Children, by Family Type: 1959-2009............................................... 5
Figure 2. Percent of all Related Children Under Age 18 Living in Single-Parent, Female-
Headed Families, 1959-2009.................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Median Annual Earnings of Men and Women Who Work Full-Time, Full-Year:
1960-2009................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 4. Average Inflation-Adjusted Earnings for Men Aged 18 and Older, by Education
Level: 1975-2008..................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 5. Employment Rates for Men and Women Ages 16 and Older, 1948-2010..................... 10
Figure 6. Employment Rates for Men by Age, 1948-2010.......................................................... 11
Figure 7. Unemployment Rates for Men and Women and the Gap in Rates Between Men
and Women, 1948-2010 ......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 8. Incarceration Rates for Selected Years, by Gender, 1995 to 2008 ................................ 13
Figure 9. Percent of Men Who Lack a High School Diploma, by Race/Ethnicity, 2009 .............. 15
Figure 10. Average Earnings for Men without a High School Diploma, by Race/Ethnicity,
1975 and 2008 ....................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 11. Incarceration Rate for Men in 2008, by Race/Ethnicity ............................................. 17
Tables
Table 1. Employment Rates in March of Selected Years for Men without a High School
Diploma, by Race/Ethnicity and Age...................................................................................... 17
Table 2. Earned Income Tax Credits: Maximum Credits and Income Eligibility Amounts
for Filers With and Without Children, 2010 ............................................................................ 22
Table 3. Federal Funding for Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs, FY2010............................. 46
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 69
Congressional Research Service
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Introduction
The nation’s future depends in large part on its children’s ability to develop into contributing
adult members of society. For that reason, and for what many would consider a society’s moral
obligation to care for the young and vulnerable, Congress and the nation take an interest in
promoting children’s well-being. It can be argued that children are the nation’s most valuable
resource, constituting the next generation of workers, taxpayers, and parents. Their well-being
and ability to develop into productive adults in an increasingly competitive global economy is
influenced by a variety of factors, and public policies can affect these factors to varying degrees.1
Parents and family life exert a primary influence on children’s well-being throughout their
development and into adulthood. The family is the place where children develop their first
attachments to other people—usually to their parent(s) as their primary care giver(s). Early
attachments have been shown to have consistent and enduring influences on children’s social and
emotional development. The family is also the economic unit that obtains and manages the
resources that meet a child’s basic needs, while also playing a significant role in stimulating the
child’s cognitive, social, and emotional development.2
The structure of a family plays an important role in children’s well-being. Divorce, the loss of a
parent due to death or incarceration, or being born to a single parent can change or create a
family’s composition and character and ultimately affect children’s well-being.3 According to
some estimates, about 50% of children (who are currently under age 18) will spend or have spent
a significant portion of their childhood in a home without their biological fathers.4 In 2009, 23%
of the 74.5 million U.S. children (under age 18) were living in families headed by their mothers,
with their fathers not present. In that year, one-third of all children lived apart from their
biological fathers.
A broad array of social science research and analysis5 indicates that although most children who
grow up in single-parent families become well-adjusted, productive adults, children raised in
mother-only families (or with a mother and stepfather6) are more likely than children raised with
both biological parents to do poorly in school,7 have emotional and behavioral problems,8 become
teenage parents,9 and have poverty-level incomes.10
1 Congressional Research Service, Issues in Focus—Child Well-Being.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 David Popenoe, “A World Without Fathers (consequences of children living without fathers),” The Wilson Quarterly,
March 22, 1996. See also Wendy Sigle-Rushton and Sara McLanahan, “Father Absence and Child Well-Being: A
Critical Review,” Princeton University, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing (Working Paper #02-20), November
2002. (Hereinafter, Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan, “Father Absence and Child Well-Being: A Critical Review.”)
Note: Children living with a single mother is the most common living arrangement for those who live without their
biological fathers. However, some children live with stepfathers or adoptive fathers, as well as with other male relatives
such as grandfathers.
5 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.
6 In most of the studies cited in the child well-being references in this report, the presence of a stepfather did not lessen
the negative effect of father absence on children.
7 Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan, “Father Absence and Child Well-Being: A Critical Review,” pp. 8-9.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
There is widespread agreement that the negative outcomes associated with living in a single-
parent family compared to living with both biological parents are primarily due to the low income
of the family and the poor quality of the parent-child relationships. Single-parent families are
more likely to be poor than two-parent families, especially if the lone parent is the mother. Public
policy research and programs have generally focused on children and their single mothers,
especially those on the lower end of the income and asset continuum, because these families tend
to be impoverished, which generally translates into poorer outcomes and less well-being for
children. During the welfare reform era, public policy initiatives were enacted to require low-
income mothers to participate in the workforce, and to provide work supports for them. Welfare-
to-work efforts might have succeeded in their primary goals of reducing the welfare rolls and
spurring more work among single mothers. However, these families often remained poor; the
work efforts of the single mother alone often failed to increase incomes as their low wages merely
replaced low welfare benefits.11 Since reaching an all-time low in 1969, the growth in the number
of single-parent families, which tend to have a high incidence of poverty, has contributed to
higher rates of child poverty overall.
Another way to address poverty in single-parent families and improve child well-being is through
the fathers of these children (nearly all noncustodial parents are fathers). Even though there is
general agreement among policymakers and the public regarding the importance of the father in
improving the well-being of his children, federal welfare programs have to a large extent
minimized or underplayed the role of fathers in the lives of children. Moreover, other federal
programs and/or systems that serve or involve men—such as employment and training programs
and the criminal justice system—have not fully addressed the unique needs and circumstances of
fathers, particularly those who do not have custody of their children.
In some cases (of child abuse and/or domestic violence), a father’s involvement with his children
may do more harm than good. However, in most cases, involving fathers in the lives of their
children is generally regarded as a worthy policy goal. A myriad of studies indicate that an active
and nurturing style of fathering is associated with better verbal skills, intellectual functioning, and
academic achievement among adolescents. These studies suggest that fathers who are involved,
nurturing, and playful with their infants have children with higher IQs, as well as better linguistic
and cognitive capacities. Girls with involved, respectful fathers see how they should expect men
to treat them and are less likely to become involved in violent or unhealthy relationships.
According to some research, even from birth, children who have an involved father are more
likely to be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and, as they grow
older, have better social connections with peers. These children are also less likely to get in
trouble at home, school, or in the neighborhood. It is also reported that children who grow up
with involved fathers are more comfortable exploring the world around them and more likely to
exhibit self control and pro-social behavior.12 According to sociologist Dr. David Popenoe,
(...continued)
8 Ibid, pp. 10-12.
9 Ibid, pp. 12-13.
10 Ibid, pp. 14-15.
11 See discussion of how those who left the welfare rolls fared in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Final synthesis reporting of findings of ASPE Leavers Grants, Washington, DC, 2001.
12 Jeffrey Rosenberg and W. Bradford Wilcox, “The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children,”
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on
Children, Youth and Families Children’s Bureau, Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
2
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
“Fathers are far more than just ‘second adults’ in the home … Involved fathers bring positive
benefits to their children that no other person is as likely to bring.”13 The financial and emotional
commitment of fathers to their children is a crucial factor in child well-being.
It may be that the next era of welfare reform will incorporate the new thinking in this area—that
both parents are important to their children. The issues raised by father absence—and the social
and economic context affecting men’s abilities to be responsible fathers—spans a wide spectrum
of social policy domains including income support, employment and training, housing, and the
criminal justice system. Over recent decades, the wages of men have stagnated and even fallen.
While women and single mothers increased their labor force participation, work and labor force
participation among men actually declined. Additionally, incarceration rates for men, especially
low-income men, have risen considerably over the past several decades. Efforts to help fathers,
especially low-income fathers, play a successful role in improving the well-being of their children
may prove to be challenging given that the financial situation of many men is precarious and their
living situations are often complicated. In FY2009, roughly 14 million14 noncustodial fathers in
the United States had children on the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) rolls. Data from the
Urban Institute’s 1997 National Survey of American Families (NSAF; the most recent available)
found that two-thirds of nonresident fathers did not formally pay child support.15 Nearly all (90%)
poor fathers did not pay, compared to just over half (56%) of non-poor fathers. Further, of the
poor, nonpaying fathers who were not institutionalized (mostly in prison), 43% did not work.
Proponents maintain that social policy could help to stabilize low-income noncustodial fathers16
so that they can be positively involved, both financially and emotionally, in the lives of their
children. Social policy could play a role across several domains: (1) economic assistance
programs (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)); (2) family support
(the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program and the Healthy Marriage and Responsible
Fatherhood programs); and (3) human capital (workforce programs). This report provides
information on these programs and also examines federal programs that have the purposes of
preventing teen pregnancy and helping disadvantaged youth obtain the skills and support they
need to become positive, productive, self-sufficient members of their communities. These
programs, if fully utilized, are seen as having the potential to keep young people from getting
“off-track” because of drug use/abuse, an unintended pregnancy, or failure to complete high
school. The underlying premise is that the aid or services received from these programs by low-
income, disadvantaged men17 may help them overcome economic and emotional barriers and aid
them in becoming productive members of society in a number of ways—by giving them job
training and employment opportunities (and thereby the ability to make regular child support
payments), educational information and emotional support to promote positive interaction
13 Ibid. See also David Popenoe, “Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence that Fatherhood and Marriage are
Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society,” The Free Press (a division of Simon and Schuster), 1996.
14 This is an estimate based on HHS and Census Bureau data. See later section on The Child Support Program and
Noncustodial Fathers for more details.
15 Elaine Sorenson and Chava Zibman, Poor Dads Who Don't Pay Child Support: Deadbeat or Disadvantaged?, The
Urban Institute, Series B, No. B-30, April 2001, http://www.urban.org/publications/310334.html. (Hereinafter,
Sorenson and Zibman, Poor Dads Who Don't Pay Child Support: Deadbeat or Disadvantaged.)
16 The focus of this report is on low-income noncustodial fathers. Low-income individuals are generally more
disadvantaged than their higher-income counterparts in almost every realm of society.
17 Even though some of the programs discussed in this report serve persons regardless of income status, public policy is
usually focused on helping the more disadvantaged persons (i.e., low-income individuals).
Congressional Research Service
3
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
between them and their children, and supportive services and counseling to help them avoid
criminal activity.
This report displays and discusses some of the data related to the poverty of children and their
living arrangements and data on male employment and earnings, educational attainment, and
incarceration. It also presents several public policy approaches being considered by the policy
community that might improve the lives of low-income noncustodial fathers and their children.
This report is a starting point for discussions on how social policy can assist low-income
noncustodial fathers in (1) meeting their financial commitments to their children, and (2)
supporting their children emotionally and being a positive presence in the lives of their children.
Background: Social and Economic Trends
There is a scarcity of data on the economic and demographic characteristics of noncustodial
fathers. The Census Bureau’s major household surveys that produce official employment and
income statistics, the Current Population Survey (CPS) and the American Community Survey
(ACS) do not capture information to determine whether a man living in a household without
children is a noncustodial father. The most recent snapshot of noncustodial fathers was taken
through the Urban Institute’s National Survey of American Families (NSAF), discussed above,
which was part of the Institute’s Assessing New Federalism project initiated in the wake of the
1996 welfare reform law and privately funded through foundations.
Given the lack of recent and consistent trend information on noncustodial fathers, this report talks
about men in general to provide a sense of the economic and social context in which noncustodial
fathers live. That is, the report does not provide information on the characteristics of noncustodial
fathers, but rather provides the economic and social trends generally affecting men that have a
bearing on the ability of noncustodial fathers to help support their children.
Child Poverty Rates
Persistently high rates of child poverty have long been a social policy concern. In 2009, the
official poverty rate for children was 20.7%, meaning that one in five children were classified as
poor. Child poverty rates vary dramatically by family setting. In 2009, the child poverty rate for
related children in female-headed families (usually headed by a single mother) was 44.4%. For
children living in families headed by a married couple, the poverty rate was 11.0%.
Female-headed families have historically been the focus of policies for disadvantaged families
with children. The reasons for this focus include the following:
• the high rates of poverty among children living in families headed by a single
woman, indicating high rates of economic disadvantage among such families;
• cash welfare for needy families was, for many years, legally restricted to families
with either an absent or disabled father; even when these legal restrictions were
relaxed, the cash welfare rolls were still dominated by families headed by single
parents, at least until recently; and
• the desire to reduce the welfare rolls, both because of the view that welfare
receipt itself helped promote disadvantage and to save taxpayer money.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Figure 1 shows the trend in child poverty rates from 1959 (the first year for which official
poverty statistics are available) through 2009. It includes the poverty rate both for all children and
for children living in female-headed families. The female head is usually a single mother. It
shows that improvements in child poverty rates generally occurred through the 1960s. However,
the child poverty rate for all children reached a low point in 1969, increased somewhat through
the 1970s, and rose sharply beginning in 1979. The poverty rate for children in female-headed
families declined until 1979. In the 1980s, the overall child poverty rate generally fluctuated
around the 20% mark. Poverty among children in female-headed families failed to drop below
50% during that decade.
The mid-1990s saw major changes in policies affecting families with children. Tax legislation in
1993 significantly expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for families with children and
with workers. The 1996 welfare reform law (The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193) made major changes to cash welfare that sought to
require work and reduce welfare “dependency.” The 1996 welfare law also further expanded aid
to the working poor by substantially increasing child care subsidies. It also made major changes
to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program. A year later, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995
(P.L. 105-35) created the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which provided
health coverage to the children of the working poor.
In the wake of these policy changes, which occurred during an economic expansion, the cash
welfare rolls declined precipitously and employment among single mothers increased. The child
poverty rate also declined, falling from 22.7% in 1993 to 16.2% in 2000. The poverty rate for
children in female-headed families fell 14 percentage points, from 53.7% in 1993 to 39.3% in
2001.
Figure 1. Poverty Rates for Children, by Family Type: 1959-2009
80%
70%
Related Children in Female-Headed Families
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
All Children (Under 18)
10%
0%
3
5
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
1
3
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
19591961196 196 196 196 197 197 197 197 197 198 198 198 198 198 199 199 1995199 199 200 200 200 200 200
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
The improvements in poverty rates for children in the late 1990s were limited. In 2000, the child
poverty rate had declined to 16.2%, its lowest rate since 1978 but still above the 14.0% rate of
1969. The poverty rate for children living in families headed by single parents reached 39.3% in
2001, its all-time low over the period for which official poverty statistics are available but still
representing two in five such children living in poverty. Moreover, the improvements did not last.
During the 2000s, child poverty rates increased again. This increase occurred even before the
onset of the deep recession that began in December 2007.
Living Arrangements of Children
A contributing factor to the high rates of child poverty over the long term, and the increase in
child poverty during the period from 2001 to 2007, was the increasing likelihood of children
living in families headed by a single female. Figure 2 shows that in 1959, less than 1 in 10
children (9%) lived in families headed by a single female. This proportion increased almost every
year until the mid-1990s, reaching 24.0% in 1995. The share of children living in female-headed
families fell slightly during the remainder of the 1990s, before rising again in the 2001-2009
period.
Figure 2. Percent of all Related Children Under Age 18 Living in Single-Parent,
Female-Headed Families, 1959-2009
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
3
5
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
1
3
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
19591961196 196 196 196 197 197 197 197 197 198 198 198 198 198 199 199 1995199 199 200 200 200 200 200
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Congressional Research Service
6
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
The proportion of children born to unmarried mothers reached 40.6% in 2008—the highest level
during the period for which these data are available.18 The period from 2001 to 2008 saw
particularly steep increases in the share of children born to unmarried mothers. In 2001, 33.2% of
all births were to unmarried mothers.
The living situations of children are complex. In 2009, almost 6 in 10 children lived with both
their biological parents, who were married to each other. However, this means 4 in 10 children
were living in other situations. A small share of children (about 3%) lived with both their
biological parents who were unmarried. Another relatively small share of children lived with their
biological fathers without their biological mothers. However, about one-third of all children lived
in families without their biological fathers present.
Although little is known (empirically, in aggregate) about the men who spend years living apart
from their biological children, anecdotal evidence suggests that some of these men are in
relationships with women who have children fathered by other men. The advent of multiple
relationships that produce children, often referred to as multiple partner fertility (i.e., when
mothers and fathers have had children with more than one partner), generally complicates the
family situation of children. Thus, many fathers may not be living with their own biological
children but rather with the children of another man. In short, noncustodial and surrogate fathers
play a large part in the family lives of children, but most federal programs have minimal official
contact with them and therefore little is known about their characteristics.
Challenges of Increasing Involvement of Noncustodial Parents
with their Children
A father’s involvement with his children may be influenced by a number of factors. Over the past
three decades, changes in the labor market have led to less employment and lower typical wages
for men. Criminal justice policies have changed, leading to increases in the rate of incarceration
of men. What has not changed much over this period is that men living apart from their biological
children have not been a primary focus of policies to assist men, or their biological children, who
are economically disadvantaged. Though there are likely to be financial and nonfinancial benefits
of increasing the involvement of noncustodial fathers with their children, policies to promote such
engagement face an uphill battle given these economic and social trends.
Earnings
The earnings of typical full-time, full-year workers are a key indicator to how they are faring in
the workforce. Figure 3 displays the median annual earnings of men and women from 1960 to
2009 (in inflation-adjusted dollars) who worked full-time during an entire year. When adjusted
for inflation, the median annual earnings for a man working full-time, full-year peaked in 1973.
While there have been fluctuations in the real wages of men since then, the inflation-adjusted
median annual earnings for men in 2009 was lower than it was in 1973 by 4.3%. The median
annual earnings for men reached their post-1973 low point in 1996 at 9% below the 1973 level.
Real wage growth in the late 1990s and the early 2000s made up for some of the lost ground in
18 Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, and Stephanie J. Ventura, Births: Preliminary Data for 2008, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics,
National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 58, Number 15, April 6, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
7
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
men’s earnings, but this period of growth was short-lived. In contrast to the trend for men, the
median wage for women who work full-time, full-year generally increased after 1973.
Figure 3. Median Annual Earnings of Men and Women Who Work
Full-Time, Full-Year: 1960-2009
In 2009 (inflation-adjusted) dollars
$60,000
$50,000
Men
$40,000
Women
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
04
06
08
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Notes: Constant dol ars were computed using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for al Urban Consumers (CPI-
U-RS).
Congressional Research Service
8
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
The trend in typical earnings for men varied markedly by education status. Figure 4 shows the
average inflation-adjusted earnings for men by educational attainment from 1975 to 2008. Since
the late 1970s, inflation-adjusted earnings have increased for men with college degrees. The
greatest payoff in recent years has been for men with advanced degrees, who have earned an
average of more than $100,000 in each year since 1995. However, for men lacking a high school
diploma, inflation-adjusted earnings fell substantially. In 2008, the average earnings for a man
lacking a high school diploma was $24,831, 17% below the 1979 level when such a man earned
on average around $30,000 a year. The inflation-adjusted earnings of men with a high school
diploma declined by less, but they were still lower in 2008 than they were in 1979.
Figure 4. Average Inflation-Adjusted Earnings for Men Aged 18 and Older,
by Education Level: 1975-2008
In 2008 (inflation-adjusted) dollars
$120,000
Advanced Degree
$100,000
$80,000
Bachelor's Degree
$60,000
High School Graduate
$40,000
$20,000
Not a High School Graduate
$0
5
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
1
3
5
7
197
197
197
198
198
198
198
198
199
199
199
199
199
200
200
200
200
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Notes: Inflation adjustment made using the CPI-U-RS.
Congressional Research Service
9
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Employment
Wages alone do not tell the full story about how individuals of working age are faring in the labor
market. Whether they are actually employed is perhaps a more telling indicator of their economic
well-being. The increase in labor force participation and employment among women during the
post-World War II period is well known. However, during this period, the rate of employment
among men declined. Figure 5 shows the employment rate for men and women over the period
from 1948 to 2009. Men began the period with an employment rate over 80%. Women began the
period with an employment rate around 30%. By 2007 (generally before the recession that began
in December of that year), the employment rate for men had declined to 69.8%, while the
employment rate for women had risen to 56.6%. The recession caused drops in the employment
rate for both men and women, though the decline was more pronounced for men (to 64.5%, a
decline of 5.3 percentage points, compared to 54.4% for women, a decline of 2.2 percentage
points).
Figure 5. Employment Rates for Men and Women Ages 16 and Older, 1948-2010
90%
80%
Men
70%
60%
50%
Women
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
8
4
6
194 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 198 1988 1992 199 2000 2004 2008
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS).
Congressional Research Service
10
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
The decline in the employment rate for men stems from several factors, including the aging of the
population, retirements, and the increasing prevalence of early retirements. However, it also
reflects declining employment rates among both prime-aged men (ages 25 to 54) and young men.
Figure 6 shows the employment rates for men by age. As shown, employment rates declined
among all groups represented in the figure. In 1948, over 90% of prime-aged men were
employed, a rate that fell into the 80% range before the onset of the recession in December 2007.
The employment rate had also declined for the younger groups. For teens, employment rates that
were in the mid-50% range at the beginning of the period had fallen to just above 30% in 2007.
For young adults (20 to 24 years old), employment rates fell from around 80% to 70%.
Employment rates for older men also fell, though they are not shown in the figure (presumably,
many of these men are not fathers of children under age 18).
Figure 6. Employment Rates for Men by Age, 1948-2010
100%
Age 25 to 54
90%
80%
70%
Age 20-24
60%
50%
40%
30%
Age 16 to 19
20%
10%
0%
48
56
64
76
88
00
19
1952
19
1960
19
1968
1972
19
1980
1984
19
1992
1996
20
2004
2008
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS).
The long-term decline in employment rates for teens and young adults partially reflects increases
in school enrollment among these age groups.19 Thus, these trends can partially be viewed as a
consequence of a positive social trend. However, not all of these trends reflect a tendency toward
voluntary withdrawal from the workforce to complete schooling. Unemployment rates among
teens and young men tend to be high. Moreover, the recession that began in December 2007
19 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2009, “Total
fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by sex, age, and attendance status: Selected years, 1970 through 2018,”
April 2010.
Congressional Research Service
11
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
disproportionately affected young men. The impact of this recession on men in general and on
men by age is discussed in the next section.
The Great Recession
The recession that began in December 2007, sometimes called “the Great Recession,” has
disproportionately affected men. Figure 7 shows unemployment rates for men and women, and
the gap in the unemployment rate between men and women from 1948 to 2010. Unemployment
reflects the number of people actively looking for, but unable to find, work. During the period
from December 2007 through May 2010, the unemployment rate for men reached a high of
11.4% in October 2009. That was the highest unemployment rate for men in the entire 1948-2010
period. The peak unemployment rate for women during this period was 8.8% (April 2010 and
May 2010). The gap in the unemployment rate between men and women reached historical highs
in the months since December 2007. For the period from March 2009 to April 2010, the gap in
the unemployment rates between men and women exceeded two percentage points.
Figure 7. Unemployment Rates for Men and Women and the Gap in Rates Between
Men and Women, 1948-2010
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
8
2
6
4
8
2
6
0
4
8
2
6
0
8
194
195
195
1960
196
196
197
197
198
198
198
199
199
200
2004
200
Men
Women
Gap Men Minus Women
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Congressional Research Service
12
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Incarceration Rates
Incarceration has affected the ability of men to participate in the labor market and the lives of
their children. At the end of 2008, 1.6 million persons, of whom 1.5 million were men, were
imprisoned in federal or state facilities. Incarceration rates in the United States have increased in
recent decades. The growth of the prison population, which is predominately male, poses another
challenge in attempting to increase financial and social support from noncustodial fathers to their
children.
Figure 8 shows the growth in incarceration rates from 1995 to 2008 for men and women with
sentences of at least one year. These rates have grown for both men and women, but incarceration
is clearly a phenomenon that mostly affects men. The chart shows that incarceration rates grew
more rapidly during the late 1990s than during the 2000 to 2008 period. In 2008, 952 out of
100,000 men (almost 1% of all men) were incarcerated by federal or state authorities, compared
to 68 out of 100,000 women.
Figure 8. Incarceration Rates for Selected Years, by Gender, 1995 to 2008
(Rates per 100,000 in the population)
1000
900
800
700
600
Men
500
Women
400
300
200
100
0
1995
2000
2008
Source: For 2000 and 2008, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Prisoners 2008, revised April 1, 2010. For 1995, U.S. Department of Justice, State and Federal Prisons Report Record
Growth in Last 12 Months, December 3, 1995.
Notes: The 2000 and 2008 data represent incarceration rates as of December 31 of the year. The 1995 rate
represents data as of June 30, 1995. Rates represent the number of prisoners with sentences of more than one
year per 100,000 in the population.
Congressional Research Service
13
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
African American Families
The social and economic conditions in the labor force and with respect to incarceration, while
occurring in the population as a whole and across racial and ethnic groups, have
disproportionately affected African American families. In 2008, the poverty rate for African
American children was 34.7%, compared to 19% of all children.20 In the population as a whole,
one-third of all children lived in households that lacked their biological fathers. Among African
American children, nearly two-thirds (65%) lived apart from their biological fathers.
The relatively high rates of economic disadvantage and father absence among African American
children occur despite improvements in some social indicators for African American men,
reflecting a long history of relative disadvantage. However, African American men are still
relatively worse off than white men and, on some measures, Hispanic men.
For example, the educational attainment level for African American men has increased. In 1965,
25% of African American men ages 25 and older had completed four years of high school,
compared with 50% of white men ages 25 and older. The proportion of men with at least that
level of schooling increased for both white men and African American men, with greater
improvement for African American men. However, Figure 9 shows that despite this improvement
in educational attainment, the percentage of African American men who lack a high school
diploma was still higher than that of white men—16% of African American men lack a high
school diploma compared to only 8.6% of white men. (Hispanic men had the highest rate of
lacking a high school diploma.) African American men ages 18 to 24 were also far less likely than
their white counterparts to have a high school diploma.
20 Carmen DeNavas-Wait, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance
Coverage in the United States: 2008, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports,
P60-236(RV), September 2009, Table B2.
Congressional Research Service
14
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Figure 9. Percent of Men Who Lack a High School Diploma, by Race/Ethnicity, 2009
45.0%
39.4%
40.0%
34.8%
35.0%
30.0%
26.9%
25.0%
20.0%
17.3%
16.0%
15.0%
8.6%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
White Nonhispanic
African-Amercian
Hispanic
Age 18 to 24 Years
Age 25 and Older
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Moreover, African American men without a high school diploma typically earn less than other
men without a high school diploma. Figure 10 shows the average earnings for men without a
high school diploma in 1975 and 2008 (the 1975 earnings data are adjusted for inflation to 2008
dollars). In real terms, the average earnings for white men without a high school diploma declined
and average earnings for Hispanic men without a high school diploma increased; there was little
change in real earnings for African American men without a high school diploma. These trends
left African American men who lacked a high school diploma with the lowest earnings of the
three racial/ethnic groups shown in the figure in 2008, with average annual earnings of $22,344,
compared to $25,386 for white men and $24,340 for Hispanic men without a high school
diploma.
Congressional Research Service
15
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Figure 10. Average Earnings for Men without a High School Diploma, by
Race/Ethnicity, 1975 and 2008
(1975 earnings are adjusted for inflation)
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
White
African-American
Hispanic
1975
2008
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Notes: Inflation adjustment is based on the CPI-U-RS.
The most telling indicator of the poor employment outcomes for African American men without a
high school diploma is the employment rate. Table 1 shows the employment rates for men
without a high school diploma in March of selected years by race and ethnicity for two groups:
youth (ages 16 to 24) who were not enrolled in school, and all men ages 25 to 54. Over the past
two decades, the employment rate for African American men without a high school diploma has
declined. In 2007 (before the recession), less than 3 in 10 African American men ages 16 to 24
who lacked a high school diploma and were not in school were employed. This proportion
changed little during the recession—though the overall employment rate for African American
men declined between 2007 and 2009, a higher rate of these men were enrolled in school in 2009.
While the decline in employment rates for young African Americans has been noted elsewhere,
employment rates for prime-aged African American men (ages 25 to 54) who lack a high school
diploma also fell. While employment rates for other racial and ethnic groups also declined,
Hispanic men without a high school diploma maintained high rates of employment.
Congressional Research Service
16
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Table 1. Employment Rates in March of Selected Years for Men without a High
School Diploma, by Race/Ethnicity and Age
(1989, 2000, 2007, 2009)
1989 2000 2007 2009
Ages 16 to 24 (and not in school)
African
American
54.9 40.8 28.7 31.4
White
Nonhispanic
81.3 72.3 55.0 44.8
Hispanic
81.7 80.2 74.0 73.5
Ages 25 to 54
African
American
69.9 59.9 53.6 40.6
White
Nonhispanic
83.8 71.2 68.2 62.1
Hispanic
84.5 85.0 83.9 75.5
Source: Congressional Research Service tabulations of the March Current Population Survey for selected years.
One of the most stark indicators of disadvantage for African American men is their high
incarceration rate. Figure 11 shows incarceration rates (with sentences of one year or more) for
men by race and ethnicity at the end of 2008. At that point in time, there were 3,161 African
American men imprisoned per 100,000 in the population (3.1% of the population), compared to
487 white men and 1,200 Hispanic men per 100,000 in the population.
Figure 11. Incarceration Rate for Men in 2008, by Race/Ethnicity
(Rates per 100,000 in the population)
3,500
3,161
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,200
1,000
487
500
-
White Black
Hispanic
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners 2008,
revised April 1, 2010.
Notes: Rates represent the number of prisoners with sentences of more than one year per 100,000 in the
population.
Congressional Research Service
17
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Selected Federal Programs: Barriers Encountered by
Noncustodial Fathers and Other Men
The focus of social policies for disadvantaged children has been on families headed by single
mothers. These long-standing policies have provided cash and non-cash assistance to mothers.
Yet noncustodial fathers, many of whom are low-income, could benefit from policies that would
help them be positively involved in the lives of their children. Social policy might play a role
across several policy domains: (1) economic assistance (Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) block grant, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)); (2) family support (the Child Support Enforcement
(CSE) program and the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood programs); and (3) human
capital (workforce programs). This section provides information on these programs and also
examines federal programs that have the purposes of preventing teen pregnancy and helping
disadvantaged youth obtain the skills and support they need to become positive, productive, self-
sufficient members of their communities. As noted earlier, the underlying premise is that the aid
or services received from these programs by low-income, disadvantaged men may help them
overcome economic and emotional barriers and aid them in becoming productive members of
society in a number of ways—by giving them job training and employment opportunities (and
thereby the ability to make regular child support payments), educational information and
emotional support to promote positive interaction between them and their children, and
supportive services and counseling that can help them stay connected to their communities and
families (and thereby avoid criminal activity).
Economic Assistance Programs
Economic assistance is designed to supplement the income of poor families to help them meet
their basic needs. Noncustodial parents have either been ineligible for economic assistance based
on low income because they do not live with their children, or they have not been a large
population within low-income assistance programs.
In the early 1900s, states established “mothers’ pension” programs, assistance programs that
aided widows so that they could care for their children at home rather than institutionalizing
children. The Social Security Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-271) provided federal funding for these
programs. President Franklin Roosevelt’s Committee on Economic Security justified proposing
federal financial assistance for mothers’ pensions as follows:
The very phrases “mothers’ aid” and “mothers’ pensions” place an emphasis equivalent to
misconstruction of the intention of the laws. These are not primarily aids to mothers but
defense measures for children. They are designed to release from the wage-earning role the
person whose natural function is to give her children the physical and affectionate
guardianship necessary not alone to keep them from falling into social misfortune, but more
affirmatively to rear them into citizens capable of contributing to society.
The Social Security Act established social insurance programs (Old Age and Unemployment
Insurance) for those expected to work to have them earn benefits for old age and temporary
unemployment. It established need-tested cash benefits for two groups (at that time) not expected
to work—the aged and families with children with a single mother or with an incapacitated father.
While other groups (particularly the disabled) were subsequently granted benefits under the act,
Congressional Research Service
18
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
non-aged, able-bodied adult men were excluded from need-tested cash benefit programs as they
were expected to work. Of course, the sentiment expressed in the committee’s report—that single
mothers were not supposed to work but rather to raise children—conflicted with the major social
changes of the second half of the 20th Century, which saw increases in mothers’ participation in
the labor force and expectations that mothers should work.
The program established in the Social Security Act to provide need-tested aid to families with
children was first called Aid to Dependent Children (ADC); it was renamed Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) in 1962. Until 1961, federal funds were only provided to aid
families with a single mother or an incapacitated father; in 1961, states were given the option to
aid families with two able-bodied parents if one parent was unemployed. Even with this mandate,
AFDC for families with an unemployed parent paid on more restrictive terms than those that
existed for single-parent families or families with an incapacitated parent. Medicaid, the major
health care program for the poor, was tied to the receipt of AFDC and thus also became a benefit
primarily for families headed by a single parent.
The fact that AFDC generally restricted aid to single-parent families caused concern among
policymakers that cash welfare provided an incentive for some families to break up, contributing
to the growing number of children living in single-parent, female-headed families. New need-
tested benefit programs, designed during the 1960s and 1970s, generally did not restrict aid to
families with children based on the absence of a parent. The Food Stamp program (now known
as SNAP), created in the 1960s but expanded nationwide in the 1970s, provided aid based on
national eligibility standards without regard to family structure. The Earned Income Tax Credit
(EITC), first created in 1975, did not legally restrict benefits to single-parent families with
children, though it did require that a child be in the tax unit to be eligible for the credit. The
Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485) converted the state option to aid families with two
parents, one unemployed, to a mandate effective October 1, 1990.
The mid-1990s saw major changes in aid to low-income persons and families, including
substantial increases in aid to the working poor through expansions of the EITC, increased
funding for subsidized child care, and the establishment of the State Children’s Health Insurance
Program (SCHIP). A small EITC was added for tax filers without children, though the bulk of the
EITC expansions were for families with tax filers who had dependent children.
There were also changes that curtailed benefits for those who did not work. The 1996 welfare
reform law (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-
193) ended AFDC and its federal rules for determining financial and nonfinancial eligibility for
cash welfare, replacing it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant.
States were granted additional latitude in designing their cash assistance programs and were also
given the authority to use TANF funds for a wide range of activities beyond those of traditional
cash welfare programs. (TANF included some federal requirements, such as work standards and
time limits for adult recipients of cash welfare.) The 1996 law also curtailed food stamps for
recipients who are able-bodied adults (ages 18 to 50) without dependents (ABAWD). This rule,
known as the ABAWD rule, restricts assistance to adults who are not working or participating in a
work or training program to three months of assistance in a 36-month period.
Following these changes, cash welfare spending declined substantially. EITC grew, and in the
2000s the food stamp program also grew so that these two programs far surpassed TANF cash
welfare as the major sources of cash aid for low-income families.
Congressional Research Service
19
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Eligibility restrictions have generally been lifted for families where the father lives with his
children, and such families can be eligible for work supports such as earnings supplements from
the EITC or benefits from SNAP. However, noncustodial fathers still face some programmatic
barriers in receiving aid from economic assistance programs. Below are descriptions of the major
features of three major economic assistance programs—TANF, EITC, and the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, the new name for the program formerly called food
stamps)—and a discussion about how they relate to noncustodial parents.
Cross-Cutting Issues Affecting Economic Assistance Programs
There are two major issues that affect noncustodial parents across all cash and near-cash need-
tested programs. The first centers on the financial incentives and disincentives for the
noncustodial parent to join the household and live with their children, for those who have this
option. In tax policy, this issue is known as the “marriage penalty”—where a couple is
financially better off if two people live apart rather than marry. (However, in terms of the federal
income tax, whether a couple is financially better off if they marry or not depends on the
circumstances of each individual, so there are both marriage penalties and marriage “bonuses.”21)
There is an analogous situation in need-tested programs. If a noncustodial parent brings income to
a family or household, need-tested benefits to that household can be reduced or even eliminated
if the noncustodial parent’s income puts a family over the income eligibility threshold. Yet this
increase in income may not necessarily make the family economically better off than it would be
if it was receiving benefits.
The second major issue is whether a noncustodial parent’s payment of child support improves the
economic well-being of the custodial parent and the children if the custodial parent’s family or
household receives need-tested aid. If child support income is considered countable income in a
need-tested program, it can also reduce or end eligibility for the need-tested benefit. Thus, the
noncustodial parent’s paying of child support might not fully benefit his children, which reduces
the willingness of the noncustodial parent to pay.
TANF
The TANF block grant, while best known as a program that helps states fund cash welfare for
needy families with children, helps fund a wide range of benefits and services that help to
ameliorate the effects, or address the root causes, of economic disadvantage among families with
children. The forms of economic aid include ongoing cash assistance (what most consider
traditional welfare), non-recurrent short-term aid, and refundable tax credits for low-income
families.
TANF provides states with a set block grant amount that can be used to help achieve its broad
goals. The basic block grant is $16.5 billion per year, an amount that has remained the same since
its establishment in 1996. There are also supplemental grants to states and contingency funds. The
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) established a temporary
Emergency Contingency Fund (ECF) for FY2009 and FY2010 that reimburses states for 80% of
the increase in costs of providing basic assistance, short-term non-recurrent aid, and subsidized
21 See Congressional Budget Office, For Better or for Worse: Marriage and the Federal Income Tax, June 1997.
Congressional Research Service
20
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
employment. In addition to federal funds, states have to contribute from their own funds a
minimum amount each year (totaling $10.4 billion nationwide).
Under TANF, as under AFDC before 1996, states determine the income and financial resource
levels that make a family eligible for cash assistance, as well as the benefit amount. States are free
to determine nonfinancial eligibility rules—there are no federal rules restricting aid to two-parent
families. Additionally, TANF law and regulations do not define what constitutes a “family,”
permitting states to include noncustodial parents as part of the “family,” thus making them
eligible for assistance.
Monthly TANF cash benefit amounts represent only a fraction of poverty-level income in all
states. In 2008 for a family of three, benefits ranged from about half of poverty-level income in
Alaska ($928 per month; Alaska has a higher poverty level than the 48 contiguous states and the
District of Columbia) and California ($723 per month) to 12% of poverty-level income in
Mississippi ($170 per month). Moreover, receipt of cash benefits triggers a number of
requirements. Families with an adult cash welfare recipient are limited to 60 months of federally
funded benefits. These families also are included in determining whether the state meets federal
work participation standards (though the work requirements that apply to individual recipients are
determined by the state). Custodial parents must also cooperate with the child support
enforcement system and assign (i.e., legally turn over rights) to the state any child support
received as reimbursement for cash welfare.
In 2009, TANF cash welfare totaled $10 billion. Yet, TANF cash assistance serves only a small
fraction of all families with poor children. In 2008, there were 14.1 million poor children, but
only a monthly average of 3.1 million children were in families receiving cash assistance. As
mentioned above, noncustodial parents can be included in a family (or represent a family on their
own) receiving TANF assistance, but this is very rare. In FY2008, there were 70 noncustodial
fathers receiving TANF assistance.
States can also use TANF funds for a wide range of activities other than cash assistance, with few
rules or restrictions regarding the design of such benefits and services other than that they be
aimed at achieving a TANF goal. This includes economic assistance, such as earnings
supplements through refundable tax credits and non-recurrent short-term benefits. For example,
New York has used TANF funds to pay for the refundable portion of a “noncustodial Earned
Income Tax Credit” that provides a wage supplement to noncustodial parents who pay child
support (this will be discussed later in the report under policy options). Noncustodial parents can
also benefit from non-recurrent short-term aid—benefits designed to meet needs expected to last
four months or less.
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
The EITC was first created in 1975 as a temporary measure to offset payroll taxes for low-income
families with children. It was made permanent by the Revenue Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-600), and
expanded several times since then. An expansion of the EITC in 1993 was a major component of
the strategy to “make work pay” more than welfare. The 1993 expansion also included extending
the EITC to tax filers without children, though (as shown below) this credit is small relative to
that for filers with children and is available only to those with very low earnings.
As part of the tax code, the budgetary costs of the EITC are realized as foregone tax revenue
available to the federal budget. EITC rules are uniform nationwide. The EITC has become the
Congressional Research Service
21
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
largest form of need-tested cash aid, with credits totaling $50.7 billion for tax year 2008.22 Of
this, the bulk of aid is for families with qualifying children (that is, taxpayers residing with
children). EITC credits totaled under $1.4 billion for tax filers without qualifying children.
Table 2 compares EITC rules for childless filers and for single parents with children. As shown in
the table, the maximum credit available for childless filers (including noncustodial parents not
living with any of their children) is $457, compared to $3,050 for those with one qualifying child
and maximum credits over $5,000 for filers with two or more qualifying children. Moreover, the
EITC for childless filers is restricted to those with very low earnings. A childless filer becomes
ineligible for any EITC credit once his income reaches $13,460. A person who works 40 hours
per week at the 2010 federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour would earn $15,080 annually.
Thus, a childless filer who works 40 hours per week at the federal minimum wage for the entire
year is ineligible for the EITC. In contrast, a single parent who earns more than two times the
minimum wage is eligible for the EITC.
Table 2. Earned Income Tax Credits: Maximum Credits and Income Eligibility
Amounts for Filers With and Without Children, 2010
(Filers with qualifying children are those filing as head of household, representing a single parent)
Three or More
(Temporary,
One Qualifying
Two Qualifying
through
Childless
Filers
Child
Children
2010 only)
Maximum credit
$457
$3,050
$5,036
$5,666
Income threshold for
credit eligibility
$13,460 $35,535
$40,363 $43,352
Income threshold as a
percent of earnings
for a worker at the
89% 236% 268% 287%
federal minimum wage
working full-time
Source: CRS Report RS21352, The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): Changes for 2009 and 2010, by Christine
Scott.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, provides help to low-income families for purchasing
food. Like the EITC, it reaches many more families and persons than does cash welfare. In 2009,
$50 billion in benefits were paid to 33.7 million persons in 15.2 million households. Federal
funds pay 100% of SNAP benefit costs; the federal government and the states share the cost of
administering the program.
Low-income households are eligible for SNAP regardless of family type, though in permanent
SNAP law there are restrictions for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDS), a group
that would include most low-income noncustodial parents. Benefits are determined in federal law
and are uniform nationally.23 For a household consisting of a single person, the maximum
22 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Individual Complete Report, Table 2.5.
23 However, standard deductions and shelter deductions used in calculating the benefit are different for Alaska, Hawaii,
Guam, and the Virgin Islands than they are for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia.
Congressional Research Service
22
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
monthly SNAP benefit in FY2010 is $200 per month; for a family of three, the maximum
monthly benefit is $526 per month.
Though SNAP eligibility is generally not restricted by household type, most SNAP households
have members who are elderly, disabled, or children. In FY2008, 51% of all SNAP households
included children, 19% had an elderly member, and 23% had a disabled member. Only 17% of
SNAP households, totaling 2.2 million, had only nonelderly, able-bodied adults.
The 1996 welfare reform law established the ABAWD rule noted above, which affects able-
bodied noncustodial parents who do not live in households with children. The ABAWD rule
establishes a time limit for able-bodied adults ages 18 to 50 without dependents who do not work
or work less than 20 hours per week, and who are not participating in an education training
program. The time limit is three months in a 36-month period. An additional three months of
benefits may be paid in the 36-month period if a person becomes employed, works at least 80
hours in a 30-day period, and then becomes unemployed again. The ABAWD rule was suspended
for FY2009 and FY2010 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5).
Family Support
In addition to economic assistance programs, a number of federal programs are designed to
provide other forms of support to families. Three federal programs in particular—Child Support
Enforcement, Healthy Marriage, and Responsible Fatherhood—seek to assist men in providing
financial and other support to their children or future children. The Child Support Enforcement
(CSE) program focuses on collecting child support payments from noncustodial parents for the
purpose of contributing to the payment of childrearing costs; however, it also promotes visitation
and better relations between custodial and noncustodial parents through grants to states. Eligible
activities under the CSE Access and Visitation program include but are not limited to mediation,
counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement, and development
of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. Separately, the Healthy
Marriage program recognizes that child well-being is associated with a child living with two
parents. The program funds counseling and education initiatives targeted primarily to low-income
individuals that seek to facilitate healthy relationships, with the ultimate goal of providing better
outcomes for children. The Responsible Fatherhood program focuses on the financial and
personal responsibility of noncustodial parents for their children, with the goal of increasing the
participation of fathers in their children’s lives. Some responsible fatherhood initiatives help
noncustodial parents strengthen their parenting skills. Other initiatives try to discourage young
men from becoming fathers until they are married and ready for the responsibility.
Child Support Enforcement (CSE)
The CSE program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program (Title IV-D of the Social
Security Act) to help strengthen families by securing financial support for children from their
noncustodial parent on a consistent and continuing basis and by helping some families to remain
self-sufficient and off public assistance. Child support payments enable parents who do not live
with their children to fulfill their financial responsibility to their children by contributing to the
payment of childrearing costs. The CSE program is one of only a few federal programs that
specifically interact with men based on their status as fathers.
Congressional Research Service
23
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
The CSE program provides seven major services on behalf of children: (1) locating absent
parents, (2) establishing paternity, (3) establishing child support orders, (4) reviewing and
modifying child support orders, (5) collecting child support payments, (6) distributing child
support payments, and (7) establishing and enforcing support for children’s medical needs. All 50
states and four jurisdictions (the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands) operate CSE programs.24 The CSE program is administered by the federal Office of
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), which is in the Department of Health and Human Services’
Administration for Children and Families (ACF). The federal government and the states share
CSE program costs at the rate of 66% and 34%, respectively. The federal government also gives
states an incentive payment to encourage them to operate effective CSE programs.25 Federal law
requires states to reinvest CSE incentive payments back into the CSE program or related
activities.
The CSE program serves both poor families (including those who receive TANF benefits) and
non-poor families.26 Child support collected on behalf of non-welfare families goes to the family,
usually through the state disbursement unit. However, most child support collections on behalf of
families receiving TANF benefits are used to reimburse state and federal governments for TANF
payments made to the family.27
For low-income, TANF-receipt families, child support payments may not reach the children. This
may be a disincentive to pay child support. The rules are complex and may leave the family with
little to no benefit over and above the TANF benefit. CSE distribution rules determine which
claim is paid first when a child support collection occurs. The order of payment of the child
support collection is important because in many cases arrearages are never fully paid. While a
family receives TANF cash benefits, the states and federal government retain any current child
support and any assigned child support arrearages collected on behalf of that family up to the
cumulative amount of TANF benefits paid to the family. While states may pay their share of
collections to the family, they must pay the federal government its share of child support
collections collected on behalf of TANF families. P.L. 109-171 (the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005, enacted February 8, 2006) helped states pay for the cost of their CSE pass-through and
disregard policies by requiring the federal government to share in the costs of the entire amount
24 Historically, states were required to provide CSE services to Indian tribes and tribal organizations as part of the CSE
caseloads. The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) allowed direct federal funding of tribal CSE programs at a 90%
federal matching rate. In FY2008, there were 45 tribal CSE programs. For information on tribal CSE programs, see
CRS Report R41204, Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs, by Carmen Solomon-Fears and Roger Walke.
25 In FY2009, the statutory maximum for federal CSE incentive payments to states (in aggregate) was $504 million.
26 The CSE program does not handle all child support payments. Some cases (40%-50%) are handled by private
attorneys or collection agencies, or through mutual agreements between the parents. Thus, some of the families who
received child support in 2009 probably received it without the help of the CSE program.
27 In brief, TANF families are required to assign their child support rights to the state. As long as the child support
payment collected on the TANF family’s behalf is smaller than the state’s TANF benefit for a family of the relevant
size, the family remains on the TANF program and the child support collected for the family is divided between the
state and the federal government, with the state having the authority to “pass through” some, all, or none of its share of
the child support collected to the family without it affecting the family’s TANF benefit and with the federal
government sharing in some of the costs of giving the money to the family. The share of the child support collection
that is distributed to the federal government is based on a state’s Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP). The
FMAP varies inversely with state per capita income (i.e., poor states have a higher federal matching rate, wealthy states
have a lower federal matching rate). For more information on child support and TANF families, see CRS Report
RL34105, The Financial Impact of Child Support on TANF Families: Simulation for Selected States, by Carmen
Solomon-Fears and Gene Falk.
Congressional Research Service
24
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
(up to $100 per month for one child, up to $200 per month for two or more children) of child
support collections passed through and disregarded by states (this provision took effect on
October 1, 2008).28 This means that both states and the federal government share in the cost of
child support passed through to families (and disregarded by the state in determining the family’s
TANF cash benefit). Based on June 2009 data, 19 states and the District of Columbia have a child
support pass-through and disregard policy, and 31 states do not.29
States must distribute the following child support collections to former TANF families first before
the state and federal government are reimbursed (the “family-first” policy): (1) all current child
support, (2) any child support arrearages that accrue after the family leaves TANF (these
arrearages are called never-assigned arrearages), plus (3) any arrearages that accrued before the
family began receiving TANF benefits. An exception to this rule occurs when child support
arrearages are collected via the federal income tax refund offset program—those collections are
divided between the state and federal government.30 (Any child support arrearages that accrue
during the time the family is on TANF belong to the state and federal government.) If a family
has never received TANF benefits, the entire amount of the child support payment collected by
the state from the noncustodial parent goes to the custodial parent via the state disbursement unit.
In FY2009, about 14% of the CSE caseload31 consisted of TANF families; about 44% were
families who had at some point been on the TANF program, and 43% were families that had
never received TANF benefits. In FY2009, the CSE program collected $26.4 billion in child
support payments from noncustodial parents and served nearly 15.8 million child support cases.32
Of the $26.4 billion collected in child support payments, about 92% went to families, 7% went to
state and federal governments, and 1% consisted of medical support payments or fees paid to
states. On average, in FY2009 the CSE program collected $4.78 in child support payments for
each $1 spent on the program. In FY2009, total CSE expenditures amounted to $5.8 billion.
The CSE Program and Noncustodial Fathers
There is a growing consensus that the CSE program is one of the financial keys to helping
families become and remain self-sufficient. According to the most recent data available, child
support on average constitutes about 17% of family income for households that receive it. Among
28 In FY2008, only 3.7% of CSE collections (about $978 million) were made on behalf of TANF families, about 2% of
that amount (about $20 million) actually went to CSE families who received TANF benefits (pursuant to state CSE
“pass through” provisions), and the rest was divided between the state and federal governments to reimburse them for
TANF benefits paid to such families.
29 Michelle Vinson and Vicki Turetsky, “State Child Support Pass-Through Policies,” Center for Law and Social
Policy, June 12, 2009.
30 P.L. 109-171 gave states the option of distributing to former TANF families the full amount of child support
collected on their behalf (i.e., both current support and all child support arrearages—including arrearages collected
through the federal income tax refund offset program). This provision took effect on October 1, 2009, or October 1,
2008, at state option.
31 The CSE program defines a CSE “case” as a noncustodial parent (mother, father, or putative/alleged father) who is
now or eventually may be obligated under law for the support of a child or children receiving services under the CSE
program. If the noncustodial parent owes support for two children by different women, that would be considered two
cases; if both children have the same mother, that would be considered one case.
32 In FY2009, 4% of CSE collections were made on behalf of TANF families, 35% were made on behalf of former
TANF families, and 61% were made on behalf of families who had never been on TANF.
Congressional Research Service
25
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
poor households that receive it, child support constitutes about 30% of family income.33
Moreover, data indicate that parents who make regular child support payments have better family
relationships than those who do not (e.g., they have more interaction with their children).34
The CSE program has the potential to impact more children and for longer periods of time than
most other federal programs. According to Census Bureau data, in 2007 13.7 million parents had
custody of nearly 22 million children under age 2135 while the other parent lived somewhere else.
Of those 13.7 million custodial parents, 35% received child support, 21% received food stamp
(SNAP) benefits, 19% received Medicaid benefits, 10% received pubic housing assistance, and
4% received TANF benefits.36 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.37
Over the last 10-15 years, the CSE program has expanded its mission beyond its initial welfare
cost-recovery goal to focus on providing its clients with more effective and efficient CSE services
and fostering parental responsibility. In FY2009, there were 17.4 million children in the CSE
program. Given that most of these children had a living mother and father and that most of them
were living with their mother,38 there were roughly 14 million noncustodial fathers with children
on the CSE rolls in FY2009.39
Work Programs
To receive federal matching funds, states are required, among other things, to establish and
implement a number of child support enforcement tools. One such tool requires state child
support officials to have the authority to seek a judicial or administrative order that directs any
noncustodial parent owing past-due support to a child receiving TANF benefits to pay that child
support in accordance with a plan approved by the court or to participate in appropriate work
activities.40 This enforcement tool, which was mandated by the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L.
104-193), reflected Congress’ acknowledgement that many noncustodial parents lack the
education and skills necessary to obtain a job. The purpose of the CSE work-activities provision
33 Elaine Sorensen and Chava Zibman, “Child Support Offers Some Protection Against Poverty,” Urban Institute,
March 15, 2000. Also see Elaine Sorensen, “Child Support Gains Ground,” Urban Institute, October 6, 2003.
34 34 U.S. Census Bureau, “Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2007,” Current Population
Reports, P60-237.
35 Since, in some states, child support can be ordered by a court until a child is 21 years old or completes college, the
survey data upon which this Census report is based covers parents’ own children under age 21 rather than applying the
U.S. Census Bureau’s usual definition of children as those under age 18.
36 U.S. Census Bureau, “Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2007,” Current Population Reports,
P60-237. For information on noncustodial parents, see Elaine Sorensen and Tess Tannehill, “Demographic Survey
Results from Nine-State IV-D Programs,” December 18, 2007.
37 In most states, the child support order is initiated when parents divorce or separate or when a never-married parent
seeks assistance and child support is established for the child. The child support order generally lasts until the child
reaches the state’s “age of majority (usually age 18),” and if the noncustodial parent owes past-due child support
payments, the state can continue collecting such child support arrearages for a stipulated period beyond this age.
38 The 2007 Census Bureau data indicate that 1.6% of custodial parents in 2007 were widowed (17,414,000 x 1.6% =
279,000; 17,414,000 – 279,000 = 17,135,000).
39 Based on 2007 Census Bureau data, about 17% of custodial parents were fathers (17% x 17,000,000 = 2,890,000;
17,135,000 – 2,890,000 = 14,245,000).
40 This provision is found in Section 466(a)(15) of the Social Security Act (Title 42 USC §666(a)(15)).
Congressional Research Service
26
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
is to provide some noncustodial fathers of children receiving TANF cash assistance with
employment opportunities so that they can meet their child support obligations by passing on
some of their earnings to their children.41 The tool allows judges to remand nonpaying
noncustodial parents (of a child receiving TANF benefits) to a TANF work program, with the
mandate to participate in the program, pay the child support owed, or be confined in jail. This
obligation can be monitored to ensure compliance by the noncustodial parent. If the parent is in
fact working surreptitiously, it is likely that the work program will conflict with his or her other
job, forcing the parent to admit to having earnings and thereby to pay child support. If the
noncustodial parent really is jobless, the program can help him or her get a job.42 One example of
a child support-driven employment project is the Texas Noncustodial Parent Choices Program.43
In addition, a number of state CSE programs have established employment programs in
partnership with state and local workforce development boards and local courts for noncustodial
parents regardless of whether the child is enrolled in the TANF program.44
41 The now defunct Welfare-to-Work (WtW) program was designed to help states and localities move hard-to-employ
welfare recipients and certain low-income noncustodial parents into lasting unsubsidized jobs. The program was
established in P.L. 105-33 (the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) to supplement TANF block grant funds. It was
administered by the U.S. Department of Labor. The $3 billion grant ($1.5 billion for FY1997-1998 and $1.5 billion for
FY1998-1999) consisted of two main parts: formula grants to states and competitive grants to local communities.
Three-quarters of the funds were distributed by formula to states, which were required to pass on 85% of their formula
funds to workforce investment boards (WIBs). The other quarter of the funds was distributed competitively based on
grant applications from state and local agencies, nonprofit organizations, and public and private entities. According to
evaluation information, hundreds of programs were implemented with WtW grants, through various agencies and
organizations, and all were required to coordinate with TANF agencies. The WtW formula grant program was
terminated by Section 105 of the Department of Labor 2004 appropriation (P.L. 108-199). Program evaluators
indicated that all WtW programs had ended by the end of 2004. According to an evaluation of the WtW program by
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., and the Urban Institute: “WIA [Workforce Investment Act] administrators
generally felt the WtW grants program had three positive systemic benefits: it helped to establish welfare recipients as a
key customer group for the One-Stop Career Center system; it improved the working relationship between the welfare
and workforce agencies; and it made it possible to devote resources to developing and testing new strategies (e.g.,
employer partnerships, transitional employment, retention services) for serving the hard-to-employ” (Source:
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., and the Urban Institute, “Welfare-to-Work Grants Programs: Adjusting to
Changing Circumstances,” by Demetra Smith Nightingale, Carolyn Taylor O’Brien, Michael Egner, Nancy Pindus, and
John Trutko, November 2003).
42 Lawrence M. Mead, “Toward a Mandatory Work Policy for Men,” The Future of Children (Princeton-Brookings), v.
17, no. 2, Fall 2007, p. 56.
43 The Texas Noncustodial Parents (NCP) Choices Program provides enhanced child support case compliance
monitoring and employment services for noncustodial parents linked to a TANF/Medicaid case who are unemployed or
underemployed and are not compliant with their child support obligations. Participation in the program is mandatory as
ordered by CSE associate judges in the 14 sites currently funded by the Texas Workforce Commission and the Office
of Attorney General (OAG). NCP Choices launched three new sites and expanded one existing site in spring 2010.
According to the Texas CSE website, noncustodial parents ordered into NCP Choices have, on average, made no
payments in the eight months prior to program entry and pay an average of $176 per month in the first year after
program entry. Evaluation results show this as an overall 57% increase in child support payments for noncustodial
parents participating in this program as compared to a control group of similar noncustodial parents in the OAG
caseload (http://www.oag.state.tx.us/cs/ofi/index.shtml).
44 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, “Noncustodial Parents: Summaries of Research, Grants and Practices, July 2009.” See also Shane
Spaulding, Jean Baldwin Grossman, and Dee Wallace, “ Working Dads: Final Report on the Fathers at Work
Initiative,” Public/Private Ventures, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
27
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Access and Visitation
A noncustodial parent’s right to visit with his or her children is commonly referred to as visitation
or child access. State family or domestic relations law almost universally treats child support and
visitation as completely separate issues. Although a noncustodial parent’s right to visit with his or
her children and receipt of child support payments by custodial parents are legally separate issues,
Census Bureau data indicate it is more likely that noncustodial parents will make payments of
child support if they have either joint custody or visitation rights.45 Also, according to an Urban
Institute study, fathers who pay child support (as compared to those who do not) are more likely
to visit their children.46 The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) demonstration, a large-scale demonstration
project conducted between 1994 and 1996, was designed to increase support payments,
employment and earnings, and parental involvement. The study found that PFS did not generally
lead to increases in the frequency or length of contact that noncustodial parents had with their
children. However, PFS was effective at increasing the occurrence of regular visits at sites where
it served families with relatively low visitation rates (i.e., significant results were seen at the two
sites whose level of noncustodial parental involvement was extremely low at the outset of the
demonstration program).47
Federal and state policymakers have increasingly promoted efforts that address child support and
access and visitation in the same forum. In order to promote visitation and better relations
between custodial and noncustodial parents, the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) provided
$10 million per year for grants to states for access and visitation programs.48 An annual
entitlement of $10 million from the federal CSE budget account is available to states for these
grants. Eligible activities include but are not limited to mediation, counseling, education,
development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement, and development of guidelines for
visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
According to data from the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), all 50 states
plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have provided access
and visitation services to over 500,000 noncustodial parents and their families since the program
became operational in FY1998. Most participating noncustodial parents have received parenting
education, supervised visitation services, mediation services, and help in developing parenting
plans. According to a report on the grant program for FY2008, states contracted with over 374
court and/or community- and faith-based nonprofit service providers for the delivery of access
and visitation services to noncustodial parents and their families. The report indicated that over
85,000 individuals were served by the grant program, compared to 20,000 who were served by
the grant program during its first year of operation in FY1998.49
45 U.S. Census Bureau, “Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2007,” Current Population Reports,
P60-237, by Timothy S. Grall, November 2009, http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf. To view detailed
tables, see http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/childsupport/chldsu07.pdf.
46 Heather Koball and Desiree Principe, “Do Nonresident Fathers Who Pay Child Support Visit Their Children More?,”
Urban Institute, Series B, No. B-44, March 2002.
47 Virginia Knox and Cindy Redcross, “Parenting and Providing: The Impact of Parents’ Fair Share on Paternal
Involvement,” MDRS, October 2000.
48 Even before the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485) authorized
a limited number of grants to states for demonstration projects to develop, improve, or expand activities designed to
increase compliance with child access provisions of court orders.
49 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Child Access and Visitation
Grants: State/Jurisdiction Profiles for FY 2008,” March 8, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
28
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Modification of Child Support Obligations50
In FY2009, $107.6 billion in child support arrearages was owed to families receiving CSE
services, but less than 7% ($7.5 billion) of those arrearages was actually paid. Still, 63% of
obligors continued to make payments on their child support arrearages. One interpretation of this
information is that many noncustodial parents simply have too many financial obligations (e.g.,
food and shelter for themselves) to cover with their limited incomes; therefore, they may always
be a little or a lot behind in meeting their child support obligations.
An Urban Institute study revealed the following findings on those with child support arrearages:
(1) high debtors were expected to pay a larger percentage of their income for current child
support orders—the median child support order for high debtors (i.e., noncustodial parents who
owed $30,000 or more in child support arrearages) was 55% of their income compared to 13% for
non-debtors and 22% for those who owed less than $30,000 in child support arrearages; (2) high
debtors with a current support order tended to have older orders than other obligors; (3) high
debtors were more likely to have multiple current child support orders than non-debtors; (4) high
debtors were less likely to pay support than non-debtors; (5) high debtors were less likely to have
a known address; and (6) high debtors were twice as likely to have an interstate child support case
as a non-debtor.51
Under the CSE program, states are given significant latitude regarding modifications and reviews
of child support orders.52 Federal law requires that states give both parents the opportunity to
request a review of their child support order at least once every three years, and states are
required to notify the parents of this right. In order to prevent child support arrearages, especially
for noncustodial parents who are unemployed or in prison, some analysts argue that child support
modification laws should be changed so that they are more sensitive to periods of incarceration,
unemployment, or injury/illness during which the noncustodial parent’s ability to pay child
support decreases. They contend that it is virtually impossible for most low-income noncustodial
parents with those types of barriers to stay current in meeting their monthly child support
payments.
Child Support and Ex-Offenders
About 1.7 million children (under the age of 18) in the United States have parents who are
currently incarcerated53 and more than 10 million U.S. children are separated from one of their
parents during a portion of their childhood because of the parent’s incarceration.54
50 The following information is from CRS Report R40499, Child Support Enforcement and Ex-Offenders, by Carmen
Solomon-Fears, April 7, 2009, pp. 16-17.
51 Elaine Sorensen, Liliana Sousa, and Simon Schaner, “Assessing Child Support Arrears in Nine Large States and the
Nation,” The Urban Institute, July 11, 2007, pp. 19-24, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/assessing-CS-debt/.
52 This flexibility and discretion only applies to prospective modification of child support orders. Federal law prohibits
the retroactive modification of child support orders (Section 466(a)(9) of the Social Security Act).
53 Lauren E. Glaze and Laura M. Maruschak, “Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children,” U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, August 2008.
54 “Every Door Closed: Facts About Parents With Criminal Records,” Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) and
Community Legal Services, Inc., 2003.
Congressional Research Service
29
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, of the 1.5 million inmates held in the nation’s
prisons (federal and state) in mid-2007, approximately 809,800 of them (53%) were parents of
minor children. Of the estimated 700,000 persons who are released from prison each year,55 about
400,000 of them are fathers and mothers.56 Many of these former inmates have formal child
support obligations. Although the proportion of incarcerated noncustodial parents in state and
federal prisons is only roughly 5% of the CSE caseload57 at any one point in time, the cumulative
impact is much higher. States indicate that 30%-40% of their “hard to collect from” cases consist
of noncustodial parents who have a criminal record.58
Pursuant to P.L. 107-273, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and state and local law enforcement
agencies have been developing programs to assist with successful re-entry for the thousands of
people being released from state and federal prisons each year.59 Also, HHS, primarily through its
federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and state and local CSE agencies, has been
approving program waivers and providing demonstration funds that foster effective methods of
working with incarcerated and recently released parents and with re-entry programs. HHS has
indicated that there are several reasons why CSE agencies should be concerned about ex-
offenders and prisoner re-entry programs:
One is the large number of parents in the child support caseload with a criminal background.
Another is the likelihood that their children are recipients of public assistance and are
vulnerable to a variety of negative outcomes. A third reason is that these parents are
accessible in prison settings and respond positively to outreach efforts by child support
personnel. Finally, 16 to 18 percent of child support arrears, which exceeded $107 billion in
Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, are held by incarcerated or recently released obligors.60
Moreover, given the current economic crisis, states are looking to find creative ways to maximize
the use of their resources. State and federal prison officials and CSE officials may find that it is
mutually beneficial to work together on behalf of inmates who are parents.61 Some analysts have
suggested that state and federal prisons can strengthen their re-entry programs by incorporating
information on CSE obligations and services. Further, CSE programs can make their programs
more successful by identifying parents with child support obligations while they are in prison so
55 “Building Knowledge About Successful Prisoner Reentry Strategies,” MDRC, February 11, 2009.
56 “Every Door Closed: Facts About Parents With Criminal Records,” Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) and
Community Legal Services, Inc., 2003.
57 Between FY2006 and FY2009, the CSE caseload has ranged between 15.7 million and 15.8 million cases.
58 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, “Section 1115 Demonstration Grants—Projects in Support of the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (HHS-2009-
ACF-OCSE-FD-0013),” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/closed/HHS-2009-ACF-OCSE-FD-0013.html. (Hereinafter,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, “Section 1115 Demonstration Grants—Projects in Support of the Prisoner Reentry Initiative.”)
59 The Prisoner Re-entry Initiative was authorized by Section 2421 of the 21st Century Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act (P.L. 107-273). The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act authorized appropriations for the initiative for FY2003-FY2005. However, the initiative has received
funding since FY2001. Historically, funding for the initiative has been appropriated under the Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) appropriation, but the funds have been transferred to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP),
where they are administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in the Department of Justice (DOJ) (Source:
CRS Report RL33489, An Overview and Funding History of Select Department of Justice (DOJ) Grant Programs, by
Nathan James, January 16, 2008).
60 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, “Section 1115 Demonstration Grants—Projects in Support of the Prisoner Reentry Initiative.”
61 CRS Report R40499, Child Support Enforcement and Ex-Offenders, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
Congressional Research Service
30
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
that parents are better able to avoid the accumulation of excessive child support arrearages and so
that information can be provided to prisoners that highlights the benefits of including child
support payments in their post-release plans.62
Several strategies have been suggested that would involve both the criminal justice system and
the CSE program in proactively addressing the reality that more ex-offenders are being released
back into local communities. They include (1) making inquiries about a prisoner’s parental status
and whether or not he or she is required to pay child support as part of the prison intake process;
(2) encouraging prisoners to contact the CSE agency regarding questions about the paternity and
child support order establishment rules, due process procedures, collection methods, and other
concerns; (3) informing inmates about how they can have their child support orders modified so
that they do not incur high child support debt while in prison; (4) encouraging inmates to
maintain contact with their children while they are in prison; and (5) helping former inmates
develop a plan to pay their child support obligations.63 It has also been suggested that prison
intake procedures include an automated data match or weekly population list exchange among
corrections and CSE agencies, and that policies be implemented to assist with the child support
modification process, such as providing noncustodial parents with forms, addressed envelopes,
and postage.64
Healthy Marriage Programs
The current healthy marriage initiative (which was part of P.L. 109-171, the Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005; enacted February 8, 2006) resulted from two parallel developments.65 First, in the
late 1980s and early 1990s states and local communities came together to develop strategies to
strengthen marriage and reduce divorce rates, with the goal of improving child well-being. Most
of the early initiatives were targeted toward middle-income persons and focused on educating
people on why marriage matters and on providing them with the knowledge and skills necessary
to form and sustain a healthy marriage. Second, during the welfare reform debate in the mid-
1990s, Congress and the Clinton Administration expressed their concerns about the high cost of
nonmarital childbearing and its adverse affect on child well-being. Subsequently, the 1996
welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) stipulated that TANF funds were to be expended to achieve
four statutory goals. One of the goals is to promote the formation and maintenance of two-parent
families. Another of the goals is to end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits
through work, job preparation, and marriage.66 In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush
Administration directed specific federal agencies67 to test different ways of strengthening couple
62 Esther Griswold and Jessica Pearson, “Twelve Reasons for Collaboration Between Departments of Correction and
Child Support Enforcement Agencies,” Corrections Today, v. 65 Issue 3, June 2003, pp. 87-90,104.
63 Vicki Turetsky, “Realistic Child Support Policies that Support Successful Re-entry,” Center for Law and Social
Policy, revised January 2007.
64 “Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council—Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community,”
2004. See also Rachel L. McLean and Michael D. Thompson, “Repaying Debts,” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Assistance, 2007.
65 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, “Healthy Marriage
Initiative, 2002-2008: An Introductory Guide,” 2008, http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/docs/
acfhminitiativeguide.pdf. (Hereinafter, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families, “Healthy Marriage Initiative, 2002-2008: An Introductory Guide.”)
66 The other two goals are (1) providing assistance to needy families so that children may remain in their homes, or in
the homes of relatives, and (2) reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
67 These HHS agencies were the Administration for Children and Families (including the Office of Head Start, formerly
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
31
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
relationships and encouraging marriage to stabilize families.68 The federally funded healthy
marriage initiatives implemented after 1996 have been targeted primarily to low-income persons.
From the outset, information from HHS about the healthy marriage initiative proposed by
President George W. Bush indicated that the healthy marriage initiative was not about (1) telling
people that they should be married, (2) trapping people in abusive marriages, or (3) withdrawing
support for single mothers.69 In proclaiming November 24-30, 2002, as National Family Week,
President Bush stated:
We know that by helping couples to build and sustain strong, two-parent families, we will
contribute to the well-being of our children and the strength of our society.... My welfare
reform agenda also will strengthen families. We plan on continuing to provide historically
high levels of support for childcare and child support enforcement. And we will continue to
encourage strong marriages and two-parent married families as a worthy policy goal.70
In proclaiming October 12-18, 2003, as Marriage Protection Week, President Bush stated:
To encourage marriage and promote the well-being of children, I have proposed a healthy
marriage initiative to help couples develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain
healthy marriages. Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households
headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures.
Through education and counseling programs, faith-based, community, and government
organizations promote healthy marriages and a better quality of life for children. By
supporting responsible child-rearing and strong families, my Administration is seeking to
ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home.71
P.L. 109-171 established within TANF a new categorical grant for healthy marriage promotion
initiatives.72 The healthy marriage promotion initiative is funded at approximately $100 million
per year (FY2006-FY2010), to be spent through grants awarded by HHS to support research and
demonstration projects by public or private entities, and technical assistance provided to states,
Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and other entities.
The activities supported by the DRA healthy marriage initiatives are programs to promote
marriage to the general population, such as public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage
and education; education on “social skills” (e.g., marriage education, marriage skills, conflict
resolution, and relationship skills) for engaged couples, those interested in marriage, or married
couples; and programs that reduce the financial disincentive to marry, if combined with
(...continued)
known as the Head Start Bureau), the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), the Office of Refugee
Resettlement, the Children’s Bureau, the Office of Community Services, the Administration for Native Americans.
68 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, “Healthy Marriage
Initiative, 2002-2008: An Introductory Guide.”
69 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Information
Memorandum, “Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage Initiative (ACYF-CB-02-01, Attachment C),” Issuance date: March
12, 2002.
70 The White House, “National Family Week, 2002” (George W. Bush), Proclamation 7630 of November 22, 2002.
71 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Marriage Protection Week, 2003,” A Proclamation by the
President of the United States of America (George W. Bush), October 3, 2003.
72 This law also established within TANF a new categorical grant for responsible fatherhood initiatives (discussed
below).
Congressional Research Service
32
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
educational or other marriage promotion activities. Entities that apply for marriage promotion
grants must ensure that participation in such activities is voluntary and that domestic violence
concerns are addressed (e.g., through consultations with experts on domestic violence). Although
healthy marriage programs are not income-based, the emphasis has been on providing such
programs to low-income persons. In 2006, pursuant to the DRA, the HHS Office of Family
Assistance (OFA) awarded healthy marriage grants to 123 grantees. The grantees were awarded
five-year contracts to implement healthy marriage programs. In FY2009, the contracts (in
aggregate) amounted to about $93 million.73
The DRA requires healthy marriage grantees to evaluate their programs. The evaluations must
identify project milestones and expected outcomes, and describe the services and activities that
were implemented in the program. HHS is currently overseeing three large-scale, multi-site
longitudinal, scientific evaluations of approaches to providing healthy marriage education
services.74 The final results of the studies are expected between 2011 and 2013.75 In addition, a
comprehensive process and output evaluation of selected ACF healthy marriage projects that
serve Hispanic families will be conducted for programs operating during the period from
September 2007 through September 2012.76
Healthy Marriage Programs and Child Well-Being
A 2008 report examines the economic costs associated with the decline in marriage (which the
authors contend increases the number of children and adults eligible for and in need of
government services). 77 The authors of the report maintain that the decline in marriage is a
product of both divorce and unmarried childbearing. The report estimates that combined, the high
rates of divorce and nonmarital childbearing costs U.S. taxpayers at least $112 billion per year in
federal, state, and local costs—$70.1 billion of which is federal costs.78 It states that “these costs
arise from increased taxpayer expenditures for antipoverty, criminal justice, and education
programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals who, as adults, earn less because
of reduced opportunities as a result of having been more likely to grow up in poverty.”79
73 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families, Budget Justification of Appropriations Estimates for Committee on Appropriations, FY2011, p.
303. According to HHS data, 60% of the grantees are nonprofit, community-based organizations. Other grantees
include post-secondary institutions, state and county governments, for-profit companies, and faith-based organizations.
74 The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) has funded
and continues to fund many more federally funded evaluations of healthy marriage programs. For additional
information on these evaluations, see Administration for Children and Families, “Healthy Marriage Initiative, 2002-
2008: An Introductory Guide,” 2008, pp. 13-15.
75 Ibid., p. 28.
76 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning,
Research, and Evaluation, Hispanic Healthy Marriage Initiative, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/strengthen/
hispanic_healthy/index.html#overview.
77 Benjamin Scafidi et al., “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the
Nation and for All Fifty States,” Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, Institute for Marriage and
Public Policy, and Families Northwest, April 2008. (Hereinafter, Scafidi et al, “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and
Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and for All Fifty States”).
78 The report does not separately estimate the economic costs associated with nonmarital childbearing.
79 Scafidi et al, “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and for
All Fifty States.”
Congressional Research Service
33
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Another study examined the impact of nonmarital childbearing on poverty by using a regression
analysis that was based on hypothetically matching single women and men in the population on
the basis of factors such as age, education, and race. It found that if the share of children living
with two parents in 2000 was increased to what it had been in 1970, the child poverty rate in 2000
would have declined by about 29% compared to the actual decline of 4.5%.80 If that analysis is
applied to 2007 data, 3.7 million fewer children would be in poverty.81
Although the DRA healthy marriage program grants are funded through the TANF title of the
Social Security Act, the statute makes it clear that the healthy marriage grants are not targeted
exclusively to low-income clients. Some observers of the healthy marriage program contend that
by encompassing middle-income persons as part of its clientele, the focus of promoting marriage
as a poverty-reduction strategy for low-income persons is substantially diminished and thereby
activities and services (i.e., program components) that could potentially help persons, especially
low-income persons, become more employable82 (e.g., financial literacy, anger and stress
management, self-awareness, emotional control, and respect for others) may not be offered by the
program.83
Critics of marriage promotion programs caution that government must be careful about
supporting programs that cajole individuals into marrying.84 They note the problems associated
with child-bride marriages (i.e., women marrying young) and the short-term and often unhappy
nature of the so-called “shotgun” marriage (i.e., marriage hastened by pregnancy).85 Others
contend that marriage promotion programs could encourage women to stay in abusive
relationships, that they minimize the excellent job that many single parents do in raising good
children, and that marriage is a private rather than a government affair.86 Some supporters of
healthy marriage programs remark that many long-lasting marriages were based on financial
alliances (e.g., to increase economic status, family wealth, status in the community, etc.). They
assert that policies or programs designed to promote healthy marriages are not intended to force
anyone into unwanted, unhealthy relationships, trap women in abusive relationships, or withdraw
support from single mothers. Supporters maintain that a relationship is not healthy if it is not safe.
They also maintain that marriage is a proven path out of poverty for women.87
80 Paul R. Amato and Rebecca A. Maynard, “Decreasing Nonmarital Births and Strengthening Marriage to Reduce
Poverty,” The Future of Children, vol. 17, no. 2 (Fall 2007), p. 130.
81 The 3.7 million figure was derived by applying the 29% reduction rate to the 12.8 million children who were in
families with below poverty-level income in 2007. According to the Census Bureau, in 2007 12.8 million of the nearly
73 million related children (under age 18) living in families were in families with poverty-level income. Also, in 1970
85.2% of children lived with both parents; in 1980, 76.7%; in 1990, 72.5%; in 2000, 69.1%; and in 2007, 67.8% (see
CRS Report RL34756, Nonmarital Childbearing: Trends, Reasons, and Public Policy Interventions, by Carmen
Solomon-Fears, p. 29).
82 Some of the “healthy marriage” literature explains that much of the debate around healthy marriage focuses on policy
initiatives that may make persons more “marriageable,” such as job training and employment programs, but that are
distinct from the definition of “healthy marriage.” (Source: Kristen Anderson Moore, Susan M. Jekielek, Jacinta
Bronte-Tinkew, Lina Guzman, Suzanne Ryan, and Zakia Redd, “What Is “Healthy Marriage”? Defining the Concept,”
Child Trends, Research Brief (2004-16), September 2004.)
83 Marguerite Roulet, “Fatherhood Programs and Healthy Marriage Funding,” Center for Family Policy and Practice,
June 2009.
84 Dorian Solot and Marshall Miller, “Let Them Eat Wedding Rings,” Alternatives to Marriage Project, 2002.
85 Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., “Bringing Back the Shotgun Wedding,” National Affairs, no. 90 (Winter 1988).
86 Claire Hughes, “Marriage Promotion: Will It Work?,” June 2004.
87 Robert Rector, “Welfare Reform and The Healthy Marriage Initiative,” The Heritage Foundation, February 10, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
34
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Nonetheless, many observers are concerned about the impact of healthy marriage promotion
programs on survivors of domestic violence or those still in abusive relationships. They assert
that all marriage promotion programs must identify and respond to domestic violence issues in a
manner that is effective for the individual program in question.88 Some observers contend that
policymakers should focus healthy marriage programs on couples who want to get married,
couples who are free from substance abuse problems and/or violent tendencies, and couples who
do not have any children by other partners.89 Others note that the phrase “healthy marriage” is
specifically used because healthy marriage initiatives do not tolerate violence of any sort and
instead educate couples on effective ways to resolve conflict and successful approaches to
forming and sustaining committed and loving long-term marriages.
Early Impact Findings from the Building Strong Families (BSF) Project
The Building Strong Families project is one of the centerpieces of a broad policy strategy to
support healthy marriage. The project, which is funded by HHS, seeks to determine whether well-
designed interventions can help interested unwed parents realize their hopes for a healthy
marriage and thus enhance the well-being of their children. The findings from a recently released
evaluation of the short-term impacts of the BSF program were not very encouraging. As indicated
above, the BSF project was designed to answer the question of whether relationship-skills
education could be effective in improving relationship communication and satisfaction among
low-income couples, and whether improving a couple’s relationship will enhance the well-being
of their children. The BSF project provided relationship and marriage education, case
management, and referrals to other services. The 15-month impact evaluation of the stability and
quality of the couples’ relationships found:
When results are averaged across all programs, BSF did not make couples more likely to stay
together or get married. In addition, it did not improve couples’ relationship quality.90
In seven of the eight programs evaluated,91 the BSF program failed to yield better outcomes for
program participants than for a control group that did not have access to the program. The
evaluation measured the living arrangements, relationship status, relationship quality, extent of
father involvement with his child, domestic violence, and economic well-being of approximately
5,000 couples who were randomly assigned to either a control group or a group that had access to
a BSF program.92
88 Anne Menard and Oliver Williams, “It’s Not Healthy If It’s Not Safe: Responding to Domestic Violence Issues
Within Healthy Marriage Programs,” November 2005 (updated May 2006), p. 2.
89 Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas, Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage,
University of California Press, 2005.
90 Robert G. Wood et al., “The Building Strong Families Project—Strengthening Unmarried Parents’ Relationships:
The Early Impacts Of Building Strong Families,” Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., May 2010, p. xii. (Hereinafter,
Robert G. Wood et al., “The Building Strong Families Project—Strengthening Unmarried Parents’ Relationships: The
Early Impacts Of Building Strong Families.”)
91 The eight BSF programs evaluated were in (1) Atlanta, GA; (2) Baltimore, MD; (3) Baton Rouge, LA; (4) Orange
and Broward counties, Florida; (5) Allen, Marion, and Lake counties, Indiana; (6) Oklahoma City, OK; (7) Houston,
TX; and (8) San Angelo, TX. Note: the Oklahoma City BSF program was the only program in which, at the 15-month
follow-up survey, there was a significant positive impact on couples remaining romantically involved and a significant
positive impact on the quality of their relationship.
92 Robert G. Wood et al., “The Building Strong Families Project—Strengthening Unmarried Parents’ Relationships:
The Early Impacts Of Building Strong Families.”
Congressional Research Service
35
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
The Obama Administration has indicated that the BSF program was not comprehensive enough to
improve the stability of couples and the well-being of children. They contend that the approach
outlined in their proposed Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Innovation Fund initiative will
encompass a broader effort that “will provide the comprehensive support that parents and couples
need to succeed in their relationships as well as in their roles as workers, providers, and engaged
parents.”93
Other analysts note that some of the findings of the evaluation were confusing. For example, it
indicated that the BSF program had negative effects on couples’ relationships in Baltimore (where
92% of the couples were African American).94 But, it also indicated that the BSF program
improved the relationship quality of African American couples. Some commentators mention that
program implementation problems and inconsistent participation are often reasons for
unfavorable outcomes in scientific evaluations of social programs.95
The authors of the evaluation point out that early and interim impacts are not always the same as
the final results. They also note that the final follow-up survey will examine effects on child well-
being. The final impact study is expected in 2012.
Responsible Fatherhood Programs
The federal government has also sought to engage men in the lives of their children through what
are known as responsible fatherhood programs. These programs recognize that committed,
involved, and responsible fathers are important in the lives of their children. These programs seek
to promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial parents for their children and
increase the participation of fathers in their children’s lives.96 Some responsible fatherhood
programs help noncustodial parents strengthen their parenting skills. Other programs try to
discourage young men from becoming fathers until they are married and ready for the
responsibility.97
Even before the federal government became interested in responsible fatherhood programs, many
states 98 and localities, private organizations, and nonprofit agencies had been operating
responsible fatherhood programs since the early 1990s.99 From the start, many CSE agencies
93 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, “Study: Building Strong
Families Evaluation Suggests Stronger Approach is Needed,” May 21, 2010.
94 The report indicated that the most distinctive characteristic of the Baltimore BSF program was that the couples in its
population were less committed to each other and their relationships were more tenuous than any of the other BSF
programs evaluated.
95 Virginia Knox, Philip A. Cowan, Carolyn Pape Cowan, and Elana Bildner, “Policies That Strengthen Fatherhood and
Family Relationships,” MDRC, A Working Paper, 2009.
96 Although programs that seek to help fathers initiate or maintain contact with their children and become emotionally
involved in their children’s lives are usually referred to as “fatherhood” programs, the programs are generally gender
neutral. Their underlying goal is participation of the noncustodial parent in the lives of his or her children.
97 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Information
Memorandum, “Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage Initiative (ACYF-CB-02-01, Attachment C),” Issuance date: March
12, 2002.
98 For information on profiles of state programs and strategies to promote parenting and responsible fatherhood, see
http://www.fatherhood.gov/resources/state.cfm.
99 For a detailed history of responsible fatherhood programs, see Kathleen Sylvester and Kathleen Reich, “Making
Fathers Count: Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood Efforts,” Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Social
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
36
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
recognized the importance of cultivating a collaborative relationship with these responsible
fatherhood programs. During these early years, it was not always easy to form amicable
connections, in part because there had been a longstanding tension between noncustodial parents
and the CSE program. Noncustodial parents often claimed that by exclusively focusing on
financial support, the CSE system devalued their role as a nurturer, disciplinarian, and mentor.
Nonetheless, most responsible fatherhood programs clearly explained the goals and duties of the
CSE program and encouraged noncustodial parents to interact with CSE agencies in a proactive
manner.
During the 106th Congress, then-Representative Nancy Johnson, chair of the Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Human Resources, stated, “to take the next step in welfare reform we must find
a way to help children by providing them with more than a working mother and sporadic child
support.” She noted that many low-income fathers have problems similar to those of mothers on
welfare—namely, 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 or keep a job. She also
asserted that in many cases these men are “dead broke” rather than “deadbeats” and that the
federal government should help these noncustodial fathers meet both their financial and
emotional obligations to their children.100 During this same time period, research indicating that
father absence had a profound negative impact on children became more widely accepted.
As indicated above, the advantages and disadvantages of having federally funded responsible
fatherhood programs have been debated in Congress since the 106th Congress (1999), but it was
not until the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) that specific funding was provided for
these programs.101 P.L. 109-171 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 programs.102
Most responsible fatherhood programs include parenting education; training in responsible
decision-making, conflict resolution, and coping with stress; mediation services for both parents;
problem-solving skills; peer support; and job-training opportunities. Like healthy marriage
(...continued)
Policy Action Network, 2002.
100 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. Note: Much of the research
underlying the aforementioned statement is based on the Urban Institute’s 1997 National Survey of American Families
(NSAF); see Sorenson and Zibman, “Poor Dads Who Don't Pay Child Support: Deadbeat or Disadvantaged.”
101 Other sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs include the TANF program, TANF state Maintenance-of-
Effort (MOE) funding, CSE funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds. According to HHS, many states
use TANF funds for responsible fatherhood programs. In addition, many private foundations provide financial support
for responsible fatherhood programs.
102 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, focusing in particular on
responsible fatherhood; and to develop a national clearinghouse to help states and communities in their efforts to
promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood.
Congressional Research Service
37
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
promotion programs, responsible fatherhood programs are not income-based, but the emphasis
has been on providing such programs to low-income persons. According to data from ACF, 99
grantees were awarded five-year contracts to implement responsible fatherhood programs. In
FY2009, the contracts (in aggregate) amounted to about $45 million.103
An evaluation of responsible fatherhood programs sponsored by HHS—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 and is still enrolling
participants. The evaluation is a multiyear (quasi-experimental) study that is expected to run from
2006 through 2013. A final report on the impact of the program is expected between 2011 and
2013.104
Responsible fatherhood programs, in affirming the importance of fathers to their children’s well-
being, have to a certain extent encouraged open communication between noncustodial parents
and the CSE program.105 It is generally agreed that positive, constructive communication between
noncustodial parents and CSE agencies sometimes leads to more child support for children.106
Moreover, findings from several of the demonstration projects that provided noncustodial fathers
with employment and supportive services indicate that partnerships between the CSE programs
and employment programs can result in significant, sustained increases in the amount of child
support paid to custodial parents on behalf of dependent children.107 Given that recruitment of
noncustodial parents to responsible fatherhood programs has been a challenge for many of these
programs, some observers contend that it is important to integrate the CSE agency into
fatherhood programs because they have more leverage than other agencies or entities in
persuading noncustodial parents to participate.108 They also note that the involvement of the CSE
agency provides an improved knowledge base about the program to both staff and participants,
and that the CSE agency has the unique ability to implement “realistic” child support order
amounts and develop strategies to address noncustodial parents with large amounts of
accumulated debt.109
103 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families, Budget Justification of Appropriations Estimates for Committee on Appropriations, FY2011, p.
303.
104 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.
105 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,” National Women’s Law Center and Center on Fathers, Families, and Public
Policy, Washington, DC, 2000, pp. 9-11.
106 William J. Doherty, Edward F. Kouneski, and Martha Farrell Erickson, “Responsible Fathering: An Overview and
Conceptual Framework—Final Report,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies (HHS-100-93-0012), Washington, DC, September 1996.
107 For more information, see CRS Report RL31025, Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children, by
Carmen Solomon-Fears. Also see http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/Research/index.shtml and http://www.fatherhood.org/
evaluation.asp.
108 Urban Institute, “Ten Key Findings from Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives,” by Karin Martinson and Demetra
Nightingale, February 2008.
109 Ibid., p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
38
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Many commentators contend that to help fathers and mothers successfully meet their parental
responsibilities, responsible fatherhood programs must be expanded to include broad-based
collaborative strategies that include schools, employment programs, prison systems, churches,
community organizations, and the health care system.110 The role of these entities would be to
recruit noncustodial parents to the programs and/or provide relevant information, and if
appropriate, services, to existing programs. Some child welfare,111 Head Start,112 and prisoner re-
entry programs have included responsible fatherhood initiatives or components in their programs.
Human Capital Programs
Unlike economic assistance programs that seek to support family consumption, and family
support programs aimed at nurturing family relationships, human capital programs are focused on
helping individuals develop the skills necessary to obtain employment and realize their economic
potential. Several human capital programs are specifically designed to enhance employability and
earnings.
Though dated, an Urban Institute report from 1997 shows that nearly all noncustodial low-income
fathers did not pay child support, and of those who were not in prison, almost half did not
work.113 Further, among the fathers who worked, most held a full-time job but only worked part
of the year, leading to low annual earnings of about $5,600. These fathers were far less likely than
poor custodial mothers to participate in job search and job training and education programs. The
mothers had access to these programs through their enrollment in TANF.
While existing federal workforce development programs do not directly target noncustodial
fathers per se, they can play a role in providing these fathers (and others) with opportunities to
secure employment, which in turn can help them meet their obligations to their children. These
programs provide a combination of job search assistance, education, and training services to
prepare individuals for work or improve individuals’ labor market performance. In the broadest
sense, workforce development includes secondary and postsecondary education, private employer
training, and the publicly funded system of job training and employment services. The federal
government provides workforce development activities through programs authorized under the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 (P.L. 105-220). Workforce development may include
activities such as job search assistance, career counseling, occupational skill training, classroom
training, or on-the-job training. Title I of WIA provides job training and related services to
unemployed and underemployed individuals. Title I programs are administered by the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL), primarily through its Employment and Training Administration
(ETA), and carried out by states and localities through what are known as workforce investment
boards. Although WIA authorized funding through September 30, 2003, WIA programs continue
110 Annie E. Casey Foundation, “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood,” A Guide To Key Ideas, Effective Approaches,
and Technical Assistance Resources for Making Connections Cities and Site Teams, 2005, http://www.aecf.org/upload/
publicationfiles/fatherhood_pages.pdf.
111 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, “The
Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children,” Section II, 8. Fatherhood Programs, by Jeffrey
Rosenberg and Bradford W. Wilcox, 2006, http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/
chaptereight.cfm.
112 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Father Involvement in Head Start and Early Head Start,”
http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/Parenting/hs.shtml.
113 Sorenson and Zibman, Poor Dads Who Don't Pay Child Support: Deadbeat or Disadvantaged?
Congressional Research Service
39
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
to be funded through annual appropriations. In FY2010, programs and activities authorized under
Title I of WIA are funded at $5.5 billion, including $3.0 billion for state formula grants for youth,
adult, and dislocated worker training and employment activities. The remaining funding is for
multiple national programs.
WIA does not expressly provide services to noncustodial parents and it is not clear the extent to
which Title I programs reach noncustodial parents, since data are not kept on the parenting status
of participants (except whether they are single parents). Generally speaking, Title I seeks to
benefit all participants by increasing their employment, job wages, and occupational skills. As
stated in the purpose of Title I, more skilled workers can “improve the quality of the workforce,
reduce welfare dependency, and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the Nation.”114
For noncustodial parents, attachment to the workforce and increased wages can improve their
ability to provide for their children. Recent initiatives under WIA to engage prisoners re-entering
the community may particularly benefit prisoners who are noncustodial parents and face
difficulty in meeting their financial obligations upon re-entry.
One-Stop Delivery System
One of the innovations of WIA was the establishment of the “One-Stop delivery system”
(hereinafter, “One-Stop”) to provide coordinated access to a range of employment and support
services. WIA requires each state to establish a One-Stop delivery system to provide “core”
services (i.e., intake and job search assistance) and provide access to “intensive” (i.e., individual
employment plans, group counseling, etc.) and “training” (i.e., on-the-job training, skill
upgrading and retraining services, etc.) among other services.
Each local workforce investment area in a state is required to have at least one physical One-Stop
center in which the aforementioned programs and services are accessible. In addition, a state One-
Stop delivery system may provide access to programs and services through a network of affiliated
sites and through a network of One-Stop partners linked electronically. As noted, one of the
characteristics of the WIA One-Stop system is to provide a central point of service for those
seeking employment, training, and related services. To this end, WIA requires multiple partner
programs and allows additional programs to operate in the One-Stop system. Some of these
programs, including TANF and SNAP, are targeted to low-income individuals.115
WIA State Formula Grant Programs
Three formula grant programs for youth, adults, and dislocated workers provide funding for
employment and training activities carried out by the national system of One-Stop Career
Centers. Funds are distributed to states by statutory formulas based on measures of
unemployment and poverty status for youth and adult allocations, and unemployment measures
for dislocated worker allocations.116 States in turn distribute funds to local workforce investment
boards (WIBs), which administer and oversee local workforce development activities funded by
114 Section 106 of WIA.
115 The list of required partners, including references to the authorizing statutes for each program, is in Section
121(b)(1)(B) of WIA.
116 For further information on the formula factors used in the state formula grant allocations, see Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration, “Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and Wagner-Peyser Act Statutory
Formulas for State Allotments,” http://www.doleta.gov/budget/WIAFormDesc.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
40
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
WIA. There are no eligibility requirements for participation in services funded by the Adult
Activities and Dislocated Worker Activities programs, but a youth must be low-income and have
a barrier to employment (i.e., be a school dropout, in foster care, etc.) in order to participate in
Youth Activities-funded services. However, Section 134(d)(4)(E) of WIA instructs local WIBs to
give priority to recipients of public assistance and other low-income individuals for training and
intensive services when funds are limited.
The state formula grant programs are the following:
• The Youth Activities program, discussed further under “Youth Activities,” below,
provides training and related services to low-income youth ages 14 through 21
through formula grants allocated to states, which in turn allocate funds to local
entities. Programs funded under the youth activities chapter of WIA provide 10
“program elements” that consist of strategies to complete secondary school,
alternative secondary school services, summer employment, work experience,
occupational skill training, leadership development opportunities, supportive
services, adult mentoring, follow-up services, and comprehensive guidance and
counseling. In FY2010, funding for state grants for Youth Activities is $924
million.
• The Adult Activities program provides training and related services to individuals
ages 18 and older through formula grants allocated to states, which in turn
allocate funds to local entities. There are no income requirements to participate in
WIA Adult Activities programs. Participation in the adult program is based on a
“sequential service” strategy that consists of three levels of services. Any
individual may receive “core” services, which primarily encompass job search
assistance. To receive “intensive” services, including individual career planning
and prevocational services (i.e., interview skills, development of learning skills,
etc.), an individual must have received core services and need intensive services
to become employed or to obtain or retain employment that allows for self-
sufficiency. To receive training services—including on-the-job training, skill
upgrading, and retraining—an individual must have received intensive services
and need training services to become employed or to obtain or retain employment
that allows for self-sufficiency. In FY2010, funding for state grants for Adult
Activities is $862 million.
• A majority of WIA Dislocated Worker Activities funds are allocated by formula
grants to states, which in turn allocate funds to local entities to provide training
and related services to individuals who have lost their jobs and are unlikely to
return to those jobs or similar jobs in the same industry. As in the Adult Activities
program, there are no income requirements to participate in the WIA Dislocated
Worker Activities program. The remainder of the appropriation is reserved by
DOL for a National Reserve account, which in part provides for National
Emergency Grants117 to states or local entities (as specified under Section 173).118
117 Grants authorized under WIA Section 173(a)(1) are for employment and training assistance to workers affected by
major economic dislocations, such as plant closures or mass layoffs.
118 WIA Sections 132(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B) require that 20% of the amount appropriated for Dislocated Worker
Employment and Training Activities be reserved for national emergency grants, projects, and technical assistance. The
remaining 80% is to be used for state formula grants.
Congressional Research Service
41
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
In FY2010, funding is $1.2 billion for state grants for Dislocated Worker
Activities and $229 million for the National Reserve.119
Detailed WIA data on demographics and services received are based on the concept of program
“exiters.” An exiter is a participant who received a service funded by WIA or a partner program,
has not received the service for 90 consecutive calendar days, and is not scheduled to receive
future services.120
Of the three programs, the Adult Activities program serves the most individuals. In the most
recent program year for which data are available (PY2008), 849,738 adults exited the Adult
Activities program. Notably, about 6 out of 10 exiters received only core services, which are
generally limited to job search assistance and do not include education and job training. Of the
approximately 40% of exiters who went on to receive more specialized services, including job
training,
• 14.7% were single parents,
• 44.1% were low-income,
• 16.4% were recipients of public assistance,
• 5.7% were offenders, and
• 14.6% did not hold high school degrees.
Reintegration of Ex-Offenders Program
In addition to state formula grants, WIA authorizes funding for several national programs—Job
Corps, Native American programs, Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker programs, Veterans’
Workforce Investment programs, Demonstration and Pilot programs, National Emergency Grants,
and YouthBuild. Funding for these national programs combined is $2.3 billion in FY2010. Within
the national programs, WIA Section 171 (Demonstration and Pilot programs) provides funding
for more targeted populations. In general, Section 171 authorizes the Secretary of Labor to
provide grants or contracts to carry out projects that address training and employment needs. One
of the services implemented under Section 171 of WIA (and Section 212 of the Second Chance
Act of 2007, P.L. 110-199) is the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders program (REO). This program is
the most relevant to low-income and noncustodial males.
The Reintegration of Ex-Offenders program consolidated funding from two previous
demonstration projects, the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) and the Responsible Reintegration of
Youthful Offenders (RRYO). PRI, which was first funded in FY2005, funds faith-based and
community organizations that help recently released prisoners find work when they return to their
119 In FY2009, the National Reserve includes $125 million for Community-Based Job Training (CBJT) grants (see
below).
120 Thus, the date on which an individual has finished his or her participation in WIA determines the program year for
which data are generated on the exiter. For example, if an individual received services throughout the entire 2008
calendar year and last received WIA services on December 15, 2008, the data for that individual are included as part of
Program Year (PY) 2009. A program year runs from July 1-June 30 (e.g., PY2009 runs from July 1, 2009-June 30,
2010). Due to deadlines for submitting data for the WIASRD annual Data Book, the most recent period for which data
are available is April 1, 2008-March 31, 2009. U.S. Department of Labor, PY2008 WIASRD Data Book, Table II-1 and
Table II-12, http://www.doleta.gov/performance/results/pdf/PY_2008_WIASRD_Data_Book_FINAL_1192010.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
42
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
communities. RRYO, first funded in FY2000, supports projects that serve young offenders and
youth at risk of becoming involved in the juvenile justice system. In FY2008, the Reintegration of
Ex-Offenders program combined the PRI and RRYO into a single funding stream. In FY2010,
funding for this single program is $108.5 million.
In the FY2010 budget, the Administration indicated that new grants under the REO program
“may prioritize programs which include transitional job strategies” and that the Employment and
Training Administration, which is responsible for administering the REO program, may fund
programs that prepare ex-offenders for employment in green industries and other high-demand
fields.121 In addition, ETA plans “to coordinate” with other relevant social service programs, such
as responsible fatherhood initiatives.122
Youth Programs
The nation’s future depends on today’s young people leaving school prepared for college or the
workplace and beginning to make positive contributions to society. Some youth, however, face
barriers to becoming taxpayers, workers, and participants in civic life. They may also disengage
from their own families, including their children. Social science research indicates that many low-
income, disadvantaged youth come from families in which their father was absent from the home.
Single-parent households tend to have less income and other resources than two-parent
households. Having fewer resources lowers children’s school performance, decreases their labor
force participation, and contributes to early childbearing.123 For example, multiple studies of
births among teenagers show that teens in single-parent households are more likely to have
children and to do so outside of marriage compared to those in two-parent families.124
While the federal government does not have a single approach or policy for serving
disadvantaged young people, select youth programs seek to ameliorate the negative outcomes
they may experience.125 The goals of these federal programs are not necessarily to engage teens
and young adults in the lives of their children—if in fact they have children—but rather, to ensure
that these young people are adequately prepared for adulthood. Three types of programs in
particular focus on delaying early family formation or engaging young people in productive
activities as they transition to adulthood: teenage pregnancy prevention programs, youth
employment programs, and education programs. (Notably, the workforce programs include
education services and the education programs include workforce elements.) Yet by preparing
youth for adulthood, these programs may ultimately put teenagers and young adults in a better
position to provide for and be involved in the lives of their (current or future) children.
121 U.S. Department of Labor, Budget Justification of Appropriations Estimates for Committee on Appropriations,
FY2010, Volume I, Washington, DC, 2009, p. TES-74.
122 Ibid.
123 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1994), pp. 39-56.
124 Ibid, p. 54. These studies do not account for whether teens are cohabiting with a partner.
125 For information on these programs, see CRS Report RL33975, Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies, by
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
Congressional Research Service
43
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Programs
In 2008, 10.2% of all U.S. births and 21.8% of nonmarital births were to teens.126Although the
birth rate for U.S. teens has dropped in 15 of the last 17 years, it remains higher than the teenage
birth rate of most industrialized nations.127
The high volume of pregnancies and birth rates among teenage and never-married women is often
attributed to a liberal view of sexual activity.128 Some analysts also contend that contraceptive
advancements have afforded women a false sense of security, thereby contributing to increased
sexual activity and more pregnancies. The academic and professional communities also maintain
that teen parenthood is one of the negative consequences of growing up without a father present
in the household.129 Moreover, policymakers suggest that, prior to its reform, “welfare” was seen
as a guaranteed source of income for unmarried teenage mothers with grim marriage and job
prospects. The president of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an organization that studies
reproductive health, commenting on a study about adolescent pregnancy and childbearing in
“developed” countries, stated: “In the United States, poverty and inequity clearly are behind
much of our high rates of pregnancy, birth and abortion. But lack of sensitive, confidential, low-
cost contraceptive services and the denial of accurate and frank information about sex, are equally
to blame.”130
An October 2006 study by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy estimated that in
2004, adolescent childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers about $9 billion per year: $2.3 billion in child
welfare benefits; $1.9 billion in health care expenses; $2.1 billion in spending on incarceration
(for the sons of women who had children as adolescents); $6.3 billion in lost tax revenue because
of lower earnings of the mothers, fathers, and children (when they were adults); and $3.6 billion
in offsetting public assistance savings (younger teens receive less annually over a 15-year period
than those who give birth at ages 20-21). Research indicates that teens who give birth are less
likely to complete high school and go on to college, thereby reducing their potential for economic
self-sufficiency. The research also indicates that the children of teens are more likely than
children of older parents to experience problems in school and drop out of high school, and are
more likely to repeat the cycle of teenage pregnancy and poverty as adults. The 2006 report
contends that if the teen birth rate had not declined between 1991 and 2004, the annual costs
associated with teen childbearing would have been almost $16 billion (instead of $9 billion).131
In recognition of the negative, long-term consequences associated with teenage pregnancy and
births, the prevention of teenage and out-of-wedlock childbearing is a goal of federal social
126 Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, and Stephanie J. Ventura, “Births: Preliminary Data for 2008,” National Vital
Statistics Reports, vol. 58, no. 16, April 2010.
127 For more information, see CRS Report RS20301, Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Statistics and Programs, by
Carmen Solomon-Fears; and CRS Report R40618, Teen Pregnancy Prevention: Background and Proposals in the 111th
Congress, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
128 U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Testimony of Dr. Isabel V. Sawhill
on Nonmarital Births and Child Poverty in the United States, June 29, 1999.
129 General Accounting Office, Teen Pregnancy: State and Federal Efforts to Implement Prevention Programs and
Measure Their Effectiveness, GAO/HEHS-99-4, November 1998.
130 Alan Guttmacher Institute, “United States and the Russian Federation Lead the Developed World in Teenage
Pregnancy Rates,” News Release, February 24, 2000, p. 2.
131 The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, By the Numbers: The Public Cost of Teen Childbearing, by
Saul D. Hoffman. October 2006.
Congressional Research Service
44
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
programs. Thus, there are many federal laws that address the subject of teen pregnancy
prevention. The Adolescent Family Life (AFL) program, created in 1981 (Title XX of the Public
Health Services Act), was the first federal program to focus on adolescents. The AFL program
provides comprehensive and innovative health, education, and social services to pregnant and
parenting adolescents and their infants, male partners, and families. The AFL program is
authorized to provide comprehensive sex education information, including information about
contraceptive methods as well as abstinence-only-focused educational information.
The Title V Abstinence Education block grant to states (Section 510 of the Social Security Act,
established in 1996 by P.L. 104-193) authorized a separate state formula grant program to support
abstinence-only education programs. Funds are awarded to states based on the proportion of low-
income children in each state compared to the national total, and may only be used for teaching
abstinence. To receive funding, a state must match every $4 in federal funds with $3 in state
funds. Section 510 provided $50 million for each of the six fiscal years FY1998-FY2003.
Although the program has not been reauthorized, it received many temporary funding extensions
between 2003 and 2009. Funds are administered by the Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) within HHS. Prior to enactment of P.L. 111-148 (the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, PPACA), funding for the Title V Abstinence Education program had ended on June 30,
2009.
PPACA restored funding for the somewhat controversial abstinence-only approach to teen
pregnancy prevention. PPACA appropriated $250 million for the abstinence-only block grant at
$50 million per year for five years (FY2010-FY2014) . Concurrently, PPACA also established a
new state formula grant program and appropriated $375 million at $75 million per year for five
years (FY2010-FY2014) to enable states to operate a new Personal Responsibility Education
program, which is a comprehensive approach to teen pregnancy prevention that educates
adolescents on both abstinence and contraception to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted
diseases. It also provides youth with information on several adulthood preparation subjects (e.g.,
healthy relationships, adolescent development, financial literacy, parent-child communication,
educational and career success, and healthy life skills). The new Personal Responsibility
Education program is mandated to provide programs that are evidence-based, medically accurate,
and age-appropriate.
P.L. 111-117, the Consolidated Appropriations for FY2010, included a new discretionary Teen
Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) program that provides grants and contracts, on a competitive basis,
to public and private entities to fund “medically accurate and age appropriate” programs that
reduce teen pregnancy. Of the $110 million appropriated for the TPP program for FY2010, $75
million is for replicating programs that are proven through rigorous evaluation to be effective in
reducing teenage pregnancy, behavioral factors underlying teen pregnancy, or other related risk
factors; and $25 million is for research and demonstration grants. The TPP program is
administered by the new Office of Adolescent Health within HHS. P.L. 111-117 also provides a
separate $4.5 million (within the Public Health Service Act program evaluation funding) to carry
out evaluations of teenage pregnancy prevention approaches.
Table 3 shows that federal funding for the teen pregnancy prevention programs mentioned above
amount to $256 million for FY2010. (Note that the AFL program is required to fund only
comprehensive sex education-type programs in FY2010.)
Congressional Research Service
45
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Table 3. Federal Funding for Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs, FY2010
Program Name
Federal Funding for FY2010
(in millions of dollars)
Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) Program
$110.0
Evaluation Funds for TPP Program
4.5
Adolescent Family Life (AFL) Program
16.7
Personal Responsibility Education Program
75.0
Title V Abstinence Education Block Grant
50.0
Total $256.2
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS).
In addition, there are several other federally funded programs that provide pregnancy prevention
information and/or services to both teens and adults. These programs include Medicaid Family
Planning, the Title X Family Planning Program, the Maternal and Child Health block grant, the
TANF block grant program, the Title XX Social Services block grant, and a couple of teen
pregnancy prevention programs administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(within HHS).
Select Youth Workforce Programs
Since the 1930s, federal job training and employment programs and policies have sought to
connect vulnerable youth ages 14 through 24 to work and school. Generally, these young people
have been defined as being vulnerable because they are low-income and have a barrier to
employment, such as having dropped out of school or spent time in foster care. The Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) is the most recent federal law to provide job training and
related services to unemployed and underemployed individuals, including youth. All youth job
training programs and related services are authorized under Title I of WIA and are carried out by
the Department of Labor. Each of the programs has a similar purpose: to connect youth to
educational and employment opportunities, and to offer similar services for doing so. As
discussed previously in this report, the unemployment rate for teens is higher than for young
adults and adults generally. The 2009 rate is the highest it has been during the post-World War II
period, and nearly 50% of black teens were unemployed in 2009. Further, compared to their
female counterparts, young men ages 16 through 24 are more likely to not be in school or
working for at least one year.132
The WIA programs for youth include
• WIA Youth Activities, a formula grant program that includes employment and
other services that are provided year-round;
• Job Corps, a program that provides job training and related services primarily at
residential centers maintained by contractor organizations;
132 For further information, see CRS Report R40535, Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not
Working or In School, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara and Thomas Gabe.
Congressional Research Service
46
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
• YouthBuild, a competitive grant program that emphasizes job training and
education in construction; and
• Reintegration of Ex-Offenders, a demonstration program for juvenile and adult
offenders that provides job training and other services and is authorized under
WIA’s pilot and demonstration authority.
Together, these programs make up the federal job training system for disadvantaged young
people. Youth in the programs often learn job training skills or are employed and are
simultaneously working toward a high school diploma or its equivalent. However, services are
carried out differently and by distinct entities. For example, local areas must provide 10 specific
elements, including mentoring and follow-up services, to youth who receive services under the
WIA Youth Activities formula grant program. YouthBuild program participants engage in
employment and other activities primarily related to housing and other types of construction
work. Job Corps is the only one of the programs that provides residential services, where youth
can live onsite and receive health care services, child care, and other supports. The Reintegration
of Ex-Offenders program is made up of several types of grants that provide educational services
to students in schools that have been classified as “persistently dangerous,” as well as
employment and alternative education services to youth engaged in the juvenile justice system.
The programs generally serve vulnerable youth, but some have more targeted eligibility criteria.
Participants in the Youth Activities formula grant program, YouthBuild, and Job Corps must be
low-income and have specific employment barriers. The Youthful Offender component of the
Reintegration of Ex-Offenders serves youth who have become involved in the juvenile justice or
criminal justice system or youth at risk of becoming involved. Notably, young men are well
represented in these programs, making up about half or more of the participants in each of the
programs. For example, approximately 60% of the participants in Job Corps and approximately
70% of the participants in YouthBuild are males.133
The Youth Activities program and the Job Corps program, described in further detail directly
below, highlight WIA’s focus on helping at-risk young people achieve economic independence
and gain skills needed for the workplace.
Youth Activities
The WIA Youth Activities formula grant program is arguably the centerpiece of the federal youth
job training and employment system. As specified in the law, the program has several purposes:
to provide assistance in achieving academic and employment success through activities that
improve educational and skill competencies and foster effective connections to employers; to
ensure ongoing adult mentoring opportunities for eligible youth; to provide opportunities for
training, continued supportive services, and participation in activities related to leadership,
citizenship, and community service; and to offer incentives for recognition and achievement to
youth. Congress appropriated $924.1 million to Youth Activities in FY2010.
The program provides services in two ways: (1) through contracted organizations that receive
WIA Youth Activities funding and collectively provide direct services to youth through what is
133 U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Job Corps, Job Corps Annual Report PY2006, http://www.jobcorps.gov/
Libraries/pdf/py06report.sflb and http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-470.YouthBuild USA, YouthBuild Program
Demographics and Outcomes 2005-2009, http://www.youthbuild.org/site/c.htIRI3PIKoG/b.1418407/.
Congressional Research Service
47
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
referred to hereinafter as a local youth program; and (2) through the One-Stop System, described
above. Youth Activities funds are distributed by DOL to state workforce investment boards
(WIBs), which oversee workforce activities in each state, based on a formula that accounts for
unemployment rates and the poverty status of youth. The state WIBs in turn distribute formula
funds to programs run by local WIBs, based on similar criteria. Like state WIBs, local WIBs
oversee workforce activities, but only for a designated local area. Among other activities, each
local board must establish what is known as a “youth council,” comprised of representatives that
assist the WIB in awarding grants or contracts to youth providers that carry out youth workforce
activities. Local programs must provide 10 activities or “elements” to youth that focus on
education attainment, employment, follow-up services, and civic engagement.
A youth is eligible for Youth Activities if he or she is ages 14 through 21, a low-income
individual, and has one or more of the following barriers: 134 deficient in basic literacy skills; a
school dropout; homeless, a runaway, or a foster child; pregnant or parenting; an offender; or
requires additional assistance to complete an educational program or to secure and hold
employment. At least 30% of all Youth Activities funds must be used for activities for out-of-
school youth, meaning youth who have dropped out or received a high school diploma or its
equivalent but are basic skills deficient, unemployed, or underemployed.135
The data on participation in the program are based on the concept of program “exiters.” An exiter
is a participant who received a service funded by WIA or a partner program, but has not received
the service for 90 consecutive calendar days and is not scheduled to receive future services. The
most recent data on youth participants (i.e., exiters) is for April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009
(i.e., PY2008).136 Over 115,000 youth ages 14 through 21 exited the program, of whom a majority
(55.6%) were female; 33% were African American and 33% were Hispanic; 14% were pregnant
or parenting; and nearly all (94.5%) were low-income.
Youth Activities Coordination with TANF
In February 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5, ARRA, Recovery Act). One of the stated purposes of ARRA is to
preserve existing jobs and create new jobs. To this end, the law appropriated $1.2 billion for the
WIA Youth program. The law emphasized that funds should be spent on summer youth
employment opportunities, as well as year-round employment activities for older youth. ARRA
extends the age of eligibility from 21 to 24 for activities funded pursuant to the law. Funding for
the act is available through PY2010, which ends June 30, 2011. The Departments of Health and
Human Services and Labor issued a joint letter in January 2010 to encourage state and local
134 Up to 5% of youth participants in a local area may be individuals who do not meet the income criteria but have at
least one barrier to employment, some of which are not identical to those listed above: (1) deficient in basic literacy
skills; (2) a school dropout; (3) homeless or runaway; (4) an offender; (5) one or more grade levels below the grade
level appropriate to the individual’s age; (6) pregnant or parenting; (7) possess one or more disabilities, including
learning disabilities; or (8) face serious barriers to employment as identified by the local WIB (20 C.F.R. 664.220).
135 Title I, Section 101(33) of the Workforce Investment Act.
136 Youth Activities, Job Corps, and YouthBuild operate on the basis of a Program Year (PY), which runs from July 1
through June 30. For example, PY2008 is from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. The incongruity between the
program year and the most recent data for Youth Activities appears to be a function of the timing of data collection and
the compilation of the data. That is, the most recent Data Book (PY2008) “does not use information for exiters after
March 2009 because that information is incomplete.” See PY2008 Data Book, January 19, 2010, available from DOL at
http://www.doleta.gov/performance/results/pdf/PY_2008_WIASRD_Data_Book_FINAL_1192010.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
48
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
TANF agencies and WIBs to consider using the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund to provide
subsidized employment, as well as other benefits and services, to low-income youth. Further, the
agencies encouraged co-enrollment of youth in the TANF and applicable WIA programs so that
“participants in the TANF-funded subsidized employment opportunities can benefit from
additional WIA services such as supportive services, occupational skills training, and other
relevant services.”137 As of June 2010, 12 states and the District of Columbia have applied for and
received approval to use TANF funding for summer youth employment.138
Job Corps139
Job Corps is a job training program first established in 1964 that provides services to low-income
individuals ages 16 through 24, generally through contracts administered by DOL with
corporations and nonprofit organizations. The purpose of Job Corps is to provide young people
with the skills needed to obtain and hold a job, enter the Armed Forces, or enroll in advanced
training or higher education.140 The program provides education and training, primarily in a
residential setting, to vulnerable youth. Youth also receive support services, including child care,
health education, counseling, and recreation. A youth is eligible for the program if she or he is
low-income and meets one or more of the following criteria: basic skills deficient; homeless, a
runaway, or a foster child; a parent; or an individual who requires additional education, vocational
training, or intensive counseling and related assistance in order to participate in regular
schoolwork or to secure and maintain employment. Currently, there are 123 Job Corps centers in
48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.141 In FY2010, Congress appropriated $1.7
billion to Job Corps. In PY2008 (the most recent year data are available), Job Corps served
60,900 youth, of whom most (59%) were male, 52% were black, and 17% were Hispanic.142
Most youth enroll in Job Corps without a high school credential. According to a random
assignment evaluation of the program that began in 1994 and ended in 2006, the program
substantially increased the education and training services that youth receive.143 On average,
program participants received the instructional equivalent of one additional year in school,
compared to about half that time for youth who were not in the program. In turn, youth improved
their literacy and numeracy skills, and they were more likely to obtain a GED and vocational
certificates. Further, more than 90% of Job Corps enrollees participated in an education or
training program during the 48 months after random assignment, compared to 72% of the control
group.144 Participation rates were highest in GED programs (37%); high school (32%); and
137 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Labor, Joint ETA-ACF Letter, January 19,
2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/jointeta.html.
138 Jamaal Abdul-Alim, “Still Waiting for Summer Jobs Bill, States Tap TANF Funds for Programs,” Youth Today,
June 14, 2010.
139 Title I, Subtitle C of the Workforce Investment Act.
140 20 C.F.R. 670.110.
141 U.S. Department of Labor, Education and Training Administration, Office of Job Corps, Budget Justification of
Appropriation Estimates for Committees on Appropriations, FY2011, vol. III, p. OJC-17.
142 Based on correspondence with the Department of Labor, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs,
June 2010.
143 John Burghardt et al., Does Job Corps Really Work? Summary of the National Job Corps Study, Mathematica Policy
Research, Inc., June 2001.
144 Peter Z. Schochet, John Burghardt, and Sheena McConnell, National Job Corps Study and Longer-Term Follow-Up
Study: Impact and Benefit-Cost Findings Using Survey and Summary Earnings Records Data, Final Report,
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., August 2006, pp. 16-17.
Congressional Research Service
49
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
vocational, technical, or trade schools (29%). The program substantially increased the receipt of
GEDs and vocational certificates by program participants by more than 20 percentage points
each. Job Corps generated employment and earnings gains initially, but not in the long run.
Except among the oldest students (those ages 20 through 24), there were no longer-term program
impacts on earnings.
Select Education Programs
Finally, select education programs, carried out by the Department of Education, seek to engage
disadvantaged youth in activities that will lead to a high school diploma and college degree. As
shown in Figure 4, men’s earnings are strongly associated with educational attainment. While
men with advanced degrees have seen the biggest gains in inflation-adjusted wages over time, the
inflation-adjusted wages of men who are high school dropouts or high school graduates have
declined.
Select federal education programs, authorized under separate laws, provide support for vulnerable
young adults who are at risk of dropping out or have already done so. These include the TRIO
programs to encourage vulnerable high school students to go to colleges that are authorized under
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended; and those that fund vocational training,
including the Basic State Grants program, Tech-Prep, and other smaller programs authorized
under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-
270, Perkins), as amended. In addition, the Department of Defense’s quasi-military training
program—known as Youth ChalleNGe—includes several components, including education.
Federal TRIO Programs
The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA, P.L. 89-329) authorizes a broad array of programs that
together constitute the largest source of federal funds to support postsecondary education. HEA
programs include numerous federal student aid (FSA) programs, as well as programs through
which federal assistance is made available to institutions of higher education (IHEs) and other
entities that support postsecondary education. The programs discussed below are intended to
encourage and facilitate low-income students attending postsecondary institutions, among other
similar and related goals.145 The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA, P.L. 110-315)
recently amended and extended the authorization for many HEA programs through FY2014.
The Department of Education awards five-year competitive grants to IHEs, public and private
agencies and organizations, and, as appropriate, secondary schools under seven TRIO programs
that are authorized under HEA. Three of these programs serve youth who are low-income, not yet
enrolled in postsecondary education, and have barriers such as being a school dropout: Upward
Bound (UB), Talent Search (TS), and Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC). The three
programs are intended to support the educational persistence and achievement of disadvantaged
students. At least two-thirds of each program’s participants must be low-income and a first
generation college student. Services must also be made available to foster care youth (including
youth in foster care and youth who have left foster care after reaching age 13) or to homeless
145 For additional information on reauthorization of the HEA and background on HEA programs, see CRS Report
RL34654, The Higher Education Opportunity Act: Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, by David P. Smole et
al.
Congressional Research Service
50
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
children and youth as defined under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. In FY2009,
the most recent year for which data are published, the programs served over 800,000 students.146
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006
(Perkins)
The purpose of the Perkins Act is to “develop more fully the academic and career and technical
skills of secondary education students and postsecondary education students” who enroll in career
and technical education (CTE) programs. This is to be accomplished through such activities as
developing challenging academic and technical standards and assisting students in meeting these
standards; promoting the development of services and activities that integrate academic and
career and technical instruction and link secondary and postsecondary education; supporting
partnerships among secondary schools, postsecondary institutions, local WIBs, business and
industry, and intermediaries; and providing individuals with opportunities for lifelong learning to
develop the knowledge and skills needed to help the United States be competitive internationally.
The Perkins Act was most recently reauthorized by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Improvement Act of 2006 (Perkins IV, P.L. 109-270). The act contains two programs
that provide federal funds to support career and technical education and relevant job experience.
These programs are the Basic State Grants program (the larger program) and the Tech-Prep
program. Most funding for CTE is provided at the state and local levels. As the federal share of
funding for CTE represents a relatively small share of the total funding provided for CTE, it is not
possible to determine which courses are fully or partially supported with federal dollars.
Basic State Grants Program
The majority of federal funding provided for CTE is delivered through basic state grants (Title I).
The state allotment is based on the state’s population of persons ages 15 through 65 and the
state’s per capita income. The law requires states to distribute at least 85% of state grant funds to
the local level (i.e., to eligible recipients, such as local education agencies (LEAs) and community
colleges). States have discretion in how much funding is distributed for career and technical
education at the secondary level versus postsecondary CTE. That is, a state could decide to use
most or all of its basic state grant funding for either secondary or postsecondary education. In
practice, states generally fund both levels of education. In FY2010, funding was $1.2 billion.
While each state determines what percentage of funding will be used at the secondary and
postsecondary levels, the distribution of these funds to the secondary level is determined by a
formula that accounts for age distribution and poverty. At the postsecondary level, funds are
distributed based on each eligible institution’s number of Pell grant recipients and recipients of
assistance from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Perkins Act includes both required and allowable uses of these funds at the state and local
levels. Several of these activities focus on both education and workforce development. In addition
to the required and allowable uses of funds at the state level, the eligible agency (i.e., state) must
adopt procedures it considers necessary to coordinate state level activities under Perkins with
146 U.S. Department of Education, FY2011 Justifications for Appropriation Estimates to the Congress, Volume II, p. U-
132, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget11/justifications/u-highered.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
51
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
state level activities undertaken by state boards under Section 111 of WIA, which refers to the
One-Stop System. The eligible agency must also adopt procedures it considers necessary to make
available to the One-Stop System within the state a listing of all school dropout, postsecondary
education, and adult education programs receiving assistance through the Perkins Act.
Tech-Prep Program
The Tech-Prep Program is authorized under Title II of the Perkins Act. Tech-Prep grants are
awarded to consortia consisting of participants from both the secondary and postsecondary levels,
such as a local education agency (LEA); a nonprofit institution of higher education offering a
two-year associate’s degree program, two-year certificate program, or a two-year apprenticeship
program; or a proprietary institution of higher education offering a two-year associate’s degree
program. Consortia members may also include institutions of higher education that award a
baccalaureate degree, as well as employers, business intermediaries, and labor organizations.
Consortia participants develop agreements to provide at least two years of secondary school
instruction prior to high school graduation and at least two years of postsecondary education
instruction or an apprenticeship program of at least two years following high school graduation.
In FY2010, funding was $102.9 million.
A Tech-Prep program of study is required to build student competence in technical skills and in
core academic subjects . A Tech-Prep program of study is also required to integrate academic and
career and technical instruction with work-based learning experiences when possible, and to
provide technical preparation in a career field. A Tech-Prep program must coordinate its activities
with activities conducted under Title I of the act (Basic State Grant Program). The Perkins Act
allows states to maintain a separate Tech-Prep program or combine their Tech-Prep funds with the
Basic State Grant funds. If eligible agencies choose to combine program funds, funds are
considered as being allotted under the Basic State Grant program and must be distributed to
eligible recipients in accordance with the formulas pertaining to that program. Prior to the most
recent reauthorization of the Perkins Act, states were not able to combine funds for these
purposes.
Student Participation in Career and Technical Education
During PY2006-2007 (the most recent year for which data are available), states reported that
about 15.6 million students were enrolled in secondary and postsecondary CTE programs. These
enrollment figures represent an unduplicated count of all students reported by each state as having
taken one or more CTE courses. These courses, however, may or may not have been funded with
federal Perkins funds. Most funding for CTE is provided at the state and local levels.
Approximately 2.6 million youth (16% of total students enrolled in CTE) were enrolled in Tech-
Prep in PY2006-2007.147 Of all CTE students, the majority were secondary education students. At
both the secondary and postsecondary levels, most participating students were white, followed by
147 It should be noted that not all states identify Tech-Prep students using the same criteria. Data on the characteristics
of students participating in Tech-Prep programs were not provided. For more information, see U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of
1998: Report to Congress on State Performance Program Year 2006-07, September 2008, available online at
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/resource/perkinsrpt0607.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
52
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Hispanic and black students. In addition, about one-third of participating students at the
secondary and postsecondary levels were economically disadvantaged.
Youth ChalleNGe Program
The Youth ChalleNGe Program is a quasi-military training program carried out by the Army
National Guard to improve outcomes for youth who have dropped out of school or have been
expelled. Education and mentoring are major components of the program. It was established as a
pilot program under the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2003 (P.L. 102-484), and
Congress permanently authorized it under the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998
(P.L. 105-85). Currently, 35 programs operate in 28 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. Congress appropriated $107 million for FY2010. In 2009, 7,912 youth graduated from the
program, of whom 79% were males, 45% were white, 28% were black, and 18% were
Hispanic.148
Youth are eligible for the program if they are ages 16 to 18 and enroll prior to their 19th birthday,
have dropped out of school or been expelled, are unemployed, are not currently on parole or
probation for anything other than juvenile status offenses and not serving time or awaiting
sentencing, and are drug-free. The program consists of three phases: a two-week, pre-program
residential phase where applicants are assessed to determine their potential for completing the
program; a 20-week residential phase; and a 12-month post-residential phase. During the
residential phase, youth—known as cadets—work toward their high school diploma or GED and
develop life-coping, job, and leadership skills. They also participate in activities to improve their
physical well-being, and they engage in community service. Youth develop a “Post-Residential
Action Plan (P-RAP)” that sets forth their goals, as well as tasks and objectives to meet those
goals. The post-residential phase begins when graduates return to their communities, continue in
higher education, or enter the military. The goal of this phase is for graduates to build on the gains
made during the residential phase and to continue to develop and implement their P-RAP.
A core component of the post-residential phase is mentoring, during which a cadet works with a
mentor to meet his or her goals as set forth in the P-RAP. This component is referred to as the
“Friendly Mentor Match” process. Parents and youth are asked to nominate at least one
prospective mentor prior to acceptance into the program. They are advised to identify an
individual who is respected by the youth and would be a good role model.
Youth ChalleNGe was evaluated by the Manpower Development Research Corporation (MDRC),
a social policy research organization, and interim findings have been released.149 The results of
the evaluation are based on a survey administered after the youth left the program about nine
months after the members of the program and control groups entered the study, when youth had
just begun the program’s post-residential phase, and 21 months later when youth had completed
the post-residential phase. The initial evaluation found that the program group was much more
148 U.S. Department of Defense, National Guard, Youth ChalleNGe Program 2009 Performance and Accountability
Highlights, 2009, https://ngcp.org/docs/uploaddocs/2009%20Annual%20Report.pdf.
149 Dan Bloom, Alissa Gardenhire-Crooks, and Conrad Mandsager, Reengaging High School Dropouts: Early Results
of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program Evaluation, Manpower Research Development Corporation
(MDRC); and Megan Millenky, Dan Bloom, and Colleen Dillon, Making the Transition: Interim Results of the
National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Evaluation, Manpower Research Development Corporation (MDRC), May 2010.
Both publications are available at http://www.mdrc.org/project_publications_32_80.html.
Congressional Research Service
53
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
likely than the control group to have obtained a GED (45.6% vs. 10.1%), to be working (51.2%
vs. 42.1%) and/or attending college (10.9% vs. 2.7%), to report having good or excellent health
(76.7% vs. 68.4%), to have high levels of self-efficacy (11.0% vs. 7.0%), and to be less likely to
have been arrested since the start of the evaluation (14.2% vs. 20.0%). These differences are
statistically significant, meaning that they can be attributed to the program’s intervention. The
follow-up evaluation found that the Youth ChalleNGe participants were more likely to have
earned a high school diploma or GED (60.5% vs. 36.4%) and to be engaged in productive
activities, including work, school or job training activities, or the military (72.1% vs. 66.4%).
Federal Policy Options
While not comprehensive, this section discusses several federal policy options that may reduce
some of the economic and other barriers faced by low-income men, many of whom are fathers.
This section highlights one or two policy options from each of the four policy domains discussed
earlier: economic assistance, family support, human capital, and disadvantaged youth. These
options include establishing an Innovation Fund that provides services to both noncustodial
parents and custodial parents; examining strategies for reducing child support arrearages;
changing the financing structure of child support enforcement (CSE) access and visitation
programs for noncustodial parents; enhancing or expanding job training and education programs
to assist low-income men and youth, which in turn can help them in providing for their (current or
future) families; redefining eligibility for certain programs so that disadvantaged young adults can
receive more holistic training and other services that may better prepare them for adulthood;
encouraging states to serve noncustodial parents in their TANF programs; and modifying the
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to make noncustodial parents eligible.
Competitive Grant Funds (with an Evaluation Component) to
Improve Family Well-Being
The Obama Administration’s FY2011 budget includes a proposal to redirect funds from the
current Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Programs ($150 million per year through
FY2010; the responsible fatherhood portion is $50 million per year) to a proposed $500 million
Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund. The proposed Fatherhood, Marriage, and
Families Innovation Fund would be available for one year (FY2011) to provide three-year
competitive grants to states.
Some commentators maintain that most low-income mothers and fathers acknowledge and accept
their responsibility to their children, but also note that many of them do not have the resources to
meet that responsibility. They contend that the Innovation Fund may provide the opportunities
and stepping stones that many low-income parents need to benefit themselves and their
children.150 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
150 Jacquelyn Boggess, “The President’s Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Innovation Fund,” Center for Family Policy
and Practice, June 7, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
54
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
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.”151
The proposed Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund would create equal funding
streams to support the following two objectives: (1) supporting state-initiated comprehensive
responsible fatherhood initiatives, including those with a marriage component, that rely on strong
partnerships with community-based organizations; and (2) supporting state-initiated
comprehensive family self-sufficiency demonstrations that seek to improve child and family
outcomes by addressing the employment and self-sufficiency needs of custodial parents who face
serious barriers to self sufficiency. The $500 million fund would be divided equally between the
two components. Grantees would be required to participate in a rigorous evaluation as a condition
of receiving funding. Grantees would be able to use the funding for program administration,
monitoring, technical assistance, and research and evaluation.152
The core elements of the fatherhood initiatives, which focus on noncustodial parents, would
typically include co-parenting services and conflict resolution skills development; connection to
job training and other employment services; child support enforcement case management
assistance; employment preparation services; training subsidies; legal services; substance abuse
and mental health treatment (typically through partnerships with public agencies and community-
based providers); linkages to domestic violence prevention programs; and linkages to public
agencies and community-based providers offering housing assistance, benefits enrollment, and
other services. Grantees would be required to demonstrate strong linkages with state CSE
programs, and there would be a preference for applicants that intend to make resources available
to community-based organizations to help implement components of the proposed initiatives. In
addition, grantees would need to ensure that the new programs address issues related to domestic
violence and have in place a plan to reduce the risk of domestic violence.153
Grantees of the family self-sufficiency innovation portion of the proposed fund would be required
to develop promising new approaches for custodial parents in areas such as (1) identifying
families that have serious barriers to employment, including strategies that use mechanisms of
ongoing assessment or focus on families at risk of involvement in the child welfare system; (2)
implementing strategies to help families address these barriers and also prepare for employment;
(3) promoting child well-being in highly disadvantaged families, including child-only cases; and
(4) supporting those with barriers who find jobs so they can sustain employment.154
Supporters of the Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund contend that its
implementation would “encourage and support state agencies and community-based
organizations to provide holistic services to low-income families. They maintain that this funding
stream could lead to a fundamental change in national policy that would provide for the delivery
of more responsive TANF and non-TANF services for men and women so that they can better
provide for their children and make positive contributions to their families and communities.”155
151 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.
152 Ibid, p. 305.
153 Ibid.
154 Ibid.
155 Jacquelyn Boggess, “The President’s Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Innovation Fund,” Center for Family Policy
and Practice, June 7, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
55
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Some supporters also point out that because programs funded by the Innovation Fund would be
subject to rigorous evaluation, there would soon be evidence-based knowledge of what works and
what does not work with regard to fatherhood programs for noncustodial parents and supportive
services for custodial parents.
Some commentators who claim that one of the principal causes of child poverty in the United
States is the absence of married fathers in the home are critical of the Innovation Fund because
they say its relegates marriage promotion programs to the background, subsumed under an
approach that focuses on responsible fatherhood programs and cultivating relationship skills
development over encouraging marriage for low-income parents.156 Other observers contend that
although the Innovation Fund provides services and resources to both noncustodial parents and
custodial parents, it continues the practice of viewing families as the mother and children with the
father on the outside and not really a part of the unit. Also, some commentators opposed to using
states as the grantees maintain that the use of community-based providers as the grantees rather
than the states is a better model in that community-based organizations already have expertise in
designing innovative programs to meet specific goals. They argue that community-based
organizations do not need the state as a “go-between” or arbiter to provide a wider range of
services to families.
Child Support Arrearage Reduction Strategies157
Large child support arrearages result in millions of children receiving less than they are owed in
child support, reduced cost-effectiveness of the CSE program, and a perception that the CSE
program does not consider the financial situation of low-income noncustodial parents, many of
whom may be in dire economic situations. There is widespread agreement that preventing the
build-up of unpaid child support through early intervention rather than traditional enforcement
methods is essential to the future success of the CSE program.158 Some commentators point out
that such a proactive approach to addressing the huge accumulation of child support arrearages
may help many low-income children whose parents are unemployed or underemployed.159
A state may have a number of objectives for reducing child support debt, including increasing the
income of a custodial family and offering a noncustodial parent a “clean slate” to improve future
employment and child support outcomes.160 Research from the University of Wisconsin suggests
that reduction of large child support debts may increase child support payments.161
156 The Heritage Foundation, “Married Fathers: Weapon No. 1 Against Child Poverty,” June 17, 2010.
157 Most of the information in this section was taken from CRS Report R40499, Child Support Enforcement and Ex-
Offenders, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
158 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, “The National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan FY2005-2009,” 2004, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/cse/pubs/2004/Strategic_Plan_FY2005-2009.pdf. (Hereinafter, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, “The National Child
Support Enforcement Strategic Plan FY2005-2009.”)
159 Elaine Sorensen and Helen Oliver, “Policy Reforms are Needed to Increase Child Support from Poor Fathers,” The
Urban Institute, April 2002.
160 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “State Use of Debt Compromise to Reduce Child Support
Arrearages,” Office of Inspector General, October 2007.
161 Maria Cancian, Carolyn Heinrich, and Yiyoon Chung, “Does Debt Discourage Employment and Payment of Child
Support? Evidence from a Natural Experiment,” University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
56
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
The current strategic plan for the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) proposes the
following procedures for reducing high child support arrearages:
• Update child support guidelines regularly and simplify child support order
modification.
• Modify orders to ensure that child support obligations stay consistent with the
noncustodial parents’ ability to pay.
• Use automation to detect non-compliance as early as possible and contact
noncustodial parents soon after a scheduled child support payment is missed.
• Update child support guidelines to recognize modern family dynamics and
realities (e.g., shared custody, incomes of custodial parents, etc.).
• Consider creative ways to promote regular payment of current support, even if it
means “compromising” uncollected child support arrearages, to bring the
noncustodial parent back to consistently paying current child support
payments.162
With regard to the last proposal, in an effort to reduce or eliminate child support debt some states
use debt compromise, a process whereby a state forgives a portion or all of the child support debt
owed to the state by the noncustodial parent in exchange for the noncustodial parent’s
participation in specified employment, training, or other activities.163
Federal law permits the use of federal TANF, including TANF Recovery Act funds or state MOE
funds, to pay a benefit to a noncustodial parent to reduce or pay off child support arrearages owed
to a family. Under P.L. 111-5 (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009), a state
may receive 80% federal matching funds for non-recurrent short term benefits and subsidized
employment; and it could provide any of these forms of help to a needy noncustodial parent,
either in conjunction with or separate from a program of arrearage reduction.164
It is important to note that the federal share of such debt is still owed to the federal government.
In order for the federal portion of the child support debt to be compromised or eliminated,
Congress would have to pass legislation to that effect.
It has also been recommended that Congress revise consumer protection limits with respect to
garnishment of child support. CSE officials can garnish as much as 65% of a noncustodial
parent’s wages toward the payment of child support debt.165 For low-income noncustodial parents
(...continued)
Discussion Paper no. 1366-09, July 2009.
162 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, “The National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan FY2005-2009.”
163 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, “State Use of Debt Compromise to
Reduce Child Support Arrearages,” October 2007.
164 The HHS Administration for Children and Families (ACF) cautions that as a matter of prudent use of TANF or
MOE funds, it would be inadvisable, although it is technically permissible, to use such funds to pay debts unless both
parties (i.e., the custodial and noncustodial parent) are needy. (Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
“Questions and Answers on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act),” Administration
for Children and Families, 2009, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/recovery/tanf-faq.htm#_child_support.
165 Most child support is collected through payroll withholding. Under the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 USC
1673(b)), 50%–65% of a parent’s disposable earnings may be deducted from the noncustodial parent’s paycheck. At
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
57
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
who are unemployed or underemployed, this practice may increase the difficulty of securing and
maintaining housing, transportation, and employment that are necessary for making future child
support payments.166
Other recommendations of policymakers and observers are specifically related to incarcerated
parents and include167 (1) enabling courts to consider an individual’s obligations to his or her
children at the time of sentencing;168 (2) prohibiting incarceration from being defined as
“voluntary unemployment” (a term used to describe someone who has chosen not to work),169
thereby allowing a noncustodial parent’s child support order to be modified when he or she enters
prison;170 and (3) requiring states to automatically modify (or forgive) child support orders of
noncustodial parents who are in prison (during the prison-intake process), only for the length of
their prison sentence, unless the custodial parent objects because the inmate has income and/or
assets that can be used to pay child support.171
Although many custodial parents agree to a certain extent that some noncustodial parents are
“dead broke” rather than “deadbeats,” they contend that the states and the federal government
need to proceed with caution in lowering child support orders for low-income noncustodial
parents. They argue that child support is a source of income that could mean the difference
between poverty and self-sufficiency for some families. They emphasize that lowering the child
support order is likely to result in lower income for the child. They argue that even if a
(...continued)
the same time, a separate court or probation officer could require that an individual dedicate 35% of his or her income
toward the combined payment of fines, fees, surcharges, and restitution. Such a situation could encourage a person to
return to the behavior and illegal activities that resulted in the person’s incarceration in the first place. In other words,
aggressive collectors representing distinct agencies could end up contributing to a person’s failure to meet his or her
financial obligations and, by extension, their revocation of probation or parole.
166 Marguerite Roulet, “Financial Literacy and Low-Income Noncustodial Parents,” Center for Family Policy and
Practice,” June 2009.
167 The proposed Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (S. 1309 and H.R. 2979) from the 111th
Congress would have prohibited a state from considering a period of incarceration as voluntary unemployment in
determining or modifying a noncustodial parent’s child support obligation. It also would require states to temporarily
suspend the child support obligation and any interest on the child support obligation during the period a noncustodial
parent is incarcerated. However, it would require the state to provide the custodial parent with an opportunity to request
that the child support obligation continue on the basis that the noncustodial parent has sufficient income or resources to
continue to make child support payments during the noncustodial parent’s period of incarceration. In addition, the bills
would require states to review, and if appropriate, reduce the balance of child support arrearages permanently assigned
to the state in cases where the noncustodial parent (1) does not have the ability to pay the arrearages, (2) did not seek a
modification during his or her incarceration, and (3) will be more willing (because of the adjustment) to pay current
child support payments consistently and on time. Finally, it must be determined that it is in the best interest of the child
for the state to make such a reduction.
168 Federal law prioritizes child support obligations above all other debts owed to the state, including restitution, and
court and prison fines, fees, and surcharges. The proposed provision would allow judges, when ordering that an
individual pay fees to reimburse the state for the costs of his or her incarceration, to reduce this order by the amount of
the individual’s child support obligations.
169 Some judges have ruled that incarcerated parents are responsible for their disadvantaged financial circumstances
that resulted from their criminal activities because imprisonment is a foreseeable result of criminal behavior. In
contrast, other judges have refused to equate incarceration with voluntary unemployment and have argued that
incarcerated parents rarely have any actual job prospects or potential income and cannot alter their employment
situation. (Source: Jessica Pearson, “Building Debt While Doing Time: Child Support and Incarceration,” 2004.)
170 In states that classify incarceration as “voluntary unemployment,” a person’s child support order may not be
modified when he or she enters prison or jail.
171 Jessica Pearson, “Building Debt While Doing Time: Child Support and Incarceration,” 2004.
Congressional Research Service
58
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
noncustodial parent is in dire financial straits, he or she should not be totally released from
financial responsibility for his or her children. Others agree, and argue that policymakers, when
considering policies related to reducing the child support obligations of prisoners, must also
consider equity issues related to the treatment of low-income noncustodial parents who may be
unemployed as opposed to being in prison. They assert that it is sending the wrong message to
unilaterally lower payments of persons who have broken the law and not make similar allowances
for law-abiding citizens who are unemployed.172
It has also been suggested that it may be more expedient for Congress to mandate some of the
child support arrearage remedies outlined in the OCSE FY2005-2009 Strategic Plan and
elsewhere, rather than wait for states to develop individual remedies that only apply to the state
that implements the policy.
Federal Matching Funds for CSE Access and Visitation Programs
The CSE Access and Visitation Grant program acknowledges and reflects the sentiment that
healthy families need more than just financial support. According to OCSE, the CSE Access and
Visitation Grant program, with its annual appropriation of $10 million (in aggregate to the 54
jurisdictions—the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands),
has been able to provide access and visitation services to over 500,000 noncustodial parents and
their families since the program became operational in FY1998.
The CSE Access and Visitation Grant program has been a separate line item in the CSE budget
account since its enactment as part of P.L. 104-193 (the 1996 welfare reform law). The Obama
Administration’s FY2011 budget proposes that funding for the CSE Access and Visitation Grant
program be increased by $2 million annually, from $10 million to $12 million.173
Some child advocates assert that the CSE Access and Visitation Grant program should be
incorporated into the CSE program and receive 66% federal matching funds like other CSE
program components. They contend that the existing funding structure of the program cannot
meet the demand for program services. They argue that the importance of having noncustodial
parents involved in their children’s lives is a legitimate reason for adding an access and visitation
component to the CSE program. According to one state report:
Without increased funding support, courts and communities will continue to be limited in the
number of families served, hours of service delivery will remain stagnant, expansion to
accessibly located sites and facilities will be impossible, waiting lists continue to be
unavoidable, providers will not have the multilingual capacity to serve the diverse
populations, and low-income families and families in rural counties will continue to be
underserved.174
172 Jennifer L. Noyes, “Review of Child Support Policies for Incarcerated Payers,” Institute for Research on Poverty,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, December 2006.
173 The allotment formula is based on the ratio of the number of children in the state living with only one biological
parent to the total number of such children in all states. The amount of the allotment available to a state would be this
same ratio applied to $12 million.
174 Judicial Council of California (Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts),
“Ten Years of Access to Visitation Grant Program Services (Fiscal Years 1997–2007),” A Report to the California
Legislature, March 2008, p. iv.
Congressional Research Service
59
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
They note that the establishment of the CSE Access and Visitation Grant program reflected
Congress’ awareness that child well-being is positively affected when noncustodial parents
become more responsible and involved with their children. They maintain that the demand for
access and visitation services outpaces the resources available for the program. They contend that
funding limitations restrict the amount of services and the scope of available services.175
Other commentators note that FY2009 is the first year in the CSE program’s history that child
support collections have fallen (from $26.6 billion in FY2008 to $26.4 billion in FY2009). They
contend that during the current economic crisis, funding priorities for the CSE program should
remain on services related to paternity establishment, and establishment and enforcement of
medical and child support orders.
Job Training, Workforce Support, and Education
Current job training and workforce programs and education programs are generally not targeted
to noncustodial parents, and only some focus on low-income individuals. Select job training and
workforce programs for youth and other workforce models may be promising in helping
noncustodial parents find work and ensuring that disadvantaged young people are adequately
prepared for the financial responsibilities of a family. Further, given the association of higher
educational attainment with higher wages, noncustodial parents and young people transitioning to
adulthood can benefit from education programs that target disadvantaged groups.
Job Training and Workforce Programs
The adult job training and workforce programs authorized under WIA generally do not include
income or barriers to employment as part of the eligibility criteria (with the exception of the Ex-
Offender program). Having such criteria could concentrate resources on the most underserved
adult workers. Congress could look to existing youth programs authorized under WIA as a model
for targeting select populations. Nearly all of the youth served in the programs are low-income176
and face barriers to employment, such as having dropped out of school. Half or more than half of
the participants are male. These programs are also distinct from the adult programs in that many
of the youth receive job training. As noted previously, the majority of participants in the WIA
Adult program receive only job search assistance.
A separate approach would be to provide more-targeted workforce development services to the
most disadvantaged males. The Reintegration of Ex-Offenders program has received increased
funding in recent years. One option for providing additional service to men trying to re-enter the
labor force is to continue funding this program and move it from a demonstration project
175 Ibid., p. 36.
176 Low-income individual means an individual who (1) receives, or is a member of a family that receives, cash
payments through a federal, state, or local income-based public assistance program; (2) received an income, or is a
member of a family that received a total family income (excluding unemployment compensation and certain other
payments), for the six-month period prior to applying for youth employment and training activities, that, in relation to
family size, did not exceed the higher of the poverty line, for an equivalent period, or 70% of the lower living standard
income level, for an equivalent period; (3) is a member of a household that receives SNAP benefits (or has been
determined to be eligible for SNAP within the six-month period prior to applying for youth employment and training
activities); (4) qualifies as a homeless individual, as defined by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; or (5)
is a foster child on behalf of whom state or local government payments are made.
Congressional Research Service
60
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
(authorized by Section 171 of WIA) to a permanent part of WIA. A rigorous analysis of a re-entry
program in New York City is being undertaken now by MDRC, a social policy research
organization. Depending on the findings of that evaluation, specific program elements could be
put into a permanent re-entry program under WIA, alongside permanent programs for other
groups, such as Native Americans, and low-income youth. Another option is to provide funding
for transitional jobs programs. The FY2010 budget included language indicating that the
Department of Labor encourages grantees to offer programs with a transitional jobs component,
described further below. If transitional jobs programs are effective at reintegrating ex-offenders
into the labor force, DOL could add these as an allowable activity under the formula grants for
adult workers.
Overall, little is known about the effectiveness of federal job training programs in meeting the
goals of WIA. The Obama Administration has proposed funding to evaluate promising
approaches to serving disadvantaged populations through workforce programs. The FY2011
Department of Labor budget request includes a new Workforce Innovation Fund (WIF). The fund
would be comprised of 5% contributions each from the WIA Adult program and the WIA
Dislocated Worker program, totaling $107.7 million. Grants would be awarded to states or
localities to “test innovative approaches to training and reemployment services, especially for
vulnerable populations, and promote rigorous evaluation of practices that already show
promise.”177 The FY2011 budget request also includes funding for a similar Youth Innovation
Fund, comprised of a 15% contribution from the WIA Youth program. The Innovation Fund
would support testing and rigorous evaluation of innovative approaches to providing summer and
year-round employment opportunities for youth, as well as interventions serving out-of-school
youth ages 16 to 24.
At least one youth program authorized under WIA, Job Corps, has been rigorously evaluated and
has shown impacts on family formation. Mathematica, a policy research organization, tracked the
outcomes of youth in the Job Corps program from 1994 through 2006. During the first two years
of the study, eligible youth were randomly assigned to the program group (permitted to enroll in
Jobs Corps) or a control group (not permitted to enroll). Survey data were collected at baseline,
and at 12, 30, and 40 months after the youth were randomly assigned. Mathematica issued a
series of reports about youth outcomes and the benefits and costs of the program. Earlier reports
found that Job Corps had several positive outcomes on youth in education and employment and
was cost-effective despite its high costs. Mathematica’s follow-up report in 2006 analyzed the
longer-term impacts of the program based on earnings and employment rates through 2004 and
updated findings from the benefit-cost analysis.178 The study found that Job Corps increased the
education and job training that participants received both inside and outside the program by about
1,000 hours (equivalent to training in a regular 10-month school). In turn, youth improved their
literacy and numeracy skills, and youth were more likely to obtain a GED and vocational
certificates. The program also generated employment and earnings gains initially, but not in the
long run. Except among the oldest students (those ages 20 through 24), there were no longer-term
177 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Budget Justification of Appropriation
Estimates for Committees on Appropriations, FY2011, pp. ETA-3 through ETA-5, http://www.dol.gov/dol/budget/
2011/PDF/CBJ-2011-V1-03.pdf.
178 Peter Z. Schochet, John Burghardt, and Sheena McConnell, National Job Corps Study and Longer-Term Follow-Up
Study: Impact and Benefit-Cost Findings Using Survey and Summary Earnings Records Data, Final Report,
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., August 2006, http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/
National%20Job%20Corps%20Study%20and%20Longer%20Term%20Follow-Up%20Study%20-
%20Final%20Report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
61
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
program impacts on earnings. Mathematica also found that the costs to society exceed the
benefits for the program. Specifically, the costs exceeded the benefits by approximately $10,300
per participant. However, the benefits exceeded costs for youth ages 20 through 24 by about
$17,000 per participant.
More recently, Mathematica has examined the effects of the program on the likelihood of
marriage for its participants (low-income women and men ages 20 through 28 at the time of the
study).179 The study found that Job Corps increases the likelihood of marriage for female
participants. According to the study, the positive effects of marriage may reflect “the benefits of
women’s economic independence as well as the ‘good-catch’ effect in the marriage market.” The
study found that employment and earnings were associated with men’s likelihood of marriage as
well; however, researchers determined that much of this association related to unobserved
individual characteristics that make men more likely to be successful in both the marriage and
labor markets. In other words, Job Corps influenced the marriage outcomes of women but not
men.
Subsidized Employment
Subsidized employment aims to support individuals who cannot find jobs in the labor market.
These efforts may be beneficial for disadvantaged populations, including noncustodial parents.
One approach to subsidized employment provides what are referred to as transitional jobs to
workers with multiple barriers to employment. Transitional jobs programs are similar to other
subsidized employment models, except that they focus on very hard-to-employ populations and
they use subsidized work experience to prepare workers for regular unsubsidized jobs.180 These
programs also provide some form of case management and job placement services to help
participants find permanent jobs, among other approaches. Participants can be placed individually
in transitional jobs, often with nonprofit organizations or government; in work crews with other
participants under the supervision of the transitional jobs program; or with the transitional jobs
program, which may be a social enterprise that sells a product or service. Two examples of
transitional jobs programs that serve TANF recipients and ex-offenders:
• The Community Jobs Program in Washington is a statewide program targeting
TANF recipients, with the state TANF agency contracting with nonprofit
organizations to administer the program. Participants work 20 to 30 hours per
week for up to nine months, primarily at nonprofit and government agencies.
They may also participate in educational activities. The contracting organizations
identify work sites and provide intensive case management.
• The Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) in New York City serves
parolees by providing a four-day pre-employment class before they are placed on
a work crew that is supervised by CEO staff. The crews do maintenance and
repair work under contract to city and state agencies. Participants work four days
per week and are paid the minimum wage. On the fifth day, participants meet
179 Because participants were randomly assigned to the program, researchers could determine the effects of the program
on employment and earnings and then look at the program’s impact on the likelihood of marriage. Random assignment
allows researchers to control for the possibility that family status and unobserved traits (e.g., personal abilities,
temperament, responsibility, etc.) may make certain individuals more likely to be successful in the labor market.
180 For further information, see Dan Bloom, Transitional Jobs: Background, Program Models, and Evaluation
Evidence, MDRC, February 2010, http://www.mdrc.org/publications/553/abstract.html.
Congressional Research Service
62
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
with job coaches and job developers and attend supplemental activities, such as
fatherhood groups. Participants work with a CEO “job developer” to find a
permanent position.
The Department of Labor FY2010 budget includes $45 million to evaluate transitional jobs
strategies. Funding is authorized under WIA’s Pilots and Demonstrations authority. The FY2011
budget proposes an additional $40 million for this purpose.
Studies of transitional jobs programs, including an evaluation of CEO, show promising results on
certain outcomes such as recidivism and TANF receipt, although the programs have not
necessarily led to sustained increases in employment.181 Given these limitations, some have
proposed alternative models of subsidized employment, including the following: make changes to
transitional jobs programs, such as providing longer subsidized positions or more opportunities
for occupational skills training; adopt other subsidized employment models altogether, such as
providing financial incentives for hard-to-employ workers to find and keep regular jobs; and
adopt models that place participants directly into the job market, with positions that provide on-
the-job training (one demonstration of an on-the-job training program for noncustodial parents
whose children were on welfare had difficulty finding slots for participants and ultimately led to
few gains).182
Work Requirements for Noncustodial Parents
As discussed previously, there is a provision of child support enforcement law that requires states
to establish procedures to require non-paying noncustodial parents of children in families
receiving TANF assistance to participate in mandatory work programs.183 One policy option
would be to expand this provision, establishing a mandatory work requirement for non-paying
noncustodial parents, similar to work requirements for custodial parents receiving TANF
assistance. Where the requirement is made mandatory for custodial parents receiving cash
assistance by a cut or elimination of their welfare check, the requirement for noncustodial parents
would be made mandatory through the threat of jail for noncompliance.184
The work requirement could be seen as eliminating the inequity in current policy that requires
work for low-income custodial parents but not noncustodial parents. Work requirements for non-
paying noncustodial parents can be seen as addressing a lack of basic work discipline, just as it
was seen as addressing similar issues with custodial parents on TANF assistance.
181 Ibid.
182 Ibid, pp. 41-45.
183 Professor Lawrence Mead, of New York University, has written articles and testified before Congress advocating
work requirements for non-paying, noncustodial parents. See Lawrence M. Mead, “Why We Need Work Programs for
Fathers,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 29, no. 3 (Summer 2010), pp. 610-616.
184 All CSE jurisdictions have civil or criminal contempt-of-court procedures. Thus, if a court orders a noncustodial
parent to pay his or her past-due child support and the noncustodial parent fails to do so, that parent would be in
contempt-of-court and subject to jail time. Moreover, there are federal criminal penalties associated with the willful
failure to pay a past-due child support obligation to a child who resides in another state and that has remained unpaid
for longer than a year or is greater than $5,000. States have a lot of discretion on whether or not to use certain
collection methods and when to use such methods. Generally, incarceration is the last option states use. Most states use
the jail option sparingly because it “punishes” both the custodial family and the “delinquent” noncustodial parent.
States realize that if a person is in jail, it is less likely that the person will be able to pay child support. Thus, it is
usually the threat of jail, rather than jail per se, that results in child support payments.
Congressional Research Service
63
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
There are several issues with imposing a new work requirement on noncustodial parents. First,
there is no funding source that is currently dedicated to cover the costs of enforcing such a
requirement. The allowable uses of child support matching funds can be expanded to include
reimbursing states for their expenditures to enforce the requirement, but that would impose a new
federal budgetary cost. New funds can also be provided for this purpose through the TANF
program, but if they are new funds they also entail a federal budgetary cost. Existing TANF funds
can be used for this purpose; however, because of the block grant nature of TANF, using funds for
new work programs for noncustodial parents would require cutting back on other TANF
expenditures.
Moreover, if there was a universal work requirement for noncustodial parents, questions would be
raised about what obligations the federal government or states would have if jobs were not
available. A recent discussion of this proposal stated that such a requirement would probably
mean that a job would have to be guaranteed, albeit on a time-limited basis.185 Providing a job
guarantee to this population also raises equity issues. Such a guarantee is not available to other
men, including those who work and pay their child support. Such a guarantee is also not a part of
the work requirements for custodial parents receiving TANF cash assistance.
Education Programs
Some education programs and initiatives have been particularly effective for disadvantaged
groups, though none have targeted noncustodial parents. Still, some of these efforts have had
beneficial impacts on family formation. In addition, they have proven to be effective at keeping
young people in school, even if for the short-term. They include an education model, known as
career academies, which integrate career and technical education into high school curricula, and
services to community college students who are low-income. Given that evaluations of these
programs show promising results, policymakers might consider expanding or replicating them.
A study by MDRC, a social policy research organization, examined the effects of the career
academies model on marital status, as well as other family formation outcomes. Career academies
are career and technical education programs that combine academic and technical curricula for
high school students around a career theme such as health, business, or finance. Career academies
are small learning communities within high schools around the country, and they have
partnerships with local employers that provide work-based learning opportunities. These
academies can be funded through the federal Career and Technical Education program, authorized
under the Perkins Act. The study tracked the outcomes of students at careers academies in nine
high schools from the time they entered high school until eight years after their scheduled
graduation.186 The students were randomly selected to participate in the career academies. The
high schools are located in or near large urban school districts and have higher dropout rates and
higher percentages of low-income families than other school districts nationally. More than 80%
of the students in the sample were black or Hispanic.
Eight years after their expected graduation from high school, former students were surveyed
about their educational outcomes, earnings and other labor market impacts, and whether they
185 Ibid.
186 James J. Kemple, Career Academies: Long-Term Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes, Educational Attainment,
and Transitions to Adulthood, Manpower Development Research Corporation (MDRC), June 2008,
http://www.mdrc.org/publications/482/overview.html.
Congressional Research Service
64
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
were married and had children. Alumni of the career academies were just as likely as non-
academy alumni to graduate from high school or college; however, they earned more than the
non-academy alumni and were more likely to live independently with children and a spouse or
partner. In total, one-third of the members of the academy group were living with their children
and a spouse or partner, compared to 27% of their peers. This difference represents a 23%
increase in two-parent households over the rates for the non-academy group. In addition, 50.8%
of the academy alumni were custodial parents, compared to 43.9% of non-academy alumni. Both
of these impacts are statistically significant.
Other efforts in education have focused on students who are in community college and may be at
risk of dropping out. MDRC has conducted evaluations of community college programs that
provide an enhanced set of services to diverse low-income students.187 MDRC’s national
demonstration, called Opening Doors, has tested interventions designed to increase persistence
and raise academic achievement among these students. The students were randomly assigned to
the program group or control group. One of the Opening Doors sites, Kingsborough Community
College, used small learning communities in which groups of students took courses together and
their instructors were expected to coordinate assignments and periodically meet to review the
students’ progress. Students assigned to the small learning communities were mostly 17 to 27
years old, low-income, and racially and ethnically diverse. Researchers found that they were more
likely than the students in the control group to feel integrated at school, be engaged with fellow
teachers and instructors, pass and earn more credits during their first semester, and to take and
pass an English skills assessment test that was required for graduation. After four semesters, the
young people in the communities had more credits.
Recent proposals have sought to expand efforts like Opening Doors. A bill that passed the House
in the 111th Congress would have provided competitive grants to eligible states to implement the
“systematic reform” of community colleges by carrying out programs and policies that were
shown to be effective.188 Priority for grants under this section would be for states focusing on
serving low-income nontraditional students, dislocated workers, or students who are veterans and
do not have a bachelor’s degree.
Encouraging States to Serve Noncustodial Parents in TANF
Though TANF already permits states to provide both financial assistance and other benefits and
services to noncustodial parents, few such parents are on the assistance rolls and there is little
information on other benefits and services available to noncustodial parents. The flexibility
afforded to states under TANF provides an opportunity for them to use their TANF funds in
innovative and creative ways to address the needs of disadvantaged noncustodial parents.
Under the current structure of TANF, it is difficult to compel a state to use its funds for any
specific benefit or service that can be theoretically provided with the block grant. This would run
counter to the overall purpose of TANF of state flexibility in serving disadvantaged families with
children. However, it is possible to encourage and prod states to consider using TANF for a
specific benefit or service, such as aiding noncustodial parents.
187 For information about these interventions and other interventions in higher education, see Thomas Brock, “Young
Adults and Higher Education: Barriers and Breakthroughs to Success,” The Future of Children, vol. 20, no. 1 (Spring
2010).
188 The bill was H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009.
Congressional Research Service
65
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Congress could require states to address whether and how it will use TANF to serve noncustodial
parents as part of the TANF state plan. The state plan is a document that states must submit once
every three years as a condition of receiving block grant funds. The state plan is also subject to
public comment. HHS does not approve the content of the state plan; its role is to certify that the
state has submitted a “complete” plan and is thus eligible to receive its block grant. Requiring that
states address a plan element relating to serving noncustodial parents could put this issue on the
agenda of state policymakers. Community-based organizations and other groups would also have
the ability to comment on the state’s plan for serving noncustodial parents under TANF.
Another potential means of prodding states to consider serving noncustodial parents is to require
that they report on the number of noncustodial parents who receive various TANF benefits and
services. The idea here too is that by requiring the state to address how it serves noncustodial
parents, the issue becomes more visible for state policymakers. Further, information on how
much a state serves noncustodial parents under TANF could aid community-based organizations
and other groups in providing input to state policymakers on uses of TANF funds.
Making Work Pay for Noncustodial Parents: EITC for
Noncustodial Parents
As previously discussed, many of the policies put in place in the mid-1990s and continuing to this
day were aimed to “make work pay” more than welfare through supporting low-wage work. The
1993 expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was the cornerstone of that policy.
Research has provided evidence that the EITC expansions increased work effort, particularly
among single mothers. As previously discussed, employment rates among both white and African
American men without a high school diploma have declined over the past two decades.
Noncustodial parents, including men living apart from their children, benefitted little from the
EITC expansions of 1993.
A further expansion of wage supplements through the EITC to either all workers without children
or noncustodial parents has garnered interest as a potential means of increasing work effort and
financial support from noncustodial parents to their children. These proposals seek to reverse the
decline in employment among men with low earnings, just as the EITC is believed to have
increased the work effort of single mothers. In 2006, New York enacted a “noncustodial EITC,”
which provides larger earnings supplements for noncustodial parents who pay child support in at
least the amount of current support they owe in a year.189 Noncustodial parents who pay at least
that much in child support receive a noncustodial EITC that is the greater of (1) twice the federal
EITC they are entitled to as a childless tax filer, or (2) two-thirds of the state EITC for a filer with
one child. The District of Columbia has a similar noncustodial EITC, though it is based on the
District’s EITC for tax filers with a child.
New York’s noncustodial EITC is being evaluated by the Urban Institute.190 The major finding
from the first year of the evaluation was that the share of noncustodial parents actually receiving
189 For a discussion of the noncustodial EITC programs in New York and the District of Columbia, see Laura Wheaton
and Elaine Sorensen, Extending the EITC to Noncustodial Parents: Potential Impacts and Design Considerations,
Urban Institute, Washington, DC, May 23, 2009.
190 Elaine Sorensen, New York Noncustodial Parent EITC: Implementation and First Year Findings, Urban Institute,
Submitted to the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, February 22, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
66
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
the credit was lower than expected. The researchers found that of 403,578 noncustodial parents
with a current support order, 42,930 (11%) met all the eligibility criteria for the noncustodial
EITC and only 5,280 actually received the credit in tax year 2006. More than half of all
noncustodial parents did not meet the income cutoffs for the credit (income greater than $0 but
less than $32,001), and about half of all noncustodial parents failed to pay all current support
orders in full. Additionally, many noncustodial parents eligible for the noncustodial EITC were
also eligible for the regular New York State EITC (i.e., they were also custodial parents of some
children). New York does not permit simultaneous receipt of both the regular state EITC and the
noncustodial EITC.
Some proposals would increase the maximum EITC for a tax filer without a qualifying child, as
well as increase the income thresholds at which the credit begins to phase out and then fully
phases out.191 Other proposals have sought a different tactic for increasing the EITC earnings
supplement for noncustodial parents, such as increasing the maximum EITC for all filers without
children.192 Still others have discussed various approaches to restructuring the tax credits
available for families with children, including separating out the provisions to help support
children (available only to families with children and potentially noncustodial parents) and those
that supplement earnings to promote work among all low-wage workers, regardless of whether
they support children.193
Increasing the Age for Youth Employment and Training Services
Another set of policy options could focus on redefining the population of youth for purposes of
program eligibility. The current move from adolescence to adulthood has become longer and
more complex.194 Youth of the 1950s were more likely to follow an orderly path to adulthood.
They generally completed their education and/or secured employment (for males), including
military service, which was followed by marriage and parenthood in their early 20s. (This was not
true for every young person; for example, African Americans and immigrants in certain parts of
the country faced barriers to employment.) Unlike their postwar counterparts who had access to
plentiful jobs in the industrial sector, youth today must compete in a global, information-driven
economy. Many more youth now receive vocational training or enroll in colleges and universities
after leaving high school. Changed expectations for women have contributed to their increased
college attendance, which now exceeds that of men.195 During the period of transition, young
adults cycle between attending school, living independently, and staying with their parents. On
average, parents give their children an estimated $38,000—or about $2,200 a year—between the
ages of 18 and 34 to supplement wages, pay for college tuition, and help with housing costs,
among other types of financial assistance.196
191 For example, S. 1309, the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (111th Congress), would have
doubled the EITC paid to a noncustodial parent without a qualifying child who is under a child support order enforced
through the CSE program and pays at least the amount of current child support owed.
192 This was proposed in H.R. 2979, the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act (111th
Congress).
193 Stephen D. Holt and Elaine Maag, Considerations in Efforts to Restructure Refundable Work-Based Credits.
194 Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood for Vulnerable
Populations, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp. 4-6.
195 Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz, and Ilyana Kuziemko, “The Homecoming of American College Women: The
Reversal of the College Gender Gap,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 20, no. 4, Fall 2006.
196 Bob Schoeni and Karen Ross, “Material Assistance Received from Families During the Transition to Adulthood.” In
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
67
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Yet disadvantaged young people often face barriers to enrolling in school or maintaining a job,
and many cannot rely on financial support from their families. This, in turn, could affect their
ability to provide for their own children and make meaningful contributions to society. Federal
programs for disadvantaged youth recognize that adolescence is no longer a finite period ending
at age 18 or even age 21. Recently, Congress temporarily extended the age of eligibility, from 21
to 24, for youth participating in the WIA Youth Activities program as part of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5). In the accompanying conference report for the bill
(H.Rept. 111-16), Congress stated, “the age of eligibility for youth services provided with the
additional funds is extended through age 24 to allow local programs to reach young adults who
have become disconnected from both education and the labor market.” This temporary expansion
could be made permanent, as proposed by legislation that was introduced in the 111th Congress.
Other youth programs authorized under WIA, Job Corps, and YouthBuild enable young people up
to the age of 24 to enroll in the program.
Extending the age of youth for purposes of eligibility for federal programs can provide vulnerable
young people with supports as they enter into adulthood. Several of the WIA programs discussed
above, such as Job Corps and YouthBuild, include support services such as transportation,
housing, and child care that can assist young people with staying in school and engaging in work.
Yet not all federal programs (e.g., TANF) with a similar mission have the same emphasis on work
and school or provide additional support to young people after age 21. Young people receiving
TANF can count education and training toward the participation requirements, whereas those over
the age of 21 must work. Despite recent efforts to coordinate TANF with the WIA Youth
Activities program, youth in TANF are defined as individuals under the age of 21. And, notably,
the age extension in the Youth Activities program is temporary—lasting only until June 30, 2011.
Concluding Remarks
Although social science research and analysis acknowledge the importance of the father in
improving the well-being of his children, federal welfare programs have to varying degrees
minimized, undervalued, or overlooked the role of fathers in the lives of children. In addition,
other federal programs and/or systems that include many men on their rolls (such as employment
and training programs and the criminal justice system) have not fully addressed the unique needs
and circumstances of fathers, particularly those that do not have custody of their children.
According to some estimates, about half of all children who are currently under age 18 will spend
or have spent a significant portion of their childhood in a home without their biological father.
Currently, about one-third of all children live in families without their biological father present.
Given widespread agreement that both parents influence the well-being of their children, it may
be that the next era of welfare reform will seek to alter and/or revise federal programs to reflect
the importance of fathers to their children’s well-being by reducing some of the program barriers
faced by low-income men who are participants in the programs. Moreover, federal programs
could more directly affect the status of low-income fathers by systematically targeting
noncustodial fathers for employment and supportive services to enable those men to make
(...continued)
Richard A. Settersten, Jr., Frank F. Furstenburg, Jr., and Rubén Rumbaut, eds., On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory,
Research, and Public Policy, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp. 404-405.
Congressional Research Service
68
.
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
significant positive impacts on the well-being of their own biological children and other children
with whom they may interact.
Author Contact Information
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
Specialist in Social Policy
csolomonfears@crs.loc.gov, 7-7306
afernandes@crs.loc.gov, 7-9005
Gene Falk
Specialist in Social Policy
gfalk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7344
Congressional Research Service
69