Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Fatherhood Initiatives:

Connecting Fathers to Their Children

(name redacted)

Specialist in Social Policy

Updated May 1, 2018

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL31025

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Summary

Long-standing research indicates that children raised in one-parent homes are more likely than

children raised in homes with both biological parents to do poorly in school, have emotional and

behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes as adults. In an

effort to improve the long-term outlook for children in one-parent homes, federal, state, and local

governments, along with public and private organizations, have supported programs and activities

that promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial parents to their children and

reduce the incidence of parental absence in the lives of children. Fatherhood initiatives include

campaigns that seek to encourage noncustodial parents to connect with their children; counseling

and training on “soft skills,” including relationship skills, to help noncustodial parents connect

with them; and employment and training services so that they can help financially support them.

Over the years, sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs have included the Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, TANF state Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE)

funding, Child Support Enforcement (CSE) funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX)

funds. However, the need for a specific funding stream for the program was identified in

legislation as early as the 106th Congress, and President George W. Bush included funding for

such programs in each of his budgets. Ultimately, funding for a competitive Healthy Marriage

Promotion (HMP) and Responsible Fatherhood (RF) grants program was enacted as part of the

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171). Between FY2006 and FY2010, the act provided up

to $50 million per year for the RF grants and about $100 million per year for the HMP grants, but

the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-291) subsequently altered the split between the

programs to $75 million each. Funding for these programs has been extended on multiple

occasions since that time, usually through provisions in appropriations acts. Most recently, on

May 5, 2017, funding was extended through the end of FY2018 by the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31).

Most fatherhood programs include media campaigns that emphasize the importance of emotional,

physical, psychological, and financial connections of fathers to their children. They also include

elements such as parenting education; responsible decisionmaking; mediation services for both

parents; information on the CSE program; skills development related to conflict resolution,

coping with stress, and problem-solving; peer support; and job-training opportunities. RF

grantees include states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit

community groups (including religious organizations).

The 42 most recently awarded RF grants, which are scheduled to run through FY2020, have

included a new emphasis on key short- and long-term outcomes intended to enhance evaluation

and strengthen program design. According to the Office of Family Assistance (in the

Administration for Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human Services), it is

expected that the new RF grant-funded programs (and their evaluations) will increase the

understanding of policymakers and others of what works and why.

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Legislative History Overview.......................................................................................................... 2

What Are Fatherhood Initiatives? .................................................................................................... 3

Research and Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 6

Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration Project ............................................................................... 6

Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration ............................................................................ 7

Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study............................................................................. 9

Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Fatherhood Demonstration Programs ........... 10

Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Programs ........................................................... 10

National Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration

(CSPED) .........................................................................................................................11

Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated

and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners .......................................................................... 12

Other Evaluations .................................................................................................................... 13

Potential Issues .............................................................................................................................. 14

CSE System and Noncustodial Parents May Often Be at Odds .............................................. 15

Noncustodial Father Involvement vs. Promotion of Marriage vs. Maintenance of

Fragile Families ................................................................................................................... 16

Work-Oriented Strategies for Noncustodial Parents ............................................................... 17

Tables

Table A-1. Temporary Extensions of the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible

Fatherhood Grants Program ....................................................................................................... 20

Appendixes

Appendix A. Temporary Extensions of the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible

Fatherhood Grant Program ......................................................................................................... 20

Appendix B. Legislative History of Federally Funded Responsible Federal Fatherhood

Programs .................................................................................................................................... 21

Contacts

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 27

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 27

Congressional Research Service

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Introduction

While 69% children in the United States live in homes with two parents, an estimated 27% of

children are maintained in one-parent homes.1 Most children in the latter group are in homes

maintained by the mother only. In 2017, 23% of children lived in mother-only households, a

statistic that has roughly doubled since 1970 (when it was 11%).2

Long-standing research indicates that children raised in one-parent homes are more likely than

children raised in homes with both biological parents to do poorly in school, have emotional and

behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes as adults.3

Nonetheless, it is widely acknowledged that although children with absent fathers are at greater

risk of having the aforementioned problems, most do not experience them.

In an effort to improve the long-term outlook for children in one-parent homes—particularly

those with low-income noncustodial parents—federal, state, and local governments (along with

public and private organizations) have supported programs and activities that promote the

financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial parents to their children and reduce the

incidence of parental absence in the lives of children. These “fatherhood initiatives” include

campaigns that seek to encourage noncustodial parents to connect with their children; counseling

and training on “soft skills,” including relationship skills, to help noncustodial parents connect

with them; and employment and training services so that they can help financially support them.

(Although most people refer to programs that seek to help parents initiate or maintain contact

with their children and become emotionally involved in their lives as “fatherhood” programs, the

programs generally are gender-neutral with regard to who may participate. Their underlying goal

is participation of the noncustodial parent in the lives of his or her children.)4

This report provides an overview of the federal government’s financial support of fatherhood

initiatives, including through the Responsible Fatherhood (RF) grant program. It begins by

providing a legislative history of this financial support and a summary of allowable activities

under the RF grant program. This is followed by an explanation of some of the research and

evaluations that have occurred via demonstration programs. The report concludes by briefly

examining the role of governmental child support enforcement (CSE) agencies in fatherhood

programs, initiatives to promote and support father-child interaction outside the parents’

relationship, and recent developments with regard to work-oriented programs for noncustodial

parents.

1 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, America’s Families and

Living Arrangements: 2017, Table C3. Living Arrangements of Children Under 18 Years Old: 1960 to Present, Internet

release date: November 15, 2017. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/families/cps-2017.html.

2 Ibid.

3 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 1994), see also L. Bumpass, “Children and Marital Disruption: A Replication and Update,”

Demography, vol. 21 (1984), pp. 71-82; Rebecca A. Maynard, ed., Kids Having Kids: A Robin Hood Foundation

Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing (New York, 1996). Also see Sara McLanahan, Laura Tach, and

Daniel Schneider, “The Causal Effects of Father Absence,” Annual Review of Sociology (2013), pp. 399-427.

4 The responsible fatherhood grant opportunity information documents have included such language as the following:

“The projects and activities assisted under these awards must be available to mothers and expectant mothers who are

able to benefit from the activities on the same basis as fathers and expectant fathers”; Administration for Children and

Families (ACF), Office of Family Assistance, New Pathways for Fathers and Families, HHS-2015-ACF-OFA-FK0993, p. 9.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

1

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Legislative History Overview

Low-income noncustodial parents historically have had little opportunity to participate in public

assistance programs. Most of the policy discussion about low-income children that had occurred

as part of the “welfare reform” debates between the 1960s to 1990s was focused on single

custodial mothers and their children, not on the fathers of those children. This changed to some

degree with the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), which established the

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The third finding of that law states:

“Promotion of responsible fatherhood and motherhood is integral to successful child rearing and

the well-being of children.” In addition, three of the four goals of the TANF program included in

the law were consistent with the components of most fatherhood programs: ending welfare

dependence by employment and marriage, reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and

encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. This meant that states could

spend TANF funds on fatherhood programs, and the law further allowed any services aimed at

reduced nonmarital births or encouraging two-parent families to be free of income eligibility

rules.

During and soon after welfare reform, fatherhoodWhile fathers must fulfill their financial

commitments, they must also fulfill their emotional

related changes were made to certain programs. For

commitments. Dads play indispensable roles that

example, with regard to the CSE program, visitation

cannot be measured in dollars and cents: nurturer,

and child support had historically been treated as

mentor, disciplinarian, moral instructor, and skills

legally separate issues, with only enforcement

coach, among other roles.

activities being under the purview of the federal

Source: Executive Office of the President, A

government. However, the 1996 welfare reform law

Blueprint for New Beginnings—A Responsible

Budget for America’s Priorities (February 2001),

appropriated an additional $10 million per fiscal

chap. 12, p. 75. (Administration of President

year in CSE funds for states to establish and operate

George W. Bush)

5

access and visitation programs. In addition, the

Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33; enacted

the year following welfare reform) included a $3 billion “Welfare to Work” grant program, which

expired in 2000, to fund employment services for mothers leaving cash assistance who were longterm recipients. This grant was also available to fund employment services for unemployed or

underemployed fathers of those mothers’ children.

The next significant legislative development for fatherhood programs occurred during the 109th

Congress with the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171; DRA). The

DRA included a provision (in Title IV-A of the Social Security Act) that provided funding for

competitive Responsible Fatherhood (RF) grants to public and private entities, and also a Healthy

Marriage Promotion (HMP) grants program.6 The law provided up to $50 million per year

(FY2006-FY2010) for RF grants, and up to $100 million per year for HMP grants.7 Subsequently,

5 The child access and visitation program (Section 391 of P.L. 104-193) has funded the following activities since

FY1997: mediation, counseling, parental education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement, monitored

visitation, neutral drop-off and pickup, supervised visitation, and development of guidelines for visitation and custody.

In FY2013, about 105,000 parents/guardians received services. The most common services were parent education,

mediation, parenting plans, and supervised visitation. Most states used a mix of services. Most of the service providers

were Human Services Agencies. Individuals were referred to services by the courts, CSE or welfare agencies, and

others, as well as by self-referral. Services were both mandatory and voluntary, as determined by the state. Source: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support

Enforcement, Access and Visitation Grant Program, FY 2013 Update, Washington DC, November 2014.

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

7 While the purpose of this report is to discuss responsible fatherhood programs and the RF grants associated with

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

2

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

the RF grants were awarded to 90 organizations to operate fatherhood programs. In addition, 13

other organizations received reentry program grant funding specifically for incarcerated fathers

and formerly incarcerated fathers.

During the 111th Congress, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-291) extended funding

for the HMP and RF grants through FY2011, but altered the split between the programs to $75

million each. Subsequently, RF program grants were for three-year grants to 55 organizations,

and an additional 5 organizations received reentry program grants. Beyond FY2011, when the

funding in the Claims Resolution Act was set to expire, the HMP and RF grants received a series

of short-term funding extensions, usually through provisions in appropriations acts. (See

Appendix A for a list of these extension laws.) A third round of RF grant funding was announced

during this period on September 30, 2015, which awarded five-year grants to 39 organizations.

(Subsequently, two organizations dropped out of this most recent round of RF grant funding,

reducing the total number of participating organizations to 37.8) Five other organizations received

reentry program grant funding.

Most recently, on May 5, 2017, funding was extended through the end of FY2018 by the

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31). (See Appendix B for a chronological

legislative history of the RF program.)9

In addition to federal funds explicitly provided for RF grants, there are several other potential

sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs. These include federal TANF funds and

TANF state maintenance of effort (MOE) funding, which are potentially the largest sources of

federal funding for fatherhood initiatives. (Other sources are CSE funds and Social Services

Block Grant funds.) The TANF block grant to states is currently funded through FY2018, at an

annual level of $16.5 billion. In addition, the state funding or MOE requirement (at the 75%

level) is about $10.4 billion annually.10 Due to a 71% reduction in the cash welfare caseload since

FY1994, together with the fixed block grant funding, funds that otherwise would have been spent

for cash assistance are now available for other purposes. According to the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS), about half of all states use some TANF funds for responsible

fatherhood programs.11

What Are Fatherhood Initiatives?

The realization that one parent, especially a low-income parent, often cannot meet the financial

needs of her or his children is not new. In 1975, the CSE program was viewed as a way to make

noncustodial parents responsible for the financial support of their children and recover the costs

of public assistance to children and custodial parents.12 With the advent of welfare reform in

them, the congressional context for considering these grants has historically involved both the RF grants and the HMP

grants. Consequently, when discussing the initial establishment and reauthorization of the RF grant program, this report

provides information on the amount provided for both grant programs.

8 The list of grantees as of September 2017 is available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ofa/

2015_2020_healthy_marriage_responsible_fatherhood_grantees_09_2017_0.pdf.

9 For a detailed history of the responsible fatherhood policy arena, see Kathleen Sylvester and Kathleen Reich,

“Making Fathers Count: Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood Efforts,” Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2002.

10 For additional information, see CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block

Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements.

11 Ibid.

12 For an overview of the origin and purposes of the CSE program, see CRS Report RS22380, Child Support

Enforcement: Program Basics.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

3

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

1996, Congress agreed that many fathers were in the same financial straits as the mothers of their

children who were receiving cash welfare. Thus, the 1996 welfare reform law mandated that each

state enact laws authorizing that state to issue an order, or request that a court or administrative

process issue an order, that requires noncustodial parents who were unable to pay their child

support obligation for a child receiving TANF benefits to participate in TANF work activities.

Today, while the CSE, TANF, and RF programs remain separate entities, all three interact in a

variety of ways with regard to the role of noncustodial parents in the lives of their children.

Since their inception, fatherhood programs have sought to strengthen positive father-child

engagement, improve healthy relationships (including couple and coparenting) and marriage, and

improve employment and economic mobility opportunities for noncustodial fathers. For the

purposes of the RF grant program, federal law specifies the following four activities.13

(1) Activities to promote marriage or sustain marriage through activities, such as

















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

for children;

enhancing relationship skills;

education regarding how to control aggressive behavior;

disseminating information on the causes of domestic violence and child abuse;

marriage preparation programs and premarital counseling;

skills-based marriage education;

financial planning seminars; and

divorce education and reduction programs, including mediation and counseling.

(2) Activities to promote responsible parenting, such as









counseling, mentoring, and mediation;

disseminating information about good parenting practices;

teaching parenting skills; and

encouraging child support payments.

(3) Activities to foster economic stability, such as





helping fathers improve their economic status by providing activities such as job

training, employment services, and career-advancing education; and

coordination with existing employment services such as welfare-to-work

programs, and referrals to local employment training initiatives.

(4) Activities to promote responsible fatherhood that are conducted through a national

clearinghouse that provides access to curricula, webinars, research products, and other resources

to improve the implementation and success of responsible fatherhood programs.

In addition to the federal funding through the RF grant program, many states and localities,

private organizations, and nonprofit agencies also operate fatherhood programs with their own

funds. These programs might differ from those funded by RF grants in terms of their focus and

activities, although the general overarching purpose remains the same.

Most fatherhood programs include media campaigns that emphasize the importance of emotional,

physical, psychological, and financial connections of fathers to their children. In addition, to

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

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

4

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

counterbalance some of the procedural, psychological, emotional, and physical barriers to

paternal involvement, fatherhood programs often involve courses or other program elements that

include many of the following components:























parenting education—the responsibilities of parents to their children; children’s

need for affection, gentle guidance, and financial support; the importance of

being a proud example and respectful of the other parent; and the need to

recognize developmentally appropriate behavior for children of different ages

and respond appropriately to children’s developmental needs;

responsible decisionmaking (with regard to sexuality, establishment of paternity,

and financial support);

mentoring relationships with successful fathers and successful couples;

mediation services (communicating with the other parent, supervised visitation,

discipline of children, etc.);

understanding the CSE program;

conflict resolution, coping with stress, problem-solving skills;

developing values in children, appropriate discipline, participation in childrearing;

understanding male-female relationships;

peer support;

practical tasks to stimulate involvement through parent-child interactions, such as

fixing dinner for children, taking children to the park, playing a game, helping

children with schoolwork, listening to children’s concerns, and setting firm limits

on behavior; and

job training opportunities (skills development, interviewing skills, job search,

job-retention skills, job-advancement skills, etc.).

On September 30, 2015, the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) in the Administration for

Children and Families (ACF, an HHS agency) announced that it had awarded over $55 million in

RF grants, which included 39 New Pathways for Fathers and Families grants and 5 Responsible

Fatherhood Opportunities for Reentry and Mobility (ReFORM) grants.14 (Subsequently, two New

Pathways for Fathers and Families grantees dropped out of the program, reducing the total

number of participating organizations to 37.) These grants are for the five-year period FY2016FY2020 (with funding contingent upon the subsequent availability of appropriations).15 The most

recent grant awards represent the third round of such funding since the program’s inception in

2006.

Fatherhood programs have offered varied approaches to serving families, resulting in deeper

insight into which organizational structures, implementation strategies, and service delivery

models might offer promise as effective and replicable strategies. Organizational structures

included state and local government agencies, community-based organizations of varying sizes,

14 For a list of the grantees as of September 2017, see https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ofa/

2015_2020_healthy_marriage_responsible_fatherhood_grantees_09_2017_0.pdf. In addition, note that 45 Healthy

Marriage and Relationship Education program grants and a National Center for Healthy Marriage and Relationship

Education grant (in combination, totaling over $55 million) were also awarded for FY2016-FY2020.

15 Noncompetitive continuation grants are to be offered for each of years two through five of the project/program

period.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

5

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

universities, and faith-based groups.16 To help fathers and mothers meet their parental

responsibilities, many policy analysts and observers support broad-based collaborative strategies

that go beyond welfare and child support agencies and include schools, work programs, prison

systems, churches, community organizations, and the health care system.

Research and Evaluation

Research findings indicate that father absence affects outcomes for children in terms of schooling,

emotional and behavioral maturity, labor force participation, and nonmarital childbearing. These

findings hold when income is taken into account, so the negative effects of father absence are not

limited to those created by reduced family income.17

Much of the research into the efficacy of fatherhood programs examines, at least in part, child

support-related issues and outcomes. Both advocates and critics of the CSE program largely agree

that parents should be responsible for the economic and emotional well-being of their children.

They generally agree that many low-income noncustodial parents are unable to meet their

financial responsibility to their children and are barely able, or unable, to support themselves.

They also generally agree that some noncustodial parents do not know how to be responsible

parents because they were not taught that knowledge or were not exposed to enough positive role

models that they could emulate.

Below are several examples of research that has been or currently is being conducted related to

fatherhood issues and programs. Many of these are demonstration programs with the purpose of

helping low-income men become responsible fathers by gaining employment or job mobility and

by teaching them life skills so that they might reconnect with their children in a positive sustained

manner. Others are long-term studies that, for example, monitor the population that is served by

these programs, but do not evaluate the efficacy of possible interventions.

Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration Project

The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration was a large-scale, scientifically designed (with

experimental and control groups) national demonstration project conducted from 1994 to 1996

that combined job training and placement, peer support groups, and other services with the goal

of increasing the earnings and child support payments of unemployed noncustodial parents

(generally fathers) of children on welfare, improving their parenting and communication skills,

and providing an opportunity for them to participate more fully and effectively in the lives of

their children.18

16 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family

Assistance, Implementing Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Programs within Different Organizational

Structures, February 1, 2012, p. 1.

17 Meeting the Challenge: What the Federal Government Can Do to Support Responsible Fatherhood Efforts—A

Report to the President ... (Washington, DC, January 2001), http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/guidance01. Also see Sara

McLanahan, Laura Tach, and Daniel Schneider, “The Causal Effects of Father Absence,” Annual Review of Sociology

(2013), pp. 399-427.

18 The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) demonstration was funded by a consortium of private foundations (the Pew Charitable

Trusts, the Ford Foundation, the AT&T Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, and the Northwest Area Foundation)

and federal agencies (the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Labor).The PFS

demonstration was conducted in seven cities: Dayton, OH; Grand Rapids, MI; Jacksonville, FL; Los Angeles, CA;

Memphis, TN; Springfield, MA; and Trenton, NJ.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

6

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

The final report on the PFS demonstration concluded that the program did not significantly

increase employment or earnings among the full sample of PFS participants during the two years

after they entered the program. However, the program did increase earnings among a subgroup of

men who were characterized as “less employable” (i.e., those without a high school diploma and

with little recent work experience).19

One of the reports noted the following as lessons learned from the PFS demonstration:

Low-income noncustodial fathers are a disadvantaged group. Many live on the edge of

poverty and face severe barriers to finding jobs, while those who can find work typically

hold low-wage or temporary jobs. Despite their low, irregular income, many of these

fathers are quite involved in their children’s lives and, when they can, provide financial

and other kinds of support.... Some services, such as peer support proved to be very

important and valuable to the men and became the focal point of the program. Other

services, such as skill-building, were hard to implement because the providers had little

experience working with such a disadvantaged group; it was difficult to find employers

willing to hire the men, and the providers were not equipped to deal with the circumstances

of men who often were simply trying to make it from one day to the next. Finally, we

learned about the challenges of implementing a program like PFS, which involves the

partnership of various agencies with different goals, and about the difficulty of recruiting

low-income fathers into such a program.20

Some of the recommendations for future programs included structuring the program to encourage

longer-term participation and to include job retention services; providing fathers who cannot find

private sector employment with community service jobs; earmarking adequate funding for

employment services; involving custodial mothers in the program; providing fathers with legal

services to help them gain visitation rights; and encouraging partnerships between CSE agencies

and fatherhood programs.21

Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration

HHS has an ongoing partnership with the private-sector initiative called Partners for Fragile

Families (PFF). This project is an initiative of the National Partnership for Community

Leadership (NPCL), a nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC. A “fragile” family

consists of low-income children born outside of marriage whose two natural parents are working

together to raise them—either by living together or through frequent visitation.

The development of the initial PFF demonstrations began when planning grants were awarded to

16 sites in 1996. In March 2000, HHS approved state waivers of certain federal CSE

requirements (under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act) for 13 PFF demonstration projects

spread across nine states. The duration of these projects was three years. The purpose of the

demonstration projects was to develop new ways for CSE agencies and community-based

nonprofit and faith-based organizations to work together to help young noncustodial fathers (ages

16 to 25—who had not yet established paternity and who had little or no involvement with the

CSE program) obtain employment, health, and social services; make child support payments to

their children; learn parenting skills; and work with the mothers of their children to build stronger

19 John M. Martinez and Cynthia Miller, Working and Earning: The Impact of Parents’ Fair Share on Low-Income

Fathers’ Employment (New York: MDRC, October 2000).

20 Cynthia Miller and Virginia Knox, The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children: Final

Lessons from Parents’ Fair Share (New York: MDRC, November 2001), pp. v-vi.

21 Ibid., p. v.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

7

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

parenting partnerships. The demonstration project sites were located in California, Colorado,

Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.22

According to HHS, of the $9.7 million in federal funding budgeted for the projects, $7.1 million

was spent. An additional $1.4 million was spent for an evaluation of the projects.

An evaluation of the PFF project implementation included the following statement:

Although the concept of PFF was unique when it was developed in 1996, by the time the

demonstration was fully implemented, other responsible fatherhood programs had started

in many communities nationwide. Independent of PFF, the child support enforcement

system was already incorporating more “father-friendly” approaches to service delivery at

about the same time PFF was in its developmental stages. The child support system had

begun to absorb the lessons learned from earlier fatherhood initiatives (such as the Parents’

Fair Share project and the Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration). By the time PFF was

operational, some may have viewed it as less pioneering than when it was conceived

several years earlier. In addition, the number of young fathers who had not established

paternity for their children decreased in the mid- to late-1990s as a result of the success of

in-hospital paternity establishment initiatives across the country that established paternity

at the time of a child’s birth. The pool of young fathers without paternity established for

their children had diminished in the PFF sites by the time the projects were implemented.23

HHS also sponsored two other evaluations of the PFF demonstration projects. Both of the

evaluations were conducted by the Urban Institute. One of the Urban Institute reports includes

case studies of selected fathers and their families, and the other report provides an analysis of

economic and child support outcomes. A process and outcome evaluation was conducted by

interviewing all service providers (including child support enforcement, community-based

organizations, and partner agencies) and analyzing client data matched with administrative wage

data before and after the PFF program. This evaluation did not have a control group and, thus, did

not seek to measure program impacts.

According to the Urban Institute report, employment rates for participants before and after the

program generally were low and unchanged. (About 58% of PFF participants were employed 6

months before the demonstration and 59% of PFF participants were employed 6-12 months after

enrollment in the demonstration.) Although quarterly earnings of PFF participants increased after

enrollment in the demonstration, at the end of 12 months, participants generally had poverty-level

incomes.

In contrast, the report indicated that there was a substantial increase in child support orders. At

enrollment, about 14% of PFF participants had child support orders, whereas two years after

enrollment, 35% of PFF participants had child support orders. For those PFF participants who

paid child support, the average child support payment was $1,569 for the first year after

enrollment and $2,296 for the second year after enrollment. The report also noted that, on

average, about five monthly child support payments were made in the first year after enrollment

and about seven monthly payments were made in the second year after enrollment.24

22 The Chicago, IL, project withdrew from the demonstration. For further information, see http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/

index.shtml and http://www.npcl.org/program/pff.htm.

23 The Urban Institute. The Implementation of the Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Projects, by Karin

Martinson, John Trutko, Demetra Smith Nightingale, Pamela A. Holcomb, and Burst S. Barnow, June 2007. See

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/PFF/imp/.

24 Karin Martinson, Demetra Smith Nightingale, Pamela Holcomb, Burt Barnow, and John Trutko, “Partners for Fragile

Families Demonstration Projects: Employment and Child Support Outcomes and Trends,” The Urban Institute,

September 2007.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

8

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study followed a group of 4,700 children who were

born in 20 large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000.25 The parents in the 4,700 families in this

sample were 3,600 unmarried couples and 1,100 married couples. The data were intended to be

representative of nonmarital births in each of the 20 cities and also representative of all

nonmarital births in U.S. cities with populations over 200,000.

Both parents were interviewed at the child’s birth and again when the child was age one, two, and

five. In addition, in-home assessments of the children and their home environments were

performed when the children were ages three and five. The parent interviews provided

information on attitudes, relationships, parenting behavior, demographic characteristics, health

(mental and physical), economic and employment status, neighborhood characteristics, and public

welfare program participation. The in-home interview collected information on children’s

cognitive and emotional development, health, and home environment. The study was expected to

provide previously unavailable information on questions such as the following:









What are the conditions and capabilities of new unwed parents, especially

fathers? How many of these men hold steady jobs? How many want to be

involved in raising their children?

What is the nature of the relationship between unwed parents? How many

couples are involved in stable, long-term relationships? How many expect to

marry? How many experience high levels of conflict or domestic violence?

What factors push new unwed parents together? What factors pull them apart?

How do public policies affect parents’ behaviors and living arrangements?

What are the long-term consequences for parents, children, and society of new

welfare regulations, stronger paternity establishment, and stricter child support

enforcement? What roles do child care and health care policies play? How do

these policies play out in different labor market environments?26

A 2007 report that examined data pertaining to the surveyed children at age five found that 16%

of participant mothers were married to the father at the time of the five-year interview. Despite

not marrying, about 40% of the parents were still romantically involved at the five-year interview.

In cases where the couples were no longer romantically involved, 43% of the fathers had seen

their children in the month previous to the interview. According to the report:

Fatherhood programs, such as education, training, support services, and content addressing

issues of shared parenting, may also be appropriate for many new unmarried fathers.

Engaging parents in responsible fatherhood programs (and weaving these programs into

marriage promotion curriculums) early in their child’s life may also help new fathers

develop important parenting skills crucial to their child’s healthy development. These

programs may help fathers establish and maintain positive connections with their child and

encourage their active participation in raising their child.27

25 The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is a joint effort by Princeton University’s Center for Research on

Child Wellbeing (CRCW) and Center for Health and Wellbeing, and Columbia University’s Social Indicators Survey

Center and National Center for Children and Families (NCCF). The study evaluates a “focal child” within each family

at birth and then at various intervals for the next several years.

26 Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, “Fragile Families and Child Well-Being: A Survey of New Parents,” Focus

(University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty), vol. 21, no. 1 (spring 2000), pp. 9-11.

27 Fragile Families Research Brief, June 2007, Number 39. Parents’ Relationship Status Five Years After a Non-

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

9

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

A nine-year follow-up study—Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing in Middle Childhood—was

funded via a $17 million grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development (NICHD) of HHS. The purpose of this project was to combine the core telephone

surveys, in-home study, and teacher surveys into one larger project. Data collection began in 2007

and continued through the spring of 2010.28 Short summaries, based on data from the Fragile

Families and Child Wellbeing Study, have been prepared since that time to highlight recent

research findings and suggest policy implications on issues related to child well-being and the

social and economic circumstances faced by unwed parents.29

Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Fatherhood

Demonstration Programs

To further the national child support program’s mission and goals, the federal Office of Child

Support Enforcement (OCSE) operates a number of competitive grant programs that provide

federal funds for research and demonstration programs and special projects of regional and

national significance for operating state child support programs. These programs and projects are

funded through OSCE’s grant-making or waiver authority under Section 1115 of the Social

Security Act.

Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Programs

In FY1999, OCSE provided $2.0 million for Responsible Fatherhood demonstration programs.

The programs operated in eight states from October 1998 through December 2000. The following

eight states received Section 1115 grants or waivers from OCSE/ACF to implement and test

responsible fatherhood programs: California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New

Hampshire, Washington, and Wisconsin. These projects attempted to improve the employment

and earnings of underemployed and unemployed noncustodial parents, and to motivate them to

become more financially and emotionally involved in the lives of their children. Although the

projects shared common goals, they varied with respect to service components and service

delivery. OCSE also provided about $500,000 for an evaluation of the demonstration projects.

An outcome report on the programs found that (1) low-income noncustodial fathers are a difficult

population to recruit and serve; (2) many of the participants found jobs with the programs’ help,

but they were low-paying jobs and relatively few of the participants were able to increase

earnings enough to meet their financial needs and those of their children; (3) problems with the

noncustodial father’s access to his children were hard to define and resolve, and mediation should

be used more extensively; (4) child support guidelines result in orders for low-income

noncustodial parents that are unrealistically high; (5) CSE agencies should collaborate with

fatherhood programs and pursue routine enforcement activities, as well as adopt policies and

incentives that are responsive to low-income fathers; and (6) criminal history was the norm rather

than the exception among the program participants, many participants faced ongoing alcohol and

substance abuse problems, many did not have reliable transportation, and many lacked a courtordered visitation arrangement.30

Marital Birth. Princeton University and Columbia University.

28 For more information on the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, see https://fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/.

29 For more information, see http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/briefs2.asp.

30 Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes, and Lanae Davis, with Jane Venohr, David Price, and Tracy Griffith, OCSE

Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and Program Outcomes (Washington, DC: U.S. Department

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

10

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

The outcome report also found that employment rates and earnings increased significantly,

especially for noncustodial parents who were previously unemployed. In addition, child support

compliance rates increased significantly, especially for those who had not been paying previously.

Moreover, the report found that 27% of the fathers reported seeing their children more often after

completion of the program.

National Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration

(CSPED)

In FY2012, OCSE established the National Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment

Demonstration (CSPED). The purpose of the demonstration was to increase the reliable payment

of child support by noncustodial parents who were willing but unable to pay, and to test the

efficacy of CSE agency-led employment strategies. Consequently, OCSE required CSPED

grantees to be child support agencies, serving as fiscal agents for the grants and managing day-today operations. Eight state CSE programs were selected through a competitive grant process to

participate in the five-year demonstration from October 2012 to September 2017. The eight states

were California, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.

The first year was a planning year. In October 2013, sites began enrollment and random

assignment, which ran through September 2016. During the final year, grantees were expected to

continue to serve noncustodial parents as the demonstration wound down. Each grantee was to

receive $775,000 in Section 1115 demonstration funds over five years. Once Federal Financial

Participation (FFP) was added, the total amount of funding available to each grantee over five

years was $2.3 million.

Under the demonstration, each grantee attempted to recruit 1,500 eligible noncustodial parents

into CSPED. Half of the enrollees were randomly assigned to receive CSPED services; half were

assigned to a control group and did not receive the extra services. Each site was required to offer

four core services: enhanced child support services, employment assistance, parenting education

delivered in a peer support format, and case management. The CSE agency partnered with

community service providers for employment and parenting services; case management could be

provided by child support or a partner agency. Grantees were also required to work with domestic

violence consultants to develop a domestic violence plan. While OCSE provided grantees with

guidance on design features and core services, it allowed the grantees to align their efforts with

preexisting policies, procedures, and the local social service context.31

The Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin and Mathematica Policy

Research are conducting the evaluation of CSPED.32 According to the initial implementation

report, among the early lessons learned was the need to (1) deploy child support workers who

support CSPED’s goals to identify and recruit participants; (2) develop services that take into

account the challenges faced by the target population; (3) design services to promote sustained

participant engagement; and (4) invest in strong partnerships and communication systems.33

of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy

Studies (HHS Contract No. 100-98-0015), September 2003).

31 Ibid.

32 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, The National Child Support

Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED), Fact Sheet #1, March 2015, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/

default/files/programs/css/csped_fact_sheet_1_march_2015.pdf.

33 Diane Paulsell, Jennifer L. Noyes, Rebekah Selekman, Lisa Klein Vogel, Samina Sattar, Benjamin Nerad, Daniel R.

Meyer, and Robert Wood, Helping Noncustodial Parents Support Their Children: Early Implementation Findings from

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

11

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

According to the evaluators, a final implementation report will examine the full implementation

period and provide a more comprehensive assessment of the types of services participants

received. It is also expected to examine CSPED’s impacts on participants’ outcomes and include

a benefit-cost analysis.

Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Strengthening

Grants for Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners

An HHS-sponsored evaluation of responsible fatherhood programs, called the National

Evaluation of the Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage, and Family Strengthening Grants for

Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners (MFS-IP), began in 2006. MFS-IP

grantees included government (state, local, and tribal) and private (community- and faith-based)

organizations. With a funding level of up to $500,000 per year for five years, the programs

implemented under the MFS-IP priority area were designed to promote and sustain healthy

marriages and strengthen families affected by incarceration.34

Thirteen grantees in 12 different states received five-year grants from the OFA to implement

multiple activities to support and sustain marriages and families of fathers during and after

incarceration. Grantees may also provide support for reentering the family and community from

prison, parenting support including visitation during incarceration, and education and

employment services during and after incarceration. To evaluate the overall effectiveness of the

13 MFS-IP grantees, the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) awarded a

contract to RTI International to conduct an implementation evaluation as well as a multisite,

longitudinal, impact evaluation of selected grantees.35 The evaluation was a multiyear

(quasiexperimental) study that was conducted from 2006 through 2014.

According to an HHS Research Brief:

The implementation experiences of the MFS-IP grantees can inform future efforts to build

healthy relationship skills among families affected by incarceration. While incarcerated,

many individuals are interested in improving themselves and their relationships with their

partners, children, and other family members. Although not all incarcerated persons are

married or in intimate relationships, healthy relationship skills broadly apply to many types

of interpersonal relationships. As observed by several grantees, relationships such as

parent-child, correctional officer-inmate, inmate-inmate, and employer-employee could be

improved by healthy relationship skills training.

The impact study component of the MFS-IP evaluation, concluding in 2015, will determine

the effectiveness of relationship education and other MFS-IP program components in

strengthening relationship quality and stability and facilitating successful community

reentry. Research suggests that healthy relationships contribute to reentry success, yet little

is known about how to improve relationship quality for couples affected by incarceration.

Relationship education that builds healthy relationship skills could play an important role

in relationship quality throughout incarceration and during the critical reentry period. Even

the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED) Evaluation Interim Report September

2015, pp.xi-xii, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/cspedinterimpl2015.pdf.

34 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative—Further

Progress Is Needed in Developing a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach to Help HHS Improve Program Oversight,”

GAO-08-1002, September 2008. Also see National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse, “What Works in

Fatherhood Programs? Ten Lessons From Evidence-Based Practice,” by Jacinta Bronte-Tinkew, Allison Horowitz, and

Allison Metz, at http://www.fatherhood.gov.

35 See the following webpage for additional information: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/MFS-IP/index.shtml.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

12

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

for lengthy periods of incarceration, communication and conflict resolution skills could

result in more supportive relationships, improved co-parenting, and increased familial

contact—all of which could be beneficial upon the individual’s eventual release.36

Other Evaluations

HHS has invested resources in multiple federal evaluations to document successes, challenges,

and lessons from fatherhood programs in order to provide useful information to program

operators and policymakers. The 2011 application announcement for RF program grants required

that grantees operate comprehensive fatherhood programs that integrate robust economic stability

services, healthy marriage activities, and activities designed to foster responsible parenting.37 It

also indicated that, as a condition of acceptance of an RF grant, grantees would be required to

participate fully in HHS-sponsored evaluations. According to HHS, in September 2011 60 RF

grants were awarded for three years.38 These grants were initially scheduled to run through

September 2014, but were extended for an additional year in the form of noncompetitive

continuations awards.39

According to a 2012 report that provides a review of the fatherhood program and policy arena:

At the state and local level, although awareness of the importance of evaluation appears to

be high, it does not appear that programs have reached the point of being able to conduct

scientifically rigorous evaluations. Moving forward, the field will need to ensure that

agencies are equipped with the proper knowledge and tools for conducting meaningful

evaluations, including appropriate measures to provide an accurate representation of

program outcomes and impacts.40

In the last several years there has been a spate of fatherhood research and evaluations, some of

which are using an experimental design model. The outcomes and findings are expected to

provide necessary information on the types of programs and strategies that are most effective in

helping noncustodial parents, particularly fathers, better connect with their children.41 The 2015

round of RF grants (mentioned earlier) are subject to the continued requirement that grantees

36 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,

ASPE Research Brief, Strategies for Building Healthy Relationship Skills Among Couples Affected by Incarceration, by

Christine Lindquist, Tasseli McKay, and Anupa Bir of RTI International, March 2012, p. 12.

37 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family

Assistance, Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood Grants, June 28, 2011, https://ami.grantsolutions.gov/files/HHS-2011ACF-OFA-FK-0194_0.pdf. Also see Virginia Knox, Philip A. Cowan, Carolyn Pape Cowan, and Elana Bildner,

“Policies That Strengthen Fatherhood and Family Relationships: What Do We Know and What Do We Need to

Know?” MDRC, 2009.

38 Note that in September 2011, an additional 61 grantees were awarded healthy marriage promotion grants pursuant to

P.L. 111-291.

39 For additional information on the continuation of the grants, see the following webpage—http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

sites/default/files/ofa/hmrf_ttcw_continuationfaqs.pdf. For information on process results from four of these RF grant

evaluations, see Heather Zaveri, Scott Baumgartner, Robin Dion, and Liz Clary, Parents and Children Together:

Design and Implementation of Responsible Fatherhood Programs, Mathematica Policy Research, September 2015.

Also see Jocelyn Fontaine, Shelli Rossman, and Lindsey Cramer, with Hannah Dodd, Helen Ho, Jeremy Levy, and

David McClure, Early Implementation Findings from Responsible Fatherhood Reentry Projects, Urban Institute,

January 2015.

40 Serena Klempin and Dr. Ronald Mincy, Tossed on a Sea of Change: A Status Update on the Responsible Fatherhood

Field, Columbia University, Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being, September 25, 2012, p.

10.

41 For additional information, see the following webpage—http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/

es_fatherhood_ongoing_research_program_evaluation_efforts.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

13

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

participate fully in HHS-sponsored evaluations.42 These grants, which are scheduled to run

through FY2020, have also included a new emphasis on key short- and long-term outcomes

intended to enhance evaluation and strengthen program design.43 According to the OFA, it is

expected that the fatherhood programs funded by these grants (and their evaluations) will increase

the understanding of policymakers and others of what works and why.44

Potential Issues

In the late 1990s, when interest in federally funding responsible fatherhood programs first gained

national attention, some were concerned that an emphasis on the importance of fathers could lead

to unintended consequences for single mothers if too much emphasis was placed on the value of

two-parent homes, or on the ability of noncustodial spouses to challenge child custody, child

support, and visitation arrangements.45 Although that underlying tension has not disappeared

completely, then and now, it was thought that (in order to be productive and nondivisive) the

policy debate on responsible fatherhood initiatives had to be based on the view that the welfare of

fathers, mothers, and children are intertwined and interdependent.46 In addition, over the past 20

years, the results of the research and evaluations discussed earlier in this report have shed

additional light on how certain factors, such as economic opportunity, affect the ability of fathers

to be involved in the lives of their children. As a result of these and other factors, the policy

debate on responsible fatherhood now recognizes that addressing the issues that directly affect the

noncustodial parent could potentially strengthen the custodial parent’s household as well.

Many issues are associated with the federal government’s support of fatherhood initiatives. A few

examples are: Is the goal of federal policy to promote and support the involvement of fathers in

their children’s lives regardless of the father’s relationship with the children’s mother? What if

the parent has children with more than one person? What is the federal policy with regard to

incarcerated parents and parents recently released from prison? Does the federal government

support counseling, education, and supervised visitation for abusive parents so that they can

reconnect with their children?47

The discussion below examines three issues that will likely impact the success of congressional

fatherhood initiatives. The first deals with the role of the CSE agency in responsible fatherhood

programs. Some analysts contend that since many noncustodial parents have a negative view of

42 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family

Assistance, Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood Grants, July 7, 2015, https://ami.grantsolutions.gov/files/HHS-2015ACF-OFA-FK-0993_0.pdf.

43 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family

Assistance, New Pathways for Fathers and Families, Funding Opportunity Announcement, HHS-2015-ACF-OFA-FK0993, July 7, 2015, p.4 of 70 (https://ami.grantsolutions.gov/files/HHS-2015-ACF-OFA-FK-0993_0.pdf).

44 See the following webpage—http://www.acf.hhs.gov/blog/2015/10/marriage-and-fatherhood-grants-released.

45 See, for example, the debate documented in Susan Kellam, “Child Custody and Support,” CQ Researcher, January

13, 1995, vol. 5, pp. 25-48.

46 William J. Doherty, Edward F. Kouneski, and Martha Farrell Erickson, Responsible Fathering: An Overview and

Conceptual Framework—Final Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Administration for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies (HHS-100-93-0012),

September 1996). See also, comments of the NWLC on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “Flexibility, Efficiency,

and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs,” published November 17, 2014 (Vol. 79 FR No. 221

68548), January 16, 2015—http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/

nwlc_child_support_comments_1_16_15_acf.pdf.

47 For additional information, see Maria Cancian, Daniel R. Meyer, and Eunhee Han, “Child Support: Responsible

Fatherhood and the Quid Pro Quo,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 635, no.

140, 2011.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

14

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

and/or contentious relationship with the CSE program, the use of the CSE program to recruit

fathers does not bode well for the success of such programs. Currently, most federally funded

responsible fatherhood programs are provided through competitive grants to community

organizations and other groups that have experience in working with low-income men.

The second issue examines father involvement in the context of the father’s relationship with the

child’s mother. This issue is based on the premise that formal marital relationships last longer and

are more conducive to long-term interaction between fathers and children than other types of

relationships.

The third issue examines the importance of employment programs and job supports for

noncustodial parents. This issue acknowledges that economic pressures and instability, often

because of unemployment or low wages, frequently contribute to nonpayment of child support

and dysfunctional relationships.

CSE System and Noncustodial Parents May Often Be at Odds

During the period from FY1978 to FY2016, child support payments collected by the CSE

agencies increased from $1 billion to $28.8 billion. Moreover, the program has made significant

improvements in other program measures as well, such as the number of parents located,

paternities established, and child support orders established. Advocates of the CSE program say

that this dramatic program performance is aside from the indirect and intangible benefits of the

program, such as increased personal responsibility and welfare cost-avoidance. Critics of the CSE

program contend that even with an unprecedented array of “big brother” enforcement tools such

as license (professional, driver’s, recreational) and passport revocation; seizure of banking

accounts, retirement funds, and lottery winnings; and automatic income withholding from pay

checks, the program still collects only 20% of child support obligations for which it has

responsibility48 and collects payments for only 60% of its caseload.

Information obtained from both custodial and noncustodial parents through various surveys and

studies consistently tells the same story.49 Noncustodial parents generally indicate that they (1)

want more access to their children, (2) need to learn more relationship skills so they can coparent

their children, and (3) need help finding and maintaining employment.50 In addition, many

noncustodial parents maintain that the CSE system is dismissive of their financial condition and

continues to pursue child support payments (current support as well as arrearages) even when it

knows that many of them can barely support themselves.51

Although the CSE program has historically been the policy answer to the challenge of father

absence, because its focus until recently was exclusively on financial support, it has had the

practical effect of alienating many low-income noncustodial parents who are unable to meet their

48 This percentage accounts for arrearages (past-due child support). If child support arrearages are not taken into

account the percentage is 64%. In FY2014, $148.6 billion in child support obligations ($33.8 billion in current support

and $114.8 billion in past-due support) was owed to families receiving CSE services, but only $29.3 billion was paid

($21.7 billion in current support and $7.6 billion in past-due support).

49 Mathematica Policy Research,In Their Own Voices: The Hopes and Struggles of Responsible Fatherhood Program

Participants in the Parents and Children Together Evaluation, by Pamela Holcomb, Kathryn Edin, Jeffrey Max, Alford

Young, Jr., Angela Valdovinos D’Angelo, Daniel Friend, Elizabeth Clary, and Waldo E. Johnson, June 2015.

50 Ibid, pp. 99-100.

51 Ronald B. Mincy, M. Jethwani, and S. Klempin, Failing our Fathers: Confronting the Crisis of Economically

Vulnerable Nonresident Fathers. New York: Oxford University Press, January 2015.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

15

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

child support obligations. Some policy analysts maintain that noncustodial parents are, in effect,

devalued when their role in their children’s lives is based solely on their cash contributions.52

Many observers maintain that noncustodial parents and the CSE program have differences that

may be irreconcilable.53 In light of this challenge, they argue that the most that should be

expected is for the noncustodial parent to clearly understand the purposes of the CSE program,

the requirements imposed on the custodial parent, and the noncustodial parents’ rights to have

their child support payments modified if they incur a financial change in circumstances. If the

CSE program continues to be one of the ways that noncustodial parents are connected with

fatherhood programs, many observers contend that the CSE program must become more effective

in gaining the cooperation and trust of noncustodial parents.

In contrast, others assert that, more than any other agency of state government, the CSE program

has the responsibility and is in the position to reach out to noncustodial parents who need

supportive services. They point out that CSE agencies are already involved in forging

relationships with these parents through partnerships with community-based organizations. They

also note that CSE agencies provide a natural link to coordinate with TANF agencies to help

families achieve self-sufficiency.54

Noncustodial Father Involvement vs. Promotion of Marriage vs.

Maintenance of Fragile Families

The first finding included in the 1996 welfare reform law is that marriage is the foundation of a

successful society. The second finding is that marriage is an essential institution of a successful

society that promotes the interests of children.55 However, some child welfare advocates argue

that marriage is not necessarily the best alternative for all women and their children. It is

generally agreed that one-parent homes are a better alternative for children than living with an

abusive parent. Many observers caution that government must be careful about supporting

programs that provide cash incentives to induce people to marry or that coerce people into

marrying. They note the problems associated with marriages between youths and unions that are

formed in response to pregnancy. Others respond that many long-lasting marriages were based on

financial alliances (e.g., to increase economic status, family wealth, status in the community,

etc.). They also point out that most government programs are sensitive to the issues of domestic

violence and include supports to prevent or end such actions.

Many young children live with parents who are not married but who are cohabiting. Noting this,

some analysts argue that policies designed to promote certain types of family structures (e.g.,

nuclear families) at the expense of others may undermine nontraditional family relationships.

They contend that more emphasis should be placed on trying to meet the needs of these fragile

52 Wade F. Horn and Isabel V. Sawhill, Making Room for Daddy: Fathers, Marriage, and Welfare Reform, Brookings

Institution Working Paper (Washington, DC, April 26, 2001), p. 4.

53 Waller and Plotnick, “A Failed Relationship? Low-Income Families and the Child Support Enforcement System,”

Focus (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty), vol. 21, no. 1 (spring 2000), pp. 12-17.

54 National Child Support Enforcement Association, Resolution on Fatherhood Initiatives, adopted by the NCSEA

Board of Directors on July 29, 2000, http://www.ncsea.org/files/2000_fatherhood_resol-final.pdf.

55 The majority of pre-TANF evaluations of welfare initiatives that examined family formation decisions found little, if

any, impact of state policies on decisions to marry. One exception was an evaluation of the Minnesota Family

Investment Program (MFIP). In this program, compared to those who were subject to the AFDC requirements, more

unmarried-parent participants subject to new policies under MFIP got married and fewer of the married-parent

participants had divorced within three years after the program began.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

16

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

families to enable them to stay together for longer periods of time.56 From their perspective, a

single-focus policy, no matter whether it aims to support traditional family relationships or fragile

families, can place children in less desirable situations. For instance, promoting the marriage of

biological parents could result in supporting situations where a biological parent is absent if all

children in the household are not all from the same union.

In response, some promarriage analysts point out that about 65% of children born to cohabiting

parents will see their parents separate before they reach age 12, compared to about 24% of those

born to married parents.57 In light of these trends, they note that even with supports it is unlikely

that fragile families (unmarried couples) will remain together as long as married families. Some

observers contend that skills such as how to choose a good partner and how to keep a relationship

going should be part of responsible fatherhood programs. They argue that the promotion of

marriage should be incorporated into fatherhood programs if the goal is lifetime involvement of

fathers in the lives of their children.

Another related concern raised by some analysis is that fatherhood initiatives might sometimes be

incompatible with initiatives that encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent

families, and with initiatives that promote marriage. As a result, such observers argue that the

focus of the program should be the participation of fathers in their children’s lives, regardless of

the marital status of the parents. As part of the 1996 welfare reform effort, a fourth purpose of the

TANF block grant was included, to “encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent

families.” At that time, there was some discussion about whether the fourth purpose means

married-couple families or just two parents who are involved in their children’s lives, regardless

of whether they are married or even living together. In late 1999, the Clinton Administration

issued A Guide on Funding for Children and Families through the TANF program, which broadly

interpreted two-parent families to mean not only married-couple families, but also never-married,

separated, and divorced parents, whether living together or not. Thus, many states classify their

fatherhood programs and programs that encourage visitation by noncustodial parents under the

rubric of fulfilling the purposes of the TANF program.58

Work-Oriented Strategies for Noncustodial Parents

It is generally agreed that many low-income fathers, like low-income mothers, lack the education

and training they need to get jobs that pay enough to sustain them and their families. The 1996

welfare reform law placed work requirements on TANF recipients, mainly custodial mothers. It

also required states, as part of their collection tools, to require state child support officials to have

the authority to seek a judicial or administrative order that directs any noncustodial parent owing

past-due support to a child receiving TANF benefits to pay that child support in accordance with a

plan approved by the court or to participate in appropriate work activities.59

56 See “Is Marriage a Viable Objective for Fragile Families?” Fragile Families Research Brief 9 (Princeton University:

Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, July 2002).

57 David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know

about Cohabitation before Marriage, A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research,” Second Edition, 2002. See also

the Institute for American Values and the National Marriage Project, the State of Our Union—Marriage in America

2011, When Baby Makes Three: How Parenthood Makes Life Meaningful and How Marriage Makes Parenthood

Bearable, by Brad Wilcox & Elizabeth Marquardt, December 8, 2011, p. 11.

58 Wade Horn, “Wedding Bell Blues: Marriage and Welfare Reform,” Brookings Review, summer 2001, pp. 40-41.

59 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

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

17

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

After welfare reform, Representative Nancy Johnson, the chair of the Ways and Means

Subcommittee on Human Resources during the 106th Congress, stated, “To take the next step in

welfare reform we must find a way to help children by providing them with more than a working

mother and sporadic child support.” She noted that many low-income fathers have problems

similar to those of mothers on welfare—namely, they are likely to have dropped out of high

school, to have little work experience, and to have significant barriers that lessen their ability to

find and/or keep a job. She also asserted that in many cases these men are “dead broke” rather

than “dead beats,” and that the federal government should help these noncustodial fathers meet

both their financial and emotional obligations to their children.60

As mentioned earlier, “Activities to foster economic stability” are a part of the purpose of

responsible fatherhood programs. Federal law lists some examples of activities that foster

economic stability, namely job search, job training, subsidized employment, job retention, job

enhancement, and education including career-advancing education; coordination with existing

employment services; and referrals to local employment training initiatives.61

In addition, as was noted in the earlier section of this report on evaluations, many of the

responsible fatherhood evaluations that included an impact analysis indicated that programs that

included work-oriented strategies showed a significant increase in child support payments made

by the participants. According to a 2015 report that summarizes information gained from in-depth

interviews with participants of responsible fatherhood programs:

While fathers generally provided positive feedback about the job readiness and job search

skills they obtained through the RF programs, the employment challenges these men

typically face are significant. Most were still struggling to find steady employment, earn

enough to make ends meet, and meet their child support obligations. Although these fathers

faced a myriad of barriers to gaining and maintaining employment, the most commonly

cited obstacle was fathers’ past incarceration and criminal records. These findings suggest

that the economic stability component of RF programs may need to be strengthened to

improve the chances that fathers will be successful at securing good jobs with steady and

adequate wages. Any employment approach should include assistance in expunging or

sealing criminal records when possible.62

As of February 2014, 30 states and the District of Columbia were operating 77 work-oriented

programs for noncustodial parents with active CSE agency involvement.63 Although most of the

programs were not statewide, Georgia, Maryland, and North Dakota were identified as operating

statewide programs, and many other states were operating programs in multiple counties. OCSE

estimated that roughly 30,000 noncustodial parents were served by these programs in 2013. In

assistance with employment opportunities so that they can meet their child support obligations by passing on some of

their earnings to their children. See Elaine Sorensen, Reaffirming the Work Requirement for Noncustodial Parents as

Part of TANF Reauthorization, Urban Institute, December 2011.

60 U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, “Hearing on Fatherhood Legislation,”

Statement of Chairman Nancy Johnson, 106th Congress, 1st Session (October 5, 1999), p. 4.

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

62 Pamela Holcomb, Kathryn Edin, Jeffrey Max, Alford Young, Jr., Angela Valdovinos D’Angelo, Daniel Friend,

Elizabeth Clary, and Waldo E. Johnson, In Their Own Voices: The Hopes and Struggles of Responsible Fatherhood

Program Participants in the Parents and Children Together Evaluation, Mathematica Policy Research, June 2015, p.

100.

63 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement (Administration for

Children and Families), Work-Oriented Programs with Active Child Support Agency Involvement that Serve

Noncustodial Parents, February 2014, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/

work_oriented_programs_for_non_custodial_parents_2014.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

18

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

many of these states, the work-oriented programs discussed in the report were available to all

noncustodial parents who are unable to make their child support payments in a timely manner, not

just those noncustodial parents who have a child enrolled in the TANF program.

Current job training and workforce programs generally are not targeted to noncustodial parents,

and only some focus on low-income individuals. Some observers note that while the CSE agency

and responsible fatherhood programs are making some inroads, a lot more needs to be done on a

much broader scale. They contend that in these times of federal and state budget constraints, the

TANF program is an untapped resource.64 They maintain that states should use TANF and MOE

funds to provide work opportunities and work supports for noncustodial parents.

In November 2014, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was released that proposed

revisions to CSE program operations and enforcement procedures.65 These revisions included a

proposal to provide the CSE program with the ability to directly fund job services for

noncustodial parents at the regular CSE matching rate (66%). Advocates commented that, given

that employment services have been seriously underfunded for many years, allowing states to be

reimbursed at an open-ended 66% federal matching rate could make a significant difference for

noncustodial parents who are unable to comply with their child support obligations because of

unemployment or low wages. Although there are many supporters of the idea of providing CSE

federal matching funds for work-oriented programs for noncustodial parents, there was concern

among both supporters and opponents of the provision that the Obama Administration may have

overstepped its authority (i.e., they say the Administration was legislating through its

regulations).66 When the final rule was issued on December 19, 2016, the job service-related

provisions were omitted. In its commentary on the final rule, OCSE explained,

This proposed provision received overwhelming support from states, Members of

Congress, and the public, but it also was opposed by some Members of Congress who did

not think the provision should be included in the final rule. While we appreciate the support

the commenters expressed, we think allowing for federal IV-D reimbursement for job

services needs further study and would be ripe for implementation at a later time.

Therefore, we are not proceeding with finalizing the proposed provisions.... 67

64 States can use federal TANF and state Maintenance of Effort (MOE) dollars to meet any of the four goals set out in

the 1996 law: “(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the

homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation,

work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out of wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical

goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance

of two parent families.”

65 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement (Administration for Children

and Families) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),

Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs, Federal Register, vol. 79, no. 221,

November 17, 2014.

66 During the 114th Congress, two pieces of legislation were introduced that specify that HHS may not take any action

to finalize, implement, enforce, or otherwise give effect to the proposed rule entitled “Flexibility, Efficiency, and

Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs” or any proposal set forth in the proposed rule (S. 1525,

introduced by Senators Hatch and Cornyn; H.R. 2688, introduced by Representatives Paul Ryan and Boustany).

Neither of those pieces of legislation received congressional action.

67 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement (Administration for Children

and Families) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Final Rule, Flexibility, Efficiency, and

Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs, Federal Register, vol. 81, no. 93492, December 19, 2016.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

19

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Appendix A. Temporary Extensions of the Healthy

Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood

Grant Program

Table A-1. Temporary Extensions of the Healthy Marriage Promotion and

Responsible Fatherhood Grants Program

Public Law

Time Period

P.L. 111-242

Oct. 1, 2010-Dec. 3, 2010

P.L. 111-290

Dec. 4, 2010-Dec. 7, 2010

P.L. 111-291

Dec. 8, 2010-Sept. 30, 2011

P.L. 112-35

Oct. 1, 2011-Dec. 31, 2011

P.L. 112-78

Jan. 1, 2012-Feb. 21, 2012

P.L. 112-96

Feb. 22, 2012-Sept. 30, 2012

P.L. 112-175

Oct. 1, 2012-Mar. 27, 2013

P.L. 113-6

Mar. 28, 2013-Sept. 30, 2013

P.L. 113-46a

Oct. 17, 2013-Jan. 15, 2014

P.L. 113-73

Jan. 16, 2014-Jan. 18, 2014

P.L. 113-76

Jan. 19, 2014-Sept. 30, 2014

P.L. 113-164

Oct. 1, 2014-Dec. 11, 2014

P.L. 113-202

Dec. 12, 2014-Dec. 13, 2014

P.L. 113-203

Dec. 14, 2014-Dec. 17, 2014

P.L. 113-235

Dec. 18, 2014-Sept. 30, 2015

P.L. 114-53

Oct. 1, 2015-Dec. 11, 2015

P.L. 114-96

Dec. 12, 2015-Dec. 16, 2015

P.L. 114-100

Dec. 17, 2015-Dec. 22, 2015

P.L. 114-113

Dec. 18, 2015-Sept. 30, 2016

P.L. 114-223

Oct. 1, 2016-Dec. 9, 2016

P.L. 114-254

Dec. 10, 2016-Apr. 28, 2017

P.L. 115-30

April 29,2017-May 5, 2017

P.L. 115-31

May 6, 2017-September 30, 2018

Source: Congressional Research Service.

a. P.L. 113-46 ended a funding gap for the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood grant

program that lasted between Oct. 1, 2013, and Oct. 16, 2013.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

20

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Appendix B. Legislative History of Federally

Funded Responsible Federal Fatherhood Programs

Beginning with the 106th Congress and with each subsequent Congress, responsible fatherhood

programs have received both presidential and congressional attention.

106th Congress (1999-2000)

Through the FY2001 appropriations process, $3 million was set aside for a nongovernmental

national fatherhood organization named the National Fatherhood Initiative (P.L. 106-553),

$500,000 for the National Fatherhood Initiative, and $500,000 for the Institute for Responsible

Fatherhood and Family Revitalization (P.L. 106-554).

President Clinton’s FY2001 budget included $255 million for the first year of a proposed

“Fathers Work/Families Win” initiative to help low-income noncustodial parents and low-income

working families work and support their children. The “Fathers Work/Families Win” initiative

would have been administered by the Department of Labor (DOL). The “Fathers Work”

component ($125 million) would have been limited to noncustodial parents (primarily fathers)

and the “Families Win” component ($130 million) would have been targeted more generally to

low-income families. Neither the House nor the Senate versions of the FY2001 appropriations bill

(H.R. 4577, 106th Congress) for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and

Education, and Related Agencies (LHHS) included funding for the Fathers Work/Families Win

proposal.

In addition, legislation that included funding for a nationwide responsible fatherhood grants

program was twice passed by the House (but not acted on by the Senate). H.R. 3073, the

proposed Fathers Count Act of 1999, and H.R. 4678, the proposed Child Support Distribution Act

of 2000, would have authorized funding ($140 million over two years in H.R. 3073 and $140

million over four years in H.R. 4678) to establish a program (usually referred to as fatherhood

initiatives) to make grants to public or private entities for projects designed to promote marriage,

promote successful parenting and the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, and

help fathers improve their economic status by providing job-related services to them.

107th Congress (2001-2002)

From the beginning of his presidency, President George W. Bush indicated his support for

responsible fatherhood initiatives. President Bush’s FY2002 budget proposed $64 million in 2002

(and $315 million over five years) to strengthen the role of fathers in the lives of families. This

initiative would have provided competitive grants to faith-based and community organizations

that help unemployed or low-income fathers and their families avoid or leave cash welfare, as

well as to programs that promote successful parenting and strengthen marriage.

His FY2003 budget proposed $20 million (for FY2003) for competitive grants to community and

faith-based organizations for programs that help noncustodial fathers support their families to

avoid or leave cash welfare, become more involved in their children’s lives, and promote

successful parenting and encourage and support healthy marriages and married fatherhood.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

21

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Several bills (H.R. 1300/S. 653, H.R. 1471, S. 685, S. 940/H.R. 1990, H.R. 2893, H.R. 3625,

H.R. 4090,68 S. 2524, and H.R. 4737) that included fatherhood initiatives were introduced, but

none were enacted. The purposes of the fatherhood programs in the bills introduced generally

were the same: fatherhood programs must be designed to promote marriage through counseling,

mentoring, and other activities; promote successful parenting through counseling, providing

information about good parenting practices including payment of child support, and other

activities; and help noncustodial parents and their families avoid or leave cash welfare by

providing work-first services, job training, subsidized employment, career-advancing education,

and other activities. However, the structure of the fatherhood programs differed.

Although H.R. 4737, as amended, was passed by the House on May 16, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-460,

Part 1), and reported favorably in the nature of a substitute by the Senate Finance Committee

(S.Rept. 107-221) on July 25, 2002, it was not passed by the full Senate.

108th Congress (2003-2004)

President Bush’s FY2004 budget proposed $20 million annually (for FY2004-FY2008) for

promotion and support of responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage. The FY2004 budget

proposal also would have gradually increased the annual funding of the CSE access and visitation

grant program from $10 million annually, to $20 million annually by FY2007.

His FY2005 budget proposed $50 million (for FY2005) for 75 competitive grants to faith-based

and community organizations, together with Indian tribes and tribal organizations, to encourage

and help fathers to support their families, avoid welfare, and improve their ability to manage

family business affairs, and to support healthy marriages and married fatherhood.

Several bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions (S. 5, S. 448, S. 604, S. 657, S.

1443, and S. 2830; H.R. 4 and H.R. 936) were introduced, none of which became law.

On February 13, 2003, the House passed H.R. 4, a welfare reauthorization bill that would have

provided $20 million per year for each of FY2004-FY2008 for a responsible fatherhood grant

program. This bill was essentially identical to H.R. 4737 as passed by the House in 2002.

On September 10, 2003, the Senate Finance Committee approved its version of H.R. 4 (S.Rept.

108-162), which would have established a $75 million responsible fatherhood program composed

of four components for each of FY2004-FY2008: (1) a $20 million grant program for up to 10

eligible states to conduct demonstration programs; (2) a $30 million grant for eligible entities to

conduct demonstration programs; (3) $5 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood

promotion organization to develop and promote a responsible fatherhood media campaign; and

(4) a $20 million block grant for states to conduct responsible fatherhood media campaigns.

Although H.R. 4 was debated on the Senate floor during the period March 29-April 1, 2004,

consideration of the bill was not completed when a motion to limit debate on the bill failed to

68 H.R. 4090, as amended, was ordered reported by the House Ways and Means Committee on May 2, 2002 (H.Rept.

107-460, Part 1). The bill would have provided $20 million in grants per year for a five-year period (FY2003-FY2007)

to public entities and nonprofit community entities, including religious organizations, and to Indian tribes and tribal

organizations to promote responsible, caring, and effective parenting and to encourage positive father involvement,

including the positive involvement of nonresident fathers; enhance the abilities and commitment of unemployed or

low-income fathers to provide support for their families and to avoid or leave welfare; improve fathers’ ability to

effectively manage family business affairs; and encourage and support healthy marriages and married fatherhood.

Readers should note that H.R. 4737, a bill that included identical “fatherhood” provisions, passed the House on May

16, 2002.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

22

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

garner the necessary 60 votes. The Senate did not bring the bill back to the floor before the end of

the session.69

109th Congress (2005-2006)

President Bush’s FY2006 budget proposed $40 million (for FY2006) for a responsible fatherhood

competitive grant program.

The FY2007 budget proposed $100 million for competitive matching grants to states for marriage

promotion. It also included the $150 million for HMP and RF grants that was enacted in the DRA

during the prior Congress.

Several bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were introduced. Two of the bills

were standalone bills that had been introduced in a previous Congress (S. 3607 and S. 3803) and

four were welfare reauthorization bills that included some responsible fatherhood provisions

(H.R. 240/S. 105, S. 6, and S. 667).

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (S. 1932; DRA), which also included a provision that

provided competitive grants for responsible fatherhood activities, was enacted into law.70 Among

other things, the DRA reauthorized the TANF block grant at $16.5 billion annually through

FY2010 and included a provision that provided $150 million in funding for the new HMP and RF

competitive grants programs for each of the fiscal years, FY2006 through FY2010. Of the $150

million, up to $50 million per year in grants was to be provided to states, territories, Indian tribes

and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious

organizations, for responsible fatherhood initiatives.

Under the DRA, RF grant funds could be spent on activities to promote responsible fatherhood

through (1) marriage promotion (through counseling, mentoring, disseminating information about

the advantages of marriage and two-parent involvement for children, etc.), (2) parenting activities

(through counseling, mentoring, mediation, disseminating information about good parenting

practices, etc.), (3) fostering economic stability of fathers (through work first services, job search,

job training, subsidized employment, education, etc.), or (4) contracting with a nationally

recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to develop, promote, or distribute a

media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of parents in the lives of their

children, focusing particularly on responsible fatherhood; and/or to develop a national

clearinghouse to help states and communities in their efforts to promote and support marriage and

responsible fatherhood.

110th Congress (2007-2008)

President Bush’s FY2008 and FY2009 budget included the $150 million for HMP and RF

programs that was included in the DRA as part of welfare reauthorization. As noted, pursuant to

69 During the period from 2002 to 2004, the responsible fatherhood bills that were passed by the House were part of

welfare reauthorization legislation. (The funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block

grant, mandatory child care, and the abstinence education block grant—which were part of the 1996 welfare reform

legislation (P.L. 104-193) whose funding authority expired on September 30, 2002—continued under a number of

temporary extension measures.) Welfare reauthorization legislation was not enacted during this period.

70 On December 19, 2005, the House adopted the conference report on S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

(H.Rept. 109-362). On December 21, the Senate adopted the conference report on S. 1932 with amendments. The

House subsequently agreed to the Senate amendments on February 1, 2006. On February 8, 2006, President Bush

signed S. 1932 into P.L. 109-171.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

23

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

the DRA, $50 million was specifically allocated for responsible fatherhood programs for each of

FY2006-FY2010.

Two bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were introduced, S. 1626, and a House

companion bill, H.R. 3395. Among other things, S. 1626/H.R. 3395, would have increased

funding for the RF grants (authorized by the DRA) to $100 million per year for each of FY2008FY2010. (The total for the HMP and RF grants would have increased from $150 million to $200

million per year for each of FY2008-FY2010.) The bills were not reported out of committee.

111th Congress (2009-2010)

The Obama Administration’s FY2011 budget included a new proposal to redirect funds from the

HMP and RF Grant Programs to the proposed $500 million Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families

Innovation Fund. The proposed Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund would have

been available for one year (FY2011) to provide three-year competitive grants to states.71

According to one budget document, “The Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund

will serve as a catalyst for innovative service models that integrate a variety of service streams.

The results from these demonstrations could form the basis for possible future TANF and CSE

program changes at the federal or state level based on a multidimensional picture of the dynamics

of family functioning and material self-sufficiency and child well-being.”72 The Fatherhood,

Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund proposal was not acted on by either the House or the

Senate.

Three bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions were introduced, all three of which

had been introduced in a previous Congress. None of the bills received congressional action.

The first two bills were companion proposals that were almost identical to bills that were

introduced in the 110th Congress. The Senate proposal, S. 1309, was referred to as the Responsible

Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009. The House proposal, H.R. 2979, was referred to as

the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009. The bills would have

(1) increased funding for RF grant programs from $50 million per year to $100 million per year

(for each of FY2008-FY2010); (2) expanded procedures to address domestic violence; (3)

expanded activities promoting responsible fatherhood; (4) provided grants to healthy family

partnerships for domestic violence prevention, for services for families and individuals affected

by domestic violence, and for developing and implementing best practices to prevent domestic

violence; and (5) eliminated the separate TANF work participation rate for two-parent families.

The bills would have also made several changes to the CSE program and addressed the issue of

employment for noncustodial and disadvantaged parents. The HHS Secretary would have been

directed to award grants to states for an employment demonstration project involving a court- or

state child support agency-supervised program for noncustodial parents so they can pay child

support obligations. In addition, the Secretary of Labor would have been required to award grants

for transitional jobs programs and for public-private career pathways partnerships to help

disadvantaged parents obtain employment.

The third proposal, S. 939, was the Protecting Adoption and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood

Act of 2009. The bill would have required the HHS Secretary to establish an automated National

Putative Father Registry. Among other things, S. 939 would have directed the Secretary to

establish a nationwide responsible fatherhood and putative father registry educational campaign

71 U.S. Department of Health And Human Services (ACF), “FY2011 Congressional Justification: Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),” pp. 304-305 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2011/TANF.pdf.

72 Ibid.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

24

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

designed to (1) inform men about the National Putative Father Registry, the advantages of

registering with a State Putative Father Registry, and the rights and responsibilities of putative

fathers; and (2) inform women about the National Registry and its potential role in a pending or

planned adoption or a termination of a putative father’s rights. In addition, it would have required

each state that desired to receive such a grant to develop and implement a state plan for

promoting responsible fatherhood and permanency for children.

The Claims Resolution Act of 2010, enacted December 8, 2010 (P.L. 111-291), extended the RF

grant program through FY2011 and its funding was increased from $50 million to $75 million.

Funding for the HMP grants was reduced to $75 million.73

112th Congress (2011-2012)

The Obama Administration’s FY2012 and FY2013 budget proposed continued funding of $150

million to support HMP and RF grant programs for FY2012. This budget proposal also would

have made changes to the purpose clause of the CSE program to include access and visitation and

other fatherhood involvement activities. These activities would have become core parts of the

CSE program and thereby states would have been reimbursed by the federal government for

expenditures on such activities at an open-ended 66% matching rate. The budget proposal would

have required states to establish access and visitation responsibilities in all initial child support

orders. It would have encouraged states to undertake activities that support access and visitation,

implementing domestic violence safeguards as a critical component of this new state

responsibility. (The estimated cost of the proposal was $570 million over 10 years.)

The Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2011, was reintroduced as

H.R. 2193. Similar to the bill introduced in the 111th Congress, H.R. 2193, among other things,

would have reauthorized and provided $75 million per year for the RF grant program for each of

the years FY2011 through FY2015. This measure did not receive congressional action. Instead,

the programs were extended temporarily at their FY2012 levels ($150 million per year on a pro

rata basis, divided equally between the two programs), through three laws:



P.L. 112-78, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (enacted December

23, 2011), provided funding for the HMP and RF grant programs through February 29,

2012.



P.L. 112-96, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (enacted February

22, 2012), provided funding for the HMP and RF grant programs through September 30,

2012.



P.L. 112-175 (the government-wide continuing resolution enacted on September 28,

2012) extended funding for the HMP and RF grant programs through March 2013 (i.e.,

the first six months of FY2013).

113th Congress (2013-2014)

The Obama Administration’s FY2014 and FY2015 budgets proposed continued funding of $150

million to support HMP and RF grant programs each of those fiscal years. These funds would

have been split equally among HMP and RF activities. These budget proposals were very similar

to the FY2012 and FY2013 proposals with regard to fatherhood programs. (However, the FY2013

73 Pursuant to P.L. 111-291, the $75 million in Responsible Fatherhood funds provided for FY2011 could be used for

fatherhood activities intended to promote or sustain marriage, responsible parenting, economic stability, and media

campaigns that reach families with important messages about responsible fatherhood.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

25

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

budget would have provided $580 million over 10 years to support the increased access and

visitation services while the FY2014 and FY2015 budgets would have provided $448 million

over 10 years for such services.)

During the 113th Congress, the HMP and RF grant programs were extended and funded thorough

a number of appropriations acts. All of these appropriations acts provided $150 million per year

(either through a full year of funding or on an annualized basis), divided equally between the

programs.







For FY2013, a full-year continuing resolution (P.L. 113-6, enacted on March 26,

2013) extended funding for the HMP and RF grant programs through September

30, 2013.

For FY2014, the programs were initially extended and funded through an interim

continuing resolution (P.L. 113-46, enacted on October 17, 2013), and

subsequently provided full-year appropriations through September 30, 2014 (P.L.

113-76, enacted on January 17, 2014).

For FY2015, the programs were initially extended and funded through three

continuing appropriations acts: (1) P.L. 113-164, enacted on September 19, 2014;

(2) P.L. 113-202, enacted on December 12, 2014; and (3) P.L. 113-203, enacted

on December 13, 2014). Later in the fiscal year, full-year appropriations were

provided through September 30, 2015 (P.L. 113-235, enacted on December 16,

2014).

Other pieces of legislation affecting the HMP and RF programs were introduced during the 113th

Congress, though none received congressional action. H.R. 2359, the Julia Carson Responsible

Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2013, was reintroduced. Similar to the bill (H.R. 2193)

introduced in the 112th Congress, H.R. 2359, among other things, would have reauthorized and

provided $75 million per year for RF programs for each of the years FY2014 through FY2018.

114th Congress (2015-2016)

The Obama Administration’s FY2016 and FY2017 budgets proposed continuing funding of $150

million to support HMP and RF grant programs for each of those fiscal years. These funds would

have been split equally among Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood activities. These

budget requests also continued to propose $448 million over 10 years to support increased access

and visitation services and integrating those services into the core CSE program.

The HMP and RF programs were extended and funded through a number of appropriations acts.

All of these appropriations acts provided $150 million per year (either through a full year of

funding or on an annualized basis), divided equally between the programs.





For FY2016, the programs were initially funded through three interim continuing

resolutions: (1) P.L. 114-53, enacted September 30, 2015; (2) P.L. 114-96,

enacted December 11, 2015; and (3) P.L. 114-100, enacted December 16, 2015.

Full-year funding for FY2016 was provided via P.L. 114-113 (enacted December

18, 2015).

For FY2017, the programs did not receive full-year appropriations during the

114th Congress, and instead were funded through two continuing resolutions: (1)

P.L. 114-223, enacted on September 29, 2016; and (2) P.L. 114-254, enacted on

December 10, 2017. The continuing appropriations in P.L. 114-254 were

scheduled to expire on April 28, 2017.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

26

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Other pieces of legislation affecting the Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fatherhood programs

were introduced during the 114th Congress, though none received congressional action. H.R.

3005, the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2015, was

reintroduced. Similar to the bill (H.R. 2359) introduced in the 113th Congress, H.R. 3005, among

other things, would have reauthorized and provided $75 million per year for responsible

fatherhood programs for each of five fiscal years (FY2016 through FY2020). Also during the

114th Congress, two pieces of legislation were introduced that specify that HHS may not take any

action to finalize, implement, enforce, or otherwise give effect to the proposed rule entitled

“Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs” or any

proposal set forth in the proposed rule (S. 1525 and H.R. 2688). Neither of those pieces of

legislation received congressional action. (The final rule was issued on December 19, 2016.)

115th Congress (2017-2018)

The Trump Administration’s FY2018 budget proposed that funding for the HMP and RF grants

be continued through FY2018 at current law levels ($75 million for each program).

The HMP and RF grant programs were temporarily extended by two appropriations laws. The

first, enacted on April 29, 2017, extended the program through May 5, 2017 (P.L. 115-30). The

second, enacted on May 5, 2017, extended the program for a comparatively longer time period,

through September 30, 2018 (P.L. 115-31).

The Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2017 (H.R. 3465) was

reintroduced, which would, among other things, reauthorize the program through FY2023. No

legislative action on that proposal has occurred.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Social Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-. ...

Acknowledgments

(name redacted ), former CRS Specialist in Social Policy, authored earlier versions of this report.

Congressional Research Service

RL31025 · VERSION 39 · UPDATED

27

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

copyright on any CRS report we have republished.