Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Congressional research reportFeb 12, 2013
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
(name redacted)
Specialist in Social Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Social Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Social Policy
February 12, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R41431
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Summary
The structure of a family plays an important role in children’s well-being. A contributing factor to
the high rates of child poverty over the long term, and the increase in child poverty during the
period from 2001-2007, was the increasing likelihood of children living in families headed by a
single female. In 2012, about one-third of all children lived in families without their biological
father present. According to some estimates, about 50% of children (who are currently under age
18) will spend or have spent a significant portion of their childhood in a home without their
biological father.
In 2011, the poverty rate for children living in female-headed families (usually headed by a single
mother) was 48%, compared to 11% for children living in married-couple families. Policies
enacted in the mid-1990s focused on moving single mothers from the welfare rolls to work; with
these policies in place and the economic expansion of the late 1990s, child poverty rates fell.
However, these gains in the economic well-being of children were limited and temporary, as child
poverty increased again in the 2000s, even before the onset of the recession that spanned from
December 2007 to June 2009.
An option to improve the well-being of children living in single-mother families is to seek greater
financial and social contributions from fathers, particularly noncustodial fathers. However, the
ability of noncustodial fathers to support their children has been complicated by certain economic
and social trends. Over the past three decades, changes in the labor market have led to less
employment and lower typical wages for men. The wages of men with lower levels of educational
attainment have fallen since the mid-1970s. Criminal justice policies have changed, leading to
increases in the rate of incarceration of men. These trends, while affecting all racial and ethnic
groups, had a disproportionate impact on African American men. The most recent recession has
hit men’s employment hard; and it has hit employment of young, African American men
particularly hard.
Although social science research and analysis acknowledge a father’s influence on the overall
well-being of his children, federal welfare programs have to a large extent minimized or
underplayed the role of fathers in the lives of children. Noncustodial fathers and other men are
largely invisible to these programs as clients or recipients. They become visible only in their role
as family income producers (e.g., payers of child support). Other federal programs and/or systems
that have included many men on their rolls (such as employment and training programs and the
criminal justice system) have not fully addressed the unique needs and circumstances of fathers,
particularly those who do not have custody of their children.
The potential for revisions to the tax code in 2013 raises the issue of whether policies to “make
work pay” for low-wage earners—an important part of the welfare reforms of the 1990s for
custodial parents—could be extended to noncustodial parents. Additional potential policy options
might include examining strategies for reducing child support arrearages; changing the financing
structure of Child Support Enforcement (CSE) access and visitation programs for noncustodial
parents; enhancing or expanding job training and education programs to assist low-income men
and youth, which in turn can help them in providing for their (current or future) families; and
redefining eligibility for certain programs so that disadvantaged young adults can receive more
holistic training and other services that can better prepare them for adulthood.
Congressional Research Service
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Fathers’ Involvement in the Lives of Their Children ....................................................................... 2
Social and Economic Trends............................................................................................................ 3
Child Poverty Rates ................................................................................................................... 4
Living Arrangements of Children .............................................................................................. 5
Challenges of Increasing Involvement of Noncustodial Parents with their Children................ 7
Earnings............................................................................................................................... 8
Employment ........................................................................................................................ 9
The 2007-2009 Recession ................................................................................................. 12
Incarceration ............................................................................................................................ 13
African American Families...................................................................................................... 14
Selected Federal Programs: Barriers Encountered by Noncustodial Fathers and Other
Men ............................................................................................................................................. 18
Economic Assistance Programs ............................................................................................... 18
Cross-Cutting Issues Affecting Economic Assistance Programs ...................................... 20
TANF Cash Assistance ...................................................................................................... 20
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) .................................................................................... 22
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) ....................................................... 23
Family Support ........................................................................................................................ 24
Child Support Enforcement (CSE) .................................................................................... 24
Healthy Marriage Programs .............................................................................................. 32
Responsible Fatherhood Programs .................................................................................... 37
Human Capital Programs ........................................................................................................ 41
One-Stop Delivery System ................................................................................................ 42
WIA State Formula Grant Programs ................................................................................. 42
Reintegration of Ex-Offenders Program ........................................................................... 44
Youth Programs ....................................................................................................................... 44
Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Programs ......................................................................... 45
Select Youth Workforce Programs .................................................................................... 47
Select Education Programs................................................................................................ 51
Federal Policy Options................................................................................................................... 55
Making Work Pay for Noncustodial Parents: EITC for Noncustodial Parents ........................ 55
Revising the SNAP ABAWD Rule .......................................................................................... 57
Child Support Arrearage Reduction Strategies ........................................................................ 58
Federal Matching Funds for CSE Access and Visitation Programs......................................... 60
Job Training, Workforce Support, and Education.................................................................... 62
Job Training and Workforce Programs .............................................................................. 62
Subsidized Employment .................................................................................................... 64
Work Requirements for Noncustodial Parents .................................................................. 65
Education Programs .......................................................................................................... 66
Encouraging States to Serve Noncustodial Parents in TANF .................................................. 67
Increasing the Age for Youth Employment and Training Services .......................................... 68
Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................................................... 69
Congressional Research Service
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Figures
Figure 1. Poverty Rates for Children, by Family Type: 1959 to 2011 ............................................. 5
Figure 2. Percent of all Related Children Under Age 18 Living in Single-Parent, FemaleHeaded Families: 1960 to 2012 .................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Living Arrangements of Children, March 2012 ............................................................... 7
Figure 4. Median Annual Earnings of Men and Women Who Work Full-Time, Full-Year:
1960 to 2011 ................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 5. Average Annual Earnings for Men Aged 18 and Older, by Education Level:
1975 to 2010 ................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 6. Employment Rates for Men and Women: 1948 to 2012 ................................................ 10
Figure 7. Employment Rates for Men by Age: 1948 to 2012 ........................................................ 11
Figure 8. Unemployment Rates for Men and Women: 1948 to 2012 ............................................ 12
Figure 9. Incarceration Rates By Sex: 1929-2010 ......................................................................... 14
Figure 10. Percent of Men Without a High School Diploma, by Race/Ethnicity and Age:
2011 ............................................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 11. Mean Earnings for Men Without a High School Diploma, By Race/Ethnicity:
2010 ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 12. Incarceration Rates by Race in 2010 ............................................................................ 17
Tables
Table 1. Employment Rates in March of Selected Years for Men without a High School
Diploma, by Race/Ethnicity and Age ......................................................................................... 16
Table 2. Earned Income Tax Credits: Maximum Credits and Income Eligibility Amounts
for Filers With and Without Children, 2012 ............................................................................... 22
Table 3. Federal Funding for Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs, FY2012.............................. 47
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 69
Congressional Research Service
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Introduction
The nation’s future depends in large part on its children’s ability to develop into contributing
adult members of society. For that reason, and for what many would consider a society’s moral
obligation to care for the young and vulnerable, Congress and the nation take an interest in
promoting children’s well-being. It can be argued that children are the nation’s most valuable
resource, constituting the next generation of workers, taxpayers, and parents. Their well-being
and ability to develop into productive adults in an increasingly competitive global economy is
influenced by a variety of factors, and public policies can affect these factors to varying degrees.
Parents and family life exert a primary influence on children’s well-being throughout their
development and into adulthood. The family is the place where children develop their first
attachments to other people—usually to their parent(s) as their primary care giver(s). Early
attachments have been shown to have consistent and enduring influences on children’s social and
emotional development. The family is also the economic unit that obtains and manages the
resources that meet a child’s basic needs, while also playing a significant role in stimulating the
child’s cognitive, social, and emotional development.
The structure of a family plays an important role in children’s well-being. Divorce, the loss of a
parent due to death or incarceration, or being born to a single parent can change or create a
family’s composition and character and ultimately affect children’s well-being. According to
some estimates, about 50% of children under age 18 will spend or have spent a significant portion
of their childhood in a home without their biological fathers.1 In 2011, 23.6% of the 74.6 million
U.S. children (under age 18) were living in families headed by their mothers, with their fathers
not present.2 A broad array of social science research and analysis3 indicates that although most
children who grow up in single-parent families become well-adjusted, productive adults, children
raised in mother-only families (or with a mother and stepfather)4 are more likely than children
raised with both biological parents to do poorly in school,5 have emotional and behavioral
problems,6 become teenage parents,7 and have poverty-level incomes.8
1
David Popenoe, “A World Without Fathers (consequences of children living without fathers),” The Wilson Quarterly,
March 22, 1996. See also Wendy Sigle-Rushton and Sara McLanahan, “Father Absence and Child Well-Being: A
Critical Review,” Princeton University, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing (Working Paper #02-20), November
2002. (Hereinafter, Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan, “Father Absence and Child Well-Being: A Critical Review.”)
Note: Children living with a single mother is the most common living arrangement for those who live without their
biological fathers. However, some children live with stepfathers or adoptive fathers, as well as with other male relatives
such as grandfathers.
2
Based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2011, Table C-3,
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2011.html.
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.
4
In most of the studies cited in the child well-being references in this report, the presence of a stepfather did not lessen
the negative effect of father absence on children.
5
Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan, “Father Absence and Child Well-Being: A Critical Review,” pp. 8-9.
6
Ibid, pp. 10-12.
7
Ibid, pp. 12-13.
8
Ibid, pp. 14-15.
Congressional Research Service
1
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
This report displays and discusses some of the data related to the poverty of children and their
living arrangements and data on male employment and earnings, educational attainment, and
incarceration. It then provides information on federal programs that could play a greater role in
addressing poverty of children through the fathers of these children (nearly all noncustodial
parents are fathers). These programs provide economic assistance, family support, and job
training and employment to eligible participants. The report also examines federal programs that
have the purposes of preventing teen pregnancy and helping disadvantaged youth obtain the skills
and support they need to make the transition to adulthood. The underlying premise of these
programs generally is that the aid or services received from these programs by low-income9
noncustodial fathers can help them in meeting their financial commitments to their children (or
future children) and providing emotional support to their children. The report concludes by
presenting several public policy approaches proposed by the policy community that might
improve the lives of low-income noncustodial fathers and their children. For example, social
policy could play a role by expanding economic assistance programs to noncustodial fathers, such
as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP), and implementing strategies to prevent the build-up of unpaid child support through
early intervention.
Fathers’ Involvement in the Lives of Their Children
There is widespread agreement that the negative outcomes associated with living in a singleparent family compared to living with both biological parents are primarily due to the low income
of the family and the poor quality of the parent-child relationships. Single-parent families are
more likely to be poor than two-parent families, especially if the lone parent is the mother. Public
policy research and programs have generally focused on children and their single mothers,
especially those on the lower end of the income and asset continuum, because these families tend
to be impoverished, which generally translates into poorer outcomes and less well-being for
children. During the welfare reform era, public policy initiatives were enacted to require lowincome mothers to participate in the workforce, and to provide work supports for them. Welfareto-work efforts might have succeeded in their primary goals of reducing the welfare rolls and
spurring more work among single mothers. However, these families often remained poor; the
work efforts of the single mother alone often failed to increase incomes as their low wages merely
replaced low welfare benefits.10 Since reaching an all-time low in 1969, the poverty rate for
children generally has grown. The increase in the number of single-parent families, which tend to
have a high incidence of poverty, has contributed to this overall higher rate.
Another way to address poverty in single-parent families and improve child well-being is through
the fathers of these children (nearly all noncustodial parents are fathers). Even though there is
general agreement among policymakers and the public regarding the importance of the father in
improving the well-being of his children, federal welfare programs have to a large extent
minimized or underplayed the role of fathers in the lives of children. Moreover, other federal
programs and/or systems that serve or involve men—such as employment and training programs
9
Even though some of the programs discussed in this report serve persons regardless of income status, public policy is
usually focused on helping the more disadvantaged persons (i.e., low-income individuals).
10
See discussion of how those who left the welfare rolls fared in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), Final synthesis reporting of findings of ASPE Leavers Grants, Washington, DC, 2001.
Congressional Research Service
2
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
and the criminal justice system—have not fully addressed the unique needs and circumstances of
fathers, particularly those who do not have custody of their children.
In some cases (of child abuse and/or domestic violence), a father’s involvement with his children
may do more harm than good. However, in most cases, involving fathers in the lives of their
children is generally regarded as a worthy policy goal. A myriad of studies indicate that an active
and nurturing style of fathering is associated with better verbal skills, intellectual functioning, and
academic achievement among adolescents. These studies suggest that fathers who are involved,
nurturing, and playful with their infants have children with higher IQs, as well as better linguistic
and cognitive capacities. Girls with involved, respectful fathers see how they should expect men
to treat them and are less likely to become involved in violent or unhealthy relationships.
According to some research, even from birth, children who have an involved father are more
likely to be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and, as they grow
older, have better social connections with peers. These children are also less likely to get in
trouble at home, school, or in the neighborhood. It is also reported that children who grow up
with involved fathers are more comfortable exploring the world around them and more likely to
exhibit self control and pro-social behavior.11 According to sociologist Dr. David Popenoe,
“Fathers are far more than just ‘second adults’ in the home.… Involved fathers bring positive
benefits to their children that no other person is as likely to bring.”12 The financial and emotional
commitment of fathers to their children is a crucial factor in child well-being.
It may be that the next era of welfare reform will incorporate the new thinking in this area—that
both parents are important to their children. The issues raised by father absence—and the social
and economic context affecting men’s abilities to be responsible fathers—spans a wide spectrum
of social policy domains including income support, employment and training, housing, and the
criminal justice system. Over recent decades, the wages of men have stagnated and even fallen.
While women and single mothers increased their labor force participation, work and labor force
participation among men actually declined. Additionally, incarceration rates for men, especially
low-income men, have risen considerably over the past several decades. Efforts to help fathers,
especially low-income fathers, play a successful role in improving the well-being of their children
may prove to be challenging given that the financial situation of many men is precarious and their
living situations are often complicated.13
Social and Economic Trends
There is a scarcity of data on the economic and demographic characteristics of noncustodial
fathers. The Census Bureau’s major household surveys that produce official employment and
income statistics, the Current Population Survey (CPS) and the American Community Survey
11
Jeffrey Rosenberg and W. Bradford Wilcox, “The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children,”
HHS, ACF, Administration on Children, Youth and Families Children’s Bureau, Office on Child Abuse and Neglect,
2006.
12
Ibid. See also David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence that Fatherhood and Marriage are
Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society, The Free Press (a division of Simon and Schuster), 1996.
13
In FY2011, roughly 14 million noncustodial fathers in the United States had children on the Child Support
Enforcement (CSE) rolls. Data from the Urban Institute’s 1997 National Survey of American Families (NSAF; the
most recent available) found that two-thirds of nonresident fathers did not formally pay child support. Nearly all (90%)
poor fathers did not pay, compared to just over half (56%) of non-poor fathers. Further, of the poor, nonpaying fathers
who were not institutionalized (mostly in prison), 43% did not work.
Congressional Research Service
3
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
(ACS) do not capture information to determine whether a man living in a household without
children is a noncustodial father. The most recent snapshot of noncustodial fathers was taken
through the Urban Institute’s National Survey of American Families (NSAF), discussed above,
which was part of the Institute’s Assessing New Federalism project initiated in the wake of the
1996 welfare reform law and privately funded through foundations.
Given the lack of recent and consistent trend information on noncustodial fathers, this report talks
about men in general to provide a sense of the economic and social context in which noncustodial
fathers live. That is, the report does not provide information on the characteristics of noncustodial
fathers, but rather provides the economic and social trends generally affecting men that have a
bearing on the ability of noncustodial fathers to help support their children.
Child Poverty Rates
Persistently high rates of child poverty, which refers to children under age 18, have long been a
social policy concern. In 2011, the official poverty rate for children was 21.9%, meaning that a
little more than one in five children were classified as poor. Child poverty rates vary dramatically
by family setting. In 2011, the child poverty rate for related children in female-headed families
(usually headed by a single mother) was 48%. For children living in families headed by a married
couple, the poverty rate was 11.0%.
Female-headed families have historically been the focus of policies for disadvantaged families
with children. The reasons for this focus include the following:
•
the high rates of poverty among children living in families headed by a single
woman, indicating high rates of economic disadvantage among such families;
•
cash welfare for needy families was, for many years, legally restricted to families
with either an absent or disabled father; even when these legal restrictions were
relaxed, the cash welfare rolls were still dominated by families headed by single
parents, at least until recently; and
•
the desire to reduce the welfare rolls, both because of the view that welfare
receipt itself helped promote disadvantage and to save taxpayer money.
Figure 1 shows the trend in child poverty rates from 1959 (the first year for which official
poverty statistics are available) through 2011. It includes the poverty rate both for all children and
for children living in female-headed families. The female head is usually a single mother. It
shows that improvements in child poverty rates generally occurred through the 1960s. However,
the child poverty rate for all children reached a low point in 1969, increased somewhat through
the 1970s, and rose sharply beginning in 1979. The poverty rate for children in female-headed
families declined until 1979. In the 1980s, the overall child poverty rate generally fluctuated
around the 20% mark. Poverty among children in female-headed families failed to drop below
50% during that decade.
The mid-1990s saw major changes in policies affecting families with children. Tax legislation in
1993 significantly expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for families with children and
with workers. The 1996 welfare reform law (The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193) made major changes to cash welfare that sought to
require work and reduce welfare “dependency.” The 1996 welfare law also further expanded aid
to the working poor by substantially increasing child care subsidies. It also made major changes
Congressional Research Service
4
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program. A year later, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995
(P.L. 105-35) created the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which provided
health coverage to the children of the working poor.
In the wake of these policy changes, which occurred during an economic expansion, the cash
welfare rolls declined precipitously and employment among single mothers increased. The child
poverty rate also declined, falling from 22.7% in 1993 to 16.2% in 2000. The poverty rate for
children in families with a male present was lower than the overall poverty rate, and also
declined. The poverty rate for children in female-headed families fell 14 percentage points, from
53.7% in 1993 to 39.3% in 2001.
Figure 1. Poverty Rates for Children, by Family Type: 1959 to 2011
80%
70%
60%
50%
In Female-headed families
40%
All children
30%
Children in families with male
present
20%
10%
2010
2007
2004
2001
1998
1995
1992
1989
1986
1983
1980
1977
1974
1971
1968
1965
1962
1959
0%
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
The improvements in poverty rates for children in the late 1990s were limited. In 2000, the child
poverty rate had declined to 16.2%, its lowest rate since 1978 but still above the 14.0% rate of
1969. The poverty rate for children living in families headed by single mothers reached 39.3% in
2001, its all-time low over the period for which official poverty statistics are available but still
representing two in five such children living in poverty. Moreover, the improvements did not last.
During the 2000s, child poverty rates increased again. This increase occurred even before the
onset of the deep recession that began in December 2007.
Living Arrangements of Children
A contributing factor to the high rates of child poverty over the long term, and the increase in
child poverty during the period from 2001 to 2007, was the increasing likelihood of children
living in families headed by a single female. Figure 2 shows that in 1959, less than 1 in 10
children (9%) lived in families headed by a single female. This proportion increased almost every
year until the mid-1990s, reaching 24.0% in 1995. The share of children living in female-headed
Congressional Research Service
5
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
families fell slightly during the remainder of the 1990s, before rising again in the 2001-2009
period.
Figure 2. Percent of all Related Children Under Age 18 Living in Single-Parent,
Female-Headed Families: 1960 to 2012
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
1968
1966
1964
1962
1960
0%
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
The period from 2001 to 2009 saw particularly steep increases in the share of children born to
unmarried mothers. In 2001, 33.2% of all births were to unmarried mothers. The proportion of
children born to unmarried mothers reached 41.0% in 2009—the highest level during the period
for which these data are available.14 In 2011, 40.7% of all births were to unmarried mothers,
slightly below the peak level for this measure.
Figure 3 shows the living situations of children in March 2012. In that month, about 58% of
children lived with both their biological parents, who were married to each other. However, this
means a little more than 4 in 10 children were living in other situations. Just over 3% of children
lived with both their biological parents who were unmarried and 13% lived with their biological
fathers without their biological mothers. However, about one-third of all children lived in families
without their biological fathers present.
14
Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, and Stephanie J. Ventura, Births: Preliminary Data for 2008, HHS, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 58,
Number 15, April 6, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
6
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Figure 3. Living Arrangements of Children, March 2012
Not Living with
a Parent, 4%
Not Living with
a Dad, Living
with a Mother,
24%
Living with a
Father, Not
Biological, 6%
Two Biological,
Married
Parents, 58%
Biological
Father, Not
Living with a
Mother, 4%
Biological
Father, Not
Biological
Mother, 13%
Two Biological,
Unmarried
Parents, 3%
Source: Congressional Research Service tabulation of the March 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement
to the Current Population Survey.
Although little is known (empirically, in aggregate) about the men who spend years living apart
from their biological children, anecdotal evidence suggests that some of these men are in
relationships with women who have children fathered by other men. The advent of multiple
relationships that produce children, often referred to as multiple partner fertility (i.e., when
mothers and fathers have had children with more than one partner), generally complicates the
family situation of children. Thus, many fathers may not be living with their own biological
children but rather with the children of another man. In short, noncustodial and surrogate fathers
play a large part in the family lives of children, but most federal programs have minimal official
contact with them and therefore little is known about their characteristics.
Challenges of Increasing Involvement of Noncustodial Parents
with their Children
A father’s involvement with his children may be influenced by a number of factors. Over the past
three decades, changes in the labor market have led to less employment and lower typical wages
for men. Criminal justice policies have changed, leading to increases in the rate of incarceration
of men. What has not changed much over this period is that men living apart from their biological
children have not been a primary focus of policies to assist men, or their biological children, who
are economically disadvantaged. Though there are likely to be financial and nonfinancial benefits
of increasing the involvement of noncustodial fathers with their children, policies to promote such
engagement face an uphill battle given these economic and social trends.
Congressional Research Service
7
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Earnings
The earnings of typical full-time, full-year workers are a key indicator to how they are faring in
the workforce. Figure 4 displays the median annual earnings of men and women from 1960 to
2011 (in inflation-adjusted dollars) who worked full-time during an entire year. When adjusted for
inflation, the median annual earnings for a man working full-time, full-year peaked in 1973.
While there have been fluctuations in the real wages of men since then, the inflation-adjusted
median annual earnings for men in 2011 was lower than it was in 1973 by 4.8%. The median
annual earnings for men reached their post-1973 low point in 1996 at 9% below the 1973 level.
Real wage growth in the late 1990s and the early 2000s made up for some of the lost ground in
men’s earnings, but this period of growth was short-lived. In contrast to the trend for men, the
median wage for women who work full-time, full-year generally increased from 1973 to the early
2000s. However, since 2002 the median wage for women who work full-time, full-year has
fluctuated some with little increase from 2002 to 2011.
Figure 4. Median Annual Earnings of Men and Women Who Work Full-Time,
Full-Year: 1960 to 2011
In 2011 (inflation-adjusted) Dollars
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
Men
Women
$20,000
$10,000
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
$0
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Congressional Research Service
8
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Notes: Constant dollars were computed using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all Urban Consumers
Research Series (CPI-U-RS).
The trend in typical earnings for men varied markedly by education status. Figure 5 shows the
average inflation-adjusted earnings for men by educational attainment from 1975 to 2010. From
the late 1970s through the early 2000s, inflation-adjusted earnings have increased for men with
college degrees. The greatest payoff in recent years has been for men with advanced degrees, who
have earned an average of more than $100,000 in each year since 1996. However, for men
lacking a high school diploma, inflation-adjusted earnings fell substantially. In 2010, the annual
average earnings for a man lacking a high school diploma was $24,413, which is 20% below the
$30,000 that such a man earned on average in 1978. The inflation-adjusted earnings of men with
a high school diploma declined by less, but they were still 11% lower in 2010 than they were in
1978.
Figure 5. Average Annual Earnings for Men Aged 18 and Older, by Education Level:
1975 to 2010
In 2010 (inflation-adjusted) Dollars
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
Advanced Degree
Bachelor's Degree
$60,000
Some College
High School Graduate
$40,000
Not a High School Graduate
$20,000
$0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Notes: Constant dollars were computed using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all Urban Consumers
Research Series (CPI-U-RS).
Employment
Wages alone do not tell the full story about how individuals of working age are faring in the labor
market. Whether they are actually employed, either full-time or part-time, is perhaps a more
telling indicator of their economic well-being. The increase in labor force participation and
employment among women during the post-World War II period is well known; however, during
this period, the rate of employment among men declined. Figure 6 shows the employment rate
for men and women over the period from 1948 to 2012. Men began the period with an
employment rate over 80%. Women began the period with an employment rate around 30%. By
Congressional Research Service
9
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
2007 (generally before the recession that began in December of that year), the employment rate
for men had declined to 69.8%, while the employment rate for women had risen to 56.6%. The
recession caused drops in the employment rate for both men and women, though the decline was
more pronounced for men (to 63.7% by 2010, a decline of 6.1 percentage points, compared to
53.1% for women in 2012, a decline of 3.5 percentage points). As shown in the figure, the
employment rate for men rebounded some from 2010 to 2012, but the employment rate for
women continued to decline in those years.
Figure 6. Employment Rates for Men and Women: 1948 to 2012
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Men
40%
Women
30%
20%
10%
0%
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Congressional Research Service
10
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
The decline in the employment rate for men stems from several factors, including the aging of the
population, retirements, and the increasing prevalence of early retirements. However, it also
reflects declining employment rates among both prime-aged men (ages 25 to 54) and young men.
Figure 7 shows the employment rates for men by age. As shown, employment rates declined
among all groups represented in the figure. In 1948, over 90% of prime-aged men were
employed, a rate that fell into the 80% range before the onset of the recession in December 2007.
The employment rate had also declined for the younger groups. For teens, employment rates that
were in the mid-50% range at the beginning of the period had fallen to just above 30% in 2007.
For young adults (20 to 24 years old), employment rates fell from around 80% to 72% in 2007.
Employment rates for older men also fell, though they are not shown in the figure (presumably,
many of these men are not fathers of children under age 18).
Figure 7. Employment Rates for Men by Age: 1948 to 2012
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Aged 25 to 54
50%
Aged 20 to 24
40%
Aged 16 to 19
30%
20%
10%
1948
1951
1954
1957
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
0%
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The long-term decline in employment rates for teens and young adults partially reflects increases
in school enrollment among these age groups.15 Thus, these trends can partially be viewed as a
consequence of a positive social trend. However, not all of these trends reflect a tendency toward
voluntary withdrawal from the workforce to complete schooling. Unemployment rates among
teens and young men tend to be high. Moreover, the recession that began in December 2007
15
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2011, “Total
fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by sex, age, and attendance status: Selected years, 1970 through 2020,”
September 2011. This publication includes future projections of enrollment.
Congressional Research Service
11
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
disproportionately affected young men. The impact of this recession on men in general and on
men by age is discussed in the next section.
The 2007-2009 Recession
The recession that began in December 2007, sometimes called “the Great Recession,” has
disproportionately affected men. Figure 8 shows unemployment rates for men and women from
1948 to 2012. Unemployment reflects the number of people actively looking for, but unable to
find, work. The unemployment rate for men was 10.5% in 2010—the highest rate in any year
since 1948. Additionally, the unemployment rate for men exceeded that for women by 2.2
percentage points in 2009 and 1.9 percentage points in 2010. The unemployment rates for men
fell by a greater amount than the rate for women in 2011 and 2012, so that in 2012 the amount
that the unemployment rate for men exceeded that for women was 0.3 percentage points.
Figure 8. Unemployment Rates for Men and Women: 1948 to 2012
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
Men
Women
2%
0%
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Congressional Research Service
12
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Incarceration
Incarceration has affected the ability of men to participate in the labor market and the lives of
their children. At the end of 2010, 1.6 million persons, of whom 1.5 million were men, were
imprisoned in federal or state facilities.16 Incarceration rates in the United States have increased in
recent decades. The growth of the prison population, which is predominately male, poses another
challenge in attempting to increase financial and social support from noncustodial fathers to their
children.
Figure 9 shows incarceration rates, by sex, for 1925 to 2010. As shown in the chart, men are far
more likely than women to be incarcerated. Additionally, there was a stark increase in the rate of
incarceration beginning in the late 1970s, lasting through the early 2000s. In 1975, 220 per
100,000 men in the population were incarcerated. By 1990, this number had increased to 575 men
per 100,000 men in the population. By 2000, the incarceration rate for men had increased to 904
per 100,000. In 2010, 943 per 100,000 men were incarcerated.
The incarceration rate for women also increased post-1975, but remained far lower than that for
men. From 1925 to 1975, the incarceration rate for women never exceeded 10 per 100,000
women. In 2010, the incarceration rate for women was 67 per 100,000, well short of the 943 per
100,000 for men.
16
Paul Guerino, Paige M. Harrison, and William J. Sabol, Prisoners in 2010, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 9, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
13
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Figure 9. Incarceration Rates By Sex: 1929-2010
Federal and State Prisoners per 100,000 in the Population
1,200
1,000
800
600
Men
Women
400
200
2010
2000
2005
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
1960
1950
1955
1945
1940
1935
1930
1925
0
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the University of Albany Sourcebook of Criminal
Justice Statistics, Table 6.28.2010, accessed via the internet on December 12, 2012, http://www.albany.edu/
sourcebook/pdf/t6282010.pdf
African American Families
The social and economic conditions in the labor force and with respect to incarceration, while
occurring in the population as a whole and across racial and ethnic groups, have
disproportionately affected African American families. In 2011, the poverty rate for African
American children was 37.4%, compared to 21.9% of all children.
In the population as a whole, one-third of all children lived in households that lacked their
biological fathers in 2012. Among African American children, nearly two-thirds (64%) lived apart
from their biological fathers in 2012.
The relatively high rates of economic disadvantage and father absence among African American
children occur despite improvements in some social indicators for African American men,
reflecting a history of relative disadvantage. However, African American men are still relatively
worse off than white men and, on some measures, Hispanic men.
For example, the educational attainment level for African American men has increased. In 1965,
25% of African American men ages 25 and older had completed four years of high school,
compared with 50% of white men ages 25 and older. The proportion of men with at least that
level of schooling increased for both white men and African American men, with greater
improvement for African American men. However, Figure 10 shows that despite this
improvement in educational attainment, the percentage of African American men aged 25 and
older who lack a high school diploma was still higher than that of white men—16% of African
Congressional Research Service
14
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
American men aged 25 and older lack a high school diploma compared to only 8.6% of white
men aged 25 and older. (Hispanic men had the highest rate of lacking a high school diploma.)
African American male youth ages 18 to 24 were also far less likely than their white counterparts
to have a high school diploma.
Figure 10. Percent of Men Without a High School Diploma,
by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2011
40.0%
36.4%
35.0%
31.2%
30.0%
26.6%
25.0%
20.0%
17.0%
16.2%
14.7%
15.0%
10.0%
9.6%
8.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Nonhispanic white
African-American
Age 18-24
Hispanic
Asian
Age 25 and Older
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Note African Americans include those of Hispanic origin. The Census Bureau data did not provide separate
breakouts for non-Hispanic African Americans.
Moreover, African American men without a high school diploma typically earn less than other
men without a high school diploma. Figure 11 shows the average annually earnings for men
without a high school diploma in 2010. African-American men (aged 18 and older) without a high
school diploma had lower average earnings ($19,452) than did Non-Hispanic whites or Hispanics
without a high school diploma.
Congressional Research Service
15
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Figure 11. Mean Earnings for Men Without a High School Diploma, By
Race/Ethnicity: 2010
$30,000
$27,375
$23,384
$25,000
$19,452
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
Non-HispanicWhite
African-American
Hispanic
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Note African Americans include those of Hispanic origin. The Census Bureau data did not provide separate
breakouts for non-Hispanic African Americans.
The most telling indicator of the poor employment outcomes for African American men without a
high school diploma is the employment rate. Table 1 shows the employment rates for men
without a high school diploma in March of selected years by race and ethnicity for two groups:
youth (ages 16 to 24) who were not enrolled in school, and all men ages 25 to 54. The years 1989,
2000, and 2007 represent years just before economic recessions, when the economy was
performing at its cyclical peak. The year 2012 represents a year in the aftermath of the 2007-2009
recession. Over the past three decades, the employment rate for African American men without a
high school diploma has declined. Their employment rate was at 54.9% in 1989 and 40.8% in
2000. In 2007 (before the recession), less than 3 in 10 African American men ages 16 to 24 who
lacked a high school diploma and were not in school were employed. This proportion declined
further following the recession, to less than 1 in 4 by 2012.
While the decline in employment rates for young African Americans has been noted elsewhere,
employment rates for prime-aged African American men (ages 25 to 54) who lack a high school
diploma also fell. Employment rates for other racial and ethnic groups also declined.
Table 1. Employment Rates in March of Selected Years for Men without a High
School Diploma, by Race/Ethnicity and Age
(1989, 2000, 2007, 2012)
1989
2000
2007
2012
African American
54.9
40.8
28.7
24.6
White No-Hispanic
81.3
72.3
55.0
53.7
Hispanic
81.7
80.2
74.0
54.1
Ages 16 to 24 (and not in school)
Congressional Research Service
16
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
1989
2000
2007
2012
African American
69.9
59.9
53.6
36.3
White No-Hispanic
83.8
71.2
68.2
58.7
Hispanic
84.5
85.0
83.9
81.4
Ages 25 to 54
Source: CRS tabulations of the March Current Population Survey for selected years.
Note African Americans include those of Hispanic origin. The Census Bureau data did not provide separate
breakouts for non-Hispanic African Americans.
One of the most stark indicators of disadvantage for African American men is their high
incarceration rate. Figure 12 shows incarceration rates (with sentences of one year or more) for
men by race and ethnicity at the end of 2009. At that point in time, there were 3,119 African
American men imprisoned per 100,000 in the population (3.1% of the population), compared to
487 white men and 1,193 Hispanic men per 100,000 in the population.
Figure 12. Incarceration Rates by Race in 2010
Per 100,000 in the Population
3,500
3,074
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,258
1,000
500
459
0
White
Black
Hispanic
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data in Paul Guerino, Paige M. Harrison, and William J.
Sabol, Prisoners in 2010, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
February 9, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
17
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Selected Federal Programs: Barriers Encountered by
Noncustodial Fathers and Other Men
The focus of social policies for disadvantaged children has been on families headed by single
mothers. These long-standing policies have provided cash and non-cash assistance to mothers.
Yet noncustodial fathers, many of whom are low-income, could benefit from policies that would
help them be positively involved in the lives of their children. Social policy might play a role
across several policy domains:
•
economic assistance, including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) block grant, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP);
•
family support, including the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program and the
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood programs; and
•
human capital, including workforce programs.
This section provides information on these programs and also examines federal programs that
have the purposes of preventing teen pregnancy and helping disadvantaged youth obtain the skills
and support they need to become positive, productive, self-sufficient members of their
communities. As noted earlier, the underlying premise is that the aid or services received from
these programs by low-income, disadvantaged men may help them overcome economic and
emotional barriers and aid them in becoming productive members of society in a number of
ways—by giving them job training and employment opportunities (and thereby the ability to
make regular child support payments), educational information and emotional support to promote
positive interaction between them and their children, and supportive services and counseling that
can help them stay connected to their communities and families (and thereby potentially avoid
criminal activity).
Economic Assistance Programs
Economic assistance is designed to supplement the income of poor families to help them meet
their basic needs. Noncustodial parents have either been ineligible for economic assistance based
on low income because they do not live with their children, or they have not been a large
population within low-income assistance programs.
The Social Security Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-271) provided federal funding for these programs.
President Franklin Roosevelt’s Committee on Economic Security justified proposing federal
financial assistance for mothers’ pensions as follows:
The very phrases “mothers’ aid” and “mothers’ pensions” place an emphasis equivalent to
misconstruction of the intention of the laws. These are not primarily aids to mothers but
defense measures for children. They are designed to release from the wage-earning role the
person whose natural function is to give her children the physical and affectionate
guardianship necessary not alone to keep them from falling into social misfortune, but more
affirmatively to rear them into citizens capable of contributing to society.
Congressional Research Service
18
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
The Social Security Act established social insurance programs (Old Age and Unemployment
Insurance) for those expected to work to have them earn benefits for old age and temporary
unemployment. It established need-tested cash benefits for two groups (at that time) not expected
to work—the aged and families with children with a single mother or with an incapacitated father.
While other groups (particularly the disabled) were subsequently granted benefits under the act,
non-aged, able-bodied adult men were excluded from need-tested cash benefit programs as they
were expected to work. Of course, the sentiment expressed in the committee’s report—that single
mothers were not supposed to work but rather to raise children—conflicted with the major social
changes of the second half of the 20th century, which saw increases in mothers’ participation in
the labor force and expectations that mothers should work.
The program established in the Social Security Act to provide need-tested aid to families with
children was first called Aid to Dependent Children (ADC); it was renamed Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) in 1962. Until 1961, federal funds were only provided to aid
families with a single mother or an incapacitated father; in 1961, states were given the option to
aid families with two able-bodied parents if one parent was unemployed. Even under this option,
federal law required that AFDC for families with an unemployed parent be paid on more
restrictive terms than those that existed for single-parent families or families with an
incapacitated parent.
The fact that AFDC generally restricted aid to single-parent families caused concern among
policymakers that cash welfare provided an incentive for some families to break up, contributing
to the growing number of children living in single-parent, female-headed families. New needtested benefit programs, designed during the 1960s and 1970s, generally did not restrict aid to
families with children based on the absence of a parent. The Food Stamp program (now known as
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), created in the 1960s but expanded
nationwide in the 1970s, provided aid based on national eligibility standards without regard to
family structure. The Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485) converted the state option to aid
families with two parents, one unemployed, to a mandate effective October 1, 1990.
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), first created in 1975, did not legally restrict benefits to
single-parent families with children, though it did require that a child be in the tax unit to be
eligible for the credit. The mid-1990s saw major changes in aid to low-income persons and
families, including substantial increases in aid to the working poor through expansions of the
EITC, increased funding for subsidized child care, and the establishment of the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (CHIP). A small EITC was added for tax filers without children,
though the bulk of the EITC expansions were for families with tax filers who had dependent
children.
While aid to the working poor was expanded in the mid-1990s, there were also policy changes
made during that period that curtailed benefits for those who did not work. The 1996 welfare
reform law (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104193) ended AFDC and its federal rules for determining financial and nonfinancial eligibility for
cash welfare, replacing it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant.
States were granted additional latitude in designing their cash assistance programs and were also
given the authority to use TANF funds for a wide range of activities beyond those of traditional
cash welfare programs. (TANF included some federal requirements, such as work standards and
time limits for adult recipients of cash welfare.) The 1996 law also curtailed food stamps for
recipients who are able-bodied adults (ages 18 to 50) without dependents (ABAWD). This rule,
Congressional Research Service
19
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
known as the ABAWD rule, restricts assistance to adults who are not working or participating in a
work or training program to three months of assistance in a 36-month period.
Following these changes, cash welfare spending declined substantially. EITC grew, and in the
2000s the food stamp program also grew so that these two programs far surpassed TANF cash
welfare as the major sources of cash aid for low-income families.
Eligibility restrictions have generally been lifted for families where the father lives with his
children, and such families can be eligible for work supports such as earnings supplements from
the EITC or benefits from SNAP. However, noncustodial fathers still face some programmatic
barriers in receiving aid from economic assistance programs. Below are descriptions of the major
features of three major economic assistance programs—TANF, EITC, and SNAP—and a
discussion about how they relate to noncustodial parents.
Cross-Cutting Issues Affecting Economic Assistance Programs
There are two major issues that affect noncustodial parents across all cash and near-cash needtested programs. The first centers on the financial incentives and disincentives for the
noncustodial parent to join the household and live with their children, for those who have this
option. In tax policy, this issue is known as the “marriage penalty”—where a couple is financially
better off if two people live apart rather than marry. (However, in terms of the federal income tax,
whether a couple is financially better off if they marry or not depends on the circumstances of
each individual, so there are both marriage penalties and marriage “bonuses.”)17 There is an
analogous situation in need-tested programs. If a noncustodial parent brings income to a family or
household, need-tested benefits to that household can be reduced or even eliminated if the
noncustodial parent’s income puts a family over the income eligibility threshold. Yet this increase
in income may not necessarily make the family economically better off than it would be if it was
receiving benefits.
The second major issue is whether a noncustodial parent’s payment of child support improves the
economic well-being of the custodial parent and the children if the custodial parent’s family or
household receives need-tested aid. If child support income is considered countable income in a
need-tested program, it can also reduce or end eligibility for the need-tested benefit. Thus, the
noncustodial parent’s paying of child support might not fully benefit his children, which reduces
the willingness of the noncustodial parent to pay.
TANF Cash Assistance
The TANF block grant, while best known as a program that helps states fund cash welfare for
needy families with children, helps fund a wide range of benefits and services that help to
ameliorate the effects, or address the root causes, of economic disadvantage among families with
children. The forms of economic aid include ongoing cash assistance (what most consider
traditional welfare), non-recurrent short-term aid, and refundable tax credits for low-income
families.
17
See Congressional Budget Office, For Better or for Worse: Marriage and the Federal Income Tax, June 1997.
Congressional Research Service
20
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
TANF provides states with a set block grant amount that can be used to help achieve its broad
goals. The basic block grant is $16.5 billion per year for all states, an amount that has remained
the same since its establishment in 1996. In addition to federal funds, states have to contribute
from their own funds a minimum amount each year (totaling $10.4 billion nationwide).
TANF requires that families receiving assistance have a dependent child, defined as under age 18
or age 18 if still in school. Unlike prior AFDC law, there are no restrictions on aiding two-parent
families (though two-parent families are subject to separate work participation standards,
discussed below). Most states have eliminated the vestiges of the more restrictive terms that
applied to families with two able-bodied parents. In July 2010, 41 of the 49 states, and the District
of Columbia, that had paid benefits to two-parent families eliminated these restrictions. (North
Dakota does not pay benefits to two-parent families.) Additionally, TANF law and regulations do
not define what constitutes a “family,” permitting states to include noncustodial parents as part of
the “family,” thus making them eligible for assistance.
Under TANF, as under AFDC before 1996, states determine the income and financial resource
levels that make a family eligible for cash assistance, as well as the benefit amount. Monthly
TANF cash benefit amounts represent only a fraction of poverty-level income in all states. In
2010 for a family of three, benefits ranged from about half of poverty-level income in Alaska
($928 per month in benefits; Alaska has a higher poverty level than the 48 contiguous states and
the District of Columbia) and California ($723 per month) to 11% of poverty-level income in
Mississippi ($170 per month).
Receipt of cash benefits triggers a number of requirements. Families with an adult cash welfare
recipient are limited to 60 months of federally funded benefits (some families have only a child
recipient and these families are generally not subject to time limits). Custodial parents must also
cooperate with the child support enforcement system and assign (i.e., legally turn over rights) to
the state any child support received as reimbursement for cash welfare.
Families with an adult recipient are also subject to TANF’s work requirements.18 The most
prominent of these requirements, the work participation standards, do not apply directly to
individuals. Rather, they are state performance measures that apply to the states, and require that
a percent of families be either working or engaged in federally specified activities. In terms of
requirements that apply to individual recipients and families, states are required to (1) assess each
adult recipient’s skills, work experience, and employability; (2) engage individual adult recipients
within two years, though states define what activities a recipient must engage in to meet this
requirement; and (3) sanction noncomplying families, though states determine how much to
reduce a noncomplying families’ benefit or end benefits for such a family.
In 2011, TANF cash welfare totaled $9.6 billion. Yet, TANF cash assistance serves only a small
fraction of all families with poor children. In 2011, there were 16.1 million poor children, but
only a monthly average of 3.4 million children were in families receiving cash assistance.
States can also use TANF funds for a wide range of activities other than cash assistance, with few
rules or restrictions regarding the design of such benefits and services other than that they be
aimed at achieving a TANF goal. This includes economic assistance, such as earnings
18
For a discussion, see CRS Report R42767, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Welfare-to-Work
Revisited, by Shannon Bopp and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
21
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
supplements through refundable tax credits and non-recurrent short-term benefits. For example,
New York has used TANF funds to pay for the refundable portion of a “noncustodial Earned
Income Tax Credit” that provides a wage supplement to noncustodial parents who pay child
support (this will be discussed later in the report under policy options). Noncustodial parents can
also benefit from non-recurrent short-term aid—benefits designed to meet needs expected to last
four months or less.
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC or EIC) began in 1975 as a temporary program to return a
portion of the Social Security tax paid by lower-income taxpayers, and was made permanent in
1978 by the Revenue Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-600). It has expanded several times since then. An
expansion of the EITC in 1993 was a major component of the strategy to “make work pay” more
than welfare. The 1993 expansion also included extending the EITC to tax filers without children,
though (as shown below) this credit is small relative to that for filers with children and is
available only to those with very low earnings.
As part of the tax code, the budgetary costs of the EITC are realized as foregone tax revenue
available to the federal budget. EITC rules are uniform nationwide. The EITC has become the
largest form of need-tested cash aid, with credits totaling $59.2 billion for tax year 2009.19 Of
this, the bulk of aid is for families with qualifying children (that is, taxpayers residing with
children). EITC credits totaled under $1.4 billion for tax filers without qualifying children.
Table 2 compares EITC rules for childless filers and for single parents with children for 2012. As
shown in the table, the maximum credit available for unmarried childless filers (including
noncustodial parents not living with any of their children) was $475, compared to $3,169 for
those with one qualifying child and maximum credits over $5,000 for filers with two or more
qualifying children. Moreover, the EITC for childless filers was restricted to those with very low
earnings. An unmarried childless filer became ineligible for any EITC credit once his income
reached $13,980. A person who worked 40 hours per week at the 2012 federal minimum wage of
$7.25 an hour earned $15,080 annually. Thus, a childless filer who worked 40 hours per week at
the federal minimum wage for the entire year was ineligible for the EITC. In contrast, a single
parent who earns more than two times the minimum wage was eligible for the EITC.
Table 2. Earned Income Tax Credits: Maximum Credits and Income Eligibility
Amounts for Filers With and Without Children, 2012
(Filers with qualifying children are those filing as head of household, representing single parents)
Childless
Filers
(Not
Married)
One
Qualifying
Child
Two
Qualifying
Children
Three or
More
Qualifying
Children
Maximum credit
$475
$3,169
$5,236
$5,891
Income threshold for credit eligibility
13,980
36,920
41,952
45,060
19
CRS Report RL31768, The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): An Overview, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
22
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Income threshold as a percent of earnings for a
worker at the federal minimum wage working fulltime
Childless
Filers
(Not
Married)
One
Qualifying
Child
Two
Qualifying
Children
Three or
More
Qualifying
Children
93%
245%
278%
299%
Source: Based on information in CRS Report RS21352, The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): Changes for 2012
and 2013, by (name redacted).
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, provides help to low-income families for purchasing
food. Like the EITC, it reaches many more families and persons than does cash welfare. In
FY2012, $74.6 billion in benefits were paid to 46.6 million persons in 22.3 million households.20
Federal funds pay 100% of SNAP benefit costs; the federal government and the states share the
cost of administering the program.
Low-income households are eligible for SNAP regardless of family type, though in permanent
SNAP law there are restrictions for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDS), a group
that would include most low-income noncustodial parents. Benefits are determined in federal law
and are uniform nationally.21 For a household consisting of a single person, the maximum
monthly SNAP benefit in FY2013 is $200 per month; for a family of three, the maximum
monthly benefit is $526 per month.
Though SNAP eligibility is generally not restricted by household type, most SNAP households
have members who are elderly, disabled, or children. In FY2011, 47% of all SNAP households
included children, 17% had an elderly member, and 20% had a disabled member. Only 24% of
SNAP households, totaling 5.0 million, had only nonelderly, able-bodied adults.22
The 1996 welfare reform law established the ABAWD rule noted above, which affects ablebodied noncustodial parents who do not live in households with children. The ABAWD rule
establishes a time limit for able-bodied adults ages 18 to 50 without dependents who do not work
or work less than 20 hours per week, and who are not participating in an education training
program. The time limit is 3 months in a 36-month period. An additional 3 months of benefits
may be paid in the 36-month period if a person becomes employed, works at least 80 hours in a
30-day period, and then becomes unemployed again. States may apply for waivers of the
ABAWD rule for areas of high unemployment.
20
Preliminary FY2012 SNAP program participation data from the Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/snapmain.htm, accessed December 17, 2012.
21
However, standard deductions and shelter deductions used in calculating the benefit are different for Alaska, Hawaii,
Guam, and the Virgin Islands than they are for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia.
22
Congressional Research Service tabulations of the FY2011 SNAP Quality Control data file.
Congressional Research Service
23
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Family Support
In addition to economic assistance programs, a number of federal programs are designed to
provide other forms of support to families. Three federal programs in particular—Child Support
Enforcement, Healthy Marriage, and Responsible Fatherhood—seek to assist men in providing
financial and other support to their children or future children. The Child Support Enforcement
(CSE) program focuses on collecting child support payments from noncustodial parents for the
purpose of contributing to the payment of childrearing costs; however, it also promotes visitation
and better relations between custodial and noncustodial parents through grants to states. Eligible
activities under the CSE Access and Visitation program include but are not limited to mediation,
counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement, and development
of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. Separately, the Healthy
Marriage program recognizes that child well-being is associated with a child living with two
parents. The program funds counseling and education initiatives targeted primarily to low-income
individuals that seek to facilitate healthy relationships, with the ultimate goal of providing better
outcomes for children. The Responsible Fatherhood program focuses on the financial and
personal responsibility of noncustodial parents for their children, with the goal of increasing the
participation of fathers in their children’s lives. Some responsible fatherhood initiatives help
noncustodial parents strengthen their parenting skills. Other initiatives try to discourage young
men from becoming fathers until they are married and ready for the responsibility.
Child Support Enforcement (CSE)
The CSE program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program (Title IV-D of the Social
Security Act) to help strengthen families by securing financial support for children from their
noncustodial parent on a consistent and continuing basis and by helping some families to remain
self-sufficient and off public assistance. Child support payments enable parents who do not live
with their children to fulfill their financial responsibility to their children by contributing to the
payment of childrearing costs. The CSE program is one of only a few federal programs that
specifically interact with men based on their status as fathers.
The CSE program provides seven major services on behalf of children: (1) locating absent
parents, (2) establishing paternity, (3) establishing child support orders, (4) reviewing and
modifying child support orders, (5) collecting child support payments, (6) distributing child
support payments, and (7) establishing and enforcing support for children’s medical needs. All 50
states and four jurisdictions (the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands) operate CSE programs.23 The CSE program is administered by the federal Office of
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), which is in the Department of Health and Human Services’
(HHS’s) Administration for Children and Families (ACF). The federal government and the states
share CSE program costs at the rate of 66% and 34%, respectively. The federal government also
gives states an incentive payment to encourage them to operate effective CSE programs.24 Federal
law requires states to reinvest CSE incentive payments back into the CSE program or related
activities.
23
Historically, states were required to provide CSE services to Indian tribes and tribal organizations as part of the CSE
caseloads. The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) allowed direct federal funding of tribal CSE programs at a 90%
federal matching rate. In August 2012, there were 55 tribal CSE programs. For information on tribal CSE programs, see
CRS Report R41204, Child Support Enforcement: Tribal Programs, by (name redacted).
24
In FY2012, the statutory maximum for federal CSE incentive payments to states (in aggregate) was $526 million.
Congressional Research Service
24
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
The CSE program serves both poor families (including those who receive TANF benefits) and
non-poor families.25 Child support collected on behalf of non-welfare families goes to the family,
usually through the state disbursement unit. However, most child support collections on behalf of
families receiving TANF benefits are used to reimburse state and federal governments for TANF
payments made to the family.26
For low-income, TANF-receipt families, child support payments may not reach the children. This
may be a disincentive to pay child support. The rules are complex and may leave the family with
little to no benefit over and above the TANF benefit. CSE distribution rules determine which
claim is paid first when a child support collection occurs. The order of payment of the child
support collection is important because in many cases arrearages are never fully paid. While a
family receives TANF cash benefits, the states and federal government retain any current child
support and any assigned child support arrearages collected on behalf of that family up to the
cumulative amount of TANF benefits paid to the family. While states may pay their share of
collections to the family, they must pay the federal government its share of child support
collections collected on behalf of TANF families. P.L. 109-171 (the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005, enacted February 8, 2006) helped states pay for the cost of their CSE pass-through and
disregard policies by requiring the federal government to share in the costs of the entire amount
(up to $100 per month for one child, up to $200 per month for two or more children) of child
support collections passed through and disregarded by states (this provision took effect on
October 1, 2008).27 This means that both states and the federal government share in the cost of
child support passed through to families (and disregarded by the state in determining the family’s
TANF cash benefit). Based on February 2012 data, 22 states and the District of Columbia have a
child support pass-through and disregard policy, and 28 states (and the three territories of Guam,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) do not.28
States must distribute the following child support collections to former TANF families first before
the state and federal government are reimbursed (the “family-first” policy): (1) all current child
support, (2) any child support arrearages that accrue after the family leaves TANF (these
arrearages are called never-assigned arrearages), plus (3) any arrearages that accrued before the
family began receiving TANF benefits. An exception to this rule occurs when child support
25
The CSE program does not handle all child support payments. Some cases (40%-50%) are handled by private
attorneys or collection agencies, or through mutual agreements between the parents. Thus, some of the families who
received child support in 2012 probably received it without the help of the CSE program.
26
In brief, TANF families are required to assign their child support rights to the state. As long as the child support
payment collected on the TANF family’s behalf is smaller than the state’s TANF benefit for a family of the relevant
size, the family remains on the TANF program and the child support collected for the family is divided between the
state and the federal government, with the state having the authority to “pass through” some, all, or none of its share of
the child support collected to the family without it affecting the family’s TANF benefit and with the federal
government sharing in some of the costs of giving the money to the family. The share of the child support collection
that is distributed to the federal government is based on a state’s Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP). The
FMAP varies inversely with state per capita income (i.e., poor states have a higher federal matching rate, wealthy states
have a lower federal matching rate). For more information on child support and TANF families, see CRS Report
RL34105, The Financial Impact of Child Support on TANF Families: Simulation for Selected States, by (name r
edacted) and (name redacted).
27
In FY2011, only 3.7% of CSE collections (about $1.010 billion) were made on behalf of TANF families, about
13.5% of that amount (about $136 million) actually went to CSE families who received TANF benefits (pursuant to
state CSE “pass through” provisions), and the rest was divided between the state and federal governments to reimburse
them for TANF benefits paid to such families.
28
National Conference of State Legislatures, State Policies Regarding Pass-Through and Disregard of Current Month’s
Child Support Collected for Families Receiving TANF-Funded Cash Assistance, Updated February 2012.
Congressional Research Service
25
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
arrearages are collected via the federal income tax refund offset program—those collections are
divided between the state and federal government.29 (Any child support arrearages that accrue
during the time the family is on TANF belong to the state and federal government.) If a family
has never received TANF benefits, the entire amount of the child support payment collected by
the state from the noncustodial parent goes to the custodial parent via the state disbursement unit.
In FY2011, about 13% of the CSE caseload30 consisted of TANF families; about 43% were
families who had at some point been on the TANF program, and 44% were families that had
never received TANF benefits. In FY2011, the CSE program collected $27.3 billion in child
support payments from noncustodial parents and served 15.8 million child support cases.31 Of the
$27.3 billion collected in child support payments, about 93% went to families, 6% went to state
and federal governments, and 1% consisted of medical support payments or fees paid to states.
On average, in FY2011 the CSE program collected $5.12 in child support payments for each $1
spent on the program. In FY2011, total CSE expenditures amounted to $5.7 billion.
The CSE Program and Noncustodial Fathers
There is a growing consensus that the CSE program is one of the financial keys to helping
families become and remain self-sufficient. Among poor families, child support on average
constitutes about 40% of family income for households that receive it.32 Moreover, data indicate
that parents who make regular child support payments have better family relationships than those
who do not (e.g., they have more interaction with their children).33
The CSE program has the potential to impact more children and for longer periods of time than
most other federal programs. According to Census Bureau data, 13.7 million parents had custody
of nearly 22 million children under age 2134 while the other parent lived somewhere else in 2009.
Of those 13.7 million custodial parents, 31% received child support, 29% received food stamp
(SNAP) benefits, 23% received Medicaid benefits, 10% received public housing assistance, and
5% received TANF benefits; some parents may have received multiple benefits.35 In many cases,
29
P.L. 109-171 gave states the option of distributing to former TANF families the full amount of child support
collected on their behalf (i.e., both current support and all child support arrearages—including arrearages collected
through the federal income tax refund offset program). This provision took effect on October 1, 2009, or October 1,
2008, at state option.
30
The CSE program defines a CSE “case” as a noncustodial parent (mother, father, or putative/alleged father) who is
now or eventually may be obligated under law for the support of a child or children receiving services under the CSE
program. If the noncustodial parent owes support for two children by different women, that would be considered two
cases; if both children have the same mother, that would be considered one case.
31
In FY2011, about 4% of CSE collections were made on behalf of TANF families, 33% were made on behalf of
former TANF families, and 64% were made on behalf of families who had never been on TANF.
32
Urban Institute, “Child Support Plays an Increasingly Important Role for Poor Custodial Families,” by Elaine
Sorensen, December 2010.
33
The Urban Institute, “Do Nonresident Fathers Who Pay Child Support Visit Their Children More?,” by Heather
Koball and Desiree Principe, New Federalism/National Survey of America’s Families Series B, No. B-44, March 2002.
34
Since, in some states, child support can be ordered by a court until a child is 21 years old or completes college, the
survey data upon which this Census report is based covers parents’ own children under age 21 rather than applying the
U.S. Census Bureau’s usual definition of children as those under age 18.
35
U.S. Census Bureau, “Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2009,” by Timothy S. Grall, Current
Population Reports, P60-240, December 2011, Detailed Tables (Table 4). To view detailed tables, see
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/childsupport/chldsu09.pdf. For information on noncustodial parents, see Elaine
Sorensen and Tess Tannehill, “Demographic Survey Results from Nine-State IV-D Programs,” December 18, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
26
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
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.36
Over the last 10-15 years, the CSE program has expanded its mission beyond its initial welfare
cost-recovery goal to focus on providing its clients with more effective and efficient CSE services
and fostering parental responsibility. In FY2011, there were 17.3 million children in the CSE
program. Given that most of these children had a living mother and father and that most of them
were living with their mother,37 there were roughly 14 million noncustodial fathers with children
on the CSE rolls in FY2011.38
Work Programs
To receive federal matching funds, states are required, among other things, to establish and
implement a number of child support enforcement tools. One such tool requires state child
support officials to have the authority to seek a judicial or administrative order that directs any
noncustodial parent owing past-due support to a child receiving TANF benefits to pay that child
support in accordance with a plan approved by the court or to participate in appropriate work
activities.39 This enforcement tool, which was mandated by the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L.
104-193), reflected Congress’s 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.40 The tool allows judges to remand nonpaying
36
In most states, the child support order is initiated when parents divorce or separate or when a never-married parent
seeks assistance and child support is established for the child. The child support order generally lasts until the child
reaches the state’s “age of majority (usually age 18),” and if the noncustodial parent owes past-due child support
payments, the state can continue collecting such child support arrearages for a stipulated period beyond this age.
37
Annual CSE data include CSE cases and number of children in the caseload. These data do not indicate the number
of living noncustodial fathers, which is estimated based on a special Census Bureau series on child support. The latest
available data from that series is 2009. The 2009 data indicate that 1.1% of custodial parents in 2009 were widowed
(17,340,000 x 1.1% = 191,000; 17,340,000 – 191,000 = 17,149,000).
38
Ibid. Based on 2009 Census Bureau data, about 17% of custodial parents were fathers (18% x 17,000,000 =
3,060,000; 17,149,000 – 3,060,000 = 14,089,000).
39
This provision is found in Section 466(a)(15) of the Social Security Act (Title 42 USC §666(a)(15)).
40
The now defunct Welfare-to-Work (WtW) program was designed to help states and localities move hard-to-employ
welfare recipients and certain low-income noncustodial parents into lasting unsubsidized jobs. The program was
established in P.L. 105-33 (the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) to supplement TANF block grant funds. It was
administered by the U.S. Department of Labor. The $3 billion grant ($1.5 billion for FY1997-1998 and $1.5 billion for
FY1998-1999) consisted of two main parts: formula grants to states and competitive grants to local communities.
Three-quarters of the funds were distributed by formula to states, which were required to pass on 85% of their formula
funds to workforce investment boards (WIBs). The other quarter of the funds was distributed competitively based on
grant applications from state and local agencies, nonprofit organizations, and public and private entities. According to
evaluation information, hundreds of programs were implemented with WtW grants, through various agencies and
organizations, and all were required to coordinate with TANF agencies. The WtW formula grant program was
terminated by Section 105 of the Department of Labor 2004 appropriation (P.L. 108-199). Program evaluators
indicated that all WtW programs had ended by the end of 2004. According to an evaluation of the WtW program by
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., and the Urban Institute: “WIA [Workforce Investment Act] administrators
generally felt the WtW grants program had three positive systemic benefits: it helped to establish welfare recipients as a
key customer group for the One-Stop Career Center system; it improved the working relationship between the welfare
and workforce agencies; and it made it possible to devote resources to developing and testing new strategies (e.g.,
employer partnerships, transitional employment, retention services) for serving the hard-to-employ” (Source:
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., and the Urban Institute, “Welfare-to-Work Grants Programs: Adjusting to
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
27
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
noncustodial parents (of a child receiving TANF benefits) to a TANF work program, with the
mandate to participate in the program, pay the child support owed, or be confined in jail. This
obligation can be monitored to ensure compliance by the noncustodial parent. If the parent is in
fact working surreptitiously, it is likely that the work program will conflict with his or her other
job, forcing the parent to admit to having earnings and thereby to pay child support. If the
noncustodial parent really is jobless, the program can help him or her get a job.41 In 2011, 29
states and the District of Columbia were operating at least 38 work-oriented programs for
noncustodial parents with active CSE agency involvement. Although most of the programs were
not statewide, some were.42 One example of a child support-driven employment project is the
Texas Noncustodial Parent Choices Program.43
In addition, a number of state CSE programs have established employment programs in
partnership with state and local workforce development boards and local courts for noncustodial
parents regardless of whether the child is enrolled in the TANF program.44
Access and Visitation
A noncustodial parent’s right to visit with his or her children is commonly referred to as visitation
or child access. State family or domestic relations law almost universally treats child support and
visitation as completely separate issues. Although a noncustodial parent’s right to visit with his or
her children and receipt of child support payments by custodial parents are legally separate issues,
some research indicates that fathers who pay child support (as compared to those who do not) are
more likely to visit their children.45 The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) demonstration, a large-scale
scientifically designed (with experimental and control groups) national demonstration project
conducted from 1994-1996, was designed to increase support payments, employment and
earnings, and parental involvement. The study found that PFS did not generally lead to increases
in the frequency or length of contact that noncustodial parents had with their children. However,
PFS was effective at increasing the occurrence of regular visits at sites where it served families
with relatively low visitation rates (i.e., significant results were seen at the two sites whose level
(...continued)
Changing Circumstances,” by Demetra Smith Nightingale, Carolyn Taylor O’Brien, Michael Egner, Nancy Pindus, and
John Trutko, November 2003).
41
Lawrence M. Mead, “Toward a Mandatory Work Policy for Men,” The Future of Children (Princeton-Brookings),
v. 17, no. 2, Fall 2007, p. 56.
42
Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Work-Oriented Programs for Noncustodial Parents,” February 29, 2012.
43
The Texas Noncustodial Parents (NCP) Choices Program provides enhanced child support case compliance
monitoring and employment services for noncustodial parents linked to a TANF/Medicaid case who are unemployed or
underemployed and are not compliant with their child support obligations. Participation in the program is mandatory as
ordered by CSE associate judges in the 14 sites currently funded by the Texas Workforce Commission and the Office
of Attorney General (OAG). NCP Choices launched three new sites and expanded one existing site in spring 2010.
According to the Texas CSE website, noncustodial parents ordered into NCP Choices have, on average, made no
payments in the eight months prior to program entry and pay an average of $176 per month in the first year after
program entry. Evaluation results show this as an overall 57% increase in child support payments for noncustodial
parents participating in this program as compared to a control group of similar noncustodial parents in the OAG
caseload (http://www.oag.state.tx.us/cs/ofi/index.shtml).
44
HHS, ACF, OCSE, “Noncustodial Parents: Summaries of Research, Grants and Practices, July 2009.” See also Shane
Spaulding, Jean Baldwin Grossman, and Dee Wallace, “Working Dads: Final Report on the Fathers at Work Initiative,”
Public/Private Ventures, 2009.
45
Heather Koball and Desiree Principe, “Do Nonresident Fathers Who Pay Child Support Visit Their Children More?,”
The Urban Institute, Series B, No. B-44, March 2002.
Congressional Research Service
28
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
of noncustodial parental involvement was extremely low at the outset of the demonstration
program).46 According to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), there is some
evidence that supports the premise that a noncustodial parent who has increased access to his or
her child(ren) will be more likely to comply with a child support order. This finding is
particularly dramatic for fathers who were unmarried to the custodial parent at the time of the
child’s birth.47 Concurrently, there are also data that support the contention that a range of factors
such as new relationships and childbearing by mothers, time elapsed since the parents lived
together, drug use by fathers, incarceration rates, joblessness, and low-earnings lower the amount
of time noncustodial fathers spend with their children.48
Federal and state policymakers have increasingly promoted efforts that address child support and
access and visitation in the same forum. In order to promote visitation and better relations
between custodial and noncustodial parents, the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) provided
$10 million per year for grants to states for access and visitation programs.49 An annual
entitlement of $10 million from the federal CSE budget account is available to states for these
grants. Eligible activities include but are not limited to mediation, counseling, education,
development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement, and development of guidelines for
visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
According to data from OCSE, all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands have provided access and visitation services to over 500,000 noncustodial
parents and their families since the program became operational in FY1998. Most participating
noncustodial parents have received parenting education, supervised visitation services, mediation
services, and help in developing parenting plans. According to a report on the grant program for
FY2008, states contracted with over 374 court and/or community- and faith-based nonprofit
service providers for the delivery of access and visitation services to noncustodial parents and
their families. The report indicated that over 85,000 individuals were served by the grant
program, compared to 20,000 who were served by the grant program during its first year of
operation in FY1998.50
Modification of Child Support Obligations
In FY2011, $111.3 billion in child support arrearages was owed to families receiving CSE
services, but less than 7% ($7.7 billion) of those arrearages was actually paid. Still, 62% of
obligors continued to make payments on their child support arrearages. One interpretation of this
information is that many noncustodial parents simply have too many financial obligations (e.g.,
46
Virginia Knox and Cindy Redcross, “Parenting and Providing: The Impact of Parents’ Fair Share on Paternal
Involvement,” MDRC, October 2000.
47
Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Noncustodial Parents: Summaries of Research, Grants and Practices (Child
Access and Visitation – Employment and Training – Fatherhood – Incarceration and Re-Entry – Projects in Progress),”
July 2009, pp. 26-34.
48
The Future of Children, vol. 20, no. 2, Fall 2010, “Capabilities and Contributions of Unwed Fathers,” by Robert I.
Lerman, p. 76.
49
Even before the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485) authorized
a limited number of grants to states for demonstration projects to develop, improve, or expand activities designed to
increase compliance with child access provisions of court orders.
50
HHS, OCSE, “Child Access and Visitation Grants: State/Jurisdiction Profiles for FY 2008,” March 8, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
29
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
food and shelter for themselves) to cover with their limited incomes; therefore, they may always
be a little or a lot behind in meeting their child support obligations.
An Urban Institute study revealed the following findings on those with child support arrearages:
(1) high debtors were expected to pay a larger percentage of their income for current child
support orders—the median child support order for high debtors (i.e., noncustodial parents who
owed $30,000 or more in child support arrearages) was 55% of their income compared to 13% for
non-debtors and 22% for those who owed less than $30,000 in child support arrearages; (2) high
debtors with a current support order tended to have older orders than other obligors; (3) high
debtors were more likely to have multiple current child support orders than non-debtors; (4) high
debtors were less likely to pay support than non-debtors; (5) high debtors were less likely to have
a known address; and (6) high debtors were twice as likely to have an interstate child support case
as a non-debtor.51
Under the CSE program, states are given significant latitude regarding modifications and reviews
of child support orders.52 Federal law requires that states give both parents the opportunity to
request a review of their child support order at least once every three years, and states are
required to notify the parents of this right. In order to prevent child support arrearages, especially
for noncustodial parents who are unemployed or in prison, some analysts argue that child support
modification laws should be changed so that they are more sensitive to periods of incarceration,
unemployment, or injury/illness during which the noncustodial parent’s ability to pay child
support decreases. They contend that it is virtually impossible for most low-income noncustodial
parents with those types of barriers to stay current in meeting their monthly child support
payments.
Child Support and Ex-Offenders
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, of the 1.5 million inmates held in the nation’s
prisons (federal and state) in mid-2007, approximately 809,800 of them (53%) were parents.
These prisoners collectively had 1.7 million children under the age of 18.53
Of the estimated 700,000 persons who are released from prison each year,54 about 400,000 of
them are fathers and mothers.55 Many of these former inmates have formal child support
obligations. Although the proportion of incarcerated noncustodial parents in state and federal
prisons is only roughly 5% of the CSE caseload56 at any one point in time, the cumulative impact
is much higher. States indicate that 30%-40% of their “hard to collect from” cases consist of
noncustodial parents who have a criminal record.57
51
Elaine Sorensen, Liliana Sousa, and Simon Schaner, “Assessing Child Support Arrears in Nine Large States and the
Nation,” The Urban Institute, July 11, 2007, pp. 19-24, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/assessing-CS-debt/.
52
This flexibility and discretion only applies to prospective modification of child support orders. Federal law prohibits
the retroactive modification of child support orders (Section 466(a)(9) of the Social Security Act).
53
Lauren E. Glaze and Laura M. Maruschak, “Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children,” U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, August 2008.
54
MDRC, “Building Knowledge About Successful Prisoner Reentry Strategies,” February 11, 2009.
55
Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) and Community Legal Services, Inc.,“Every Door Closed: Facts About
Parents With Criminal Records,” 2003.
56
Between FY2006 and FY2009, the CSE caseload has ranged between 15.7 million and 15.8 million cases.
57
HHS, ACF, OCSE, “Section 1115 Demonstration Grants—Projects in Support of the Prisoner Reentry Initiative
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
30
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Pursuant to P.L. 107-273, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and state and local law enforcement
agencies have been developing programs to assist with successful re-entry for the thousands of
people being released from state and federal prisons each year.58 Also, HHS, primarily through its
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and state and local CSE agencies, has been
approving program waivers and providing demonstration funds that foster effective methods of
working with incarcerated and recently released parents and with re-entry programs. HHS has
indicated that there are several reasons why CSE agencies should be concerned about exoffenders and prisoner re-entry programs:
One is the large number of parents in the child support caseload with a criminal background.
Another is the likelihood that their children are recipients of public assistance and are
vulnerable to a variety of negative outcomes. A third reason is that these parents are
accessible in prison settings and respond positively to outreach efforts by child support
personnel. Finally, 16 to 18 percent of child support arrears, which exceeded $107 billion in
Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, are held by incarcerated or recently released obligors.59
Moreover, given tight fiscal times, states are looking to find creative ways to maximize the use of
their resources. State and federal prison officials and CSE officials may find that it is mutually
beneficial to work together on behalf of inmates who are parents.60 Some analysts have suggested
that state and federal prisons can strengthen their re-entry programs by incorporating information
on CSE obligations and services. Further, CSE programs can make their programs more
successful by identifying parents with child support obligations while they are in prison so that
parents are better able to avoid the accumulation of excessive child support arrearages and so that
information can be provided to prisoners that highlights the benefits of including child support
payments in their post-release plans.61
Several strategies have been suggested that would involve both the criminal justice system and
the CSE program in proactively addressing the reality that more ex-offenders are being released
back into local communities. They include (1) making inquiries about a prisoner’s parental status
and whether or not he or she is required to pay child support as part of the prison intake process;
(2) encouraging prisoners to contact the CSE agency regarding questions about the paternity and
child support order establishment rules, due process procedures, collection methods, and other
concerns; (3) informing inmates about how they can have their child support orders modified so
that they do not incur high child support debt while in prison; (4) encouraging inmates to
(...continued)
(HHS-2009-ACF-OCSE-FD-0013),” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/closed/HHS-2009-ACF-OCSE-FD-0013.html.
(Hereinafter, HHS, ACF, OCSE, “Section 1115 Demonstration Grants—Projects in Support of the Prisoner Reentry
Initiative.”)
58
The Prisoner Re-entry Initiative was authorized by Section 2421 of the 21st Century Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act (P.L. 107-273). The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act authorized appropriations for the initiative for FY2003-FY2005. However, the initiative has received
funding since FY2001. Historically, funding for the initiative has been appropriated under the Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) appropriation, but the funds have been transferred to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP),
where they are administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in the Department of Justice (DOJ). See CRS
Report RL33489, An Overview and Funding History of Select Department of Justice (DOJ) Grant Programs, by
(name redacted), January 16, 2008).
59
HHS, ACF, OCSE, “Section 1115 Demonstration Grants—Projects in Support of the Prisoner Reentry Initiative.”
60
CRS Report R40499, Child Support Enforcement and Ex-Offenders, by (name redacted).
61
Esther Griswold and Jessica Pearson, “Twelve Reasons for Collaboration Between Departments of Correction and
Child Support Enforcement Agencies,” Corrections Today, v. 65 Issue 3, June 2003, pp. 87-90,104.
Congressional Research Service
31
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
maintain contact with their children while they are in prison; and (5) helping former inmates
develop a plan to pay their child support obligations.62 It has also been suggested that prison
intake procedures include an automated data match or weekly population list exchange among
corrections and CSE agencies, and that policies be implemented to assist with the child support
modification process, such as providing noncustodial parents with forms, addressed envelopes,
and postage.63
Healthy Marriage Programs
The current healthy marriage initiative (which was part of P.L. 109-171, the Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005; enacted February 8, 2006) resulted from two parallel developments.64 First, in the
late 1980s and early 1990s states and local communities came together to develop strategies to
strengthen marriage and reduce divorce rates, with the goal of improving child well-being. Most
of the early initiatives were targeted toward middle-income persons and focused on educating
people on why marriage matters and on providing them with the knowledge and skills necessary
to form and sustain a healthy marriage. Second, during the welfare reform debate in the mid1990s, Congress and the Clinton Administration expressed their concerns about the high cost of
nonmarital childbearing and its adverse affect on child well-being. Subsequently, the 1996
welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) stipulated that TANF funds were to be expended to achieve
four statutory goals. One of the goals is to promote the formation and maintenance of two-parent
families. Another of the goals is to end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits
through work, job preparation, and marriage.65 In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush
Administration directed specific federal agencies66 to test different ways of strengthening couple
relationships and encouraging marriage to stabilize families.67 The federally funded healthy
marriage initiatives implemented after 1996 have been targeted primarily to low-income persons.
From the outset, information from HHS about the healthy marriage initiative proposed by
President George W. Bush indicated that the healthy marriage initiative was not about (1) telling
people that they should be married, (2) trapping people in abusive marriages, or (3) withdrawing
support for single mothers.68 In proclaiming November 24-30, 2002, as National Family Week,
President Bush stated:
62
Vicki Turetsky, “Realistic Child Support Policies that Support Successful Re-entry,” Center for Law and Social
Policy, revised January 2007.
63
“Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council—Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community,”
2004. See also Rachel L. McLean and Michael D. Thompson, “Repaying Debts,” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Assistance, 2007.
64
HHS, ACF, “Healthy Marriage Initiative, 2002-2008: An Introductory Guide,” 2008,
http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/docs/acfhminitiativeguide.pdf. (Hereinafter, HHS, ACF, “Healthy Marriage
Initiative, 2002-2008: An Introductory Guide.”)
65
The other two goals are (1) providing assistance to needy families so that children may remain in their homes, or in
the homes of relatives, and (2) reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
66
These HHS agencies were the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) (including the Office of Head Start,
formerly known as the Head Start Bureau), the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), the Office of Refugee
Resettlement, the Children’s Bureau, the Office of Community Services, the Administration for Native Americans.
67
HHS, ACF, “Healthy Marriage Initiative, 2002-2008: An Introductory Guide.”
68
HHS, ACF, Information Memorandum, “Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage Initiative (ACYF-CB-02-01, Attachment
C),” Issuance date: March 12, 2002.
Congressional Research Service
32
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
We know that by helping couples to build and sustain strong, two-parent families, we will
contribute to the well-being of our children and the strength of our society.... My welfare
reform agenda also will strengthen families. We plan on continuing to provide historically
high levels of support for childcare and child support enforcement. And we will continue to
encourage strong marriages and two-parent married families as a worthy policy goal.69
In proclaiming October 12-18, 2003, as Marriage Protection Week, President Bush stated:
To encourage marriage and promote the well-being of children, I have proposed a healthy
marriage initiative to help couples develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain
healthy marriages. Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households
headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures.
Through education and counseling programs, faith-based, community, and government
organizations promote healthy marriages and a better quality of life for children. By
supporting responsible child-rearing and strong families, my Administration is seeking to
ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home.70
P.L. 109-171 established within TANF a new categorical grant for healthy marriage promotion
initiatives.71 The healthy marriage promotion initiative was funded at approximately $100 million
per year for FY2006 through FY2010, to be spent through grants awarded by HHS to support
research and demonstration projects by public or private entities, and technical assistance
provided to states, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and other entities. In 2006, pursuant to
the DRA, the HHS Office of Family Assistance (OFA) awarded healthy marriage grants to 123
grantees. The grantees were awarded five-year contracts to implement healthy marriage
programs. In FY2009, the contracts (in aggregate) amounted to about $93 million.72
P.L. 111-291 (the Claims Resolution Act of 2010; enacted December 8, 2010) extended funding
for the Title IV-A healthy marriage grants for an additional year (i.e., through FY2011). For
FY2011, P.L. 111-291 reduced the appropriation for awarding funds for healthy marriage
promotion activities from $100 million to $75 million for the year.73 Pursuant to P.L. 112-78
(enacted December 23, 2011), the Healthy Marriage grant program was extended at its FY2011
funding level (on a pro rata basis) through February 29, 2012. Pursuant to P.L. 112-96 (enacted
February 22, 2012), the Healthy Marriage grant program was extended (at its FY2011 funding
level) through the end of FY2012 (on a pro rata basis). P.L. 112-175 (the government-wide
continuing resolution enacted on September 28, 2012) extended funding (on a pro rata basis) for
the Healthy Marriage grant program through March 2013 (the first six months of FY2013).
The activities supported by the DRA healthy marriage initiatives are programs to promote
marriage to the general population, such as public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage
69
The White House, “National Family Week, 2002” (George W. Bush), Proclamation 7630 of November 22, 2002.
HHS, “Marriage Protection Week, 2003,” A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America (George
W. Bush), October 3, 2003.
71
This law also established within TANF a new categorical grant for responsible fatherhood initiatives (discussed
below).
72
HHS, ACF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Budget Justification of Appropriations Estimates for
Committee on Appropriations, FY2011, p. 303. According to HHS data, 60% of the grantees are nonprofit, communitybased organizations. Other grantees include post-secondary institutions, state and county governments, for-profit
companies, and faith-based organizations.
73
P.L. 111-291 equalized funding between the healthy marriage grant program and the responsible fatherhood grant
program for FY2011.
70
Congressional Research Service
33
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
and education; education on “social skills” (e.g., marriage education, marriage skills, conflict
resolution, and relationship skills) for engaged couples, those interested in marriage, or married
couples; and programs that reduce the financial disincentive to marry, if combined with
educational or other marriage promotion activities. Entities that apply for marriage promotion
grants must ensure that participation in such activities is voluntary and that domestic violence
concerns are addressed (e.g., through consultations with experts on domestic violence). Although
healthy marriage programs are not income-based, the emphasis has been on providing such
programs to low-income persons. In 2006, pursuant to the DRA, the HHS Office of Family
Assistance (OFA) awarded healthy marriage grants to 123 grantees. The grantees were awarded
five-year contracts to implement healthy marriage programs. In FY2009, the contracts (in
aggregate) amounted to about $93 million.74
The DRA requires healthy marriage grantees to evaluate their programs. The evaluations must
identify project milestones and expected outcomes, and describe the services and activities that
were implemented in the program. HHS is currently overseeing three large-scale, multi-site
longitudinal, scientific evaluations of approaches to providing healthy marriage education
services.75 The final results of the studies are expected between 2011 and 2013.76 In addition, a
comprehensive process and output evaluation of selected ACF healthy marriage projects that
serve Hispanic families will be conducted for programs operating during the period from
September 2007 through September 2012.77
Healthy Marriage Programs and Child Well-Being
A 2008 report examines the economic costs associated with the decline in marriage (which the
authors contend increases the number of children and adults eligible for and in need of
government services).78 The authors of the report maintain that the decline in marriage is a
product of both divorce and unmarried childbearing. The report estimates that combined, the high
rates of divorce and nonmarital childbearing costs U.S. taxpayers at least $112 billion per year in
federal, state, and local costs—$70.1 billion of which is federal costs.79 It states that “these costs
arise from increased taxpayer expenditures for antipoverty, criminal justice, and education
programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals who, as adults, earn less because
of reduced opportunities as a result of having been more likely to grow up in poverty.”80
74
HHS, ACF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Budget Justification of Appropriations Estimates for
Committee on Appropriations, FY2011, p. 303. According to HHS data, 60% of the grantees are nonprofit, communitybased organizations. Other grantees include post-secondary institutions, state and county governments, for-profit
companies, and faith-based organizations.
75
HHS’s Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) has funded and continues to fund many more federally
funded evaluations of healthy marriage programs. For additional information on these evaluations, see ACF, “Healthy
Marriage Initiative, 2002-2008: An Introductory Guide,” 2008, pp. 13-15.
76
Ibid., p. 28.
77
HHS, ACF, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Hispanic Healthy Marriage Initiative,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/strengthen/hispanic_healthy/index.html#overview.
78
Benjamin Scafidi et al., “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the
Nation and for All Fifty States,” Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, Institute for Marriage and
Public Policy, and Families Northwest, April 2008. (Hereinafter, Scafidi et al, “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and
Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and for All Fifty States”).
79
The report does not separately estimate the economic costs associated with nonmarital childbearing.
80
Scafidi et al, “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and for
All Fifty States.”
Congressional Research Service
34
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Another study examined the impact of nonmarital childbearing on poverty by using a regression
analysis that was based on hypothetically matching single women and men in the population on
the basis of factors such as age, education, and race. It found that if the share of children living
with two parents in 2000 was increased to what it had been in 1970, the child poverty rate in 2000
would have declined by about 29% compared to the actual decline of 4.5%.81 If that analysis is
applied to 2011 data, 4.5 million fewer children would be in poverty.82
Although the DRA healthy marriage program grants are funded through the TANF title of the
Social Security Act, the statute makes it clear that the healthy marriage grants are not targeted
exclusively to low-income clients. Some observers of the healthy marriage program contend that
by encompassing middle-income persons as part of its clientele, the focus of promoting marriage
as a poverty-reduction strategy for low-income persons is substantially diminished and thereby
activities and services (i.e., program components) that could potentially help persons, especially
low-income persons, become more employable83 (e.g., financial literacy, anger and stress
management, self-awareness, emotional control, and respect for others) may not be offered by the
program.84
Critics of marriage promotion programs caution that government must be careful about
supporting programs that cajole individuals into marrying.85 They note the problems associated
with child-bride marriages (i.e., women marrying young) and the short-term and often unhappy
nature of the so-called “shotgun” marriage (i.e., marriage hastened by pregnancy).86 Others
contend that marriage promotion programs could encourage women to stay in abusive
relationships, that they minimize the excellent job that many single parents do in raising good
children, and that marriage is a private rather than a government affair.87 Some supporters of
healthy marriage programs remark that many long-lasting marriages were based on financial
alliances (e.g., to increase economic status, family wealth, status in the community, etc.). They
assert that policies or programs designed to promote healthy marriages are not intended to force
anyone into unwanted, unhealthy relationships, trap women in abusive relationships, or withdraw
support from single mothers. Supporters maintain that a relationship is not healthy if it is not safe.
They also maintain that marriage is a proven path out of poverty for women.88
81
Paul R. Amato and Rebecca A. Maynard, “Decreasing Nonmarital Births and Strengthening Marriage to Reduce
Poverty,” The Future of Children, vol. 17, no. 2 (Fall 2007), p. 130.
82
The 4.5 million figure was derived by applying the 29% reduction rate to the 15.5 million children who were in
families with below poverty-level income in 2011. According to the Census Bureau, in 2011, 15.5 million of the nearly
75 million children (under age 18) living in families were in families with poverty-level income. Also, in 1970, 85.2%
of children lived with both parents; in 1980, 76.7%; in 1990, 72.5%; in 2000, 69.1%; and in 2011, 68.9%.
83
Some of the “healthy marriage” literature explains that much of the debate around healthy marriage focuses on policy
initiatives that may make persons more “marriageable,” such as job training and employment programs, but that are
distinct from the definition of “healthy marriage;” Kristen Anderson Moore, Susan M. Jekielek, Jacinta Bronte-Tinkew,
Lina Guzman, Suzanne Ryan, and Zakia Redd, “What Is ‘Healthy Marriage’? Defining the Concept,” Child Trends,
Research Brief, 2004-16, September 2004.
84
Marguerite Roulet, “Fatherhood Programs and Healthy Marriage Funding,” Center for Family Policy and Practice,
June 2009.
85
Dorian Solot and Marshall Miller, “Let Them Eat Wedding Rings,” Alternatives to Marriage Project, 2002.
86
Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., “Bringing Back the Shotgun Wedding,” National Affairs, no. 90 (Winter 1988).
87
Claire Hughes, “Marriage Promotion: Will It Work?,” June 2004.
88
Robert Rector, “Welfare Reform and The Healthy Marriage Initiative,” The Heritage Foundation, February 10, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
35
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Nonetheless, many observers are concerned about the impact of healthy marriage promotion
programs on survivors of domestic violence or those still in abusive relationships. They assert
that all marriage promotion programs must identify and respond to domestic violence issues in a
manner that is effective for the individual program in question.89 Some observers contend that
policymakers should focus healthy marriage programs on couples who want to get married,
couples who are free from substance abuse problems and/or violent tendencies, and couples who
do not have any children by other partners.90 Others note that the phrase “healthy marriage” is
specifically used because healthy marriage initiatives do not tolerate violence of any sort and
instead educate couples on effective ways to resolve conflict and successful approaches to
forming and sustaining committed and loving long-term marriages.
Impact Findings from the Building Strong Families (BSF) Project
The Building Strong Families project91 is one of the centerpieces of a broad policy strategy to
support healthy marriage. The project, which was funded by HHS, sought to determine whether
well-designed interventions can help interested unwed parents realize their hopes for a healthy
marriage and thus enhance the well-being of their children. The findings from a recently released
evaluation of the long-term impacts of the BSF program were not very encouraging. As indicated
above, the BSF project was designed to answer the question of whether relationship-skills
education could be effective in improving relationship communication and satisfaction among
low-income couples, and whether improving a couple’s relationship will enhance the well-being
of their children. The BSF project provided relationship and marriage education, case
management, and referrals to other services. The 36-month impact evaluation of the stability and
quality of the couples’ relationships found the following:
•
When results are averaged across all programs, BSF had no effect on the quality
of couples’ relationships and did not make couples more likely to stay together or
get married. In addition, it did not improve couples’ relationship quality.
•
BSF had no effect on couples’ co-parenting relationship. BSF had small negative
effects on some aspects of father involvement.
•
BSF had no effect on the family stability or economic well-being of children;
however, the program led to modest reductions in children’s behavior problems.92
89
Anne Menard and Oliver Williams, “It’s Not Healthy If It’s Not Safe: Responding to Domestic Violence Issues
Within Healthy Marriage Programs,” November 2005 (updated May 2006), p. 2.
90
Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas, Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage,
University of California Press, 2005.
91
The Building Strong Families (BSF) project was sponsored by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF),
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The project developed, implemented, and tested voluntary programs
that offer relationship skills education and other support services to unwed couples who are expecting or who have just
had a baby. Eight organizations volunteered to be part of a rigorous evaluation designed to test a new strategy to help
new, unmarried parents strengthen their relationships. These organizations implemented BSF programs around the
country, complying with a set of research-based program guidelines. Mathematica Policy Research, under contract with
HHS, conducted an experimental evaluation of the eight BSF programs. More than 5,000 interested couples were
randomly assigned to either a group that could participate in the BSF program or a control group that could not.
92
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, The Building Strong Families Project, “The Long–Term Effects of Building
Strong Families: A Relationship Skills Education Program for Unmarried Parents,” Executive Summary (OPRE Report
2012-28B), by Robert G. Wood, Quinn Moore, Andrew Clarkwest, Alexandra Killewald, and Shannon Monahan,
November 2012. Also see early impact study: Robert G. Wood et al., “The Building Strong Families Project—
Strengthening Unmarried Parents’ Relationships: The Early Impacts of Building Strong Families,” Mathematica Policy
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
36
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
According to the 36-month impact study, in all of the eight programs93 evaluated, the BSF
program failed to yield better outcomes for program participants than for a control group that did
not have access to the program. The evaluation measured the living arrangements, relationship
status, relationship quality, extent of father involvement with his child, domestic violence, and
economic well-being of approximately 5,000 couples who were randomly assigned to either a
control group or a group that had access to a BSF program.
According to the 36-month impact study:
Qualitative research with BSF couples indicated that the need for fathers to “step up” and be
more responsible was one of the strongest messages that couples took from the program.
This expectation may have led some fathers in particularly disadvantaged circumstances to
instead distance themselves from their partner and children. For example, if men do not see
themselves as capable of being economically supportive or meeting other expectations of
responsible fatherhood, they may reduce engagement with their children in order to protect
themselves from a sense of failure.94
The Obama Administration indicated (after the early findings of the evaluations were released)
that the BSF program was not comprehensive enough to improve the stability of couples and the
well-being of children. They contend that the approach outlined in their proposed Fatherhood,
Marriage, and Family Innovation Fund initiative will encompass a broader effort that “will
provide the comprehensive support that parents and couples need to succeed in their relationships
as well as in their roles as workers, providers, and engaged parents.”95 Some commentators have
mentioned that program implementation problems and inconsistent participation are often reasons
for unfavorable outcomes in scientific evaluations of social programs.96
Responsible Fatherhood Programs
The federal government has also sought to engage men in the lives of their children through what
are known as responsible fatherhood programs.97 These programs recognize that committed,
involved, and responsible fathers are important in the lives of their children. These programs seek
to promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial parents for their children and
increase the participation of fathers in their children’s lives.98 Some responsible fatherhood
(...continued)
Research, Inc., May 2010, p. xii. (Hereinafter, Robert G. Wood et al., “The Building Strong Families Project—
Strengthening Unmarried Parents’ Relationships: The Early Impacts Of Building Strong Families.”)
93
The eight BSF programs evaluated were in (1) Atlanta, GA; (2) Baltimore, MD; (3) Baton Rouge, LA; (4) Orange
and Broward counties, Florida; (5) Allen, Marion, and Lake counties, Indiana; (6) Oklahoma City, OK; (7) Houston,
TX; and (8) San Angelo, TX.
94
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, The Building Strong Families Project, “The Long–Term Effects of Building
Strong Families: A Relationship Skills Education Program for Unmarried Parents,” Executive Summary (OPRE Report
2012-28B), by Robert G. Wood, Quinn Moore, Andrew Clarkwest, Alexandra Killewald, and Shannon Monahan,
November 2012.
95
HHS, ACF, “Study: Building Strong Families Evaluation Suggests Stronger Approach is Needed,” May 21, 2010.
96
Virginia Knox, Philip A. Cowan, Carolyn Pape Cowan, and Elana Bildner, “Policies That Strengthen Fatherhood and
Family Relationships,” MDRC, A Working Paper, 2009.
97
For additional information, see CRS Report RL31025, Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children,
by (name redacted).
98
Although programs that seek to help fathers initiate or maintain contact with their children and become emotionally
involved in their children’s lives are usually referred to as “fatherhood” programs, the programs are generally gender
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
37
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
programs help noncustodial parents strengthen their parenting skills. Other programs try to
discourage young men from becoming fathers until they are married and ready for the
responsibility.99
Even before the federal government became interested in responsible fatherhood programs, many
states100 and localities, private organizations, and nonprofit agencies had been operating
responsible fatherhood programs since the early 1990s.101 From the start, many CSE agencies
recognized the importance of cultivating a collaborative relationship with these responsible
fatherhood programs. During these early years, it was not always easy to form amicable
connections, in part because there had been a long-standing tension between noncustodial parents
and the CSE program. Noncustodial parents often claimed that by exclusively focusing on
financial support, the CSE system devalued their role as a nurturer, disciplinarian, and mentor.
Nonetheless, most responsible fatherhood programs clearly explained the goals and duties of the
CSE program and encouraged noncustodial parents to interact with CSE agencies in a proactive
manner.
During the 106th Congress, then-Representative Nancy Johnson, chair of the Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Human Resources, stated, “to take the next step in welfare reform we must find
a way to help children by providing them with more than a working mother and sporadic child
support.” She noted that many low-income fathers have problems similar to those of mothers on
welfare—namely, they are likely to have dropped out of high school, to have little work
experience, and to have significant barriers that lessen their ability to find or keep a job. She also
asserted that in many cases these men are “dead broke” rather than “deadbeats” and that the
federal government should help these noncustodial fathers meet both their financial and
emotional obligations to their children.102 During this same time period, research indicating that
father absence had a profound negative impact on children became more widely accepted.
As indicated above, the advantages and disadvantages of having federally funded responsible
fatherhood programs have been debated in Congress since the 106th Congress (1999), but it was
not until the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) that specific funding was provided for
these programs.103 P.L. 109-171 included a provision that provided up to $50 million per year (for
each of FY2006-FY2010) in competitive grants to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal
(...continued)
neutral. Their underlying goal is participation of the noncustodial parent in the lives of his or her children.
99
HHS, ACF, Information Memorandum, “Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage Initiative (ACYF-CB-02-01, Attachment
C),” Issuance date: March 12, 2002.
100
For information on profiles of state programs and strategies to promote parenting and responsible fatherhood, see
http://www.fatherhood.gov/resources/state.cfm.
101
For a detailed early history of responsible fatherhood programs, see Kathleen Sylvester and Kathleen Reich,
“Making Fathers Count: Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood Efforts,” Annie E. Casey Foundation and
the Social Policy Action Network, 2002.
102
U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, “Hearing on Fatherhood Legislation,”
Statement of Chairman Nancy Johnson. 106th Congress, 1st Session (October 5, 1999), p. 4. Note: Much of the research
underlying the aforementioned statement is based on the Urban Institute’s 1997 National Survey of American Families
(NSAF); see Sorenson and Zibman, “Poor Dads Who Don't Pay Child Support: Deadbeat or Disadvantaged.”
103
Other sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs include the TANF program, TANF state Maintenance-ofEffort (MOE) funding, CSE funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds. According to HHS, many states
use TANF funds for responsible fatherhood programs. In addition, many private foundations provide financial support
for responsible fatherhood programs.
Congressional Research Service
38
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
organizations, and public and nonprofit community organizations (including religious
organizations) for responsible fatherhood programs.104 According to data from ACF, 99 grantees
were awarded five-year contracts to implement responsible fatherhood programs. In FY2009, the
contracts (in aggregate) amounted to about $45 million.105
For FY2011, P.L. 111-291 (the Claims Resolution Act of 2010) increased the appropriation for
awarding funds for activities promoting responsible fatherhood from $50 million to $75 million
for the year.106 Pursuant to P.L. 112-78 (enacted December 23, 2011), the Responsible Fatherhood
grant program was extended at its FY2011 funding level (on a pro rata basis) through February
29, 2012. Pursuant to P.L. 112-96 (enacted February 22, 2012), the Responsible Fatherhood grant
program was extended (at its FY2011 funding level) through the end of FY2012 (on a pro rata
basis). P.L. 112-175 (the government-wide continuing resolution enacted on September 28, 2012)
extended funding (on a pro rata basis) for the Responsible Fatherhood grant program through
March 2013 (the first six months of FY2013).
Most responsible fatherhood programs include parenting education; training in responsible
decision-making, conflict resolution, and coping with stress; mediation services for both parents;
problem-solving skills; peer support; and job-training opportunities. Like healthy marriage
promotion programs, responsible fatherhood programs are not income-based, but the emphasis
has been on providing such programs to low-income persons. An evaluation of responsible
fatherhood programs sponsored by HHS—the National Evaluation of the Responsible
Fatherhood, Marriage and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers
and Their Partners (MFS-IP)—began in 2006. The evaluation is a multiyear (quasi-experimental)
study that is expected to run from 2006 through 2013.
According to an HHS Research Brief:
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
104
Under P.L. 109-171, responsible fatherhood funds can be spent on activities to promote responsible fatherhood
through (1) marriage promotion (through counseling, mentoring, disseminating information about the advantages of
marriage and two-parent involvement for children, etc.); (2) parenting activities (through counseling, mentoring,
mediation, disseminating information about good parenting practices, etc.); (3) fostering economic stability of fathers
(through work first services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, education, etc.); or (4) contracting with a
nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to develop, promote, or distribute a media
campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of parents in the lives of their children, focusing in particular on
responsible fatherhood; and to develop a national clearinghouse to help states and communities in their efforts to
promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood.
105
HHS, ACF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Budget Justification of Appropriations Estimates for
Committee on Appropriations, FY2011, p. 303.
106
Thus, the Title IV-A Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grants, which were funded annually from
FY2006 through FY2010 at $100 million and $50 million, respectively, were funded in FY2011 on an equal basis
(i.e.,$75 million per program).
Congressional Research Service
39
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
supportive relationships, improved co-parenting, and increased familial contact—all of
which could be beneficial upon the individual’s eventual release.107
A final report on the impact of the program is expected in 2015 or 2016.
Responsible fatherhood programs, in affirming the importance of fathers to their children’s wellbeing, have to a certain extent encouraged open communication between noncustodial parents
and the CSE program.108 It is generally agreed that positive, constructive communication between
noncustodial parents and CSE agencies sometimes leads to more child support for children.109
Moreover, findings from several of the demonstration projects that provided noncustodial fathers
with employment and supportive services indicate that partnerships between the CSE programs
and employment programs can result in significant, sustained increases in the amount of child
support paid to custodial parents on behalf of dependent children.110 Given that recruitment of
noncustodial parents to responsible fatherhood programs has been a challenge for many of these
programs, some observers contend that it is important to integrate the CSE agency into
fatherhood programs because they have more leverage than other agencies or entities in
persuading noncustodial parents to participate.111 They also note that the involvement of the CSE
agency provides an improved knowledge base about the program to both staff and participants,
and that the CSE agency has the unique ability to implement “realistic” child support order
amounts and develop strategies to address noncustodial parents with large amounts of
accumulated debt.112
Many commentators contend that to help fathers and mothers successfully meet their parental
responsibilities, responsible fatherhood programs must be expanded to include broad-based
collaborative strategies that include schools, employment programs, prison systems, churches,
community organizations, and the health care system.113 The role of these entities would be to
recruit noncustodial parents to the programs and/or provide relevant information, and if
appropriate, services, to existing programs. Some child welfare,114 Head Start,115 and prisoner reentry programs have included responsible fatherhood initiatives or components in their programs.
107
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.
108
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,” National Women’s Law Center and Center on Fathers, Families, and Public
Policy, Washington, DC, 2000, pp. 9-11.
109
William J. Doherty, Edward F. Kouneski, and Martha Farrell Erickson, “Responsible Fathering: An Overview and
Conceptual Framework—Final Report,” HHS, ACF, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies (HHS-100-930012), Washington, DC, September 1996.
110
For more information, see CRS Report RL31025, Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children, by
(name redacted). Also see http://fatherhood.hhs
.gov/Research/index.shtml and http://www.fatherhood.org/
evaluation.asp.
111
Urban Institute, “Ten Key Findings from Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives,” by Karin Martinson and Demetra
Nightingale, February 2008.
112
Ibid., p. 8.
113
Annie E. Casey Foundation, “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood,” A Guide To Key Ideas, Effective Approaches,
and Technical Assistance Resources for Making Connections Cities and Site Teams, 2005, http://www.aecf.org/upload/
publicationfiles/fatherhood_pages.pdf.
114
HHS, ACF, Children’s Bureau, “The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children,” Section II, 8.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
40
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
Human Capital Programs
Unlike economic assistance programs that seek to support family consumption, and family
support programs aimed at nurturing family relationships, human capital programs are focused on
helping individuals develop the skills necessary to obtain employment and realize their economic
potential. Several human capital programs are specifically designed to enhance employability and
earnings.
While existing federal workforce development programs do not directly target noncustodial
fathers per se, they can play a role in providing these fathers (and others) with opportunities to
secure employment, which in turn can help them meet their obligations to their children. These
programs provide a combination of job search assistance, education, and training services to
prepare individuals for work or improve individuals’ labor market performance. In the broadest
sense, workforce development includes secondary and postsecondary education, private employer
training, and the publicly funded system of job training and employment services. The federal
government provides workforce development activities through programs authorized under the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 (P.L. 105-220). Workforce development may include
activities such as job search assistance, career counseling, occupational skill training, classroom
training, or on-the-job training. Title I of WIA provides job training and related services to
unemployed and underemployed individuals. Title I programs are administered by the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL), primarily through its Employment and Training Administration
(ETA), and carried out by states and localities through what are known as workforce investment
boards. Although WIA authorized funding through September 30, 2003, WIA programs continue
to be funded through annual appropriations. In FY2012, programs and activities authorized under
Title I of WIA were funded at $4.9 billion, including $2.6 billion for state formula grants for
youth, adult, and dislocated worker training and employment activities. The remaining funding is
for multiple national programs.
WIA does not expressly provide services to noncustodial parents and it is not clear the extent to
which Title I programs reach noncustodial parents, since data are not kept on the parenting status
of participants (except whether they are single parents). Generally speaking, Title I seeks to
benefit all participants by increasing their employment, job wages, and occupational skills. As
stated in the purpose of Title I, more skilled workers can “improve the quality of the workforce,
reduce welfare dependency, and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the Nation.”116
For noncustodial parents, attachment to the workforce and increased wages can improve their
ability to provide for their children. Recent initiatives under WIA to engage prisoners re-entering
the community may particularly benefit prisoners who are noncustodial parents and face
difficulty in meeting their financial obligations upon re-entry.
(...continued)
Fatherhood Programs, by Jeffrey Rosenberg and Bradford W. Wilcox, 2006, http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/
usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptereight.cfm.
115
HHS, “Father Involvement in Head Start and Early Head Start,” http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/Parenting/hs.shtml.
116
Section 106 of WIA.
Congressional Research Service
41
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
One-Stop Delivery System
One of the innovations of WIA was the establishment of the “One-Stop delivery system”
(hereinafter, “One-Stop”) to provide coordinated access to a range of employment and support
services. WIA requires each state to establish a One-Stop delivery system to provide “core”
services (i.e., intake and job search assistance) and provide access to “intensive” (i.e., individual
employment plans, group counseling, etc.) and “training” (i.e., on-the-job training, skill
upgrading and retraining services, etc.) among other services.
Each local workforce investment area in a state is required to have at least one physical One-Stop
center in which the aforementioned programs and services are accessible. In addition, a state OneStop delivery system may provide access to programs and services through a network of affiliated
sites and through a network of One-Stop partners linked electronically. As noted, one of the
characteristics of the WIA One-Stop system is to provide a central point of service for those
seeking employment, training, and related services. To this end, WIA requires multiple partner
programs and allows additional programs to operate in the One-Stop system. Some of these
programs, including TANF and SNAP, are targeted to low-income individuals.117
WIA State Formula Grant Programs
Three formula grant programs for youth, adults, and dislocated workers provide funding for
employment and training activities carried out by the national system of One-Stop Career
Centers. Funds are distributed to states by statutory formulas based on measures of
unemployment and poverty status for youth and adult allocations, and unemployment measures
for dislocated worker allocations.118 States in turn distribute funds to local workforce investment
boards (WIBs), which administer and oversee local workforce development activities funded by
WIA. There are no eligibility requirements for participation in services funded by the Adult
Activities and Dislocated Worker Activities programs, but a youth must be low-income and have
a barrier to employment (i.e., be a school dropout, in foster care, etc.) in order to participate in
Youth Activities-funded services. However, Section 134(d)(4)(E) of WIA instructs local WIBs to
give priority to recipients of public assistance and other low-income individuals for training and
intensive services when funds are limited.
The state formula grant programs are the following:
•
The Youth Activities program, discussed further under “Youth Activities,” below,
provides training and related services to low-income youth ages 14 through 21
through formula grants allocated to states, which in turn allocate funds to local
entities. Programs funded under the youth activities chapter of WIA provide 10
“program elements” that consist of strategies to complete secondary school,
alternative secondary school services, summer employment, work experience,
occupational skill training, leadership development opportunities, supportive
services, adult mentoring, follow-up services, and comprehensive guidance and
117
The list of required partners, including references to the authorizing statutes for each program, is in Section
121(b)(1)(B) of WIA.
118
For further information on the formula factors used in the state formula grant allocations, see Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration, “Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and Wagner-Peyser Act Statutory
Formulas for State Allotments,” http://www.doleta.gov/budget/WIAFormDesc.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
42
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
counseling. In FY2012, funding for state grants for Youth Activities was $826
million.
•
The Adult Activities program provides training and related services to individuals
ages 18 and older through formula grants allocated to states, which in turn
allocate funds to local entities. There are no income requirements to participate in
WIA Adult Activities programs. Participation in the adult program is based on a
“sequential service” strategy that consists of three levels of services. Any
individual may receive “core” services, which primarily encompass job search
assistance. To receive “intensive” services, including individual career planning
and prevocational services (i.e., interview skills, development of learning skills,
etc.), an individual must have received core services and need intensive services
to become employed or to obtain or retain employment that allows for selfsufficiency. To receive training services—including on-the-job training, skill
upgrading, and retraining—an individual must have received intensive services
and need training services to become employed or to obtain or retain employment
that allows for self-sufficiency. In FY2012, funding for state grants for Adult
Activities was $771 million.
•
A majority of WIA Dislocated Worker Activities funds are allocated by formula
grants to states, which in turn allocate funds to local entities to provide training
and related services to individuals who have lost their jobs and are unlikely to
return to those jobs or similar jobs in the same industry. As in the Adult Activities
program, there are no income requirements to participate in the WIA Dislocated
Worker Activities program. The remainder of the appropriation is reserved by
DOL for a National Reserve account, which in part provides for National
Emergency Grants119 to states or local entities (as specified under Section 173).120
In FY2012, funding was $1.0 billion for state grants for Dislocated Worker
Activities and $224 million for the National Reserve.121
Detailed WIA data on demographics and services received are based on the concept of program
“exiters.” An exiter is a participant who received a service funded by WIA or a partner program,
has not received the service for 90 consecutive calendar days, and is not scheduled to receive
future services.122
Of the three programs, the Adult Activities program serves the most individuals. In the most
recent period for which data are available (April 1, 2011, through March 31, 2012), 1,247,220
119
Grants authorized under WIA Section 173(a)(1) are for employment and training assistance to workers affected by
major economic dislocations, such as plant closures or mass layoffs.
120
WIA Sections 132(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B) require that 20% of the amount appropriated for Dislocated Worker
Employment and Training Activities be reserved for national emergency grants, projects, and technical assistance. The
remaining 80% is to be used for state formula grants.
121
In FY2009, the National Reserve includes $125 million for Community-Based Job Training (CBJT) grants (see
below).
122
Thus, the date on which an individual has finished his or her participation in WIA determines the program year for
which data are generated on the exiter. For example, if an individual received services throughout the entire 2011
calendar year and last received WIA services on December 15, 2012, the data for that individual are included as part of
Program Year (PY) 2012. A program year runs from July 1-June 30 (e.g., PY2012 runs from July 1, 2012-June 30,
2013). Due to deadlines for submitting data for the WIASRD annual Data Book, the most recent period for which data
are available is April 1, 2011-March 31, 2012. U.S. Department of Labor, PY2011 WIASRD Data Book, Table II-1 and
Table II-7, http://www.doleta.gov/performance/results/pdf/py_2011_wiasrd_data_book.pdf
Congressional Research Service
43
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
adults exited the Adult Activities program. Notably, 65.7% of exiters received only core services,
which are generally limited to job search assistance and do not include education and job training.
Of the approximately 35% of exiters who went on to receive more specialized services, including
job training,
•
11.2% were single parents,
•
47.6% were low-income,
•
24.4% were recipients of public assistance,
•
7.8% were offenders, and
•
13.5% did not hold high school degrees.
Reintegration of Ex-Offenders Program
In addition to state formula grants, WIA authorizes funding for several national programs—Job
Corps, Native American programs, Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker programs, Veterans’
Workforce Investment programs, Demonstration and Pilot programs, National Emergency Grants,
and YouthBuild. One of the programs administered under DOL’s Demonstration and Pilot
programs (authorized under Section 171 of WIA and Section 212 of the Second Chance Act of
2007, P.L. 110-199) is the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders program (REO). This program is the
most relevant to low-income and noncustodial males.
The Reintegration of Ex-Offenders program consolidated funding from two previous
demonstration projects, the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) and the Responsible Reintegration of
Youthful Offenders (RRYO). PRI, which was first funded in FY2005, funds faith-based and
community organizations that help recently released prisoners find work when they return to their
communities. RRYO, first funded in FY2000, supports projects that serve young offenders and
youth at risk of becoming involved in the juvenile justice system. In FY2008, the Reintegration of
Ex-Offenders program combined the PRI and RRYO into a single funding stream. In FY2012,
funding for this single program was $80.4 million.
Youth Programs
The nation’s future depends on today’s young people leaving school prepared for college or the
workplace and beginning to make positive contributions to society. Some youth, however, face
barriers to becoming taxpayers, workers, and participants in civic life. They may also disengage
from their own families, including their children. Social science research indicates that many lowincome, disadvantaged youth come from families in which their father was absent from the home.
Single-parent households tend to have less income and other resources than two-parent
households. Having fewer resources lowers children’s school performance, decreases their labor
force participation, and contributes to early childbearing.123 For example, multiple studies of
births among teenagers show that teens in single-parent households are more likely to have
children and to do so outside of marriage compared to those in two-parent families.124
123
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1994), pp. 39-56.
124
Ibid, p. 54. These studies do not account for whether teens are cohabiting with a partner. Also see Fragile Families
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
44
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers
While the federal government does not have a single approach or policy for serving
disadvantaged young people, select youth programs seek to ameliorate the negative outcomes
they may experience.125 The goals of these federal programs are not necessarily to engage teens
and young adults in the lives of their children—if in fact they have children—but rather, to ensure
that these young people are adequately prepared for adulthood. Three types of programs in
particular focus on delaying early family formation or engaging young people in productive
activities as they transition to adulthood: teenage pregnancy prevention programs, youth
employment programs, and education programs. (Notably, the workforce programs include
education services and the education programs include workforce elements.) Yet by preparing
youth for adulthood, these programs may ultimately put teenagers and young adults in a better
position to provide for and be involved in the lives of their (current or future) children.
Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Programs
In 2011, U.S. teen births accounted for 8.4% of all births and 18.4% of all nonmarital births. The
birth rate for U.S. teenagers (ages 15 through 19) increased in 2006 and 2007 after a steady
decline since 1991. However, in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 the teen birth rate dropped below the
2006 teen birth rate, reversing the two-year upward trend. Although the birth rate for U.S. teens
has dropped in 18 of the past 20 years, it remains higher than the teen birth rate of most
industrialized nations.126
The high volume of pregnancies and birth rates among teenage and never-married women is often
attributed to a liberal view of sexual activity.127 Some analysts also contend that contraceptive
advancements have afforded women a false sense of security, thereby contributing to increased
sexual activity and more pregnancies. The academic and professional communities also maintain
that teen parenthood is one of the negative consequences of growing up without a father present
in the household.128 Moreover, policymakers suggest that, prior to its reform, “welfare” was seen
as a guaranteed source of income for unmarried teenage mothers with grim marriage and job
prospects. The president of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an organization that studies
reproductive health, commenting on a study about adolescent pregnancy and childbearing in
“developed” countries, stated: “In the United States, poverty and inequity clearly are behind
much of our high rates of pregnancy, birth and abor
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.