# Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41431 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** February 12, 2013 - **Citation:** R41431 ## 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, t [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41431. Public record. Not legal advice.