Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Fatherhood Initiatives:
Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Updated October 16, 2007
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Fatherhood Initiatives:
Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Summary
In 2005, 23% of families with children were maintained by mothers. According
to some estimates, 60% of children born during the 1990s will spend a significant
portion of their childhood in a home without their father. Research indicates that
children raised in single-parent families are more likely than children raised in two-
parent families (with both biological parents) to do poorly in school, have emotional
and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes.
In hopes of improving the long-term outlook for children in single-parent families,
federal, state, and local governments, along with public and private organizations, are
supporting programs and activities that promote the financial and personal
responsibility of noncustodial fathers to their children and increase the participation
of fathers in the lives of their children. These programs have come to be known as
“responsible fatherhood” programs.
Sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs include the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, TANF state Maintenance-of-Effort
(MOE) funding, welfare-to-work funds, Child Support Enforcement (CSE) funds,
and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds.
Beginning with the 106th Congress, the House but not the Senate passed bills
containing specific funding for responsible fatherhood initiatives (in the 107th and
108th Congresses as part of welfare reauthorization bills). Moreover, from the start
President Bush has been a supporter of responsible fatherhood programs; each of his
budgets has included funding for such programs. In the 109th Congress, P.L. 109-171
— the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 — was enacted. It included a provision that
provides up to $50 million per year (FY2006-FY2010) in competitive grants to states,
territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community
groups (including religious organizations) for responsible fatherhood initiatives.
Most fatherhood programs include media campaigns that emphasize the
importance of emotional, physical, psychological, and financial connections of
fathers to their children. Most fatherhood programs include parenting education;
responsible decision-making; mediation services for both parents; providing an
understanding of the CSE program; conflict resolution, coping with stress, and
problem-solving skills; peer support; and job-training opportunities (skills
development, interviewing skills, job search, job-retention skills, job-advancement
skills, etc.). To help fathers and mothers meet their parental responsibilities, many
policy analysts and observers support broad-based collaborative strategies that go
beyond welfare and child support agencies and include schools, work programs,
prison systems, churches, community organizations, and the health care system.
The federal government’s support of fatherhood initiatives raises a wide array
of issues. This report briefly examines the role of the CSE agency in fatherhood
programs, discusses initiatives to promote and support father-child interaction
outside the framework of the father-mother relationship, and summarizes the debate
over whether fatherhood programs should include the “promotion of marriage.”
Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
What Are Fatherhood Initiatives?.....................................3
Funding .....................................................4
Research and Evaluation............................................6
MDRC Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration Project....................6
Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study.........................8
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Responsible
Fatherhood Programs......................................10
Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration........................11
Issues ..........................................................13
CSE System and Noncustodial Parents Often At Odds................14
Noncustodial Father Involvement vs. Promotion of Marriage vs.
Maintenance of Fragile Families.............................15
Legislative Action................................................17
107 Congress...............................................19
109 Congress...............................................21
Fatherhood Initiatives:
Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Introduction
In 2005, 28% of families with children (under age 18) were maintained by one
parent;1 this figure is up from 11% in 1970. Most of the children in these single-
parent families were being raised by their mothers; in 2005, 23% were in mother-only
families and 5% in father-only families. According to some estimates, 60% of
children born during the 1990s will spend a significant portion of their childhood in
a home without their biological father. Research indicates that children raised in
single-parent families are more likely than children raised in two-parent families
(with both biological parents) to do poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral2
problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes as adults.
Nonetheless, it is widely acknowledged that most of these mothers, despite the added
stress of being a single parent, do a good job raising their children. That is, although
children with absent fathers are at greater risk of having the aforementioned
problems, most do not experience them. In hopes of improving the long-term
outlook for children in single-parent families, federal, state, and local governments
along with public and private organizations are supporting programs and activities
that promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial fathers to their
children and reduce the incidence of father absence in the lives of children.
The third finding of the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) states:
“Promotion of responsible fatherhood and motherhood is integral to successful child
rearing and the well-being of children.” Moreover, three of the four goals of the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program are consistent with the
components of most fatherhood programs. The three fatherhood-related goals are:
ending welfare dependence by employment and marriage; reducing out-of-wedlock
pregnancies; and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Thus, states may spend TANF and TANF state Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds
on fatherhood programs. Further, any services that are directed to the goal of
reducing nonmarital births or the goal of encouraging two-parent families are free of
income eligibility rules.
1 U.S. Census Bureau. Family and Living Arrangements. Table FM-1: Families, by
Presence of Own Children Under 18: 1950-2004. Internet Release Date: June 29, 2005.
See [http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/fm1.pdf].
2 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts,
What Helps (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), see also L. Bumpass,
“Children and Marital Disruption: A Replication and Update,” Demography, vol. 21(1984),
pp. 71-82; Rebecca A. Maynard, ed., Kids Having Kids: A Robin Hood Foundation Special
Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing (New York, 1996).
With the exception of the federal Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program,
fathers historically have been ignored with regard to their input or participation in
welfare programs. Moreover, it was not until 1996 that Congress broadened its view
to acknowledge the non-economic contributions that fathers make to their children
by authorizing the use of CSE funds to promote access and visitation programs.
With the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law, which helped reduce the welfare
rolls, increase the employment of low-income mothers, and strengthen the CSE
program, Congress began focusing its attention on the emotional well-being of
children. Historically, Congress had treated visitation and child support as legally
separate issues, with only child support enforcement activities under the purview of
the federal government. The 1996 law authorized an annual $10 million entitlement
of CSE funds to states to establish and operate access and visitation programs.3
While fathers must fulfill their financialIt appears that a consensushas occurred regarding the need
commitments, they must also fulfill their emotionalto connect or reconnect
commitments. Dads play indispensable roles that
cannot be measured in dollars and cents:noncustodial parents to their
nurturer, mentor, disciplinarian, moral instructor,children. During the 106th
and skills coach, among other roles.Congress, Representative Nancy
Johnson, then chair of the Ways
Source: Executive Office of the President, A Blueprintand Means Subcommittee on
for New Beginnings — A Responsible Budget forHuman Resources, stated, “To
America’s Priorities (February 2001), chap. 12, p. 75.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 and/or keep a job. She also
asserted that in many cases these men are “dead broke” rather than “dead beats” and
that the federal government should help these noncustodial fathers meet both their
financial and emotional obligations to their children.
During the 106th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, legislation was passed by the
House but not by the Senate that would have established categorical competitive
grants to community and faith-based organizations for responsible fatherhood
programs. Moreover, each of President Bush’s budgets has included grant programs
3 The child access and visitation program (Section 391 of P.L. 104-193) funded the
following activities in FY2005: mediation, counseling, parental education, development of
parenting plans, visitation enforcement, monitored visitation, neutral dropoff and pickup,
supervised visitation, and development of guidelines for visitation and custody. In FY2005,
about 69,000 individuals received services. The most common services were parenting
education, supervised visitation, and mediation. Most states used a mix of services. Most
of the service providers were Human Services Agencies. Individuals were referred to
services by the courts, CSE or welfare agencies, and others, as well as by self-referral.
Services were both mandatory and voluntary, as determined by the state. Source: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Office of Child Support Enforcement, State Child Access and Visitation Grants:
State/Jurisdiction Profiles for FY2005 (Washington, April 2007).
for responsible fatherhood programs to help reconnect noncustodial parents to their
children by providing job-related services to them and by improving their parenting
and social interaction skills. During the period from 2002-2004, the responsible
fatherhood bills that were passed by the House were part of welfare reauthorization
legislation. The 109th Congress introduced several welfare reauthorization bills that
included funding for responsible fatherhood grant programs. P.L. 109-171 — the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (S. 1932; H.Rept. 109-362) — which was enacted on
February 8, 2006, included a provision that provides up to $50 million per year
(FY2006-FY2010) for competitive responsible fatherhood grants. (For a more
detailed legislative history of fatherhood initiatives, see the discussion of Legislative
Action later in this report.)
What Are Fatherhood Initiatives?
The realization that one parent, especially a low-income parent, often cannot
meet the financial needs of her or his children is not new. In 1975, Congress viewed
the CSE program as a way to make noncustodial parents responsible for the financial
support of their children. In more recent years, Congress has viewed the CSE
program as the link that could enable single parents who are low-wage earners to
become self-supporting. With the advent of welfare reform in 1996, Congress agreed
that many noncustodial parents were in the same financial straits as the mothers of
their children who were receiving cash welfare. Thus, the 1996 welfare reform law
(P.L. 104-193) requires states to have laws under which the state has the authority to
issue an order or request that a court or administrative process issue an order that
requires noncustodial parents who were unable to pay their child support obligation
for a child receiving TANF benefits to participate in TANF work activities. As noted
earlier, the 1996 law also provided funding for states to develop programs that
supported the noncustodial parent’s right and responsibility to visit and interact with
his or her children.
To help fathers and mothers meet their parental responsibilities, many policy
analysts and observers support broad-based collaborative strategies that go beyond
welfare and child support agencies and include schools, work programs, prison
systems, churches, community organizations, and the health care system.
Although Congress only recently authorized federal funding specifically
earmarked for responsible fatherhood programs, many states and localities, private
organizations, and nonprofit agencies have been operating fatherhood programs for4
several years. Most fatherhood programs include media campaigns that emphasize
the importance of emotional, physical, psychological, and financial connections of
fathers to their children. To counterbalance some of the procedural, psychological,
emotional, and physical barriers to paternal involvement, most fatherhood programs
include many of the following components:
4 National Governors Association, Promoting Responsible Fatherhood: An Update
(Washington, August 3, 1998).
!Parenting education — a course that describes the responsibilities of
parents to their children; it discusses the need for affection, gentle
guidance, financial support; the need to be a proud example and
respectful of the child’s mother; and the need to recognize
developmentally appropriate behavior for children of different ages
and respond appropriately to children’s developmental needs;
!responsible decision-making (with regard to sexuality, establishment
of paternity, and financial support);
!mentoring relationships with successful fathers and successful
couples;
!mediation services (communicating with the other parent, supervised
visitation, discipline of children, etc.);
!providing an understanding of the CSE program;
!conflict resolution, coping with stress, problem-solving skills;
!developing values in children, appropriate discipline, participation
in child-rearing;
!understanding male-female relationships;
!peer support;
!practical tasks to stimulate involvement — discussing ways to
increase parent-child interactions such as fixing dinner for children,
taking children to the park, playing a game, helping children with
school work, listening to children’s concerns, setting firm limits on
behavior; and
!job training opportunities (skills development, interviewing skills,
job search, job retention skills, job advancement skills, etc.).
Although most people refer to programs that seek to help fathers initiate or
maintain contact with their children and become emotionally involved in their lives
as “fatherhood” programs, the programs generally are gender-neutral. Their
underlying goal is participation of the noncustodial parent in the lives of his or her
children.
Funding
For FY2001, Congress appropriated $3 million for a nongovernmental national
fatherhood organization named the National Fatherhood Initiative (P.L. 106-553),
and an additional $500,000 for the National Fatherhood Initiative and $500,000 for
another non-governmental organization called the Institute for Responsible
Fatherhood and Family Revitalization (P.L. 106-554). However, the House and
Senate failed to reach agreement on H.R. 4678 in the 106th Congress, a bill that
included funding for a nationwide fatherhood grants program ($140 million over four
years). Similarly, during the 107th and 108th Congress the House and the Senate did
not reach agreement on legislation that included a responsible fatherhood grant
program.
Nevertheless, several sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs
already existed and continue to exist. They include the TANF program, TANF state
Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) funding, welfare-to-work funds, CSE funds, and
Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds.5 According to HHS, about half of all
states use TANF funds for responsible fatherhood programs.6 In addition, many
private foundations are providing financial support for fatherhood programs.
As mentioned earlier, states can use TANF block grant funds and state MOE
funds on programs or services that accomplish the broad purposes of the TANF
program. These sources of funding are potentially the largest sources of funding for
fatherhood initiatives.7 Pursuant to P.L.109-171, the TANF block grant program to
states was reauthorized through FY2010 at a funding level of $16.5 billion annually.
In addition, the state funding or MOE requirement (at the 75% level) is about $10.4
billion.8
The cash welfare caseload declined from a peak of 5.0 million Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) families in 1995 to 1.9 million TANF families in
2005. The 62% reduction in the cash welfare caseload, together with the fixed block
grant funding, means that funds that otherwise would have been spent for cash
assistance are now available for other purposes. These other purposes could include
fatherhood initiatives, which are allowable uses of TANF and state MOE funds.
Moreover, fatherhood initiatives are not subject to the requirements that apply to
spending for ongoing cash assistance such as work requirements and time limits.9
P.L. 109-171, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (S. 1932; H.Rept. 109-362),
was enacted during the 109th Congress. It included a provision that provides up to
$50 million per year (for each of the five fiscal years 2006 through 2010) for
competitive responsible fatherhood grants to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal
organizations, and public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious
organizations, for responsible fatherhood initiatives.
According to data from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 99 grantees were
5 “Funding Sources for Fatherhood Programs,” Welfare Information Network, vol. 5, no. 2
(January 2001).
6 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Fact Sheet: Promoting Responsible
Fatherhood (Washington, April 26, 2002).
7 In addition to long-term welfare recipients, the $2.7 billion in welfare-to-work funds
appropriated for FY1998 and FY1999 could have been used to provide services for certain
noncustodial parents who were unemployed, underemployed, or having difficulty making
their child support payments. States and localities were allowed to continue to spend their
welfare-to-work funds through FY2004.
8 The TANF block grant program also has a MOE requirement that states continue to spend
at least 75% (80% if they fail to meet TANF work requirements) of what they spent under
prior law cash welfare-related programs in FY1994 on families that meet TANF eligibility
requirements.
9 Dana Reichert, Broke but Not Deadbeat: Reconnecting Low-Income Fathers and Children
(Washington, National Conference of State Legislatures, July 1999).
awarded five-year contracts to implement responsible fatherhood programs. The
contracts (in aggregate) amounted to $41 million per year.10
Research and Evaluation
Research findings indicate that father absence affects outcomes for children, in
terms of schooling, emotional and behavioral maturity, labor force participation, and
nonmarital childbearing. These findings hold when income is taken into account, so
the negative effects of father absence are not limited to those created by reduced
family income.11
Both advocates and critics of the CSE program agree that parents should be
responsible for the economic and emotional well-being of their children. They agree
that many low-income noncustodial parents are unable to meet their financial
responsibility to their children and are barely able, or unable, to support themselves.
They also agree that some noncustodial parents do not know how to be responsible
parents because they were not taught that knowledge or were not exposed to enough
positive role models that they could emulate. Below are several examples of
demonstration programs that seek to, or sought to, help low-income men become
responsible fathers by helping them to gain employment or job mobility and by
teaching them life skills so that they might reconnect with their children in a positive
sustained manner.
MDRC Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration Project
The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration was a national demonstration
project that combined job training and placement, peer support groups, and other
services with the goal of increasing the earnings and child support payments of
unemployed noncustodial parents (generally fathers) of children on welfare,
improving their parenting and communication skills, and providing an opportunity
for them to participate more fully and effectively in the lives of their children.12
Between 1994 and 1996, over 5,000 noncustodial parents who were eligible to
participate in the seven-site PFS demonstration were randomly assigned to either a
program (experiment) group that would receive PFS services or a control group that
10 Information on the responsible fatherhood grants in each of the 10 HHS regions is
available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/hmabstracts/index.htm].
11 Meeting the Challenge: What the Federal Government Can Do to Support Responsible
Fatherhood Efforts — A Report to the President [...] (Washington, January 2001), [http://
fatherhood.hhs.gov/guidance01].
12 The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) demonstration was funded by a consortium of private
foundations (the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Ford Foundation, the AT&T Foundation, the
McKnight Foundation, and the Northwest Area Foundation) and federal agencies (the U.S.
Department of Human Services and the U.S. Department of Labor).The PFS demonstration
was conducted in seven cities: Dayton, Ohio; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Jacksonville,
Florida; Los Angeles, California; Memphis, Tennessee; Springfield, Massachusetts; and
Trenton, New Jersey.
would not receive PFS services. The interim report on the PFS demonstration, which
was designed by MDRC and conducted and funded by public and private
organizations, found that parents who received PFS services were more likely to pay
child support through the CSE system than those who remained in the control group.
In all seven sites, the proportion of parents who paid child support during the 18-
month follow-up period increased significantly; but the amount of child support paid
over the 18 months increased by a statistically significant amount in only two of the
seven sites.
The final report on the PFS demonstration concluded that the program did not
significantly increase employment or earnings among the full sample of PFS
participants during the two years after they entered the program. However, the
program did increase earnings among a subgroup of men who were characterized as
“less employable” (i.e., those without a high school diploma and with little recent
work experience).13 In addition, another of the final reports found that although PFS
did not affect the frequency of fathers’ visits with their children, it did increase the
level of disagreement between parents about child-rearing. According to the
researchers, this finding might suggest that some noncustodial parents were
becoming more involved in new areas of decision-making about the child, which the
researchers viewed as a positive development. The report noted that the increased
level of disagreements between the parents was not accompanied by an increased
level of aggressive forms of conflict or domestic violence which researchers surmise
might indicate that the parents were able to distinguish between legitimate parental
differences of opinion versus latent animosity in their male-female relationship.14
One of the reports noted the following as lessons learned from the PFS
demonstration.
Low-income noncustodial fathers are a disadvantaged group. Many live on the
edge of poverty and face severe barriers to finding jobs, while those who can find
work typically hold low-wage or temporary jobs. Despite their low, irregular
income, many of these fathers are quite involved in their children’s lives and,
when they can, provide financial and other kinds of support.... Some services,
such as peer support proved to be very important and valuable to the men and
became the focal point of the program. Other services, such as skill-building,
were hard to implement because the providers had little experience working with
such a disadvantaged group; it was difficult to find employers willing to hire the
men, and the providers were not equipped to deal with the circumstances of men
who often were simply trying to make it from one day to the next. Finally, we
learned about the challenges of implementing a program like PFS, which
involves the partnership of various agencies with different goals, and about the15
difficulty of recruiting low-income fathers into such a program.
13 John M. Martinez and Cynthia Miller, Working and Earning: The Impact of Parents’ Fair
Share on Low-Income Fathers’ Employment (New York: MDRC, October 2000).
14 Virginia Knox and Cindy Redcross, Parenting and Providing: The Impact of Parents’
Fair Share on Paternal Involvement (New York: MDRC, October 2000).
15 Cynthia Miller and Virginia Knox, The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers
Support Their Children: Final Lessons from Parents’ Fair Share (New York: MDRC,
(continued...)
Some of the recommendations for future programs included structure the
program to encourage longer-term participation and to include job retention services;
provide fathers who cannot find private sector employment with community service
jobs; earmark adequate funding for employment services, involve custodial mothers
in the program and provide fathers with legal services to help them gain visitation
rights; and encourage partnerships between CSE agencies and fatherhood programs.16
Some researchers of the PFS approach contend that a broader array of intensive
employment services, such as skills training combined with part-time work and
community service employment for persons who were unable to get job, might have
improved the outcomes of the program. Other analysts maintain that most of the
fathers who participated in the PFS demonstration were estranged from their children
when they entered the program and that some of them participated in lieu of serving
time in jail. They assert that new unwed fathers are generally very attached to their
children around the time of the child’s birth and probably are more motivated than
fathers of older children to take advantage of the opportunities and/or services
offered by fatherhood programs.17
Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study
A “fragile” family consists of low-income children born outside of marriage
whose two natural parents are working together to raise them — either by living
together or frequent visitation. According to the 1997 National Survey of America’s
Families (NSAF), 25% of poor children under the age of two who were born outside
of marriage lived with both of their biological parents; another 35% lived with their
mother and saw their father at least every week.18
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is following a group of 4,700
children who were born in 20 large U.S. cities.19 The total sample size is 4,700
families, including 3,600 unmarried couples and 1,100 married couples. The data
were intended to be representative of nonmarital births in each of the 20 cities and
also representative of all nonmarital births in U.S. cities with populations over
200,000. Both parents were interviewed at the child’s birth and again when the child
was age 1, 2, and 5. In addition, in-home assessments of the children and their home
environments were performed when the children were ages 3 and 5. The parent
interviews provided information on attitudes, relationships, parenting behavior,
15 (...continued)
November 2001), pp. v-vi.
16 Ibid., p. v.
17 Sara McLanahan, Testimony before the Mayor’s Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion,
National Fatherhood Summit, Washington, D.C., June 14, 1999.
18 Elaine Sorensen, Ronald Mincy, and Ariel Halpern, Redirecting Welfare Policy Toward
Building Strong Families (Washington: Urban Institute, March 2000).
19 The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is a joint effort by Princeton University’s
Center for Research on Child Wellbeing (CRCW) and Center for Health and Wellbeing, and
Columbia University’s Social Indicators Survey Center and National Center for Children
and Families (NCCF).
demographic characteristics, health (mental and physical), economic and employment
status, neighborhood characteristics, and public welfare program participation. The
in-home interview collected information on children’s cognitive and emotional
development, health, and home environment. The study was expected to provide
previously unavailable information on questions such as the following:
!What are the conditions and capabilities of new unwed parents,
especially fathers? How many of these men hold steady jobs? How
many want to be involved in raising their children?
!What is the nature of the relationship between unwed parents? How
many couples are involved in stable, long-term relationships? How
many expect to marry? How many experience high levels of conflict
or domestic violence?
!What factors push new unwed parents together? What factors pull
them apart? How do public policies affect parents’ behaviors and
living arrangements?
!What are the long term consequences for parents, children, and
society of new welfare regulations, stronger paternity establishment,
and stricter child support enforcement? What roles do child care and
health care policies play? How do these policies play out in
different labor market environments?20
Initial analysis of the baseline data collected in 16 of the 20 cities from April
1998 through August 2000 indicated that 51% of unmarried parents live together
(i.e., are cohabiting), and another 31% are romantically involved with each other.
Further, 74% of the participant mothers said that they expect to marry the baby’s
father. The data also indicated that 30% of fathers had earnings of less than $10,500
per year, and 62% of mothers had earnings of less than $10,000 per year; about 43%
of the mothers and 38% of the fathers lacked a high school degree. Although the data
indicated that 85% of mothers and 98% of fathers worked at some point during the
past year, 20% of fathers said that they were out of work during the week before the
interview. The initial analysis also showed that 39% of the mothers drank alcohol,
used drugs, or smoked during their pregnancies.21
A 2007 report that examined data pertaining to the surveyed children at age 5
found that 16% of participant mothers were married to the father at the time of the
five-year interview. Despite not marrying, about 40% of the parents were still
romantically involved at the five-year interview. In cases where the couple were no
longer romantically involved, 43% of the fathers had seen their children in the month
previous to the interview. According to the report:
20 Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, “Fragile Families and Child Well-Being: A Survey
of New Parents,” Focus (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on
Poverty), vol. 21, no. 1 (spring 2000), pp. 9-11.
21 Sara McLanahan, Irwin Garfinkel, Nancy E. Reichman, Julien Teitler, Marcia Carlson, and
Christina Norland Audigier, The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study: Baseline Report
(Princeton: Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, August 2001; rev.
March 2003), at [http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/].
Fatherhood programs, such as education, training, support services, and
content addressing issues of shared parenting, may also be appropriate for
many new unmarried fathers. Engaging parents in responsible fatherhood
programs (and weaving these programs into marriage promotion
curriculums) early in their child’s life may also help new fathers develop
important parenting skills crucial to their child’s healthy development.
These programs may help fathers establish and maintain positive
connections with their child and encourage their active participation in
raising their child.22
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing in Middle Childhood Study received
a $17 million grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (NICHD) of the Department of Health and Human Services to field a
nine-year follow-up. The purpose of this project is to combine the core telephone
surveys, in-home study, and teacher surveys into one larger project. Data collection
began in 2007 and will continue through 2009.23
Office of Child Support Enforcement
(OCSE) Responsible Fatherhood Programs
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) provided $2.0 million
to fund Responsible Fatherhood demonstrations under Section 1115 of the Social
Security Act. The programs operated in eight states between September 1997 and
December 2002. The following eight states received Section 1115 grants or waivers
from OCSE/Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to implement and test
responsible fatherhood programs: California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington, and Wisconsin. These projects attempted
to improve the employment and earnings of under- and unemployed noncustodial
parents, and to motivate them to become more financially and emotionally involved
in the lives of their children. Although the projects shared common goals, they
varied with respect to service components and service delivery. OCSE also provided
about $500,000 for an evaluation of the demonstration projects. A report on the
implementation of the programs (from initial start-up in late 1997 through December
The success of the Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Projects appears to
be tied to the commitment of the staff. Reaching alienated and disenfranchised
populations and convincing them to change their attitudes and behaviors is hard
work. It takes time, persistence, repeated contacts, fast action, patience,
firmness, and endless resourcefulness. Programs need to recruit key program
staff who are inspired and inspiring. They also need to be knowledgeable about
community services in order to maximize opportunities for participants.
First-hand knowledge is key. The best referrals are not made out of directories,
but result from long-standing familiarity with community services, eligibility
22 Fragile Families Research Brief, June 2007, Number 39. Parents’ Relationship Status
Five Years After a Non-Marital Birth. Princeton University and Columbia University.
23 For more information on the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, see
[http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/about.asp].
requirements, available resources, and relevant personnel. Dedicated,
knowledgeable, and energetic staff can better counsel and steer parents into a
course of action that makes them more financially and emotionally responsible24
for their children.
A second, outcome report on the programs found that (1) low-income
noncustodial fathers are a difficult population to recruit and serve; (2) many of the
participants found jobs with the programs’ help, but they were low-paying jobs and
relatively few of the participants were able to increase earnings enough to meet their
financial needs and those of their children; (3) child access problems were hard to
define and resolve, and that mediation should be used more extensively; (4) child
support guidelines result in orders for low-income noncustodial parents that are
unrealistically high; (5) CSE agencies should collaborate with fatherhood programs
and pursue routine enforcement activities, as well as adopt policies and incentives
that are responsive to low-income fathers; and (6) criminal history was the norm
rather than the exception among the program participants, many participants faced
ongoing alcohol and substance abuse problems, many did not have reliable
transportation, and many lacked a court-ordered visitation arrangement.25
On a more positive note, the outcome report found that employment rates and
earnings increased significantly especially for noncustodial parents who were
previously unemployed. In addition, child support compliance rates increased
significantly especially for those who had not been paying previously. Moreover, the
report found that 27% of the fathers reported seeing their children more often after
completion of the program.
Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration
HHS has an ongoing partnership with the private-sector initiative called Partners
for Fragile Families (PFF). The Partners for Fragile Families Project is an initiative
of the National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership
(NPCL), a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. The PFF was designed
to help poor single fathers pull themselves out of poverty and build stronger links to
their children and their children’s mothers. The PFF was established in 1996 to
provide support for these “fragile families,” which are defined as low-income,
never-married parents and their children. Research indicated that although many of
the fathers in these families are involved with their children during the early
childhood years, this involvement tends to diminish over time, often with negative
consequences for the children. The PFF initiative is aimed at helping fathers work
24 Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes, with David Price and Jane Venohr, OCSE
Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Early Implementation Lessons (Washington: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies, June 2000) p. 9.
25 Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes, and Lanae Davis, with Jane Venohr, David Price, and
Tracy Griffith, OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and
Program Outcomes (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies
[HHS Contract No. 100-98-0015], September 2003).
with the mothers of their children in sharing the legal, financial, and emotional
responsibilities of parenthood.
In March 2000, HHS approved 10 state waivers for the three-year Partners for
Fragile Families (PFF) Demonstration projects. The purpose of the demonstration
projects was to develop new ways for CSE agencies and community-based nonprofit
and faith-based organizations to work together to help young noncustodial fathers
(age 16 to 25 — who had not yet established paternity and who had little or no
involvement with the CSE program) obtain employment, health, and social services;
make child support payments to their children; learn parenting skills; and enable then
to work with the mothers of their children to build stronger parenting partnerships.
The PFF demonstration operated from 2000 to 2003 in 13 projects in 9 states.26 The
demonstration project sites were located in California, Colorado, Indiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.27 According
to HHS, of the $9.7 million in federal funding budgeted for the projects, $7.1 million
was spent. An additional $1.4 million was spent for an evaluation of the projects.
The underlying theory of the PFF demonstration projects was that by targeting
new fathers at a point when they had little or no previous involvement with the CSE
system and when they still had an opportunity to develop a positive relationship with
the mother of their children and the children themselves, the projects could better
assist these young parents to become strong financial and emotional resources for
their children. A recent evaluation of the implementation of the PFF projects
included the following statement:
Although the concept of PFF was unique when it was developed in 1996, by the
time the demonstration was fully implemented, other responsible fatherhood
programs had started in many communities nationwide. Independent of PFF, the
child support enforcement system was already incorporating more “father-
friendly” approaches to service delivery at about the same time PFF was in its
developmental stages. The child support system had begun to absorb the lessons
learned from earlier fatherhood initiatives (such as the Parents’ Fair Share
project and the Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration). By the time PFF was
operational, some may have viewed it as less pioneering than when it was
conceived several years earlier. In addition, the number of young fathers who
had not established paternity for their children decreased in the mid- to late-
1990s as a result of the success of in-hospital paternity establishment initiatives
across the country that established paternity at the time of a child’s birth. The
pool of young fathers without paternity established for their children had
diminished in the PFF sites by the time the projects were implemented.28
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has sponsored several
other evaluations of the PFF demonstration projects. According to HHS, subsequent
26 The Chicago, Illinois project withdrew from the demonstration.
27 See [http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/index.shtml] and [http://www.npcl.org/program/pff.htm].
28 The Urban Institute. The Implementation of the Partners for Fragile Families
Demonstration Projects, by Karin Martinson, John Trutko, Demetra Smith Nightingale,
Pamela A. Holcomb, and Burst S. Barnow. June 2007.
[http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/PFF/imp/]
reports will include case studies of selected fathers and their families and an analysis
of economic and child support outcomes.
Issues
An underlying tension in the debate on fatherhood initiatives is the concern of
some women’s and mothers’ rights groups, such as the National Women’s Law
Center and the National Organization for Women (NOW), that an emphasis on the
importance of fathers may lead to undervaluing single-parent families maintained by
mothers, that services for fathers may be at the expense of services for mothers, and
that the “pro-fatherhood” discourse might give fathers’ rights groups some leverage
in challenging child custody, child support, and visitation arrangements. Some
analysts contend that the policy debate on fatherhood initiatives must be based on the
view that the welfare of fathers, mothers, and children are intertwined and29
interdependent; otherwise, the debate will be very divisive and unproductive.
Many issues are associated with the federal government’s support of fatherhood
initiatives. A few examples are: Is the goal of federal policy to promote and support
the involvement of fathers in their children’s lives regardless of the father’s
relationship with the children’s mother? What if the father has children by more than
one woman? What is the federal policy with regard to incarcerated parents and
parents recently released from prison? Does the federal government support
counseling, education, and supervised visitation for abusive fathers so that they can
reconnect with their children?
The discussion below examines two issues that will likely impact the success
of congressional fatherhood initiatives. The first deals with the role of the CSE
agency in fatherhood programs. Presently, the CSE program is the starting place for
many fatherhood programs. Some analysts contend that since many noncustodial
parents have a negative view of the CSE program, the use of the CSE program to
recruit fathers does not bode well for the success of such programs. Several of the
fatherhood bills would make competitive grants available to community
organizations and other groups that have experience in working with low-income
men. Many of the fatherhood bills introduced in recent Congresses included
evaluation components. The second issue examines father involvement in the
context of the father’s relationship to the child’s mother. The second issue is based
on the premise that formal marital relationships last longer and are more conducive
to long-term interaction between fathers and children than other types of
relationships.
29 William J. Doherty, Edward F. Kouneski, and Martha Farrell Erickson, Responsible
Fathering: An Overview and Conceptual Framework — Final Report Washington, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies [HHS-100-93-0012], September 1996).
CSE System and Noncustodial Parents Often At Odds
During the period FY1978-FY2006, child support payments collected by the
CSE agencies increased from $1 billion to $23.9 billion. Moreover, the program has
made significant improvements in other program measures as well, such as the
number of parents located, paternities established, and child support orders
established. Advocates of the CSE program say that this dramatic program
performance is aside from the indirect and intangible benefits of the program, such
as increased personal responsibility and welfare cost-avoidance. Critics of the CSE
program contend that even with an unprecedented array of “big brother” enforcement
tools such as license (professional, driver’s, recreational) and passport revocation,
seizure of banking accounts, retirement funds, and lottery winnings, and automatic
income withholding from pay checks, the program still collects only 19% of child
support obligations for which it has responsibility and collects payments for only
Although the CSE program has historically been the policy answer to the
problem of father absence, because its focus until recently was exclusively on
financial support, it has had the practical effect of alienating many low-income
fathers who are unable to meet their child support obligations. Some policy analysts
maintain that fathers are in effect devalued when their role in their children’s lives
is based solely on their cash contributions. They argue that public policies are
needed to support the father’s role as nurturer, disciplinarian, mentor, and moral
instructor. 30
Information obtained from noncustodial fathers for various surveys and studies
consistently tells the same story. Not surprisingly, noncustodial parents, especially
low-income fathers, prefer informal child support agreements between themselves
and the child’s mother wherein they contribute cash support when they can and
provide noncash aid such as taking care of the children from time to time and buying
food, clothing, presents, etc. as often as they can. Many noncustodial fathers
maintain that the CSE system is dismissive of their financial condition and continues
to pursue child support payments (current as well as arrearages) even when it knows
that many of them can barely support themselves. They argue that for welfare
families, the CSE program generally does not improve their child’s well-being
because their child support payments are used to benefit the state and federal
government (i.e., welfare reimbursement) rather than their child. They contend that
the CSE program causes conflicts between them and their child’s mother because the
women often use it as leverage by threatening to report them to CSE authorities, take
them back to court, have more of their wages garnished, or have them arrested.31
30 Wade F. Horn and Isabel V. Sawhill, Making Room for Daddy: Fathers, Marriage, and
Welfare Reform, Brookings Institution Working Paper (Washington, April 26, 2001), p. 4.
31 Maureen Waller and Robert Plotnick, “A Failed Relationship? Low-Income Families and
the Child Support Enforcement System,” Focus (University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Institute for Research on Poverty), vol. 21, no. 1 (spring 2000), pp. 12-17. See also Family
Ties: Improving Paternity Establishment Practices and Procedures for Low-Income
Mothers, Fathers and Children (Washington: National Women’s Law Center and Center
(continued...)
Many observers maintain that noncustodial parents and the CSE program have
irreconcilable differences and that the most that should be expected is for the
noncustodial parent to clearly understand the purposes of the CSE program, the
requirements imposed on the custodial parent, the noncustodial parents’ rights to
have their child support payments modified if they incur a financial change in
circumstances, and that they as noncustodial parents have a moral and societal
responsibility to have (to build) a loving relationship with their children.32 If the CSE
program continues to be the entrance to fatherhood programs, most observers
contend that the fact that the CSE program has not been effective in gaining the
cooperation and trust of many noncustodial parents must be acknowledged and
addressed. Several analysts suggest that to be successful, fatherhood programs may
need to operate independently of the formal CSE system.
Others assert that more than any other agency of state government, the CSE
program has the responsibility and is in the position to reach out to fathers who need
supportive services. They state that CSE agencies are already involved in forging
relationships with fathers through partnerships with community-based organizations.
They also note that CSE agencies provide a natural link to coordinate with TANF
agencies to help families achieve self-sufficiency.33
Although we do not have any evaluations on the effectiveness of fatherhood
programs delivered through a CSE framework versus fatherhood programs that place
little emphasis on the formal CSE system, all of the fatherhood bills introduced in the
107th and 108th Congresses included funding for evaluation, and so did many of the
fatherhood bills in the 109th Congress. (Readers should note that P.L. 109-171 does
not include funding for the evaluation of responsible fatherhood grant programs.)
Noncustodial Father Involvement vs. Promotion
of Marriage vs. Maintenance of Fragile Families
The first finding included in the 1996 welfare reform law is that marriage is the
foundation of a successful society. The second finding is that marriage is an essential
institution of a successful society which promotes the interests of children.34
However, some child welfare advocates argue that marriage is not necessarily the
best alternative for all women and their children. It is generally agreed that single-
31 (...continued)
on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy, 2000), pp. 9-11.
32 Waller and Plotnick,”A Failed Relationship?”
33 National Child Support Enforcement Association, Resolution on Fatherhood Initiatives,
adopted by the NCSEA Board of Directors on July 29, 2000, [http://www.ncsea.org/files
/2000_fatherhood_resol-f inal.pdf].
34 The majority of pre-TANF evaluations of welfare initiatives that examine family
formation decisions have found little, if any, impact of state policies on decisions to marry.
One recent exception is an evaluation of the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP).
In this program, compared to those who were subject to the AFDC requirements, more
single-parent participants subject to new policies under MFIP got married and fewer of the
two-parent participants had divorced within three years after the program began.
parent families are a better alternative for children than living with an abusive father.
Many observers caution that government must be careful about supporting programs
that provide cash incentives to induce people to marry or that coerce people into
marrying. They note the problems associated with child-bride marriages and the
short-term and often unhappy nature of the so-called “shotgun” marriage. Others
respond that many long-lasting marriages were based on financial alliances (e.g., to
increase economic status, family wealth, status in the community, etc.). They also
point out that most government programs are sensitive to the issues of domestic
violence and include supports to prevent or end such actions.
Many young children live with both of their parents who are not married but
who are cohabiting. Noting this, some analysts argue that coercive policies designed
to promote certain types of family structures (e.g., nuclear families) at the expense
of others may undermine nontraditional family relationships. They contend that more
emphasis should be placed on trying to meet the needs of these fragile families to
enable them to stay together for longer periods of time. They maintain that if these
parents wanted to be married they would be married.35 They also point out that
because of the complexity of many family relationships, there are no easy answers.
From their perspective, a single-focus policy, no matter whether it aims to support
traditional family relationships or fragile families, can place children in less desirable
situations. For instance, promoting marriage of biological parents may result in
supporting situations where some children in the household have a stepparent if all
the children are not from the same union. Similarly, promoting fragile families also
could result in supporting situations where a biological parent is absent if all of the
children in the household are not all from the same union.
Some pro-marriage analysts point out that about 75% of children born to
cohabiting parents will see their parents separate before they reach age 16, compared
to about 33% of those born to married parents. Some observers note that even with
supports it is unlikely that fragile families (unmarried couple) will remain together
as long as married families. Thus, they argue that the promotion of marriage should
be incorporated into fatherhood programs if the goal is lifetime involvement of
fathers in the lives of their children.
In contrast, fatherhood initiatives are sometimes viewed as incompatible with
initiatives that encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families, and
with initiatives that promote marriage. In fact, many observers argue that the focus
should be the participation of fathers in their children’s lives, regardless of the
marital status of the parents. As mentioned earlier, the TANF law states that the
second purpose of the block grant is to “end the dependence of needy parents on
government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage.” The fourth
purpose of the TANF block grant is to “encourage the formation and maintenance of
two-parent families.” There has been some discussion about whether the fourth
purpose means married-couple families or just two parents who are involved in their
children’s lives, regardless of whether they are married or even living together. In
late 1999, the Clinton Administration issued A Guide on Funding for Children and
35 See “Is Marriage a Viable Objective for Fragile Families?” Fragile Families Research
Brief 9 (Princeton: Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, July 2002).
Families through the TANF program which broadly interpreted two-parent families
to mean not only married-couple families, but also never-married, separated, and
divorced parents, whether living together or not. Thus, many states classify their
fatherhood programs and programs that encourage visitation by noncustodial parents
under the rubric of fulfilling the purposes of the TANF program.36
In addition, it should be noted that some research indicates that there may be a
racial component in the marriage promotion versus fatherhood involvement debate.
In 2005, 69.5% of black births were to unmarried women, whereas only 25.4% of
white births were to unmarried women. Given this demographic reality of black and
white families in the U.S., the authors of the study37 contend that proposals that
earmark five times as much money for marriage promotion as for responsible
fatherhood promotion38 seem “racially insensitive.” (Readers should note that P.L.
109-171 funds marriage promotion grants at twice the amount of responsible
fatherhood grants (i.e., $100 million per year for five years versus $50 million per
year for five years).
Legislative Action
During the 106th Congress, President Clinton’s FY2001 budget included $255
million for the first year of a proposed “Fathers Work/Families Win” initiative to
help low-income noncustodial parents and low-income working families work and
support their children. The “Fathers Work/Families Win” initiative would have been
administered by the Department of Labor (DoL). The “Fathers Work” component
($125 million) would have been limited to noncustodial parents (primarily fathers)
and the “Families Win” component ($130 million) would have been targeted more
generally to low-income families.
The proposed “Fathers Work” grant program was designed to help low-income
noncustodial parents who were not living with their children carry out their financial
and emotional responsibilities to their children. The proposed “Families Win” grant
program was designed to help “hard-pressed” working families obtain the supports
and skills they need to get a job and succeed in the job and avoid TANF assistance.
These funds were intended to leverage existing resources to help families retain jobs
and upgrade skills and get connected to critical work supports, such as child care,
36 Wade Horn, “Wedding Bell Blues: Marriage and Welfare Reform,” Brookings Review,
summer 2001, pp. 40-41.
37 Ronald B. Mincy and Chien-Chung Huang, The M Word: The Rise and Fall of Interracial
Coalitions on Fathers and Welfare Reform. Bowling Green State University Working Paper
38 H.R. 4737 as passed by the House in the 107th Congress authorized $100 million annually
for five years for competitive matching grants that require a dollar-for-dollar match for
marriage promotion activities, resulting in total funding of $200 million annually for five
years. Further, an additional $100 million per year for five years was authorized for
research and demonstration grants and technical assistance related to the healthy marriageth
promotion activities. In contrast, H.R. 4737 (107 Congress) authorized $20 million
annually for five years for responsible fatherhood grants.
child support, health care, food stamps, earned income tax credit, housing, and
transportation. Neither the House nor Senate FY2001 appropriations bill (H.R. 4577,
106th Congress) for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies included funding for the Fathers Work/Families
Win proposal.
From the beginning of his presidency, President Bush has indicated his support
for responsible fatherhood initiatives. President Bush’s FY2002 budget (issued in
February 2001, 107th Congress) proposed $64 million in 2002 ($315 million over five
years) to strengthen the role of fathers in the lives of families. This initiative would
have provided competitive grants to faith-based and community organizations that
help unemployed or low-income fathers and their families avoid or leave cash
welfare, as well as to programs that promote successful parenting and strengthen
marriage. The initiative also would have funded projects of national significance that
support expansion of state and local responsible fatherhood efforts.
President Bush’s FY2003 budget proposed $20 million (for FY2003) for
competitive grants to community and faith-based organizations for programs that
help noncustodial fathers support their families to avoid or leave cash welfare,
become more involved in their children’s lives, and promote successful parenting and
encourage and support healthy marriages and married fatherhood.
President Bush’s FY2004 budget proposed $20 million annually (for FY2004-
FY2008) for promotion and support of responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage.
The funding was expected to promote and support involved, committed, and
responsible fatherhood and encourage the formation and stability of healthy
marriages. The FY2004 budget proposal also would have increased the annual
funding of the CSE access and visitation grant program gradually from $10 million
annually to $20 million annually by FY2007.
President Bush’s FY2005 budget proposed $50 million (for FY2005) for 75
competitive grants to faith-based and community organizations, together with Indian
tribes and tribal organizations, to encourage and help fathers to support their families,
avoid welfare, improve fathers’ ability to manage family business affairs, and support
healthy marriages and married fatherhood.
President Bush’s FY2006 budget proposed $40 million (for FY2006) for a grant
program to public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious
organizations, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations, for demonstration service
projects to help noncustodial fathers become more involved in their children’s lives
and to encourage and support healthy marriages between parents raising children.
President Bush’s FY2007 budget proposed $100 million for competitive
matching grants to states for marriage promotion. It also included the $150 million
for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs that was included in P.L.
President Bush’s FY2008 budget included the $150 million for healthy marriage
and responsible fatherhood programs that was included in P.L. 109-171 as part of
welfare reauthorization. As noted, pursuant to P.L. 109-171, $50 million is
specifically allocated for responsible fatherhood programs.
106th Congress
During the 106th Congress, legislation was twice passed by the House (but not
acted on by the Senate — H.R. 3073, the proposed Fathers Count Act of 1999, and
H.R. 4678, the proposed Child Support Distribution Act of 2000) that would have
authorized funding ($140 million over two years in H.R. 3073 and $140 million over
four years in H.R. 4678) to establish a program (usually referred to as fatherhood
initiatives) to make grants to public or private entities for projects designed to
promote marriage, promote successful parenting and the involvement of fathers in
the lives of their children, and help fathers improve their economic status by
providing job-related services to them.
107th Congress
During the 107th Congress, several bills (H.R. 1300/S. 653, H.R. 1471, S. 685,
S. 940/H.R. 1990, H.R. 2893, H.R. 3625, H.R. 409039, S. 2524, and H.R. 4737) that
included fatherhood initiatives were introduced, but none were enacted.
The purposes of the fatherhood programs in the bills introduced generally were
the same: fatherhood programs must be designed to promote marriage through
counseling, mentoring, and other activities; promote successful parenting through
counseling, providing information about good parenting practices including payment
of child support, and other activities; and help noncustodial parents and their families
avoid or leave cash welfare by providing work-first services, job training, subsidized
employment, career-advancing education, and other activities.
However, the structure of the fatherhood programs differed. For example, H.R.
4737 as amended and passed by the House would have added a new part C to Title
IV of the Social Security Act to provide competitive grants to public and private
entities to operate an array of fatherhood programs. The competitive grants would
have been administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The appropriation amount for the fatherhood grants was set at $20 million a year for
each of the five fiscal years FY2003 through FY2007; up to 15% of the annual
appropriation was to be available for the cost of various demonstration projects and
evaluations of the competitive grants.
39 H.R. 4090, as amended, was ordered reported by the House Ways and Means Committee
on May 2, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-460, Part 1). The bill would have provided $20 million in
grants per year for a five-year period (FY2003-FY2007) to public entities and nonprofit
community entities, including religious organizations, and to Indian tribes and tribal
organizations to promote responsible, caring and effective parenting and to encourage
positive father involvement, including the positive involvement of nonresident fathers;
enhance the abilities and commitment of unemployed or low-income fathers to provide
support for their families and to avoid or leave welfare; improve fathers’ ability to
effectively manage family business affairs; and encourage and support healthy marriages
and married fatherhood. Note: H.R. 4737, a bill that included identical “fatherhood”
provisions, passed the House on May 16, 2002.
In contrast, H.R. 4737 as amended in the nature of a substitute by the Senate
Finance Committee appeared to have more of an emphasis on helping low-income
noncustodial parents find and retain work. It would have amended part D of title IV
of the Social Security Act (i.e., the Child Support section) to provide grants to states
to (1) establish a noncustodial parent employment grant program and (2) conduct
policy reviews and develop recommendations, and conduct demonstration projects
with the goals of obtaining and retaining employment for low-income noncustodial
parents, increasing child support payments, increasing the involvement of low-
income noncustodial parents with their children, and coordinating services for low-
income noncustodial parents. The HHS Secretary and the Secretary of Labor would
have jointly awarded grants to eligible states for the purpose of establishing, in
coordination with counties and other local governments, supervised employment
programs for noncustodial parents who have a history of irregular payment or
nonpayment of child support obligations and who are determined to be in need of
employment services in order to pay their child support obligations. The
appropriation amount for the noncustodial parent employment program was set at
$25 million a year for each of the four fiscal years FY2004 through FY2007. The
appropriation amount for the grants, administered by the HHS Secretary, to states for
policy reviews, recommendations, and demonstration projects also was set at $25
million a year for each of the four fiscal years FY2004 through FY2007.
Although H.R. 4737, amended, was passed by the House on May 16, 2002
(H.Rept. 107-460, Part 1), and reported favorably in the nature of a substitute by the
Senate Finance Committee (S.Rept. 107-221) on July 25, 2002, it was not passed by
the full Senate.
108th Congress
The 108th Congress introduced several bills that included responsible fatherhood
provisions (i.e., S. 5, S. 448, S. 604, and S. 657, S. 1443, and S. 2830; H.R. 4 and
H.R. 936). None of the bills became law.
On February 13, 2003, the House passed H.R. 4 (108th Congress), a welfare
reauthorization bill (that was essentially identical to H.R. 4737 as passed by the
House in 2002) that would have provided $20 million per year for each of FY2004-
FY2008 for a responsible fatherhood grant program.
On September 10, 2003, the Senate Finance Committee approved its version of
H.R. 4 (S.Rept. 108-162), which would have established a $75 million responsible
fatherhood program composed of four components for each of the fiscal years 2004-
2008: (1) a $20 million grant program for up to 10 eligible states to conduct
demonstration programs; (2) a $30 million grant for eligible entities to conduct
demonstration programs; (3) $5 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit
fatherhood promotion organization to develop and promote a responsible fatherhood
media campaign; and (4) a $20 million block grant for states to conduct responsible
fatherhood media campaigns. Although H.R. 4 was debated on the Senate floor
during the period March 29-April 1, 2004, consideration of the bill was not
completed when a motion to limit debate on the bill failed to garner the needed 60
votes. The Senate did not bring the bill back to the floor before the end of the session.
During the period from 2002-2004, the responsible fatherhood bills that were
passed by the House were part of welfare reauthorization legislation. (The funding
for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, mandatory
child care, and the abstinence education block grant — which were part of the 1996
welfare reform legislation (P.L. 104-193) whose funding authority expired on
September 30, 2002 — continued under a number of temporary extension measures.)
109th Congress
The 109th Congress introduced several welfare reauthorization bills that included
responsible fatherhood provisions (i.e., H.R. 240/S. 105, S. 6, and S. 667). S. 1932
(the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005) also included a provision that provided
competitive grants for responsible fatherhood activities.
On January 4, 2005, a TANF reauthorization bill (H.R. 240) was introduced in
the 109th Congress. It included provisions that authorized the HHS Secretary to make
competitive grants totaling $20 million for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010
to public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious organizations,
and Indian tribes and tribal organizations for responsible fatherhood demonstration
programs. The purposes of the fatherhood programs were to (1) promote responsible,
caring and effective parenting and encouraging positive father involvement, including
the positive involvement of nonresident fathers; (2) enhance the abilities and
commitment of unemployed or low-income fathers to provide support for their
families and to avoid or leave welfare; (3) improve fathers’ ability to effectively
manage family business affairs; and (4) encourage and support healthy marriages and
married fatherhood. Not more than 15% of the annual appropriation would have
been available for the costs of two multicity, multistate demonstration projects,
projects of national significance that support expansion of state and local responsible
fatherhood efforts, and an evaluation of the programs. The fatherhood provisions in
H.R. 240 were identical to those that were included in H.R. 4 as passed by the House
on February 13, 2003 (108th Congress). S. 105, which is identical to H.R. 240, was
introduced in the Senate on January 24, 2005.
On January 24, 2005, another TANF reauthorization bill (S. 6) was introduced
in the 109th Congress. It would have established a $75 million responsible
fatherhood program composed of four components for each of the fiscal years 2006-
2010: (1) a $20 million grant program for up to 10 eligible states to conduct
demonstration programs; (2) a $30 million grant for eligible entities to conduct
demonstration programs; (3) $5 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit
fatherhood promotion organization to develop and promote a responsible fatherhood
media campaign; and (4) a $20 million block grant for states to conduct responsible
fatherhood media campaigns. The purposes of the demonstration grants were to
promote responsible fatherhood through (1) marriage promotion (through counseling,
mentoring, disseminating information about the advantages of marriage and two-
parent involvement for children, etc., (2) parenting activities (through counseling,
mentoring, mediation, disseminating information about good parenting practices,
etc.), and (3) fostering economic stability of fathers (through work first services, job
search, job training, subsidized employment, education, etc.). The fatherhood
provisions in S. 6 were identical to those that were included in H.R. 4 as passed by
the Senate Finance Committee on October 3, 2003 (H.Rept. 108-162, 108th
Congress).
On March 17, 2005, the Senate Finance Committee reported S. 667, a TANF
reauthorization bill. It would have established a $76 million responsible fatherhood
program composed of five components for each of the fiscal years 2006-2010. It
would have (1) appropriated $20 million for a grant program for up to 10 eligible
states to conduct demonstration programs; (2) appropriated $30 million for grants
for eligible entities to conduct demonstration programs; (3) authorized $5 million for
a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to develop and
promote a responsible fatherhood media campaign; (4) authorized a $20 million
block grant for states to conduct responsible fatherhood media campaigns; and (5)
authorized $1 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit research and education
fatherhood organization to establish a national resource center for responsible
fatherhood. The fatherhood provisions in S. 667 were almost identical to those in S.
6, except that funding for the demonstration grants to states and eligible entities
would have been assured because money was appropriated in the bill for those
activities (S.Rept. 109-51, 109th Congress).
On December 19, 2005, the House passed the conference report on S. 1932, the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (H.Rept. 109-362). On December 21, the Senate
passed the conference report on S. 1932 with amendments. The conference report
was subsequently passed again by the House on February 1, 2006. On February 8,
109-171 reauthorized the TANF block grant at $16.5 billion annually through
FY2010 and included a provision that provides up to $50 million per year (for each
of the five fiscal years 2006 through 2010) in competitive grants to states, territories,
Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community
organizations, including religious organizations, for responsible fatherhood
initiatives.
Under P.L. 109-171, responsible fatherhood funds can be spent on activities to
promote responsible fatherhood through (1) marriage promotion (through counseling,
mentoring, disseminating information about the advantages of marriage and two-
parent involvement for children, etc.), (2) parenting activities (through counseling,
mentoring, mediation, disseminating information about good parenting practices,
etc.), (3) fostering economic stability of fathers (through work first services, job
search, job training, subsidized employment, education, etc.), or (4) contracting with
a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to develop,
promote, or distribute a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement
of parents in the lives of their children, particularly focusing on responsible
fatherhood; and/or to develop a national clearinghouse to help states and
communities in their efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible
fatherhood.
110th Congress
Two bills that include responsible fatherhood provisions have been introduced
in the 110th Congress. S. 1626 was introduced by Senator Bayh and Senator Obama
and H.R. 3395 was introduced by Representative Danny Davis (et al.). Among other
things, S. 1626/H.R. 3395, the proposed Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy
Families Act of 2007 would increase funding for the responsible fatherhood grants
(authorized by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, P.L. 109-171) from no more than
$50 million per year for each of the fiscal years 2006-2010 to at least $100 million
per year for those fiscal years. (The total for the Healthy Marriage Promotion and
Responsible Fatherhood grants would increase from $150 million to $200 million per
year for each of the years FY2008-FY2010.)