Connecting Fathers To Their Children

Fatherhood Initiatives:
Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Policy
January 14, 2016
Congressional Research Service

7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL31025
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Summary
In 2014, almost 25% of families with children (under age 18) were maintained by mothers.
According to some estimates, about 50% of children born in the United States will spend a
significant portion of their childhood in a home without their biological father. Research indicates
that children raised in single-parent families are more likely than children raised in two-parent
families (with both biological parents) to do poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral
problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes. 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, Child Support
Enforcement (CSE) funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds.
Beginning with the 106th Congress, bills containing specific funding for responsible fatherhood
initiatives were debated. President George W. Bush, a supporter of responsible fatherhood
programs, included funding for such programs in each of his budgets. Likewise, President Obama
has also included responsible fatherhood initiatives in each of his budgets.
P.L. 109-171 (the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, enacted February 8, 2006) included a provision
(in Title IV-A of the Social Security Act) that provided funding for a Healthy Marriage Promotion
and Responsible Fatherhood grants program. The program provided up to $50 million per year
(FY2006-FY2010) for competitive responsible fatherhood grants and about $100 million per year
(FY2006-FY2010) for competitive healthy marriage promotion grants. Grantees for responsible
fatherhood grants include states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and
nonprofit community groups (including religious organizations).
P.L. 114-113 (the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, enacted December 18, 2015) continued
program authority and funding (at the $150 million annual rate, divided equally between the
programs) for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs through
FY2016.
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.).
The 44 most recently awarded responsible fatherhood grants, which are scheduled to run through
FY2020, have included a new emphasis on key short- and long-term outcomes intended to
enhance evaluation and strengthen program design. According to the Office of Family Assistance
(in the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human
Services), it is expected that the new responsible fatherhood programs (and their evaluations) will
increase the understanding of policymakers and others of what works and why.
The federal governments 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 parents relationship, and talks about
the need most see for work-oriented programs that enable noncustodial parents to have the
financial ability to meet their child support obligations in a consistent and timely manner.
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
What Are Fatherhood Initiatives? .................................................................................................... 3
Research and Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 6
MDRC Parents Fair Share Demonstration Project ................................................................... 6
Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration ............................................................................ 7
Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study............................................................................. 9
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Responsible Fatherhood Programs ............... 10
National Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration
(CSPED) ......................................................................................................................... 11
Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated
and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners .......................................................................... 12
Other Evaluations .................................................................................................................... 13
Issues ............................................................................................................................................. 14
CSE System and Noncustodial Parents Often at Odds............................................................ 15
Noncustodial Father Involvement vs. Promotion of Marriage vs. Maintenance of
Fragile Families.................................................................................................................... 17
Work-Oriented Strategies for Noncustodial Parents ............................................................... 19
Tables
Table A-1. Temporary Extensions of the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible
Fatherhood Grants Program .......................................................................................................... 22
Appendixes
Appendix A. Temporary Extensions of the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible
Fatherhood Grant Program ......................................................................................................... 22
Appendix B. Legislative History of Federally Funded Responsible Federal Fatherhood
Programs..................................................................................................................................... 23
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 29
Introduction
In 2014, almost 25% of families with children (under age 18) were maintained by mothers and
32% of the 35.0 million families with children (under age 18) were maintained by one parent;1
this latter figure is up from 10% in 1970. Most of the children in these single-parent families were
being raised by their mothers; in 2014, 78% of single-parent families were mother-only families
and 22% were father-only families.2 According to some estimates, about 50% of children born in
the United States spend a significant portion of their childhood in a home without their biological
father.
Research indicates that children raised in single-parent families are more likely than children
raised in two-parent families (with both biological parents) to do poorly in school, have emotional
and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes as adults.3
Nonetheless, it is widely acknowledged that most single 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.
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.
The third finding of the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) states: Promotion of responsible
fatherhood and motherhood is integral to successful child rearing and the well-being of children.
Moreover, three of the four goals of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program are consistent with the components of most fatherhood programs. The three fatherhoodrelated goals are ending welfare dependence by employment and marriage, reducing out-ofwedlock pregnancies, and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Thus, states may spend TANF and TANF state Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) funds on
fatherhood programs. Further, any services that are directed toward the goal of reducing
nonmarital births or the goal of encouraging two-parent families are free of income eligibility
rules.
With the 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
1
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Americas Families and
Living Arrangements: 2014, Table F2. Family Households, By Type, Age of Own Children, and Educational
Attainment of Householder: 2014, Internet release date: January 2015. See http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/
cps2014F.html.
2
Ibid.
3
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1994), see also L. Bumpass, Children and Marital Disruption: A Replication and Update,
Demography, vol. 21 (1984), pp. 71-82; Rebecca A. Maynard, ed., Kids Having Kids: A Robin Hood Foundation
Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing (New York, 1996). Also see Fragile Families Working Paper
WP12-20-FF, The Causal Effects of Father Absence, by Sara McLanahan, Laura Tach, and Daniel Schneider, October
10, 2012.
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.4
During the 106th Congress, Representative
While fathers must fulfill their financial commitments, they
must also fulfill their emotional commitments. Dads play
Nancy Johnson, then chair of the Ways and
indispensable roles that cannot be measured in dollars and
Means Subcommittee on Human Resources,
cents: nurturer, mentor, disciplinarian, moral instructor, and
stated, To take the next step in welfare
skills coach, among other roles.
reform we must find a way to help children by
Source: Executive Office of the President, A Blueprint for
providing them with more than a working
New BeginningsA Responsible Budget for Americas
mother and sporadic child support. She noted
Priorities (February 2001), chap. 12, p. 75. (Administration
of President George W. Bush)
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.5
During the 106th,6 107th, and 108th Congresses, several responsible fatherhood bills were passed
by the House (part of welfare reauthorization legislation), but not by the Senate.7
During the 109th Congress, P.L. 109-171the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (S. 1932/H.Rept.
109-362) was enacted on February 8, 2006. It included a provision (in Title IV-A of the Social
Security Act) that provided funding for a Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible
Fatherhood grants program.8 The program provided up to $50 million per year (FY2006-FY2010)
for competitive responsible fatherhood grants.9 The Responsible Fatherhood program provided
funding to 90 organizations to operate responsible fatherhood programs. In addition, 13 other
organizations received funding specifically for incarcerated fathers and formerly incarcerated
fathers.
The child access and visitation program (Section 391 of P.L. 104-193) has funded the following activities since
FY1997: mediation, counseling, parental education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement, monitored
visitation, neutral drop-off and pickup, supervised visitation, and development of guidelines for visitation and custody.
In FY2013, about 105,000 parents/guardians received services. The most common services were parent education,
mediation, parenting plans, and supervised visitation. Most states used a mix of services. Most of the service providers
were Human Services Agencies. Individuals were referred to services by the courts, CSE or welfare agencies, and
others, as well as by self-referral. Services were both mandatory and voluntary, as determined by the state. Source: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, Access and Visitation Grant Program, FY 2013 Update (Washington DC, November 2014).
5
U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, Hearing on Fatherhood Legislation,
Statement of Chairman Nancy Johnson, 106th Congress, 1st Session (October 5, 1999), p. 4.
6
During the 106th Congress, Pursuant to P.L. 106-553 and P.L. 106-554, two non-governmental national fatherhood
organizations were granted funding amounting to $4 million, See Appendix B.
7
Note that a couple of responsible fatherhood bills were reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, but these bills
did not pass the Senate. See Appendix B for additional details.
8
Section 403(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)).
9
It also included about $100 million per year (FY2006-FY2010) for competitive healthy marriage promotion grants.
During the 111th Congress, P.L. 111-291, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, (enacted December
8, 2010) extended funding for Title IV-A Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible
Fatherhood grants through FY2011. For FY2011, it appropriated $75 million (up from $50
million) for awarding funds for activities promoting responsible fatherhood. The Responsible
Fatherhood program awarded three-year grants to 55 organizations. An additional five
organizations received re-entry program grants.
Currently, pursuant to P.L. 114-113, the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood
grants program is funded through FY2016 (i.e., September 30, 2016) at an annual rate of $150
million, with $75 million for responsible fatherhood grants.
See Appendix A of this report for a list of the laws that extended funding to the Title IV-A
Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood grants program. See Appendix B for
detailed legislative history of federally funded responsible fatherhood programs.10
In addition to federal funds explicitly provided for responsible fatherhood programs, there are
several other potential sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs. They include the
TANF program, TANF state MOE funding, CSE funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title
XX) funds. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), about half
of all states use some TANF funds for responsible fatherhood programs. In addition, many private
foundations are providing financial support for fatherhood programs.
As mentioned above, states can use TANF block grant funds and state MOE funds on programs or
services that accomplish the broad purposes of the TANF program. These sources of funding are
potentially the largest sources of funding for fatherhood initiatives. Pursuant to P.L. 114-53, the
TANF block grant to states is currently funded through December 11, 2015, at an annual level of
$16.5 billion. In addition, the state funding or MOE requirement (at the 75% level) is about $10.4
billion annually.11 The cash welfare caseload declined from a peak of 5.1 million Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) families in 1994 to 1.6 million TANF families in June 2015.
The 69% 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.
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. 104193) requires states to have laws under which the state has the authority to issue an order or
10
For a detailed history of the responsible fatherhood policy arena, see Kathleen Sylvester and Kathleen Reich,
Making Fathers Count: Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood Efforts, Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2002.
11
For additional information, see CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block
Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk.
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 parents right and responsibility to
visit and interact with his or her children.
Since their inception, fatherhood programs have sought to strengthen positive father-child
engagement, improve healthy relationships (including couple and co-parenting) and marriage, and
improve employment and economic mobility opportunities for noncustodial fathers.
Under federal law, responsible fatherhood
activities are specified as the following four
activities.12
(1) Activities to promote marriage or sustain
marriage through activities, such as
Responsible fathering means being present in a childs

life actively contributing to a childs healthy development,
sharing economic responsibilities.
-President Barack Obama (from Promoting Responsible
Fatherhood, White House, June 2012)
providing information about the benefits of marriage and two-parent involvement

for children;
enhancing relationship skills;
education regarding how to control aggressive behavior;
disseminating information on the causes of domestic violence and child abuse;
marriage preparation programs and premarital counseling;
skills-based marriage education;
financial planning seminars; and
divorce education and reduction programs, including mediation and counseling.
(2) Activities to promote responsible parenting, such as
counseling, mentoring, and mediation;

disseminating information about good parenting practices;
teaching parenting skills; and
encouraging child support payments.
(3) Activities to foster economic stability, such as
helping fathers improve their economic status by providing activities such as job
training, employment services, and career-advancing education; and
coordination with existing employment services such as welfare-to-work
programs, referrals to local employment training initiatives.
(4) Activities to promote responsible fatherhood that are conducted through a national
clearinghouse that provides access to curricula, webinars, research products, and other resources
to improve the implementation and success of responsible fatherhood programs.
Although Congress has authorized federal funding specifically designated for responsible
fatherhood programs, many states and localities, private organizations, and nonprofit agencies
also operate responsible fatherhood programs. Most fatherhood programs include media
12
Section 403(a)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)(C)]
campaigns that emphasize the importance of emotional, physical, psychological, and financial
connections of fathers to their children. To counterbalance some of the procedural, psychological,
emotional, and physical barriers to paternal involvement, most fatherhood programs include
many of the following components:
parenting educationa course that describes the responsibilities of parents to

their children; it discusses the need for affection, gentle guidance, and financial
support; the need to be a proud example and respectful of the childs mother; and
the need to recognize developmentally appropriate behavior for children of
different ages and respond appropriately to childrens developmental needs;
responsible decisionmaking (with regard to sexuality, establishment of paternity,
and financial support);
mentoring relationships with successful fathers and successful couples;
mediation services (communicating with the other parent, supervised visitation,
discipline of children, etc.);
providing an understanding of the CSE program;
conflict resolution, coping with stress, problem-solving skills;
developing values in children, appropriate discipline, participation in childrearing;
understanding male-female relationships;
peer support;
practical tasks to stimulate involvementdiscussing ways to increase parentchild interactions such as fixing dinner for children, taking children to the park,
playing a game, helping children with schoolwork, listening to childrens
concerns, and setting firm limits on behavior; and
job training opportunities (skills development, interviewing skills, job search,
job-retention skills, job-advancement skills, etc.).
Although most people refer to programs that seek to help fathers initiate or maintain contact with
their children and become emotionally involved in their lives as fatherhood programs, the
programs generally are gender-neutral. Their underlying goal is participation of the noncustodial
parent in the lives of his or her children.13
On October 5, 2015, the Office of Family Assistance (HHS) announced that it had awarded over
$55 million in competitive responsible fatherhood grants, which included 39 New Pathways for
Fathers and Families grants and 5 Responsible Fatherhood Opportunities for Reentry and
Mobility (ReFORM) grants.14 These grants are for the five-year period FY2016-FY2020 (with
13
The responsible fatherhood grant opportunity information documents have included such language as the following:
The projects and activities assisted under these awards must be available to mothers and expectant mothers who are
able to benefit from the activities on the same basis as fathers and expectant fathers. (See page 9 of 70 in the following
documenthttps://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/foa/files/HHS-2015-ACF-OFA-FK-0993_0.pdf.)
14
For a list of the grantees, see the following webpagehttps://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ofa/
hmrf_2015_grant_awards.pdf. In addition, note that 46 Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education program grants
and a National Center for Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education grant (in combination, totaling over $55
million) were also awarded for FY2016-FY2020.
funding contingent upon annual appropriations).15 The most recent grant awards represent the
third round of such funding since the programs inception in 2006.
Responsible fatherhood programs have offered varied approaches, resulting in deeper insight into
which organizational structures, implementation strategies, and service delivery models might
offer promise as effective and replicable strategies to serving families. Organizational structures
included state and local government agencies, community-based organizations of varying sizes,
universities, and faith-based groups.16 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.
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.17
Both advocates and critics of the CSE program agree that parents should be responsible for the
economic and emotional well-being of their children. They agree that many low-income
noncustodial parents are unable to meet their financial responsibility to their children and are
barely able, or unable, to support themselves. They also agree that some noncustodial parents do
not know how to be responsible parents because they were not taught that knowledge or were not
exposed to enough positive role models that they could emulate. Below are several examples of
demonstration programs that seek to, or sought to, help low-income men become responsible
fathers by helping them to gain employment or job mobility and by teaching them life skills so
that they might reconnect with their children in a positive sustained manner.
MDRC Parents Fair Share Demonstration Project

The Parents Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration was a large-scale scientifically designed (with
experimental and control groups) national demonstration project conducted from 1994 to 1996
that combined job training and placement, peer support groups, and other services with the goal
of increasing the earnings and child support payments of unemployed noncustodial parents
(generally fathers) of children on welfare, improving their parenting and communication skills,
and providing an opportunity for them to participate more fully and effectively in the lives of
their children.18
15
Non-competitive continuation grants are to be offered for each of years two through five of the project/program
period.
16
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family
Assistance, Implementing Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Programs within Different Organizational
Structures, February 1, 2012, p. 1.
17
Meeting the Challenge: What the Federal Government Can Do to Support Responsible Fatherhood EffortsA
Report to the President [ ... ] (Washington, DC, January 2001), http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/guidance01.
18
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 Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Labor).The PFS
demonstration was conducted in seven cities: Dayton, OH; Grand Rapids, MI; Jacksonville, FL; Los Angeles, CA;
Memphis, TN; Springfield, MA; and Trenton, NJ.
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).19
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 childrens lives and, when they can, provide financial
and other kinds of support.... Some services, such as peer support proved to be very
important and valuable to the men and became the focal point of the program. Other
services, such as skill-building, were hard to implement because the providers had little
experience working with such a disadvantaged group; it was difficult to find employers
willing to hire the men, and the providers were not equipped to deal with the
circumstances of men who often were simply trying to make it from one day to the next.
Finally, we learned about the challenges of implementing a program like PFS, which
involves the partnership of various agencies with different goals, and about the difficulty
of recruiting low-income fathers into such a program. 20
Some of the recommendations for future programs included structuring the program to encourage
longer-term participation and to include job retention services; providing fathers who cannot find
private sector employment with community service jobs; earmarking adequate funding for
employment services; involving custodial mothers in the program; providing fathers with legal
services to help them gain visitation rights; and encouraging partnerships between CSE agencies
and fatherhood programs.21
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, DC.
In March 2000, HHS approved state waivers of certain federal CSE requirements (under section
1115 of the Social Security Act) for the three-year Partners for Fragile Families (PFF)
Demonstration projects. The purpose of the demonstration projects was to develop new ways for
CSE agencies and community-based nonprofit and faith-based organizations to work together to
help young noncustodial fathers (ages 16 to 25who had not yet established paternity and who
had little or no involvement with the CSE program) obtain employment, health, and social
services; make child support payments to their children; learn parenting skills; and work with the
mothers of their children to build stronger parenting partnerships. The PFF demonstration
operated from 2000 to 2003 in 13 projects in 9 states.22 The demonstration project sites were
19
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).
20
Cynthia Miller and Virginia Knox, The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children: Final
Lessons from Parents Fair Share (New York: MDRC, November 2001), pp. v-vi.
21
Ibid., p. v.
22
The Chicago, IL, project withdrew from the demonstration.
located in California, Colorado, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York,

Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.23 According to HHS, of the $9.7 million in federal funding
budgeted for the projects, $7.1 million was spent. An additional $1.4 million was spent for an
evaluation of the projects.
An evaluation of the implementation of the PFF projects included the following statement:
Although the concept of PFF was unique when it was developed in 1996, by the time the
demonstration was fully implemented, other responsible fatherhood programs had started
in many communities nationwide. Independent of PFF, the child support enforcement
system was already incorporating more father-friendly approaches to service delivery
at about the same time PFF was in its developmental stages. The child support system
had begun to absorb the lessons learned from earlier fatherhood initiatives (such as the
Parents Fair Share project and the Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration). By the time
PFF was operational, some may have viewed it as less pioneering than when it was
conceived several years earlier. In addition, the number of young fathers who had not
established paternity for their children decreased in the mid- to late-1990s as a result of
the success of in-hospital paternity establishment initiatives across the country that
established paternity at the time of a childs 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.24
HHS also sponsored two other evaluations of the PFF demonstration projects. Both of the
evaluations were conducted by the Urban Institute. One of the Urban Institute reports includes
case studies of selected fathers and their families, and the other report provides an analysis of
economic and child support outcomes. The outcomes report indicated mixed results. The Urban
Institute conducted a process and outcome evaluation interviewing all service providers
(including child support enforcement, community-based organizations, and partner agencies) and
analyzing client data matched with administrative wage data before and after the PFF program.
This evaluation did not have a control group. According to the report, employment rates for
participants before and after the program were basically low and unchanged (about 58% of PFF
participants were employed 6 months before the demonstration and 59% of PFF participants were
employed 6-12 months after enrollment in the demonstration). Although quarterly earnings of
PFF participants increased after enrollment in the demonstration, at the end of 12 months,
participants generally had poverty-level incomes. In contrast, the report indicated that there was a
substantial increase in child support orders. At enrollment, about 14% of PFF participants had a
child support order, whereas two years after enrollment, 35% of PFF participants had a child
support order. For those PFF participants who paid child support, the average child support
payment was $1,569 for the first year after enrollment and $2,296 for the second year after
enrollment. The report also noted that, on average, about five monthly child support payments
were made in the first year after enrollment and about seven monthly payments were made in the
second year after enrollment.25
23
See http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/index.shtml and http://www.npcl.org/program/pff.htm.

The Urban Institute. The Implementation of the Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Projects, by Karin
Martinson, John Trutko, Demetra Smith Nightingale, Pamela A. Holcomb, and Burst S. Barnow, June 2007. See
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/PFF/imp/.
25
Karin Martinson, Demetra Smith Nightingale, Pamela Holcomb, Burt Barnow, and John Trutko, Partners for Fragile
Families Demonstration Projects: Employment and Child Support Outcomes and Trends, The Urban Institute,
September 2007.
24
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 themeither by living together or through frequent
visitation.
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study followed a group of 4,700 children who were
born in 20 large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000.26 The total sample size was 4,700 families,
including 3,600 unmarried couples and 1,100 married couples. The data were intended to be
representative of nonmarital births in each of the 20 cities and also representative of all
nonmarital births in U.S. cities with populations over 200,000. Both parents were interviewed at
the childs birth and again when the child was age one, two, and five. In addition, in-home
assessments of the children and their home environments were performed when the children were
ages three and five. The parent interviews provided information on attitudes, relationships,
parenting behavior, demographic characteristics, health (mental and physical), economic and
employment status, neighborhood characteristics, and public welfare program participation. The
in-home interview collected information on childrens 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?27
A 2007 report that examined data pertaining to the surveyed children at age five found that 16%
of participant mothers were married to the father at the time of the five-year interview. Despite
not marrying, about 40% of the parents were still romantically involved at the five-year interview.
In cases where the couple were no longer romantically involved, 43% of the fathers had seen their
children in the month previous to the interview. According to the report:
Fatherhood programs, such as education, training, support services, and content
addressing issues of shared parenting, may also be appropriate for many new unmarried
fathers. Engaging parents in responsible fatherhood programs (and weaving these
programs into marriage promotion curriculums) early in their childs life may also help
new fathers develop important parenting skills crucial to their childs healthy
development. These programs may help fathers establish and maintain positive
26
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is a joint effort by Princeton Universitys Center for Research on
Child Wellbeing (CRCW) and Center for Health and Wellbeing, and Columbia Universitys Social Indicators Survey
Center and National Center for Children and Families (NCCF).
27
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.
connections with their child and encourage their active participation in raising their
child.28
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing in Middle Childhood Study received a $17 million
grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the
Department of Health and Human Services to field a nine-year follow-up. The purpose of this
project was to combine the core telephone surveys, in-home study, and teacher surveys into one
larger project. Data collection began in 2007 and continued through the spring of 2010.29 Short
summaries, based on data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, highlight recent
research findings and suggest policy implications on issues related to child well-being and the
social and economic circumstances faced by unwed parents.30
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Responsible

Fatherhood Programs
To further the national child support programs mission and goals, the federal Office of Child
Support Enforcement (OCSE) operates a number of competitive grant programs that provide
federal funds for research and demonstration programs and special projects of regional and
national significance for operating state child support programs.
In FY1999, OCSE used its grant-making authority under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act
to provide $2.0 million for Responsible Fatherhood demonstration programs. The programs
operated in eight states from October 1998 through December 2000. The following eight states
received Section 1115 grants or waivers from OCSE/Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) to implement and test responsible fatherhood programs: California, Colorado, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington, and Wisconsin. These projects attempted
to improve the employment and earnings of underemployed and unemployed noncustodial
parents, and to motivate them to become more financially and emotionally involved in the lives of
their children. Although the projects shared common goals, they varied with respect to service
components and service delivery. OCSE also provided about $500,000 for an evaluation of the
demonstration projects.
An outcome report on the programs found that (1) low-income noncustodial fathers are a difficult
population to recruit and serve; (2) many of the participants found jobs with the programs help,
but they were low-paying jobs and relatively few of the participants were able to increase
earnings enough to meet their financial needs and those of their children; (3) child access
problems were hard to define and resolve, and mediation should be used more extensively; (4)
child support guidelines result in orders for low-income noncustodial parents that are
unrealistically high; (5) CSE agencies should collaborate with fatherhood programs and pursue
routine enforcement activities, as well as adopt policies and incentives that are responsive to lowincome fathers; and (6) criminal history was the norm rather than the exception among the
program participants, many participants faced ongoing alcohol and substance abuse problems,
28
Fragile Families Research Brief, June 2007, Number 39. Parents Relationship Status Five Years After a NonMarital Birth. Princeton University and Columbia University.
29
For more information on the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, see
http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/about.asp.
30
See the following webpage for more information: http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/briefs2.asp.
10
many did not have reliable transportation, and many lacked a court-ordered visitation
arrangement.31
The outcome report also found that employment rates and earnings increased significantly,
especially for noncustodial parents who were previously unemployed. In addition, child support
compliance rates increased significantly, especially for those who had not been paying previously.
Moreover, the report found that 27% of the fathers reported seeing their children more often after
completion of the program.
National Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration

(CSPED)
In FY2012, OCSE used its grant-making authority under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act
to establish the National Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration
(CSPED). Eight state CSE programs were selected through a competitive grant process to
participate in the five-year demonstration from October 2012 to September 2017. The eight states
are California, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. The
purpose of the demonstrations is to increase the reliable payment of child support by noncustodial
parents who are willing but unable to pay. The demonstrations are to test the efficacy of CSE
agency-led employment strategies.
The first year was a planning year. In October 2013, sites began enrollment and random
assignment, which runs through September 2016. During the final year, grantees are expected to
continue to serve noncustodial parents as the demonstration winds down. Each grantee will
receive $775,000 in 1115 demonstration funds over five years. Once Federal Financial
Participation (FFP) is added, the total amount of funding available to each grantee over five years
is $2.3 million. The University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty and Mathematica
Policy Research are conducting the evaluation of CSPED.32
Under the demonstration, each grantee is trying to recruit 1,500 eligible noncustodial parents into
CSPED. Half of the enrollees will be randomly assigned to receive CSPED services; half will be
assigned to a control group and will not receive the extra services. CSE agency leadership is a
defining characteristic of CSPED. OCSE required CSPED grantees to be child support agencies,
serving as fiscal agents for the grants and managing day-to-day operations. Each site was required
to offer four core services: enhanced child support services, employment assistance, parenting
education delivered in a peer support format, and case management. The CSE agency was
expected to partner with community service providers for employment and parenting services;
case management could be provided by child support or a partner agency. Grantees were also
required to work with domestic violence consultants to develop a domestic violence plan. While
OCSE provided grantees with guidance on design features and core services, it allowed the
grantees to align their efforts with preexisting policies, procedures, and the local social service
context.33
31
Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes, and Lanae Davis, with Jane Venohr, David Price, and Tracy Griffith, OCSE
Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and Program Outcomes (Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy
Studies (HHS Contract No. 100-98-0015), September 2003).
32
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, The National Child Support
Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED), Fact Sheet #1, March 2015. (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/
default/files/programs/css/csped_fact_sheet_1_march_2015.pdf).
33
Ibid.
11
According to the initial implementation report, among the early lessons learned was the need to
(1) deploy child support workers who support CSPEDs goals to identify and recruit participants;
(2) develop services that take into account the challenges faced by the target population; (3)
design services to promote sustained participant engagement; and (4) invest in strong partnerships
and communication systems.34
According to the evaluators, a final implementation report will examine the full implementation
period and provide a more comprehensive assessment of the types of services participants
received. A final report will examine CSPEDs impacts on participants outcomes and include a
benefit-cost analysis.
Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Strengthening

Grants for Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners
An HHS-sponsored evaluation of responsible fatherhood programs, called the National
Evaluation of the Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Strengthening Grants for
Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners (MFS-IP), began in 2006. MFS-IP
grantees included government (state, local, and tribal) and private (community- and faith-based)
organizations. With a funding level of up to $500,000 per year for five years, the programs
implemented under the MFS-IP priority area were designed to promote and sustain healthy
marriages and strengthen families affected by incarceration.35
The Evaluation of MFS-IP is part of the HHS Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
initiative to support healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. Thirteen grantees in 12
different states have received five-year grants from the Office of Family Assistance of ACF to
implement multiple activities to support and sustain marriages and families of fathers during and
after incarceration. Grantees may also provide support for reentering the family and community
from prison, parenting support including visitation during incarceration, and education and
employment services during and after incarceration. To evaluate the overall effectiveness of the
13 MFS-IP grantees, the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) awarded a
contract to RTI to conduct an implementation evaluation as well as a multi-site, longitudinal,
impact evaluation of selected grantees.36 The evaluation was a multiyear (quasi-experimental)
study that was conducted from 2006 through 2014.
According to an HHS Research Brief:
The implementation experiences of the MFS-IP grantees can inform future efforts to
build healthy relationship skills among families affected by incarceration. While
incarcerated, many individuals are interested in improving themselves and their
relationships with their partners, children, and other family members. Although not all
incarcerated persons are married or in intimate relationships, healthy relationship skills
34
Diane Paulsell, Jennifer L. Noyes, Rebekah Selekman, Lisa Klein Vogel, Samina Sattar, Benjamin Nerad, Daniel R.
Meyer, and Robert Wood, Helping Noncustodial Parents Support Their Children: Early Implementation Findings from
the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED) Evaluation Interim Report September
2015, pp.xi-xii, (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/cspedinterimpl2015.pdf).
35
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood InitiativeFurther
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.
36
See the following webpage for additional information: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/MFS-IP/index.shtml.
12
broadly apply to many types of interpersonal relationships. As observed by several

grantees, relationships such as parent-child, correctional officer-inmate, inmate-inmate,
and employer-employee could be improved by healthy relationship skills training.
The impact study component of the MFS-IP evaluation, concluding in 2015, will
determine the effectiveness of relationship education and other MFS-IP program
components in strengthening relationship quality and stability and facilitating successful
community reentry. Research suggests that healthy relationships contribute to reentry
success, yet little is known about how to improve relationship quality for couples affected
by incarceration. Relationship education that builds healthy relationship skills could play
an important role in relationship quality throughout incarceration and during the critical
reentry period. Even for lengthy periods of incarceration, communication and conflict
resolution skills could result in more supportive relationships, improved co-parenting,
and increased familial contactall of which could be beneficial upon the individuals
eventual release.37
A final report on the impact of the program is expected in 2016.
Other Evaluations
The Obama Administration supports evidence-based programs as a way to use limited resources
more effectively. The 201138 application announcement for responsible fatherhood programs (in
accordance with P.L. 111-291) indicated that as a condition of acceptance of a responsible
fatherhood award, grantees are required to participate fully in HHS-sponsored evaluations. HHS
is investing resources in multiple federal evaluations to document successes, challenges, and
lessons from responsible fatherhood programs that will provide useful information to program
operators and policymakers. The 2011 application announcement for responsible fatherhood
programs required that grantees operate comprehensive responsible fatherhood programs that
integrate robust economic stability services, healthy marriage activities, and activities designed to
foster responsible parenting.39
Thus, even though the emphasis of the Obama Administration was on more robust programs that
could demonstrate effectiveness, the 2011 application announcement indicated that preference
was to be given to grantees that operated DRA responsible fatherhood programs. According to
HHS, in September 2011, 60 grantees were awarded responsible fatherhood grants pursuant to
P.L. 111-291.40 The grants were three-year grants, scheduled to run through September 2014.41
37
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
ASPE Research Brief, Strategies for Building Healthy Relationship Skills Among Couples Affected by Incarceration, by
Christine Lindquist, Tasseli McKay, and Anupa Bir of RTI International, March 2012, p. 12.
38
The grant awards were effective beginning October 2011 and are scheduled to run for three consecutive years up
through September 2014. They were made for a three-year project period; funding for years 2 through 3 is not
competitive and depends upon satisfactory performance, availability of funds, and the best interest of the government.
39
Assistance, Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood Grants, June 28, 2011, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/foa/view/
HHS-2011-ACF-OFA-FK-0194. Also see Virginia Knox, Philip A. Cowan, Carolyn Pape Cowan, and Elana Bildner,
Policies That Strengthen Fatherhood and Family Relationships: What Do We Know and What Do We Need to
Know? MDRC, 2009.
40
Note that in September 2011, an additional 61 grantees were awarded healthy marriage promotion grants pursuant to
P.L. 111-291.
41
For information on process results from four of these Responsible Fatherhood programs, see Mathematica Policy
Research, Parents and Children Together: Design and Implementation of Responsible Fatherhood Programs, by
Heather Zaveri, Scott Baumgartner, Robin Dion, and Liz Clary, September 2015. Also see Urban Institute, Early
Implementation Findings from Responsible Fatherhood Reentry Projects, by Jocelyn Fontaine, Shelli Rossman, and
(continued...)
13
These grants were extended for an additional year in the form of non-competitive continuations
awards.42
According to a 2012 report that provides a review of the responsible fatherhood program and
policy arena:
At the state and local level, although awareness of the importance of evaluation appears
to be high, it does not appear that programs have reached the point of being able to
conduct scientifically rigorous evaluations. Moving forward, the field will need to ensure
that agencies are equipped with the proper knowledge and tools for conducting
meaningful evaluations, including appropriate measures to provide an accurate
representation of program outcomes and impacts. 43
In the last several years there has been a spate of responsible fatherhood research and evaluations,
some of which are using an experimental design model. The outcomes and findings are expected
to provide necessary information on the types of programs and strategies that are most effective
in helping noncustodial parents, particularly fathers, better connect with their children.44
The 44 most recently awarded responsible fatherhood grants (mentioned earlier), which are
scheduled to run through FY2020, have included a new emphasis on key short- and long-term
outcomes intended to enhance evaluation and strengthen program design.45 According to the
Office of Family Assistance (Administration for Children and Families (ACF), HHS), it is
expected that the new responsible fatherhood programs (and their evaluations) will increase the
understanding of policymakers and others of what works and why.46
Issues
In the late 1990s when interest in federally funding responsible fatherhood programs first gained
national attention, some womens rights groups, such as the National Womens Law Center
(NWLC) and the National Organization for Women (NOW), were concerned that an emphasis on
the importance of fathers could lead to undervaluing single-parent families maintained by
mothers; that services for fathers might be at the expense of services for mothers; and that the
pro-fatherhood discourse could give fathers rights groups more leverage in challenging child
custody, child support, and visitation arrangements. Although that underlying tension has not
disappeared completely, then and now, it was thought that (in order to be productive and nondivisive) the policy debate on responsible fatherhood initiatives had to be based on the view that
the welfare of fathers, mothers, and children are intertwined and interdependent.47
(...continued)
Lindsey Cramer, with Hannah Dodd, Helen Ho, Jeremy Levy, and David McClure, January 2015.
42
For additional information, see the following webpagehttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ofa/
hmrf_ttcw_continuationfaqs.pdf.
43
Serena Klempin and Dr. Ronald Mincy, Tossed on a Sea of Change: A Status Update on the Responsible Fatherhood
Field, Columbia University, Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being, September 25, 2012, p.
10.
44
For additional information, see the following webpagehttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/
es_fatherhood_ongoing_research_program_evaluation_efforts.pdf.
45
Assistance, New Pathways for Fathers and Families, Funding Opportunity Announcement, HHS-2015-ACF-OFA-FK0993, July 7, 2015, p.4 of 70 (https://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/foa/files/HHS-2015-ACF-OFA-FK-0993_0.pdf).
46
See the following webpagehttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/blog/2015/10/marriage-and-fatherhood-grants-released.
47
William J. Doherty, Edward F. Kouneski, and Martha Farrell Erickson, Responsible Fathering: An Overview and
(continued...)
14
Many issues are associated with the federal governments support of fatherhood initiatives. A few
examples are: Is the goal of federal policy to promote and support the involvement of fathers in
their childrens lives regardless of the fathers relationship with the childrens 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?48
The discussion below examines three issues that will likely impact the success of congressional
fatherhood initiatives. The first deals with the role of the CSE agency in responsible fatherhood
programs. The CSE program has the potential to impact more children and for longer periods of
time than most other federal programs. In many cases, the CSE program may interact with
parents and children for 18 years and, in some cases for up to 30 years if the noncustodial parent
owes past-due child support. Some analysts contend that since many noncustodial parents have a
negative view of and/or contentious relationship with the CSE program, the use of the CSE
program to recruit fathers does not bode well for the success of such programs. Currently, most
federally funded responsible fatherhood programs are provided through competitive grants to
community organizations and other groups that have experience in working with low-income
men.
The second issue examines father involvement in the context of the fathers relationship with the
childs 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.
The third issue examines the importance of employment programs and job supports for
noncustodial parents. The third issue acknowledges that economic pressures and instability, often
because of unemployment or low wages, frequently contribute to nonpayment of child support
and dysfunctional relationships.
CSE System and Noncustodial Parents Often at Odds

During the period from FY1978 to FY2014, child support payments collected by the CSE
agencies increased from $1 billion to $28.2 billion. Moreover, the program has made significant
improvements in other program measures as well, such as the number of parents located,
paternities established, and child support orders established. Advocates of the CSE program say
that this dramatic program performance is aside from the indirect and intangible benefits of the
program, such as increased personal responsibility and welfare cost-avoidance. Critics of the CSE
program contend that even with an unprecedented array of big brother enforcement tools such
as license (professional, drivers, recreational) and passport revocation; seizure of banking
accounts, retirement funds, and lottery winnings; and automatic income withholding from pay
(...continued)
Conceptual FrameworkFinal Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies (HHS-100-93-0012),
September 1996). See also, comments of the NWLC on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Flexibility, Efficiency,
and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs, published November 17, 2014 (Vol. 79 FR No. 221
68548), January 16, 2015http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/
nwlc_child_support_comments_1_16_15_acf.pdf.
48
For additional information, see Maria Cancian, Daniel R. Meyer, and Eunhee Han, Child Support: Responsible
Fatherhood and the Quid Pro Quo, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 635, no.
140, 2011.
15
checks, the program still collects only 20% of child support obligations for which it has
responsibility49 and collects payments for only 60% of its caseload.
Although the CSE program has historically been the policy answer to the problem of father
absence, because its focus until recently was exclusively on financial support, it has had the
practical effect of alienating many low-income fathers who are unable to meet their child support
obligations. Some policy analysts maintain that fathers are, in effect, devalued when their role in
their childrens lives is based solely on their cash contributions. They argue that public policies
are needed to support the fathers role as nurturer, disciplinarian, mentor, and moral instructor.50
Information obtained from noncustodial fathers for various surveys and studies consistently tells
the same story.51 Noncustodial fathers generally indicate that they (1) want more access to their
children, (2) need to learn more relationship skills so they can co-parent their children, and (3)
need help finding and maintaining employment.52
Moreover, noncustodial parents, especially low-income fathers, prefer informal child support
agreements between themselves and the childs mother wherein they contribute cash support
when they can and provide noncash aid such as taking care of the children from time to time and
buying food, clothing, presents, etc., as often as they can. Many noncustodial fathers maintain
that the CSE system is dismissive of their financial condition and continues to pursue child
support payments (current support as well as arrearages) even when it knows that many of them
can barely support themselves.53 They argue that for welfare families, the CSE program generally
does not improve their childs 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 childs 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.54
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
49
This percentage accounts for arrearages (past-due child support). If child support arrearages are not taken into
account the percentage is 64%. In FY2014, $148.6 billion in child support obligations ($33.8 billion in current support
and $114.8 billion in past-due support) was owed to families receiving CSE services, but only $29.3 billion was paid
($21.7 billion in current support and $7.6 billion in past-due support).
50
Wade F. Horn and Isabel V. Sawhill, Making Room for Daddy: Fathers, Marriage, and Welfare Reform, Brookings
Institution Working Paper (Washington, DC, April 26, 2001), p. 4.
51
Mathematica Policy Research,In Their Own Voices: The Hopes and Struggles of Responsible Fatherhood Program
Participants in the Parents and Children Together Evaluation, by Pamela Holcomb, Kathryn Edin, Jeffrey Max, Alford
Young, Jr., Angela Valdovinos DAngelo, Daniel Friend, Elizabeth Clary, and Waldo E. Johnson, June 2015.
52
Ibid, pp. 99-100.
53
Ronald B. Mincy, Jethwani, M., and Klempin, S., Failing our Fathers: Confronting the Crisis of Economically
Vulnerable Nonresident Fathers. New York: Oxford University Press, January 2015.
54
Maureen Waller and Robert Plotnick, A Failed Relationship? Low-Income Families and the Child Support
Enforcement System, Focus (University of Wisconsin-Madison. Institute for Research on Poverty), vol. 21, no. 1
(spring 2000), pp. 12-17. See also Family Ties: Improving Paternity Establishment Practices and Procedures for LowIncome Mothers, Fathers and Children (Washington, DC: National Womens Law Center and Center on Fathers,
Families, and Public Policy, 2000), pp. 9-11. Also see Fragile Families Research Brief 15 (Princeton University:
Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Child Support Enforcement and Fragile Families, April
2003.
16
responsibility to have (or build) a loving relationship with their children.55 If the CSE program
continues to be the entrance to fatherhood programs (even in a recruitment capacity), most
observers contend that the fact that the CSE program has not been effective in gaining the
cooperation and trust of many noncustodial parents must be acknowledged and addressed.
Several analysts suggest that to be successful, fatherhood programs may need to operate
independently of the formal CSE system.
Others assert that more than any other agency of state government, the CSE program has the
responsibility and is in the position to reach out to fathers who need supportive services. They
point out that CSE agencies are already involved in forging relationships with fathers through
partnerships with community-based organizations. They also note that CSE agencies provide a
natural link to coordinate with TANF agencies to help families achieve self-sufficiency.56
Noncustodial Father Involvement vs. Promotion of Marriage vs.

Maintenance of Fragile Families
The first finding included in the 1996 welfare reform law is that marriage is the foundation of a
successful society. The second finding is that marriage is an essential institution of a successful
society that promotes the interests of children.57 However, some child welfare advocates argue
that marriage is not necessarily the best alternative for all women and their children. It is
generally agreed that single-parent families are a better alternative for children than living with an
abusive father. Many observers caution that government must be careful about supporting
programs that provide cash incentives to induce people to marry or that coerce people into
marrying. They note the problems associated with child-bride marriages and the short-term and
often unhappy nature of the so-called shotgun marriage. Others respond that many long-lasting
marriages were based on financial alliances (e.g., to increase economic status, family wealth,
status in the community, etc.). They also point out that most government programs are sensitive to
the issues of domestic violence and include supports to prevent or end such actions.
Many young children live with both of their parents who are not married but who are cohabiting.
Noting this, some analysts argue that so called 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.58 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
55
Waller and Plotnick, A Failed Relationship? Low-Income Families and the Child Support Enforcement System,
Focus (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty), vol. 21, no. 1 (spring 2000), pp. 12-17.
56
National Child Support Enforcement Association, Resolution on Fatherhood Initiatives, adopted by the NCSEA
Board of Directors on July 29, 2000, http://www.ncsea.org/files/2000_fatherhood_resol-final.pdf.
57
The majority of pre-TANF evaluations of welfare initiatives that examined family formation decisions found little, if
any, impact of state policies on decisions to marry. One exception was an evaluation of the Minnesota Family
Investment Program (MFIP). In this program, compared to those who were subject to the AFDC requirements, more
single-parent participants subject to new policies under MFIP got married and fewer of the two-parent participants had
divorced within three years after the program began.
58
See Is Marriage a Viable Objective for Fragile Families? Fragile Families Research Brief 9 (Princeton University:
Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, July 2002).
17
some children in the household have a stepparent if all the children are not from the same union.
Similarly, promoting fragile families could also result in supporting situations where a biological
parent is absent if all of the children in the household are not all from the same union.
Some pro-marriage analysts point out that about 65% of children born to cohabiting parents will
see their parents separate before they reach age 12, compared to about 24% of those born to
married parents.59
Some observers note that even with supports it is unlikely that fragile families (unmarried
couple) will remain together as long as married families. Some observers contend that skills such
as how to choose a good mate and how to keep a relationship going should be part of responsible
fatherhood programs. 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 childrens lives, regardless of the marital status of the parents. As mentioned
earlier, the TANF law states that the second purpose of the block grant is to end the dependence
of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage. The
fourth purpose of the TANF block grant is to encourage the formation and maintenance of twoparent families. There was some discussion about whether the fourth purpose means marriedcouple families or just two parents who are involved in their childrens lives, regardless of
whether they are married or even living together. In late 1999, the Clinton Administration issued
A Guide on Funding for Children and Families through the TANF program, which broadly
interpreted two-parent families to mean not only married-couple families, but also never-married,
separated, and divorced parents, whether living together or not. Thus, many states classify their
fatherhood programs and programs that encourage visitation by noncustodial parents under the
rubric of fulfilling the purposes of the TANF program.60
In addition, it should be noted that some research indicates that there may be a racial component
in the marriage promotion versus fatherhood involvement debate. In 2011, 72.3% of black births
were to unmarried women, whereas only 29.1% of white births were to unmarried women. Given
this demographic reality of black and white families in the United States, the authors of the
study61 maintained that proposals that earmark five times as much money for marriage promotion
as for responsible fatherhood promotion62 seemed racially insensitive. (Readers should note
that P.L. 109-171 funded marriage promotion grants at twice the amount of responsible
fatherhood grants, i.e., $100 million per year versus $50 million per year for the five fiscal years
59
David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know
about Cohabitation before Marriage, A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research, Second Edition, 2002. See also
the Institute for American Values and the National Marriage Project, the State of Our UnionMarriage in America
2011, When Baby Makes Three: How Parenthood Makes Life Meaningful and How Marriage Makes Parenthood
Bearable, by Brad Wilcox & Elizabeth Marquardt, December 8, 2011, p. 11.
60
Wade Horn, Wedding Bell Blues: Marriage and Welfare Reform, Brookings Review, summer 2001, pp. 40-41.
61
Ronald B. Mincy and Chien-Chung Huang, The M Word: The Rise and Fall of Interracial Coalitions on Fathers and
Welfare Reform. Bowling Green State University Working Paper 02-7 (February 25, 2002), pp. 1-5, 32.
62
H.R. 4737, as passed by the House in the 107th Congress, authorized $100 million annually for five years for
competitive matching grants that require a dollar-for-dollar match for marriage promotion activities, resulting in total
funding of $200 million annually for five years. Further, an additional $100 million per year for five years was
authorized for research and demonstration grants and technical assistance related to the healthy marriage promotion
activities. In contrast, H.R. 4737 (107th Congress) authorized $20 million annually for five years for responsible
fatherhood grants.
18
FY2006-FY2010.)63 Pursuant to P.L. 111-291, beginning in FY2011, the funding for responsible
fatherhood grants was made equal to that of marriage promotion grants, with each grant program
provided $75 million per year.
Work-Oriented Strategies for Noncustodial Parents

As mentioned earlier, Activities to foster economic stability are a part of the purpose of
responsible fatherhood programs. Federal law lists some examples of activities that foster
economic stability, namely: job search, job training, subsidized employment, job retention, job
enhancement, education including career-advancing education; coordination with existing
employment services; and referrals to local employment training initiatives.64
It is generally agreed that many low-income fathers, like low-income mothers, lack the education
and training they need to get jobs that pay enough to sustain them and their families. The 1996
welfare reform law placed work requirements on TANF recipients, mainly custodial mothers. It
also required states as part of their collection tools to require 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.65
According to OCSE:
Stable child support collections depend on the economic stability of the noncustodial
parent. In fact, over 70 percent of child support collections are made through wage
withholding by employers. So while the child support program works well for those
parents who have steady incomes through regular employment or other means, it has
been less effective for the 20 to 30 percent of noncustodial parents who have a limited
ability to pay child support because of their limited earnings. For example, 70 percent of
unpaid child support debt is owed by parents with no or low reported earnings. Many
poor noncustodial parents, however, have little or no connection to the formal labor
market and therefore cannot pay consistent support. Traditional enforcement tools often
prove ineffective in getting unemployed noncustodial parents to pay child support. In
most cases, offering job services is a more effective approach for increasing the ability of
unemployed noncustodial parents to get and keep a job and to pay child support on a
regular basis, while holding parents accountable for supporting their children. 66
As noted in the earlier section on evaluations, many of the evaluations with impact analysis
indicated that responsible fatherhood programs that included work-oriented strategies, showed a
significant increase in child support payments. One of the often heard refrains of noncustodial
63
In contrast, S. 1309 and H.R. 2979, which were introduced in the 111th Congress, would have equalized funding in
the healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs; both programs would have been funded at $100 million per
year for specific years.
64
Section 403(a)(2)(C)(ii)(III) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)(C)(ii)(III)].
65
This enforcement tool, which was mandated by the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), reflected Congresss
acknowledgement that many noncustodial parents lack the education and skills necessary to obtain a job. The purpose
of the CSE work-activities provision 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. See Urban Institute, Reaffirming the Work Requirement for Noncustodial Parents as
Part of TANF Reauthorization, by Elaine Sorensen, December 2011.
66
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement (Administration for Children
and Families) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),
Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs, Federal Register, vol. 79, no. 221,
November 17, 2014, pp. 68557-68558.
19
fathers is that they need help obtaining jobs. According to a recent report that summarizes
information gained from in-depth interviews with participants of responsible fatherhood
programs:
While fathers generally provided positive feedback about the job readiness and job search
skills they obtained through the RF programs, the employment challenges these men
typically face are significant. Most were still struggling to find steady employment, earn
enough to make ends meet, and meet their child support obligations. Although these
fathers faced a myriad of barriers to gaining and maintaining employment, the most
commonly cited obstacle was fathers past incarceration and criminal records. These
findings suggest that the economic stability component of RF programs may need to be
strengthened to improve the chances that fathers will be successful at securing good jobs
with steady and adequate wages. Any employment approach should include assistance in
expunging or sealing criminal records when possible. 67
As of February 2014, 30 states and the District of Columbia were operating 77 work-oriented
programs for noncustodial parents with active CSE agency involvement. Although most of the
programs were not statewide, some were. Georgia, Maryland, and North Dakota were operating
statewide programs. Many other states are operating programs in multiple counties. OCSE
estimates that roughly 30,000 noncustodial parents were served by these programs in 2013.68 In
many of these states, work-oriented programs are available to all noncustodial parents who are
unable to make their child support payments in a timely manner, not just those noncustodial
parents who have a child enrolled in the TANF program.
In November 2014, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was released that proposed
revisions to CSE program operations and enforcement procedures.69 Among the proposed
revisions was a proposal to provide the CSE program with the ability to directly fund job services
for noncustodial parents at the regular CSE matching rate (66%). Advocates commented that
given that employment services have been seriously underfunded for many years, allowing states
to be reimbursed at an open-ended 66% federal matching rate could make a significant difference
for noncustodial parents who are unable to comply with their child support obligations/orders
because of unemployment or low wages. Although there are many supporters of the idea of
providing CSE federal matching funds for work-oriented programs for noncustodial parents, there
is concern among both supporters and opponents of the provision that the Obama Administration
may have overstepped its authority (i.e., they say the Administration is legislating through its
regulations). On June 8, 2015, Senators Hatch and Cornyn introduced S. 1525, a bill that specifies
that HHS may not take any action to finalize, implement, enforce, or otherwise give effect to the
proposed rule entitled Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement
Programs or any proposal set forth in the proposed rule. On June 9, 2015, Representatives Ryan
and Boustany introduced an identical companion bill, H.R. 2688. To date, none of the provisions
proposed by the November 17, 2014, NPRM have gone into effect.70
67
Mathematica Policy Research, In Their Own Voices: The Hopes and Struggles of Responsible Fatherhood Program
Participants in the Parents and Children Together Evaluation, by Pamela Holcomb, Kathryn Edin, Jeffrey Max, Alford
Young, Jr., Angela Valdovinos DAngelo, Daniel Friend, Elizabeth Clary, and Waldo E. Johnson, June 2015, p. 100.
68
See the following webpagehttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/work-oriented-programs-fornoncustodial-parents.
69
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement (Administration for Children
and Families) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),
Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs, Federal Register, vol. 79, no. 221,
November 17, 2014.
70
Note that the responsible fatherhood (and healthy marriage) grants that were awarded in October 2015 did not take
(continued...)
20
Current job training and workforce programs generally are not targeted to noncustodial parents,
and only some focus on low-income individuals. Some observers note that while the CSE agency
and responsible fatherhood programs are making some inroads, a lot more needs to be done on a
much broader scale. They contend that in these times of federal and state budget constraints, the
TANF program is an untapped resource.71 They maintain that states should use TANF and MOE
funds to provide work opportunities and work supports for noncustodial parents.
(...continued)
into account the November 2014 NPRM.
71
States can use federal TANF and state Maintenance of Effort (MOE) dollars to meet any of the four goals set out in
the 1996 law: (1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the
homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation,
work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out of wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical
goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance
of two parent families.
21
Appendix A. Temporary Extensions of the Healthy

Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood
Grant Program
Table A-1.Temporary Extensions of the Healthy Marriage Promotion and
Responsible Fatherhood Grants Program
Public Law
Time Period
P.L. 111-242
Oct. 1, 2010-Dec. 3, 2010
P.L. 111-290
Dec. 4, 2010-Dec. 7, 2010
P.L. 111-291
Dec. 8, 2010-Sept. 30, 2011
P.L. 112-35
Oct. 1, 2011-Dec. 31, 2011
P.L. 112-78
Jan. 1, 2012-Feb. 21, 2012
P.L. 112-96
Feb. 22, 2012-Sept. 30, 2012
P.L. 112-175
Oct. 1, 2012-Mar. 27, 2013
P.L. 113-6
Mar. 28, 2013-Sept. 30, 2013
P.L.
113-46a
Oct. 17, 2012-Jan. 15, 2014
P.L. 113-73
Jan. 16, 2014-Jan. 18, 2014
P.L. 113-76
Jan. 19, 2014-Sept. 30, 2014
P.L. 113-164
Oct. 1, 2014-Dec. 11, 2014
P.L. 113-202
Dec. 12, 2014-Dec. 13, 2014
P.L. 113-203
Dec. 14, 2014-Dec. 17, 2014
P.L. 113-235
Dec. 18, 2014-Sept. 30, 2015
P.L. 114-53
Oct. 1, 2015-Dec. 11, 2015
P.L. 114-96
Dec. 12, 2015-Dec. 16, 2015
P.L. 114-100
Dec. 17, 2015-Dec. 22, 2015
P.L. 114-113
Dec. 18, 2015-Sept. 30, 2016
Source: Congressional Research Service.

a. P.L. 113-46 ended a funding gap for the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood grant
program that lasted between Oct. 1, 2013, and Oct. 16, 2013.
22
Appendix B. Legislative History of Federally

Funded Responsible Federal Fatherhood Programs
Beginning with the 106th Congress and with each subsequent Congress, responsible fatherhood
programs have received both presidential and congressional attention.
106th Congress (1999-2000)

For FY2001, Congress appropriated $3 million for a nongovernmental national fatherhood
organization named the National Fatherhood Initiative (P.L. 106-553), as well as an additional
$500,000 for the National Fatherhood Initiative and $500,000 for another non-governmental
organization called the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization (P.L. 106554).
During the 106th Congress, President Clintons FY2001 budget included $255 million for the first
year of a proposed Fathers Work/Families Win initiative to help low-income noncustodial
parents and low-income working families work and support their children. The Fathers
Work/Families Win initiative would have been administered by the Department of Labor (DOL).
The Fathers Work component ($125 million) would have been limited to noncustodial parents
(primarily fathers) and the Families Win component ($130 million) would have been targeted
more generally to low-income families. Neither the House nor Senate FY2001 appropriations bill
(H.R. 4577, 106th Congress) for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies included funding for the Fathers Work/Families Win proposal.
In addition, during the 106th Congress, legislation that included funding for a nationwide
responsible fatherhood grants program was twice passed by the House (but not acted on by the
Senate). H.R. 3073, the proposed Fathers Count Act of 1999, and H.R. 4678, the proposed Child
Support Distribution Act of 2000, would have authorized funding ($140 million over two years in
H.R. 3073 and $140 million over four years in H.R. 4678) to establish a program (usually referred
to as fatherhood initiatives) to make grants to public or private entities for projects designed to
promote marriage, promote successful parenting and the involvement of fathers in the lives of
their children, and help fathers improve their economic status by providing job-related services to
them.
107th Congress (2001-2002)

From the beginning of his presidency, President George W. Bush indicated his support for
responsible fatherhood initiatives. President Bushs FY2002 budget (issued in February 2001,
107th Congress) proposed $64 million in 2002 ($315 million over five years) to strengthen the
role of fathers in the lives of families. This initiative would have provided competitive grants to
faith-based and community organizations that help unemployed or low-income fathers and their
families avoid or leave cash welfare, as well as to programs that promote successful parenting and
strengthen marriage. President Bushs 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 childrens lives, and promote successful parenting and encourage and support healthy
marriages and married fatherhood.
23
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. 409072, S. 2524, and H.R. 4737) that included fatherhood initiatives
were introduced, but none were enacted.
The purposes of the fatherhood programs in the bills introduced generally were the same:
fatherhood programs must be designed to promote marriage through counseling, mentoring, and
other activities; promote successful parenting through counseling, providing information about
good parenting practices including payment of child support, and other activities; and help
noncustodial parents and their families avoid or leave cash welfare by providing work-first
services, job training, subsidized employment, career-advancing education, and other activities.
However, the structure of the fatherhood programs differed.
Although H.R. 4737, amended, was passed by the House on May 16, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-460, Part
1), and reported favorably in the nature of a substitute by the Senate Finance Committee (S.Rept.
107-221) on July 25, 2002, it was not passed by the full Senate.
108th Congress (2003-2004)

President Bushs FY2004 budget proposed $20 million annually (for FY2004-FY2008) for
promotion and support of responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage. The FY2004 budget
proposal also would have gradually increased the annual funding of the CSE access and visitation
grant program from $10 million annually to $20 million annually by FY2007.
President Bushs FY2005 budget proposed $50 million (for FY2005) for 75 competitive grants to
faith-based and community organizations, together with Indian tribes and tribal organizations, to
encourage and help fathers to support their families, avoid welfare, and improve their ability to
manage family business affairs, and to support healthy marriages and married fatherhood.
During the 108th Congress several bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions (S. 5, S.
448, S. 604, S. 657, S. 1443, and S. 2830; H.R. 4 and H.R. 936) were introduced. None of the
bills became law.
On February 13, 2003, the House passed H.R. 4 (108th Congress), a welfare reauthorization bill
(that was essentially identical to H.R. 4737 as passed by the House in 2002) that would have
provided $20 million per year for each of FY2004-FY2008 for a responsible fatherhood grant
program.
On September 10, 2003, the Senate Finance Committee approved its version of H.R. 4 (S.Rept.
108-162), which would have established a $75 million responsible fatherhood program composed
of four components for each of FY2004-FY2008: (1) a $20 million grant program for up to 10
eligible states to conduct demonstration programs; (2) a $30 million grant for eligible entities to
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.
72
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.
24
Although H.R. 4 was debated on the Senate floor during the period March 29-April 1, 2004,
consideration of the bill was not completed when a motion to limit debate on the bill failed to
garner the necessary 60 votes. The Senate did not bring the bill back to the floor before the end of
the session.73
109th Congress (2005-2006)

President Bushs FY2006 budget proposed $40 million (for FY2006) for a responsible fatherhood
competitive grant program.
President Bushs FY2007 budget proposed $100 million for competitive matching grants to states
for marriage promotion. It also included the $150 million for healthy marriage and responsible
fatherhood programs that was included in P.L. 109-171 as part of welfare reauthorization. As
noted in this report, pursuant to P.L. 109-171, $50 million is specifically allocated for responsible
fatherhood programs.
During the 109th Congress several bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were
introduced. A couple of the bills were standalone bills that had been introduced in a previous
Congress (S. 3607 and S. 3803) and some responsible fatherhood provisions were included in
welfare reauthorization bills (H.R. 240/S. 105, S. 6, and S. 667). The Deficit Reduction Act of
2005 (S. 1932), which also included a provision that provided competitive grants for responsible
fatherhood activities, was passed by Congress and enacted into law.74
Among other things, P.L. 109-171 (the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005) reauthorized the TANF
block grant at $16.5 billion annually through FY2010 and included a provision that provided
$150 million in funding for the new Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood
grants program for each of the fiscal years, FY2006 through FY2010. Of the $150 million, up to
$50 million per year in competitive grants was to be provided to states, territories, Indian tribes
and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious
organizations, for responsible fatherhood initiatives.
Under P.L. 109-171, responsible fatherhood funds could be spent on activities to promote
responsible fatherhood through (1) marriage promotion (through counseling, mentoring,
disseminating information about the advantages of marriage and two-parent involvement for
children, etc.), (2) parenting activities (through counseling, mentoring, mediation, disseminating
information about good parenting practices, etc.), (3) fostering economic stability of fathers
(through work first services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, education, etc.), or
(4) contracting with a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to
develop, promote, or distribute a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of
parents in the lives of their children, focusing particularly on responsible fatherhood; and/or to
develop a national clearinghouse to help states and communities in their efforts to promote and
support marriage and responsible fatherhood.
73
During the period from 2002 to 2004, the responsible fatherhood bills that were passed by the House were part of
welfare reauthorization legislation. (The funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block
grant, mandatory child care, and the abstinence education block grantwhich were part of the 1996 welfare reform
legislation (P.L. 104-193) whose funding authority expired on September 30, 2002continued under a number of
temporary extension measures.) Welfare reauthorization legislation was not enacted during this period.
74
On December 19, 2005, the House passed the conference report on S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(H.Rept. 109-362). On December 21, the Senate passed the conference report on S. 1932 with amendments. The
conference report was subsequently passed again by the House on February 1, 2006. On February 8, 2006, President
Bush signed S. 1932 into P.L. 109-171.
25
110th Congress (2007-2008)

President Bushs FY2008 budget included the $150 million for healthy marriage and responsible
fatherhood programs that was included in P.L. 109-171 as part of welfare reauthorization. As
noted, pursuant to P.L. 109-171, $50 million is specifically allocated for responsible fatherhood
programs for each of FY2006-FY2010.
Two bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were introduced in the 110th Congress.
S. 1626 was introduced by Senator Bayh, Senator Obama, and Senator Lincoln, and a House
companion bill, H.R. 3395, was introduced by Representative Danny Davis (et al.). Among other
things, S. 1626/H.R. 3395, the proposed Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of
2007, would have increased funding for the responsible fatherhood grants (authorized by the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, P.L. 109-171) to $100 million per year for each of FY2008FY2010. (The total for the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood grants
would have increased from $150 million to $200 million per year for each of FY2008-FY2010.)
The bills (S. 1626 and H.R. 3395) did not move out of committee.
111th Congress (2009-2010)

President Obama also is a supporter of responsible fatherhood programs. As a Senator, he was a
cosponsor of a responsible fatherhood bill in both the 109th and 110th Congresses. As President, he
has included in each of his budgets proposals to revise and fund responsible fatherhood programs.
The Obama Administrations FY2011 budget included a proposal to redirect funds from the
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Programs ($150 million per year through FY2010;
the responsible fatherhood portion is $50 million per year) to the proposed $500 million
Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund. The proposed Fatherhood, Marriage, and
Families Innovation Fund would have been available for one year (FY2011) to provide three-year
competitive grants to states.75 According to one budget document, The Fatherhood, Marriage,
and Families Innovation Fund will serve as a catalyst for innovative service models that integrate
a variety of service streams. The results from these demonstrations could form the basis for
possible future TANF and CSE program changes at the federal or state level based on a
multidimensional picture of the dynamics of family functioning and material self-sufficiency and
child well-being.76 The Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund proposal was not
passed by either the House or the Senate.
During the 111th Congress, three bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were
introduced. All three of the bills had been introduced in a previous Congress. None of the bills
were passed by Congress.
S. 1309, the proposed Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009, was introduced
on June 19, 2009, by Senators Bayh, Lincoln, and Burris. The House companion bill, H.R. 2979,
was also introduced on June 19 by Representative Danny K. Davis (et al.). The House bill was
referred to as the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009. (These
bills are almost identical to bills that were introduced in the 110th Congress.) The bills would have
amended the TANF title of the Social Security Act (Title IV-A) to (1) increase funding for
responsible fatherhood programs from $50 million per year to $100 million per year (for each of
75
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.
76
Ibid.
26
FY2008-FY2010); (2) expand procedures to address domestic violence; (3) expand activities
promoting responsible fatherhood; (4) provide grants to healthy family partnerships for domestic
violence prevention, for services for families and individuals affected by domestic violence, and
for developing and implementing best practices to prevent domestic violence; and (5) eliminate
the separate TANF work participation rate for two-parent families. The bills would have also
made several changes to the CSE program (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act). It would have
prohibited a state from collecting any amount owed to it by reason of costs it had incurred for the
birth of a child for whom support rights have been assigned. They would have required a state to
make a full distribution of collected child support to the family. They would have conditioned
continued approval of a state plan under Title IV-D on state assessment of its policies with respect
to barriers to employment and financial support of children. The bills also would have directed
the HHS Secretary to award grants to states for an employment demonstration project involving a
court- or state child support agency-supervised program for noncustodial parents so they can pay
child support obligations. In addition, the bills would have directed the Secretary of Labor to
award grants for transitional jobs programs and for public-private career pathways partnerships to
help disadvantaged parents obtain employment.
S. 939, the proposed Protecting Adoption and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2009,
was introduced by Senator Landrieu on April 30, 2009. S. 939 would have required the HHS
Secretary to establish an automated National Putative Father Registry. Among other things, S. 939
would have directed the Secretary to establish a nationwide responsible fatherhood and putative
father registry educational campaign designed to (1) inform men about the National Putative
Father Registry, the advantages of registering with a State Putative Father Registry, and the rights
and responsibilities of putative fathers; and (2) inform women about the National Registry and its
potential role in a pending or planned adoption or a termination of a putative fathers rights. In
addition, it would have required each state that desired to receive such a grant to develop and
implement a state plan for promoting responsible fatherhood and permanency for children.
Pursuant to P.L. 111-291 (the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, enacted December 8, 2010), the
responsible fatherhood program was extended for another year and its funding was increased
from $50 million to $75 million. P.L. 111-291 extended funding for the Title IV-A Healthy
Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grants through FY2011. For FY2011, P.L. 111-291
appropriated $75 million for awarding funds for healthy marriage promotion activities and $75
million for awarding funds for activities promoting responsible fatherhood. The result was that
the Title IV-A Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood programs, which were funded at
$150 million annually77 from FY2006 through FY2010, continued to be funded for an additional
year (FY2011) on an equal basis.78
112th Congress (2011-2012)

The Obama Administrations FY2012 budget proposed continued funding of $150 million to
support Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fatherhood programs for FY2012. These funds
would have been split equally among Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood activities.
77
As mentioned earlier, the healthy marriage grants were funded at about $100 million annually and the responsible
fatherhood grant were funded at $50 million annually.
78
Pursuant to P.L. 111-291, the $75 million in Responsible Fatherhood funds provided for FY2011 could be used for
fatherhood activities intended to promote or sustain marriage, responsible parenting, economic stability, and media
campaigns that reach families with important messages about responsible fatherhood.
27
The Administrations FY2012 budget proposal also would have made changes to the purpose
clause of the CSE program to include access and visitation and other fatherhood involvement
activities. These activities would have become core parts of the CSE program and thereby states
would have been reimbursed by the federal government for expenditures on such activities at an
open-ended 66% matching rate. The budget proposal would have required states to establish
access and visitation responsibilities in all initial child support orders. It would have encouraged
states to undertake activities that support access and visitation, implementing domestic violence
safeguards as a critical component of this new state responsibility. (The estimated cost of the
proposal was $570 million over 10 years.)
The Obama Administrations FY2013 budget proposal was very similar to its FY2012 proposal
with regard to responsible fatherhood programs.
During the 112th Congress, H.R. 2193, the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy
Families Act of 2011, was introduced on June 15, 2011, by Representative Danny Davis (et al.).
Similar to the bill introduced in the 111th Congress, H.R. 2193, among other things, would have
reauthorized and provided $75 million per year for responsible fatherhood programs for each of
the years FY2011 through FY2015.
P.L. 112-78, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (enacted December 23,
2011), provided funding for the Responsible Fatherhood Program (and the Healthy Marriage
Program) through February 29, 2012. Thus, for the first five months of FY2012, the Healthy
Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs were extended at their FY2011 funding
level (i.e., $150 million per year on a pro rata basis, divided equally between the two programs).
P.L. 112-96, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (enacted February 22,
2012), provided funding for the Responsible Fatherhood Program (and the Healthy Marriage
Program) through September 30, 2012 (i.e., through FY2012; at $150 million per year on a pro
rata basis, divided equally between the two programs).
P.L. 112-175 (the government-wide continuing resolution enacted on September 28, 2012)
extended funding for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs (at $150
million per year on a pro rata basis, divided equally between the two programs) through March
2013 (i.e., the first six months of FY2013).
113th Congress (2013-2014)

The Obama Administrations FY2014 budget proposal was very similar to its FY2012 and
FY2013 proposals with regard to responsible fatherhood programs. (However, the FY2013
budget provided $580 million over 10 years to support the increased access and visitation services
while the FY2014 budget provided $448 million over 10 years for such services.)
P.L. 113-6 (the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, enacted on March
26, 2013) extended funding for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs
through September 30, 2013 (at $150 million per year on a pro rata basis, divided equally
between the programs).
P.L. 113-46 (the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, enacted on October 17, 2013) extended
funding for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs through January
15, 2014 (at $150 million per year on a pro rata basis, divided equally between the programs).
28
P.L. 113-76 (the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, enacted on January 17, 2014) funds the
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs through September 30, 2014 (at
$150 million per year, divided equally between the programs).
P.L. 113-164 (the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015, enacted on September 19, 2014)
extended funding for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant programs through
December 11, 2014. P.L. 113-235 (the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act,
2015, enacted on December 16, 2014) provides funding for the Healthy Marriage and
Responsible Fatherhood grant programs through the remainder of FY2015 (i.e., $150 million for
FY2015 divided equally between the programs).
Families Act of 2013, was introduced on June 13, 2013, by Representative Danny Davis (et al.).
Similar to the bill (H.R. 2193) introduced in the 112th Congress, H.R. 2359, among other things,
would have reauthorized and provided $75 million per year for responsible fatherhood programs
for each of the years FY2014 through FY2018.
114th Congress (2015-2016)

The Obama Administrations FY2016 budget proposal is identical to its FY2014 and FY2015
proposals with regard to responsible fatherhood programs (i.e., providing $448 million over 10
years to support increased access and visitation services and integrating those services into the
core CSE program).
P.L. 114-53 (the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016, enacted September 30, 2015) continued
December 11, 2015.
P.L. 114-113 (the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, enacted December 18, 2015) continued
FY2016.
Families Act of 2015, was introduced on July 9, 2015, by Representative Danny Davis (et al.).
Similar to the bill (H.R. 2359) introduced in the 113th Congress, H.R. 3005, among other things,
would reauthorize and provide $75 million per year for responsible fatherhood programs for each
of five fiscal years (FY2016 through FY2020).
Author Contact Information

Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Policy
[email protected], 7-7306
29

Connecting Fathers To Their Children

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Connecting Fathers To Their Children

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fatherhood Initiatives:

Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

What Are Fatherhood Initiatives?

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Responsible fathering means being present in a childs

providing information about the benefits of marriage and two-parent involvement

(2) Activities to promote responsible parenting, such as

counseling, mentoring, and mediation;

(3) Activities to foster economic stability, such as

Section 403(a)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)(C)]

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

parenting educationa course that describes the responsibilities of parents to

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Research and Evaluation

MDRC Parents Fair Share Demonstration Project

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

located in California, Colorado, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York,

See http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/index.shtml and http://www.npcl.org/program/pff.htm.

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Responsible

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

National Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Strengthening

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

broadly apply to many types of interpersonal relationships. As observed by several

A final report on the impact of the program is expected in 2016.

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

CSE System and Noncustodial Parents Often at Odds

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children