OCSE
Responsible
Fatherhood Programs
Early Implementation Lessons
[or how to switch
custody,
end child support enforcement
&
click here for DHHS original report: provide cover for
pedophiles]
Even though this evaluation of the Child Access
Demonstration Projects revealed that although the interventions had only limited success in solving access problems among extremely disputatious and highly conflicted couples,
they did assist many noncustodial parents in the
resolution of their access problems, they
continue to fund this custody switching scam. Fully 65 to 70 percent of
those who attempted to mediate reached an agreement; mediation and other access
interventions garnered high levels of user satisfaction from both custodial and
noncustodial parents.
[No doubt this is the 65 to 70 percent of abusers who win sole or joint custody
-- cited by the American Judges Association.] Despite these positive outcomes, access interventions
had only limited impact on
child support payment patterns, which tended to track with the financial
resources of the noncustodial parent rather than his access situation
(Price, et al., 1994; Pearson, et al., 1996; Pearson and Thoennes,
1997; Pearson and Thoennes, 1999).
Grants
$$$
How our money is misused
to discriminate against women and children
http://www.statejustice.org/grantinfo/chifam.htm
http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/029319s.htm
Jessica
Pearson, Ph.D.
Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D.
Center for
Policy Research
303/837-1555
David Price,
Ph.D.
Jane Venohr, Ph.D.
Policy
Studies Inc.
999 18th
Street Suite 900
Denver CO 80202
303/863-0900
June 2000
This report was prepared for the Office of
Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, and
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation of the United
States Department of Health and Human
Services,
the Department of Health and Human Services, the Multi-site Evaluation and
Synthesis of Responsible Fatherhood
Projects is supported by a grant from the Ford Foundation to the Center for
Policy Research. The findings and
conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the official positions or policies of
the Department of Health and Human Services or its agencies nor the
views of the Ford Foundation.
Executive Summary
In late 1997, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) funded
Responsible
Fatherhood Demonstration Projects in eight states. All of these programs
attempt to improve the
employment and earnings of under- and unemployed noncustodial
parents, and to motivate them to
become more financially and emotionally involved in the lives of their
children. Although the
projects share common goals, they do not follow a single format or a specific
model of service
delivery. [When they mention noncustodial,
they mean fathers --not the thousands of mothers losing
custody of their children to abusers – this is gender specific. The main
motivation is money. These programs,
designed by the father’s rights leaders, protect violent men from criminal
prosecution by giving them sole or
joint custody, as you will see in the following report.] http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/guidance01/ch6.htm
Future reports will focus on the outcomes the projects achieve with respect
to employment, earnings,
parent-child contact,
and the payment of child support. This report is an early implementation
analysis of the programs focusing on: (1) how they are administered; (2) the
types of services they
deliver; (3) the
coalitions they created with community-based organizations and state and local
service agencies; (4) how they recruit program participants; and (5) how
they monitor client progress.
Below, we summarize some of the key lessons to be learned from the early
experiences of the
projects with implementation and operation.
[When they refer to “parent-child contact,” they
are insinuating that fathers who get lots of visitation
with their children in the form of “shared parenting” or “joint custody” will
be more willing to pay their
child support. Their real agenda, is to
obliterate child support payments through court ordered custody
switching away from the primary caretaker, usually the mother, to a “joint”
situation so that neither parent
owes the other any money. Mom still gets
the brunt of expenses and Dad gets reimbursed for instigating
a custody fight. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/cswaivers.htm
The coalitions they build refer to attorney/evaluator
associations in the form of an array of expensive programs:
guardian ad ltem, Cooperative Parenting, Collaborative Law, Alternative Dispute Resolution, mediation, reunification
and threat therapy, which are paid by the parties into the court
administrator’s account and funded through government
programs.] http://www.collabgroup.com/group.htm
Questions Raised About Court-Appointed Psychologist
Reporter:
Valeri Williams | WFFA.com
Updated:
Pasadena
Star News, Judges Comeback Assailed, Watchdog group says Gold's lucrative work deal, conduct in
cases improper,
And John Clark of
Lesson 1: It
is important for architects of programs seeking to increase income
and stimulate responsible fatherhood to serve a broad group of participants,
be flexible
about program design and recruitment, and generate services that match the
needs
of participants.
No matter how extensive the planning process is, there are always elements
of surprise in
implementing a responsible fatherhood program. Targeted populations fail to
materialize; others
appear. Services that are popular at some sites and with some participants are
unappealing to others.
Programs that define the target population too narrowly or are rigid about the
mix of services that
they offer experience problems with recruitment and attendance. Program
architects should be
receptive to serving a wide range of participants, adapting services to accommodate their needs and
interests, and creating new services to fill in service gaps in the broader
community.
[“Program Architects” are the fathers rights guys responsible
for protective parents, primary caretakers, usually mothers losing custody to
abusers.
http://www.calib.com/peerta/policies/pdf/aboutgui.pdf
Their premise is,
based on their own studies, that children need a
father in their life. There are a vast
array of independent studies that refute this showing children need consistency
and financial support, that obliteration of child support and moving in and out
of homes every other week produces instability, but these program architects
prefer to ignore this.]
Lesson
2: Programs should take advantage of collaborations with other community
agencies, but must be
knowledgeable about eligibility restrictions imposed by other
programs and funding
sources.
While all eight projects have stretched their resources by collaborating
with a variety of public and
private agencies to recruit participants and provide services, they have
problems with restrictive
eligibility requirements for some funding streams like Welfare-to-Work and TANF. It is important
for programs to know the eligibility rules for various programs so that they
steer participants
appropriately, and to explore the feasibility of widening of program requirements
so that more
participants can be served.
[They have problems with programs that can’t be
easily twisted and wrenched from mothers and children. This from the National Fatherhood Initiative,
Don Eberley and Wade Horn, former President George
Bush cronies, who were hiding out during the Clinton Administration, scarfing up federal funds and proselytizing against needy
mothers and children getting welfare funds.
Now his son, President George Bush has reinstated them, in the Faith
Based Initiative and the Department of
Health and Human Services overseeing programs designed to help women and
children.]
[There Must Be Fifty ways To
Start A Family: Social Policy and the Fragile Families of Low-Income, Noncustodial Fathers, Ronald B. Mincy
and Hillard Pouncy in The
Fatherhood Movement; A Call to Action edited by Wade Horn, David Blankenhorn,
Mitch Pearlstein and Don Eberley, (Posted 10/06/1999) Technical Amendment to Welfare-toWork (WtW), Elgibility Criteria
for Noncustodial Parents, Guidance from the
Employment and Training Administration, DOL, Sept. 21, 1998, (Posted
10/06/1999)]
Lesson
3: It is important to "customize" and "personalize"
services provided to
project participants by
outside agencies to ensure that they receive adequate
attention and appropriate
treatments.
While it makes sense for projects to refer participants to existing
employment and community
services and thus avoid service duplication, participants often need more
personal attention and
assistance than is normally given to the general public. Some programs hire
staff to be present at
public employment agencies or use case managers to make sure participants do
not get lost in the
general flow of agency cases. There is a need for personalized outreach when it
comes to recruiting
and retaining program participants and cultivating potential employers.
CRC’s http://www.vix.com/crc/conf/ How to Obtain Access/Visitation Grants--David Arnaudo, administrator of the $10 million in annual federal access grants to the states, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CRC chapter heads administering grants in IL, NY, MD, NE and D.C., and state officials, How to Present a Court Case & more--Gerald Solomon and Ron Milko, domestic relations attorneys, Maryland
Lesson
4: Programs serving low-income fathers have identified important gaps in
employment services to be
filled - apprenticeships, on-the-job training
opportunities, and jobs with
wage growth. Parents with a history of incarceration
and other barriers face
particular difficulties.
Although there are many employment programs that offer "soft"
skills training like résumé writing
and interviewing skills, the programs are generally lacking in opportunities
for paid apprenticeships
or more substantial training programs that lead to the acquisition of
marketable skills. Programs also
need to develop employment opportunities for participants with a criminal
background, limited
education, sporadic or limited work history, and other barriers. Developing
marketable skills and
employing project participants at livable wages is central to the success of
responsible fatherhood
programs.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FAMILYCOURTREFORM/message/7347
Wade Horn’s Incarcerated Fathers Initiative
& Marketing Plan
http://www.fatherhood.org/articles/pr060801.htm J Titled "Tarzan,"
the television PSA utilizes footage cut from classic 1939 Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan Finds a Son, to increase awareness of
the critical importance of fathers. Set to upbeat music, the viewer sees Tarzan
and his son, Boy, engaged in various father-son activities - Tarzan and Boy
riding an elephant, swimming through a tropical lagoon and swinging on a vine.
Pennsylvania Fatherhood
Initiative, Tom Ridge, Governor, V. P. Cheney’s next best friend, seen here with his two out
of shape kiddos touting bogus stats and federally funded ads scarfed up by Wade Horn via his National Fatherhood
Initiative during his pendency of his Senate approval
as Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Can we say conflict of interest???
http://www.policyexperts.org/insider/2000/feb00/ofnote.html
Development Director Sought by National
Fatherhood Initiative
The National Fatherhood Initiative, a six
year old national civic organization, is looking for a Director of Development.
The candidate must have at least 5 prior years of development experience in a
comparable organization and have the proven capacity to organize a professional
fundraising department that can generate rapid financial growth. Salary negotiable. CONTACT: National Fatherhood Initiative,
Lesson
5: Programs are collaborating with child support agencies in new ways to
educate parents about the
child support program, understand their cases, and
explore their options. Staff
at the programs would like the child support system to
be even more responsive to
participants' needs and financial limitations.
All the programs have developed links with child support agencies that
enable them to help
participants understand their child support situation, remedy errors in their case records, and pursue
requests to adjust their child support orders. These are welcome
developments but may not go far
enough in addressing the limited income and other financial obligations of
program participants and
their motivational needs. Four of the programs have adopted more substantial
accommodations,
including suspending current
child support orders during job training and job search, reducing
monthly arrears payments, avoiding license suspensions and bench warrants, and reducing child
support orders to below guideline levels. Without minimizing the
financial needs of children and
the importance of personal responsibility, case managers would like child
support agencies to
consider adopting more flexible policies for low-income noncustodial
parents. As it is now, case
managers at several sites must follow child support policies that leave them
with a limited range of
incentives to offer participants.
[They can’t get more flexible than this, bending themselves into a court-ordered pretzel. Don’t
want to pay child support? Don’t want
to pay for an attorney? Don’t worry, turn your divorce
into a contested custody case and profit.
“In my case, my ex's lawyer in Texas told the judge
that my ex's lawyer in CA said, if my ex
didn't pay him that United Father's of
America would...”
e-mail from a noncustodial mother.]
http://www.aaml.org/Articles/2000-6/Custody%20increasingly%20contentious.htm
Lesson 6:
Legal information and assistance on access, visitation, and child support
has proven to be extremely
popular at every site where it is offered.
With the rise in pro se divorce, the decline in government-funded
legal services (especially for
noncustodial parents), and the growth in out-of-wedlock
births, many parents have never had access
to a lawyer and are mystified about where they stand with respect to child
support, custody,
visitation, and parenting time. Pro se filings are frequently too
complicated for participants to
complete on their own. Furthermore, many participants have had negative
experiences with the
criminal justice system, which makes them reluctant to view court staff as
potential sources of help.
Every program that has offered participants legal information and assistance
with legal filings has
found this service to be greatly appreciated and utilized.
[They’re giving free legal help to fathers, but not
to mothers.]
Federal Funded Custody
Switch Hitting, DA nasty fathers rightster made a mistake and talked too much. He says the
http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/docs/fathers.htm
Family Outreach & Counseling center, Inc. (FOCC)
in partnership with
Responsible Fatherhood Access & Visitation Program
”MALES ONLY”
Free Dinner|
Child-care will not be provided
Dates: Saturday, May 12, 19th, 26th, & June 2nd
Time:
Where: Greater
FREE Continental Breakfast will be served at each workshop session
Workshop fee is based on your involvement with the
Responsible Fatherhood Access and Visitation Program:
$15-20 per
workshop depending on level of involvement
$50 per
workshop if not involved with the program
**Please call (704) 358-6239 or (704) 333-2033 to determine the fee amount
Lesson 7:
Peer support and case management help to cultivate the sense of
concern and dignity that
participants appreciate experiencing.
Responsible fatherhood programs help participants overcome their isolation
and marginalization by
helping individuals realize that they are not alone, by listening and according
respectful treatment
to participants, and by demonstrating genuine concern for and
trying to help participants. These are
new experiences for many participants, and they are powerful because they
contrast so starkly with
the disrespectful treatment participants have often experienced in their normal
interactions with
bureaucracies. Peer support and case management help programs communicate
concern, help
participants overcome their isolation, and motivate participants to make
pro-social changes in their
attitude and behavior.
["Dan Quayle Was
Right," ? This was posted by “Manny Festo” no
doubt John Knight aka Danial
Amneus of the anti-Semitic Fathers Manifesto, and
written by Rev. James Dobson. “The
long-awaited report from the U.S. Census Bureau was released May 15, reflecting
population trends and living patterns during the 10 year period ending in the
year 2000….and those led
by single fathers grew by almost 62 percent…"Nuclear Family in
Meltdown."… There are a few bright spots on this dark landscape, of
course. For example, the president recently nominated Dr. Wade Horn to a top
position in the Department of Health and Human Services. Some of you may
recognize Dr. Horn as the president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, an
organization that has long proclaimed the importance of the two-parent
household and warned of the increased risks that children face without a father
in their lives. If confirmed as assistant secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services, Dr. Horn would have authority over welfare policy, child
care, child support, foster care, adoption, Head Start and refugee services.22 Not
surprisingly, however, the National Organization for Women has already trained
its guns on Dr. Horn, erroneously suggesting that, by supporting the view that
stable families with two parents are vital to child development, he will
actually be pressuring women to "stay married to men who abuse them.".
Children, of course, will be the first to suffer. Barbara Dafoe
Whitehead, writing in her acclaimed article "Dan Quayle Was Right," said this about
the stresses experienced by children when their families fall apart:
All this uncertainty [in a single-parent home] can be devastating to children. Anyone who knows children knows that they are deeply conservative creatures. They like things to stay the same. So pronounced is this tendency that certain children have been known to request the same peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich for lunch for years on end. Children are particularly set in their ways when it comes to family, friends, neighborhoods, and schools. Yet when a family breaks up, all these things may change. The novelist Pat Conroy has observed that "each divorce is the death of a small civilization." No one feels this more acutely than children.]
Father's Manifesto massive federal funding and their anti-Semitic tripe http://fathersmanifesto.org/ ,
signatories include CRC and ACFC's
Stuart Miller,
http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1994/12-dec94/page9.html]
Lesson 8: There is no single formula for recruitment and retention; many strategies need to be used to attract various populations. Referrals from child support agencies and mandatory referrals are important sources and should not be overlooked.
Recruiting program participants takes a lot of energy, time, and initiative. Programs should use many strategies to attract different populations, including the use of mass media and referrals from public agencies. Even sites that actively cultivate community referrals rely heavily on referrals from child support technicians. The projects help technicians as well by giving them a new, more humane "enforcement" remedy. Mandatory referrals from child protective agencies, courts, jail diversion programs, and criminal justice agencies are also important at most of the sites and are believed to promote cohesion by ensuring a group of regular attendees. The dichotomy between "voluntary" and "mandatory" participants may be less meaningful than expected, with some mandatory clients becoming eager and whole-hearted participants and some voluntary clients dropping out. The key appears to be triggering an individual's internal commitment to the program and the plan of action it inspires.
Wade Horn and he National
Fatherhood Initiative has received a $500,000 grant award to finance a
targeted public education campaign throughout the year 2001. Funds will be
utilized to write, produce, distribute, and market two new television public
service announcements and to facilitate marketing, distribution, tracking, and
follow-up activities conducted by the Ad Council and a prominent ad agency for
the entire 2001 public education campaign. (posted
Lesson
9: Recruiting young or new fathers has not been easy. Efforts based at
hospitals have not been successful where they have been tried; programs are
experimenting with school-based referrals.
To date, only two sites have aggressively pursued referrals from hospitals and
other health facilities that serve newly delivering, unmarried parents. Despite
considerable staff energy dedicated to recruitment, however, there have not
been many referrals. Several factors make it difficult to do outreach in
hospital settings: brief hospital stays, rival goals and concerns, and high
staff turnover on maternity floors are but a few. Some of the same factors also
affect outreach at postpartum settings, with fathers tending not to be on
scene, and visiting nurses and other public health personnel being extremely
preoccupied with immunizations, nutrition, and effective baby care. Some
programs are exploring alternative ways to reach young fathers, and have begun
to teach classes at local high schools and deploy younger staff members to do
one-on-one recruiting at youth groups and churches.
http://www.fatherhood.org/psa_tv.htm
Lesson 10:
Programs need to have dedicated and energetic staff who know about community
services and are good at identifying resources.
The success of the Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Projects appears to be
tied to the commitment of the staff. Reaching alienated and disenfranchised populations
and convincing them to change their attitudes and behaviors is hard work. It
takes time, persistence, repeated contacts, fast action, patience, firmness,
and endless resourcefulness. Programs need to recruit key program staff who are inspired and inspiring. They also need to be
knowledgeable about community services in order to maximize opportunities for
participants. First-hand knowledge is key. The best
referrals are not made out of directories, but result from long-standing
familiarity with community services, eligibility requirements, available
resources, and relevant personnel. Dedicated, knowledgeable, and energetic
staff can better counsel and steer parents into a course of action that makes
them more financially and emotionally responsible for their children.
http://www.fatherhood.org/psa_radio.htm
Chapter I
The Context and Setting for the Responsible Fatherhood Programs
This is a preliminary analysis of the eight Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Projects funded by the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in late 1997. It focuses on how the programs are administered; the types of services each program delivers; the coalitions that have been created between the programs, community-based organizations, and state and local service agencies; how program participants are recruited; and how each program monitors client progress. This report covers the time period from initial start-up in late 1997 through December 1999. It documents the implementation of the projects and the major changes that have occurred at the sites with respect to program administration, goals, recruitment, and service delivery. Future reports will focus on the outcomes the projects achieve with respect to enhanced employment, education, access, parenting, and child support payments.
Historical Context of the Programs
Since OCSE's inception in 1975, Congress has gradually expanded the federal role in child support and given the program new tools so that it can more effectively handle increasingly larger caseloads and meet the more aggressive performance goals established by the passage of legislation in 1984, 1988, and 1996. The child support program now includes (Legler, 1996):
Case Management:
http://www.ancpr.org/caselaw.htm
http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/
http://www.infoline.org/Parents/Fathers/CTPrograms.asp
http://www.ncfm.org/readdiv.htm
__________________________________________________________
1 While we recognize that either mothers or fathers may be noncustodial parents, most of the research being cited has been conducted with noncustodial fathers. As a result, this section of the report uses the term “fathers.”
[What about the thousands of battered women and noncustodial mothers like Jeannie Wrightson,
who make less than $20,000 per year, who was court ordered to pay her wealthy securities
analyst/international distributor/child pornographer husband child support,
while his child support was exhonerated by the State
of Georgia?] Creative
Loafing "Losing Custody"
__________________________________________________________________
Enhancing the employment status and earning capacity of men at lower education
and skill levels appears to be one of the most promising ways to encourage poor
fathers to assume more parental responsibilities, including the payment of
child support. Several studies support this conclusion. In a 1995 study, for
example, Testa and Krogh
found that single African American men with stable employment are twice as
likely to marry the mother of the children they conceive out of wedlock. A 1990
study of 289 single teen-mother families on AFDC in
http://www.omsys.com/mmcd/courtrev.htm
An excellent study on the incidence of sexual
abuse in divorce was done by Thoennes and Tjaden of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
Research Unit in
While it is popularly believed that all allegations of sexual abuse in divorce
involved the mother accusing the father, that was not
the case. Mothers accused biological fathers in only 48 percent of the cases.
Stepfathers were accused by mothers in 6 percent of cases. Fathers accused
mothers or mother’s new partner in 16 percent of cases and dads accused third
parties in another 6 percent of cases. The remainder of
accusations were made by third parties.9
Half of the allegations of sexual abuse among the
custody/visitation dispute group, overall, were considered founded. In 33
percent of cases, no abuse was believed to have occurred and in 17 percent no
determination could be reached.10 These figures are about the same as
validation rates for cases reported to child protective agencies.11
Mother’s allegations against father were considered likely to have been
accurate in 49 percent of cases and unlikely in 33 percent. Father’s
allegations against mother were considered likely in 42 percent of cases and
unlikely in 41 percent. The remainder of the cases were
indeterminate.12
To get a different view of this issue, consider
that approximately 1,000,000 divorces are granted per year. About 600,000 of
divorcing couples have minor children, but only about 90,000 have custody
disputes.13 If only 2 percent of disputed custody or
visitation cases have allegations of sexual abuse, then only about 3 out of
every 1,000 divorces involving children have allegations of sexual abuse. This
is not an epidemic.
Research in
In
The beliefs that false allegations of sexual
abuse in divorce are epidemic and that it is mothers who falsely accuse fathers
are not supported by good, methodologically sound research.]
Enhancing the noncustodial parent's access to the
child has often been suggested as another means of encouraging voluntary
payment among obligors at all income levels. Although the research evidence is mixed (see e.g.,
Weitzman, 1985; Berkman,
1986), most studies do find a positive correlation between visitation and
support performance. For example, more than two decades ago, Chambers (1979)
found that fathers with little or no contact with their children after the
divorce paid only about 34 percent of their child support, while fathers in
regular contact paid 85 percent. A decade ago, Seltzer (1991) reached similar
conclusions when she analyzed a national probability sample of adults in the
Divorced
Fathers Make Strongest Impact With Child Support, Penn State University, Dr. Valerie King, Divorced fathers
help their children more by consistent payment of their child support than by
the number of visits made to their children
Improving child support payment may also be a means of increasing access. It has been impossible to
definitively discern a causal relationship because access and child support
compliance are so interrelated and visitation is so difficult to accurately
measure (Cabrera and Evans, 2000; Pearson and Thoennes,
1988). However, in her most recent analysis of the 1987-88 National Survey of
Families and Households, Seltzer (2000: 56) concludes that paying "child
support may have a small direct effect [on access], even after father's
visiting patterns have been established." Similarly, Edin,
et al. (2000) conclude that fathers who could not
provide economically felt a sense of shame that often led them to withdraw from
their children. Whether payment leads to contact, contact leads to payment, or
both contact and payment are the result of other variables, such as a sense of
commitment, it is clear that fathers who see their children do a better job of
paying support.
In light of these findings, child support policies have increasingly moved toward approaches that emphasize ability and willingness to pay support. The Child Access Demonstration Projects were the first official steps that the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement took to support interventions aimed at addressing the issues of access and visitation. Implemented in seven different states, the project involved the use of mediation, parent education, counseling, and other measures to assist parents in communicating about the needs of their children following parental separation and divorce, and to increase the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children.
The evaluation of
the Child Access Demonstration Projects revealed that although the
interventions had only limited success in solving access problems among extremely disputatious
and highly conflicted couples, they did assist many noncustodial
parents in the resolution of their access problems. Fully 65 to 70 percent of
those who attempted to mediate reached an agreement; mediation and other access
interventions garnered high levels of user satisfaction from both custodial and
noncustodial parents. Despite these positive
outcomes, access interventions had only limited impact on child support payment
patterns, which tended to track with the financial resources of the noncustodial parent rather than his access situation
(Price, et al., 1994; Pearson, et al., 1996; Pearson and Thoennes,
1997; Pearson and Thoennes, 1999).
In a second demonstration project, the Parents' Fair Share Demonstration
(PFS), the Administration on Children and Families (ACF), along with the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the Department of
Labor, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, experimented with a
comprehensive approach to assist under- or unemployed noncustodial
parents with becoming more financially and emotionally involved in the lives of
their children. The model that was adopted at seven research sites included
employment assistance, peer support, case management, and temporarily lowered
child support orders. The findings reported to date indicate that offering
services helps to distinguish between those who are unwilling to pay and those
who are unable to pay (i.e., identifying unreported employment and
resources, and raising child support payments). Although there was improved
child support compliance, the services had little effect on improving earnings
and employment for most participants (Martinez and Miller, 2000; Johnson and Doolittle, 1995; Doolittle and
Lynn, 1998). The exception to this were the most
disadvantaged fathers, who experienced moderate improvements in employment and
earnings (
Arguing that PFS's disappointing results were due to the fact that most clients were referred by the courts, had substantial child support debts, and had been separated from their children for a number of years, some researchers have urged PFS-like programs to focus on serving unwed fathers at the birth of their babies when they are attached to the mothers and their babies, and have high hopes for raising their children (McLanahan, 1999). This is the approach that will be employed by Partners for Fragile Families. Under this demonstration project, the National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership (NPCL), with Ford Foundation support, (2) made awards to 10 states to implement demonstration projects requiring that child support agencies and community-based organizations collaborate to recruit and assist poor noncustodial parents for the purpose of promoting employment, paternal contact, and child support payment.
2 These projects were recently granted waivers to receive matching funds from the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement
Department
of Health & Human Services, Fatherhood Initiative, HHS and its Regional Offices are working to coordinate
fatherhood activities throughout the states and have sponsored a variety of
forums to bring together local public and private organizations and individuals
to support fathers… Access
and Visitation. The
Based upon the growing interest in increasing father involvement with
their children, Congress included measures in its welfare reform legislation to
address the access and economic problems of noncustodial
parents. In 1997, 1998, and 1999, Congress appropriated $10 million to states
to promote the development of a variety of programs designed to alleviate the
problems associated with access and visitation. The Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act also requires states to have the authority
to order noncustodial parents who are delinquent in
child support into work activities if their children are receiving public
assistance, and approximately 18 states have developed programs to provide
employment and training services to low-income noncustodial
fathers (Sorensen, 1997). Congressional interest has remained high, and in
1999, the House of Representatives passed the Fathers Count Act of 1999 (H.R.
3073), which proposes spending $140 million over four years to support and
evaluate projects to help fathers meet their responsibilities as husbands,
parents, and providers. To date, no corresponding bill has been passed by the
Senate.
Support for demonstration projects promoting responsible fatherhood has
continued at OCSE. In 1997, following a competitive process, the agency made
multi-year awards to seven states to conduct demonstration projects that
provide services to noncustodial parents designed to
promote their financial and emotional participation in the lives of their
children. In 1997, HHS also granted
Chapter 2
Profile of the Programs
The following is a brief description of the responsible fatherhood programs
operating at the eight sites funded by OCSE and their status as of
Administered by the child support enforcement agency in
[1st Annual Fatherhood Breakfast http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/cmo/annualreport2000/health.html
The Dads Count Breakfast was co-chaired by
Supervisor Jerry Hill and Judge Phrasel Shelton and
initiated by the Fatherhood Collaborative of
The most commonly used intervention to resolve parental conflict after a separation or divorce and to promote parent-child contact is mediation. Mediation services are provided by a mediator at the domestic relations court, who was hired expressly under the grant to serve program clients. The court-based mediation program conducts divorce mediations for the court, but has traditionally served cases set for hearing. Thanks to the grant, all Family Support Division clients are eligible for mediation services at no charge to the parties, although participation is voluntary. Referrals are made by all types of child support personnel, including customer service representatives, attorneys, establishment technicians, and enforcement staff. Child support staff view the offer of free mediation as an effective way of responding to parents who mention access problems when discussing their non-compliance with child support. Staff refer clients regularly for mediation, and program staff report that about half of those referred follow through and attend a mediation session. Mediation is typically conducted in a single session, although clients can pursue additional mediation with staff at a community-based organization providing a variety of support services for families.
Employment assistance is available for parents who indicate that they are
unemployed and consequently unable to pay child support. Staff
make referrals to Success
Central, the county vendor providing employment assistance to TANF clients.
To date, very few noncustodial parents have taken
advantage of this option.
Normally, there is no case management for project participants; most are served
in a single mediation session. A fraction of clients, however, may be referred by mediators for case
management, parent education, and/or supervised visitation services offered at
the Family Service Agency. In addition, some families may avail
themselves of these services directly as a result of public outreach campaigns
conducted by both the child support agency and the Family Service Agency.
As part of its fatherhood project, the San Mateo County Family Support Division
hired a half-time community outreach coordinator to improve both client and
community knowledge about the child support program and the services available
to assist clients of the Family Support Division. The Division's outreach
activities have included:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[http://www.hewlett.org/grants/2000/fam_com00.htm
2000 Family & Community Development Grants
as of
Responsible Fatherhood
and Male Involvement
Alameda County Bar Association,
Volunteer Legal Services Corporation,
($90,000/1 year)
For the Family Advocates Law project
Boys and Girls Club of the
($15,000/1 year)
For the fatherhood program at the Center for a New Generation
Fairfax-San Anselmo
Children’s Center,
($65,000/1 year)
For the Bay Area Male Involvement Network
($40,000/1 year)
For the Proud Fathers program
Institute for the Advanced Study
of Black Family Life and Culture,
($65,000/2 years)
For the HAWK Federation program
Jewish
Family and Children’s Services,
($180,000/2 years)
For the Fathers’ Support project
Male Advocacy in Pregnancy and Parenting
Coalition,
($75,000/1 year)
For general support
National
Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership,
($400,000/3 years)
For the Bay Area Partners for Fragile Families project
The University of Pennsylvania, National
Center on Fathers and Families, Philadelphia, PA
($350,000/2 years)
For Phase II of the Fathering Integrated Data System project
Princeton University, Center for Research on
Child Wellbeing,
($200,000/3 years)
For the Oakland-based component of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing study
Pro Bono Project of
($90,000/1 year)
For the Family Law Advocates program
San Francisco Bar
Association, Volunteer Legal Services Program,
($90,000/1 year)
For the Family Law Advocates program
Total: 12 grants totaling
$1,660,000]
Project staff estimate that 300 clients received mediation services in 1999
and that 51 clients were referred for employment services. Project staff believe that the offer of employment services has had
the effect of identifying previously undisclosed employment among some targeted
clients. Among those referred, none had any payments in the 12 months prior to
referral. After referral,
about half made at least one child support payment. Staff also estimate
that mediation stimulated payment among those who had made no child support
payments in the six months prior to mediation, with the average increase in
collections standing at $1,461 for each case that reached an agreement. The
evaluators will be assessing these patterns in greater detail in subsequent
studies of project outcomes.
Administered by the El Paso County Department of Human Services in
The project is staffed by a coordinator and one full-time and one half-time case managers, with specialized liaison workers at Maximus, Goodwill, and the Women's Resource Agency. During an intake interview with a POP case manager, noncustodial parents tell their story, develop a case plan (which results in a signed contract), and receive referrals to appropriate support services, including employment assistance and personalized child support interventions. Other agencies provide services on an as-needed basis, including mediation through the Office of Dispute Resolution in the Fourth Judicial District, and other community organizations for supervised visitation, counseling, drug and alcohol evaluations, and mental health treatment. The child support agency suspends child support obligations for eligible participants for up to three months and will review and modify orders. The Women's Resource Agency has been especially helpful in contacting custodial mothers to see if they are willing to mediate or agree to temporary support abatements. The Agency also offers supportive services to custodial parents, and stresses the importance of fathers in children's lives.
The majority of the 100 clients referred to the project by the end of 1999 were referred by child support technicians. In the first year of operations, each establishment technician at Maximus was instructed to send a specified number of cases to the program each month. This policy was subsequently revised, and both establishment and enforcement technicians have been asked to refer any relevant case to the program. Technicians convey their referrals directly to POP case managers so that project staff may make direct contact if individuals fail to make contact on their own. Over time, referrals from other sources have grown considerably. Non-child support referrals are routinely made by community corrections and parole officers, court-appointed special advocates in child abuse and neglect cases, and other community agencies.
The Center on Fathering, which is a special unit within social services, has provided a variety of services to POP participants, including (at various times) peer support interventions, classes on conflict resolution, and fathering/co-parenting classes.
The OCSE grant to the Community Services Administration of the Maryland
Department of Human Resources funds two Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration
Projects. In
One objective of Baltimore RFP was to expand the type of services provided
by YF/RF to the southern quadrant of the city, which is economically distressed
and geographically isolated. As part of that effort, Baltimore RFP collaborated
with two key entities in
Baltimore RFP targets unwed or expectant fathers (including
those who are in intact families) ages 14 to 45 who
"are at risk of forsaking their parental responsibilities . . . due to
social and economic disadvantages." Clients meet with case managers for an
intake assessment, during which they identify their needs, capabilities, and
goals.
All clients are instructed to attend six months of weekly, two-hour
parenting/peer support sessions. Baltimore RFP uses the Responsible Fatherhood
Program curriculum developed by the
In addition to the parenting/peer support component, clients who are under- or
unemployed may be referred for job search and employment skills training.
Referrals may also be made for other services as needed, such as substance
abuse treatment, mediation, or counseling. Baltimore RFP offers a
court-approved treatment program for batterers at no charge to the
participants. At the close of 1999, the program had served 75 fathers, the
majority of whom were referred by the courts, the correction system, or by
word-of-mouth.
The
When the project was in operation, referrals were mostly obtained by
directly telephoning delinquent obligors and later through word-of-mouth. The
case manager spent a considerable amount of time working with fathers on a
variety of issues: visitation, transportation, lack of an identification card.
Eventually, the case manager set up a peer support group, which was suspended
when the case manager changed jobs. There are no plans to reactivate the
project in
The Father Friendly Initiative (FFI) is a service program for men that is operated under the Boston Healthy Start
Initiative, a program of the Boston Public Health Commission. It involves a collaboration between the Boston Public Health Commission
and the Department of Revenue, which operates the child support program in
FFI publicizes its services aggressively and has gained visibility through the use of radio commercials and bus advertisements, as well as giveaways in Boston Healthy Start booths at job fairs, concerts, and other public events that attract families. FFI also accepts referrals from a variety of community groups, as well as child support, health service providers, the court, the Department of Corrections, and other public agencies.
A key service provided under the program is a weekly peer support group that involves 16 lessons and is offered at four different locations. In most cases, participants attend the support group on a voluntary basis; a few of the participants who are referred by the criminal justice system are mandated to attend. The intervention is both educational and therapeutic. The curriculum is adopted from the NPCL curriculum and covers the issues of self-esteem, child care, child development, relationships, and parenting. In addition to presentations and activities on these topics, there is also open-ended discussion about these and other issues relevant to the participants.
FFI seeks to place participants in quality jobs that offer liveable wages and have the potential for wage growth. Employment services, including job readiness, job training, and job search, are provided through a variety of collaborations. For example, FFI collaborates with STRIVE, a community-based non-profit organization that serves the hard-to-employ, to offer basic employment training, and Massachusetts Rehabilitation, which offers longer-term vocational training programs. FFI also works with a job developer retained by the Department of Revenue to cultivate employers willing to hire hard-to-place populations.
Individuals may receive a variety of other services as needed. These services are provided through collaborations with local community health centers, public agencies, and its on-site resources. For example, FFI offers participants assistance with paternity establishment, child support review, advocacy in obtaining visitation and custody rights, health services, and counseling.
FFI began to accept referrals in March 1999 and had 140 participants by the end of 1999. FFI is also participating in the Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Project, which focuses on younger fathers who have no history with the child support agency.
The Proud Parents program is administered by the Office of Child Support
Enforcement of the Missouri Department of Social Services. It currently
operates in
The project has had major problems with recruitment. First, staff tried to
recruit participants for its parenting workshop by mailing invitations directly
to poor unmarried parents in cases with children less than two years old and
asking them to participate. This effort yielded virtually no attendees. Since
then, an independent, part-time outreach worker was hired to recruit fathers
from child support agency referrals,
The program in this state, known as Phoenix Project, operates in three
counties:
Participants meet with the project case manager for an intake interview. At this time, the case manager determines client needs, which might include education, locating a job, or assistance with child support. The educational component can include adult basic education testing to assess the client's needs and/or referral to a GED program. The job component relies on existing community resources, such as job service centers. However, the case manager works with each individual to provide a personal introduction to these resources and assists clients with their effective utilization. Among the employment services available are vocational assessment; help with job readiness and résumé preparation; and assistance in using the community job center to find employment, or better employment at a higher pay level or with better benefits. The case manager also works with every client to check on his or her child support situation. This can include setting up and attending meetings or court hearings with the client and the child support agency to obtain information on paternity, order establishment, enforcement, or modification. Project participants may experience relief in their arrearage obligations during their enrollment, as child support technicians are able to suspend payments on arrearages during project participation.
The program does not focus on access. Attempts to hold parenting classes and
peer support groups have been unsuccessful. Nor does
the program offer mediation or legal services, although staff can refer
interested clients to relevant service providers in the community. The
Devoted Dads is housed and operated by the Metropolitan Development Council
(MDC) for
In addition to collaborations between and among the programs sponsored by MDC,
Devoted Dads reflects a wide collaboration of agencies in
Devoted Dads has conducted a public education campaign to heighten public
awareness about the importance of fathers. The program has recruited
participants through public service announcements on radio and television,
flyers and brochures, presentations to community groups, and through its
contacts with staff at child support and health services agencies. About half
of all cases are referred by child support technicians. Devoted Dads also
receives referrals from a jail diversion project offering early release options
to targeted offenders who participate in services leading to employment and
responsible fatherhood.
Program staff screen clients at intake for employment,
child support, access, parenting, substance abuse, and other problems. During
this intake, an individualized service plan is developed. In the past, classes
have been held at the Devoted Dads location on parenting, childbirth, cooking,
and budgeting/money management. Participants are also referred for a wide array
of services at other MDC programs and other organizations in
The Devoted Dads staff consists of three full-time employees: a social worker
and two fatherhood development specialists. They are assisted by two student
interns. The contract attorney spends one day per week at the project office; a
paralegal helps participants complete forms and other pro
se filings two days per week
By the end of 1999, project evaluators had received information on 237 noncustodial parents being served at Devoted Dads. During
the first three months of 2000, evaluators received information on another 88
clients. Staff report that the flow of new clients has grown to about 50 per
month, as jail diversions have increased and word spreads about the legal
seminars and assistance offered by the contract attorney.
Children UpFront was founded in 1990 by Jerry
Hamilton, one of the pioneers of fatherhood programs. It is administered by
Goodwill Industries and, in addition to
The OCSE grant has allowed Children UpFront to extend its services to both mothers and fathers and pursue the concept of "team parenting," which aims to reduce conflict between parents, increase the child's time with each parent, increase the earning potential of parents, and encourage voluntary child support and financial contributions of both parents to the child. Children UpFront targets young, unmarried, and economically disadvantaged parents under the age of 30. In some cases, the first overture is made with a young, unwed mother, and after establishing a relationship with her, the outreach specialist pursues contact with the father. Alternatively, if contact is made first with a father, the outreach specialist will try to locate the mother and elicit her participation
Children UpFront receives referrals from a variety of public agencies and community-based organizations. Two major referral sources for the project are the TANF and child protective services agencies. TANF workers refer mothers who are not complying with agency requirements, and child protection workers refer mothers who should be paying child support for children in foster care. In addition, Children UpFront receives referrals from probation and parole. Referrals may be made by individual child support workers. At one time, the project also received referrals from the court as part of its Children First intervention, which mandates delinquent noncustodial parents with unemployment or low employment situations to engage in 32 hours of employment-related activities per week. The project no longer has the contract to serve these cases, and it is experimenting with alternative recruitment techniques. Finally, a Children UpFront outreach specialist regularly sets up a table with fliers every week at key service organizations, such as WIC, health clinics, community centers, planned parenthood, and schools with teen parent programs, to solicit referrals.
Recruits attend a one-hour orientation session, which is held three times per week. A few days later, they meet with a case manager to conduct a full assessment and construct a "personal development plan." The core of the program is a course on parental responsibility that all participants must attend. Program completion requires an attendance rate of 80 percent or better. One week of the course (8 to 10 hours) is a co-ed motivational workshop on parental responsibility that covers the significance of paternity and the child support system. The next part of the program is Fatherhood and Motherhood Development classes, which are sex-segregated courses comprised of 25 sessions that deal with child development, anger management, and communication issues. There are also peer support meetings for open discussions of material covered in the classes on parental responsibility. All programs are open-ended, allowing participants to enter and exit on their own schedule.
There is an employment resource room at Children UpFront that contains two computers and a printer that participants may use for résumé and letter writing. The center is linked to Wisconsin Job Net, which includes local and national job listings. The project hired an employment specialist in late 1999. One of her responsibilities is to offer job readiness classes on site. There are no on-the-job training opportunities.
Case managers have on-site access to child support records so they can
apprise participants of their child support status. However, the child support
agency does not offer special accommodations for low-income project
participants with respect to current support and/or arrears. Under the
Finally, Children UpFront provides case management
with the objective of helping parents meet their basic needs and make positive
changes. Case managers have access to vouchers that can be used to obtain
housing, clothing and other living requirements. Case managers also help to
informally mediate access and visitation problems and develop parenting plans
that specify how the child's time will be divided between the parents. Case
managers monitor client progress, suggest additional services, and push clients
toward meeting their goals. According to case managers, fathers are chiefly
interested in employment, continuing education, and housing. Mothers, on the
other hand, are interested in paternity, child care, parenting plans, and the
motherhood development programs. This is particularly true for those who seek
the return of their children from foster care.
Children UpFront is also a PFF demonstration site,
which will be conducted in both
|
Table 3. Overview of Site Operations: December 1999 |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Belknap, Hillsborough, & |
|
|
|
Title |
Supportive Services for Noncustodial Parents |
Parent (POP) |
Responsible Fatherhood Project ( |
The Father Friendly Initiative (FFI) |
Proud Parents |
|
Devoted Dads |
Children UpFront |
|
Program Start |
1998 |
1998 |
1994 |
1999 |
1999 |
1998 |
1998 |
1990 |
|
Administration |
Child Support |
Dept of Human Services |
Dept of Human Resources |
Child Support |
Child Support |
Child Support |
Child Support Health Dept |
Child Support |
|
Housed |
DA's office |
DHS, Child support |
|
|
Child Support |
Second Start |
Metropolitan Development Council |
Goodwill Industries |
|
Goals |
|
· Improve child supp · Child access · Improved parenting · Employment |
· Paternity estab · Improve child supp · Child access · Improved parenting · Employment |
· Improve child supp · Child access · Improved parenting · Employment |
· Improve child supp · Child access · Improved parenting |
· Improve child supp · Child access · Improve parenting · Employment |
· Improve child supp · Child access · Improved parenting · Community awareness · Employment |
· Team parenting · Improve child supp · Child access · Paternity estab · Improved parenting · Employment |
|
Primary Project Staff |
|
· 2 Case managers at POP office · Liaison workers at Goodwill, Maximus, Women's Resource Agency, Center on Fathering |
|
· Project director · Project manager · Job resource coord · 2 outreach workers · Case manager |
1-2 recruiters/ site workshop coord |
Project coordinator |
|
· Program director · Program coord · 1 outreach worker · 4 case managers · 1 job specialist · 1 marketing specialist |
|
|
||||||||
|
Original Population Targeted for Services |
Parents not paying support |
Low income Under- & unemployed |
At risk of non- support (ages 14-45) |
Fathers 16-35 |
Low-income Unmarried fathers with children 5 |
Unemployed and low-income noncustodial parents |
Fathers 18-25 low income children 6 Empowerment Zone residents |
Unmarried mothers & fathers Under- & unempld Parents under age 30 Parents with children in foster care |
|
Date first case enrolled |
June 1998 |
August 1998 |
July 1998 |
March 1999 |
August 1999 |
July 1998 |
August 1998 |
January 1999 |
|
Services |
employment access child support parenting skills class mediation supervised visitation public education |
employment access child support peer support mediation case management supervised visit parent education services to mothers |
employment child support peer support 6 mo parenting classes other as needed case mgt "after care" for graduates |
employment access child support peer support - core other as needed case management |
employment access parenting child support mediation father's rights ed |
employment child support GED others as needed case mgt |
employment child support parenting seminar other as needed system changes case management legal seminars money management |
employment parenting programs mediation child support peer support team parenting case mgt |
|
Clients enrolled through 3/00 |
53 (1/00 - 3/00) 300 reported by staff in 1999 |
136 |
|
153 |
22 |
77 |
325 (500 reported by staff) |
96 |
|
Referral
sources attempted to date
|
Identified by techs Non-paying cs cases 7 CBOs with grants to explain cs to NCP Mailing to CSE clients Press release Misc |
Mailing to non-pay CSE techs Hospital contact Court Churches Community corrections Court appointed special advocates Other community Word-of-mouth |
Courts Other community Word of mouth |
Radio ads Courts Health centers Other community |
Parenting Workshop to groups of NCPs (e.g., thru existing jobs programs) Community recruiters |
Child support techs Community groups Courts |
Child support Cases with child 6 Health centers Word-of-mouth Jail diversion project |
Courts Community gourps Referrals pursued by outreach workers based at WIC Health clinics Schools Voluntary except for court referrals |
|
Includes
only new cases enrolled after OSCE grant award
"Employment" indicates the program plans assistance such as job training, job readiness workshops, job search ; "Child support" indicates the program plans to work with the child support agency to revise orders, abate orders, establish paternity, reduce debt etc.; "Access" indicates the program will provide assistance around access/visitation issues |
||||||||
Chapter 3
Participant Recruitment, Qualifications, and
Retention
Recruitment
The most frequently used method of recruiting fathers in order to assist
them with jobs and other support services is to obtain referrals from the
courts and child support agencies. For example, participants in the Parents'
Fair Share (PFS) projects consisted exclusively of unemployed or underemployed,
non-paying obligors whose children received TANF benefits and who could be
located and ordered by the court to attend.
Even programs that use court referrals, however, face significant recruitment
problems. Many individuals do not show up for court hearings; many do not
follow up and attend programs the court orders them to try. In the seven PFS
demonstration projects, for example, researchers estimate that only 5 to 70
percent of the located, eligible noncustodial parents
showed up in court or before the administrative agency for a hearing and were
referred to the project. The pool of actual participants was further reduced by
the fact that one-third of qualifying individuals who were ordered by a judge
or hearing officer to attend PFS never showed up for an orientation (Doolittle and Lynn, 1998).
The funders of the Responsible Fatherhood
Demonstration Projects were interested in broadening the recruitment effort and
exploring the efficacy of engaging noncustodial
parents voluntarily, particularly at time points close to the birth of their
children. There was particular interest in the feasibility of recruiting noncustodial parents in prenatal, at-birth, and postpartum
settings and in cultivating referrals from hospital-based paternity programs.
There was also interest in pursuing referrals from community-based
organizations that serve low-income families.
This chapter describes the different methods that programs used to recruit and
retain participants.
Child Support Referrals
Child support technicians, judges, and hearing officers are primary sources
of referrals at half the many program sites. In
Referrals by child support technicians are also the mainstay of Phoenix
Project in
While Maximus, the child support agency in
Project staff at
The other sites (
Direct Phone Calls and Mailings
Four projects - the Parent Opportunity Project in
In
In a similar vein, the child support agency in
Finally, Proud Parents in
The
Word-of-Mouth
Referrals
Four of the eight Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Projects report
success with word-of-mouth referrals, especially as the programs become more
established. Word-of-mouth referrals are key recruitment mechanisms for the
Children UpFront Project in
Baltimore RFP grew out of YF/RF, which began in 1993 in
Word-of-mouth referrals have also increased at the projects in
Community
Agency Referrals
Several projects have experimented with generating referrals from a variety
of community agencies. For example,
After its disappointing experiences with direct mailings and phone calls using
lists maintained by the child support agency,
Case managers with the
Staff at
Although the
These CBO workers know that if they see people who have child support issues,
they now know a child support worker they can contact. By the same token, child
support workers now know CBO staff and that makes the referral process work
better both ways.
Referrals
from Hospitals and Birthing Facilities
Staff at two of the projects have attempted to
generate referrals from maternity departments at area hospitals, but neither
has had much success. Case managers at
Staff at
Despite these efforts,
Referrals from Courts, Child Welfare, and Correctional Agencies
Half of the programs have a substantial group of participants who are
referred by a court, correctional institution, or child protective services
agency. In some cases, participation is mandated, either for non-payment of
support or for reasons unrelated to child support. Baltimore RFP in
In response to its domestic violence referrals, Baltimore RFP recently added treatment for batterers to the array of services that it offers. Individuals who are required to attend a program for batterers may do so at Baltimore RFP without paying the $35 per session fee charged by other community providers. Fathers involved in child protection matters may be required by the juvenile court to take the parent education curriculum.
Staff at
Incarcerated noncustodial parents
who have children who receive TANF and are selected for jail diversion may be
referred to
Media
Events
Table 4 summarizes the various methods of recruitment employed at the project sites.
|
Table 4. Primary Methods of Recruiting Project Participants |
|||||
|
Site |
Child support referrals |
Word-of-mouth |
Community agency referrals |
Courts and correctional agencies |
Media |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
X |
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Recruitment
at hospitals and prenatal clinics was attempted in |
|||||
Target
Population
The Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Projects vary considerably with
respect to who is targeted for services. They also vary in the degree to which
they provide services to those who do not fit their program's guidelines for
qualifications. Not surprisingly, projects that promote themselves among the
general public and use the media to generate name recognition attract a diverse
array of participants. For example,
We get some middle and upper-income men who want help with substance abuse or anger management and don't want the stigma of going to a batterer's group. Other 'high end' guys just want to be part of a support group.
Staff characterize the project participants as extremely diverse, including men who are not yet fathers but want to do something "preventive;" men in intact families who want to be part of a support group; men who are referred from probation, social services, and prison; and under- and unemployed fathers who need help with employment and child support.
Some sites have established stricter criteria for eligibility. For example, the Colorado POP procedures manual establishes the following "requirements" for POP eligibility: "a noncustodial parent for one or more of their children" (except for hospital referrals where intact families may be accepted for preventive services if they are "deemed at risk"); unemployed or under-employed and having problems paying their child support obligations or having problems with access or visitation; live in El Paso or Teller Counties; and have a legal right to work. The "flexible" definition of under-employment adopted by project staff is income "at or below 185% of the federal poverty level." Noncustodial parents with incomes above this level are referred to other community service providers who offer supportive services for custodial and noncustodial parents of all ages and income levels.
Three of the programs -
Table 5 summarizes the qualifications for participation imposed by the
projects.
|
Table 5. Populations Served at the Projects |
|||||
|
|
Noncustodial Fathers |
Custodial Fathers |
Noncustodial Mothers |
Custodial Mothers |
Low-Income Only |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
No Shows and Retention
For most programs, getting an adequate number of participants is only half the
battle. They must also retain them. Retention is not an issue for only two
Responsible Fatherhood Projects. Designed as a self-help center to be accessed
by individuals on an as-needed basis rather than a multi-session intervention
with a program curriculum and case management,
Retention is also a somewhat less critical issue in
All of the remaining programs do face retention issues, although program staff have differing views on retention, the techniques that
yield the best results, and the types of participants who are most and least
stable. For example, staff at
Staff at
Initially it was a court order but now it has become more voluntary. It is an
opportunity to talk with peers about the issues I deal with.
Other approaches to maintaining client participation include the modest food
and transportation incentive at
Baltimore RFP participants are classified as "active, inactive, and gone." Active participants attend regularly. Inactive participants do not attend classes or peer support group sessions, but "stay in touch." Those who are gone have no contact with project staff. Case managers are ambivalent about those who go. They think that in some cases, the individual does not want to bother and just wants to "spend time with his homies." Others are too frustrated, demoralized, and "knocked down" to continue, and might benefit from home visits and other efforts to keep them engaged. Still others become employed and do not need program services. As one case manager put it:
The more you coddle them and hand hold, the more they will stay around. So we don't want to be enablers and just try to keep them in the program for six months when they are ready to move on. We are trying to strengthen them and not just be protective (to get a high graduation rate).
Program policy is to send participants who miss more than two consecutive sessions a letter of warning informing them that they will be dropped if they do not contact a case manager within five days. Those who fail to respond to the letter are dropped after five days. Case managers do not routinely make home visits to reestablish contact with lapsed participants.
Case managers at
Case managers at
Case managers at
I work at UPS and I take this night off to come here regularly. It's that important to me.
It's medicine for the mind. They can't give you all the answers but you get advice.
It helps me cope.
I learn things.
This group gives me hope.
The case manager at
Clients are classified as "active" when they are receiving services through the project. They are classified as "inactive" when initial employment and child support goals have been met, but other issues remain that might warrant project attention over time. "Closed" cases consist of those who have met their goals and do not anticipate needing additional services, as well as those who have been non-compliant, moved out of state, or are incarcerated.
Table 6 summarizes whether retention is a project objective, and if so, how
the project attempts to achieve it.
|
Table 6. Approaches to Retention of Participants |
|||
|
|
Retention is not a key objective |
Letters and phone calls |
Home visits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 4
Services and Service Integration:
Employment and Child Support
The Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Projects provide an array of services to project participants in order to increase their capacity to support themselves and promote financial and emotional involvement with their children. Each project has selected services believed to be of key interest to its target population and determined whether these services will be provided by in-house staff, contractors, collaborators or other community agencies. Finally, each project must determine how participants will be connected with various services.
These next two chapters summarize the different types of services that
programs offer, and the ways they foster collaborations with service-providers
and channel participants to activities. First, we focus on employment and child
support services. In the following chapter, we discuss other services dealing
with access, parenting, and the miscellaneous services that are provided under
case management.
Employment
Employment is a goal of every Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Project.
However, the sites place different degrees of emphasis on employment services.
Employment services, including job readiness, job skills
training, and job search and placement, are key objectives of the
projects in
In
To provide more personalized service, Children UpFront is developing an Employment Resource Room at its facility,
and recently hired an employment case manager. The resource room is linked with
JobNet, the statewide, computerized resource for job
search. There are computers available for résumé preparation and newspapers for
job hunting. In addition to one-on-one assistance from the employment
specialists, Children UpFront participants can attend
weekly classes on employment retention and job seeking. The employment
advancement class focuses on résumé writing and interviewing skills. The class
on job seeking serves as a supervised job club. In these structured settings,
individuals can pursue their job search together, and report on their progress
and impediments under the supervision of the employment specialist.
Children UpFront is currently in the process of
trying to develop apprenticeships for participants in the trades industry.
Under the proposed arrangement, project participants would receive scholarships
for training for jobs in carpentry, plumbing, electrical work, painting, etc.
It is hoped that this collaboration with the construction and trade industries
will prove to be successful and lead to replications in other industry
settings. Children UpFront conducts brief educational
assessments as part of its intake process and refers interested individuals for
education at various community locations: the Literacy Council for Pre-GED and
ESOL training, and the local technical college for GED.
Staff at
I used to just refer them to our one-stop, Employment Security, but then I discovered that they are usually so overwhelmed and intimidated that they can't use the place effectively. They're afraid to go in the building or they don't know how to check the job board or use the computers once they get inside. If I show them how to do these things, they're going to be able to help themselves later on.
Phoenix Project participants who are unemployed and those looking for
employment at a higher wage and/or with benefits are first asked to fill out a
generic job application form, which serves to highlight the assistance they
need with application preparation. Next, both they and their case manager visit
the local state employment office. The presence of the case manager
"customizes" the visit and turns a confusing setting into a
one-on-one intervention. Project participants learn how to read the job board,
use the job search computer, and access other resources and opportunities.
According to the case manager, the "hands-on" support helps boost the
self-esteem of clients, improves their follow-through, and enhances their
ability to use the center on their own.
In addition to accessing state employment resources, the case manager for
Phoenix Project utilizes the state's Vocational Rehabilitation Agency. As a
former Vocational Rehabilitation counselor, she knows the resources available
through the agency and appreciates its evaluation, assessment, and planning
capacities. One of the key benefits of intervention by Vocational
Rehabilitation is the identification of options for employment not previously
considered by the applicant. As with referrals to Employment Security, the case
manager accompanies Phoenix Project participants who are referred to Vocational
Rehabilitation; they typically do not attend initial meetings on their own.
This "customization" enhances client follow through and maximizes the
use of state services by the Phoenix Project population. It also leads to the
creation of a team intervention, with the project case manager, employment
security worker, and vocational rehabilitation counselor all working together
to develop suitable employment plans.
In
the Best Interest of the Child Series
Fathers and Children in the Divorce Process:
Clinical, Scientific & Legal Perspectives, with
In addition to collaborating with these employment resources, FFI has also
initiated its own job readiness program. Conducted on a monthly basis, the
five-day program is designed to quickly and efficiently address the issues that
are central to project participants: interviewing successfully, showing up for
work regularly and on time, dressing appropriately for work, exhibiting
appropriate workplace attitudes, dealing with authority, and communicating with
people who are culturally different. At the conclusion of the FFI job-readiness
training program, employers come to FFI offices to interview applicants.
Interviews at FFI are perceived to be less intimidating than those conducted in
office settings that are unfamiliar to FFI participants. As the job developer
explained, "Interviews [at FFI] are less intimidating. They show up and
they do a better job of presenting themselves."
Another salient issue at this site, and at many sites, is dealing with a criminal background. Since many FFI participants have had some experience with the criminal justice system, they need help learning how to find desirable employment despite this obstacle. FFI staff feel that this topic is neglected in many other job-readiness programs. The DOR workforce developer has conducted focus groups with employers to understand their reactions to job applicants with criminal backgrounds. She expects to work closely with FFI to market these individuals more successfully with area employers using the insights she has gleaned in her outreach efforts to employers.
FFI is collaborating with STRIVE, a community-based organization serving the hard-to-employ, to channel participants into STRIVE's job training programs. One is a 15-week course leading to becoming a computer repairman. Another option is an 8-week program leading to jobs in asbestos removal and the handling of hazardous material. STRIVE also sponsors a training program in financial services, although this is not an option for individuals with a criminal background or a bad credit record. Through its collaborations with area job developers, FFI has succeeded in arranging apprenticeships and on-the-job training opportunities in a variety of industries, including food and construction.
The Parent Opportunity Program (POP) in
By funding a position at Goodwill Industries, POP has avoided the pitfalls often associated with referring clients to outside employment services, such as a lack of individual attention. Since the Goodwill case manager can serve all clients, POP also avoids the problems Welfare-to-Work programs have in providing services to noncustodial parents whose children are not TANF recipients. One individual at Goodwill Industries handles all POP referrals. Following the POP intake, the case manager sends clients who need help with employment services to this specialized worker at Goodwill. The frequent contact between the specialized worker at Goodwill and the POP case manager means that the client's situation is known to both workers, and the client's progress is carefully monitored.
Based on the needs identified through their initial intake and their first meeting with the specialized POP worker at Goodwill, POP clients can receive a wide array of employment services. Some clients will start with GED services, others receive job skills training or take part in job readiness classes. Those who are interested in and ready for immediate employment will receive placement assistance. Clients may move into immediate job placements but continue to work with Goodwill to improve their skills and enhance their employment options.
Baltimore RFP uses two community-based programs for employment services: Employ Baltimore and the Urban League. All participants are required to attend employment classes for six months at Employ Baltimore, the employment program for TANF recipients and other social services clients. All project participants are qualified to receive services at Employ Baltimore. Baltimore RFP participants attend a class of their own and a project case manager is based at Employ Baltimore to monitor project cases. The classes are offered during the day and the evening to accommodate various work schedules. For those who are not employed, classes cover the issues of résumé writing, mock interviews, and getting a job. For those who are employed, classes focus on job retention issues: communication and conflict at the workplace, and dealing with authority.
Employ Baltimore does job development, and Baltimore RFP staff credit it
with opening up some apprenticeship programs that have afforded participants
the opportunity to pursue paid training in electronics, carpentry, and
plumbing.
Baltimore RFP turns to the Urban League for job placement assistance with ex-offenders. In addition to placing individuals, the job developer at the Urban League does on-the-job troubleshooting to prevent problems from developing and growing.
Compared to other sites, employment services receive somewhat less emphasis
in the projects based in
Given the site's highly educated, professional, and affluent population, and exceptionally low unemployment rate, developers of San Mateo, California's Services for Noncustodial Parents Project decided to try to improve the payment of child support by focusing on problems of access and visitation rather than employment. As the county's child support director put it:
There is a zero unemployment rate in the county. There are
only 2,500 people on TANF, down from 6,000 a few years ago. The average house
sells for more than $550,000. It is an expensive place to live. Essentially, if
you were truly unemployed, it would be very difficult to live in
While employment services have not attracted many users in
Despite the routine promulgation of contempt filings for noncustodial
parents who fail to report employment or to appear at Success Central,
non-appearance is a major problem. For example, of the 51 noncustodial
parents who were referred to Success Central in 1999, only 15 attended the
orientation. As in Parents' Fair Share, referral to the employment program is
perceived to boost child support payment chiefly through the identification of
undisclosed employment. Faced with the requirement to attend a week-long
orientation and six weeks of supervised job search, some noncustodial
parents have made a child support payment.
In early April 2000, a job counselor from Success Central began attending
weekly court sessions for unemployed noncustodial
parents in an attempt to improve the referral process. Future assessment will
consider whether the commissioner's ability to make direct and immediate orders
to obtain employment assistance increases the number of noncustodial
parents who participate in the Success Central employment program
Devoted Dads in
Those who fail to meet the eligibility criteria for Welfare-to-Work are referred to yet another program housed at the Metropolitan Development Council: the Educational Opportunity Resource Center (EORC). Funded by the Department of Education, EORC serves as a clearinghouse for employment services, primarily at the college level. It too has strict eligibility criteria, principally based on gross income and household size. Child support payments are not taken into account. As a result, many noncustodial parents fail to qualify for reasons of excessive income, even if their take-home pay after child support has been deducted is quite low.
Program participants who fail to qualify for both the Welfare-to-Work and
EORC programs are sent to the
PFS does not deliver direct employment services. Instead, PFS offices refer participants to appropriate service providers. They also provide participants with various incentives to encourage their work participation, including assistance to cover work-related transportation costs, tuition payments for training programs, and $350 for work-related expenses. Approximately 10,000 noncustodial parents are referred to PFS per year, and 22 percent of the referrals attend an orientation and enroll. To date, six Proud Parents attendees have enrolled in PFS.
Child Support
The Responsible Fatherhood Projects raise a number of difficult philosophical and practical challenges for child support agencies and the programs. Both wrestle with the issues of child well-being, mounting child support debt, fairness, and achieving collection activity. While federal law prohibits adjusting past support obligations, there are a number of more flexible policies that agencies might adopt with respect to noncustodial parents who have very low incomes. They include:
For their part, programs are being asked to endorse unpopular policies that are frequently viewed as biased and unfair, such as the collection of monies owed to the state for past payments of public assistance. Programs also face tensions over the timing of new hire reports to the child support agency regarding participants and the initiation of wage withholding.
This section of the report describes the role that the child support agency
plays in each project. While all are sponsored by the federal Office of Child
Support Enforcement and share a commitment to paternity establishment and the
payment of child support, they differ with respect to the involvement of the
agency in day-to-day management, communication with project staff and
participants, and the adoption of flexible procedures. For example, the child
support agency may administer the project on a day-to-day basis, as it does in
The following describes the different roles that the child support agency plays at the project sites in more detail.
The Supportive Services Project for Noncustodial
Parents is administered by the child support agency in
The child support agency also serves as the exclusive source of referrals
for project services. Like all project sites, the
Referrals to services are generated several different ways. The child support agency conducted a mass mailing to clients with open child support cases, describing the services available through the project. The agency did special outreach training with staff at selected community organizations to inform them of project services. And child support technicians extend the offer of project services to clients who say they are thwarted in their access and visitation objectives.
According to the director of the Family Support Division of San Mateo, the collaboration with Family Court Services for mediation has proved to be very popular with clients and child support technicians. The agency receives 40 to 60 requests for mediation per month, approximately half of whom attend the mediation session. Of those who attend mediation, 71 percent reach a stipulated agreement. Although the request for mediation typically comes from noncustodial parents (73%), a significant number of custodial parents (27%) initiate the process. Most parents (84%) want help with visitation issues, although a substantial proportion (40%) want to deal with custody. The agency contends that mediation has made a big difference in parent-child contact as well as the payment of child support.
Based on its experiences with mediation, the IV-D agency has concluded that "resolving access issues increases the voluntary payment of child support." Child support staff also value mediation as a customer service tool. Family members with visitation problems are typically frustrated by their interactions with child support technicians because visitation is outside the scope of child support enforcement (these issues are treated separately by law). The opportunity to refer families to mediation affords workers the chance to be empathic and responsive. Like employment services, the offer also serves to identify those who use access issues as excuses for non-payment of support. Finally, attention to visitation issues allows the agency to deal with noncustodial parents in a more holistic manner and to pursue a new role that is more progressive and customer friendly.
The Missouri Child Support Agency also plays an administrative role in the Proud Parents project. Most importantly, it convened an inter-agency advisory board to plan the intervention and develop the curriculum used for the parent education program. Child support agency staff provide names and contact information for fathers who meet the criteria for referral to Proud Parents. The emphasis is on fathers of children for whom paternity is not an issue, but prior to the entry of a support order. Unsuccessful early attempts by agency staff to recruit project participants by letter was replaced by a paid recruiter/outreach worker employed by a local community action agency. The recruiter is responsible for contacting the fathers and getting them to the meetings. The meetings are facilitated by a child support agency staff member. There are no child support adjustments or accommodations for project participants. Nor does the agency provide client-specific child support information since the intervention consists only of a one-time parenting class and there is no case management or other follow-up services.
Child support technicians in
The staff of Devoted Dads have no on-site computer link to child support information for project participants. Satisfactory arrangements exist to obtain this information, with project staff communicating with individual child support technicians by fax and phone. Response patterns differ by technician, with some showing more flexibility and sensitivity than others. With the exception of temporary waivers of support for noncustodial parents who have a TANF connection and are enrolled in a qualifying job training program, the agency has not adopted any special policy for project cases. As project staff put it, "they go by the book." Requests for modification of child support orders is the chief intervention available to participants, and the outcome of the request depends on the guideline calculation. Flexibility may also depend on whether the case is under court or agency jurisdiction. Staff report that the agency has demonstrated little willingness to adjust arrearages. Getting the child support agency to "cut noncustodial parents some slack" is high on their wish list. And although project staff have made special efforts to recruit young, unmarried new parents in hospital settings and pursue paternity establishment, participation by this population has failed to materialize. To date, most of the project's paternity establishment activities result from the pursuit of parenting plans by project participants with the help of the contract attorney. These actions are typically taken by fathers who acknowledged paternity in the hospital and are interested in obtaining visitation rights.
Once a client is accepted into Phoenix Project, the case manager meets with the child support agency about making certain accommodations. Essentially, while they actively participate in Phoenix Project, clients are required to pay only current support. Although their arrearages are not forgiven, they are put in abeyance, with payments suspended during active program participation. The goal is to match the child support burden with the capacities of the client. On a weekly basis, the case manager meets with the child support agency's ten technicians to review client progress and discuss needed adjustments.
In addition to making DOR personnel available to FFI for individual case consultations and reviews, DOR recently hired a job developer to augment the employment opportunities available to project participants. The DOR workforce developer identifies employers who can offer quality employment opportunities to project participants. The developer also gathers information on the hiring needs of employers who have positions to fill. The developer is able to coordinate informational sessions and recruitment events with hiring employers. Finally, the workforce developer meets regularly with FFI staff and state employment personnel to match participants to opportunities and identify barriers that participants face.
Still another form of project support is the educational role that DOR staff play. By attending peer support sessions on a periodic basis, DOR staff are able to explain to participants their legal obligations, how to establish paternity, how child support is set, and how it is enforced. In these informal sessions, FFI participants have a chance to ask questions about their legal situation. DOR staff also keep up with the concerns of participants and their experiences with the child support agency.
Through other project initiatives and funding mechanisms, DOR has arranged
for the provision of parent education services at court and faith-based
locations. It has also contracted with social service providers to provide
supervised visitation and mediation interventions. It is currently
collaborating with legal service providers to arrange for fathers enrolled in
FFI and other social services programs to meet with attorneys for group
information sessions, brief individual consultations, and continuing telephone
advice on issues like visitation. Finally, DOR is piloting a project with the
Despite these many DOR-inspired measures to promote responsible fatherhood among low-income parents, there are no special policies for program participants on order levels and/or arrearage payments. Although there has been some discussion of pursuing modifications for individuals who enroll in STRIVE's eight- or 15-week employment training programs, the judicial process required to modify frequently takes longer than the employment training program itself. FFI staff would like to see an exploration of the forgiveness of state arrears for those who make regular payments of current support and/or achieve various program milestones. At the same time, they are mindful of the difficulties that such policies might pose for DOR. As one staffer explained:
There is no child support carrot attached to the program. They say they can't do something special for this population. And we don't have any quarrel with money owed to the custodial parent. They had those kids and they have to support them. But it would sure be a motivator if we could reduce the penalties and interest owed to the state if he paid regularly and did the right thing.
FFI staff favor expedited wage withholding for participants who become employed. Rather than allowing participants to become accustomed to receiving a full paycheck, they believe that child support should be withheld during the very first pay period. This represents a change in staff thinking from the early days of the project, when there was some desire to "stabilize" clients who were sometimes homeless and recovering addicts before involving DOR in their lives and requiring them to make child support payments.
Although Children UpFront has enjoyed a healthy
relationship with the
Despite the severing of a contractual relationship, project staff work closely with child support technicians at the county level to address the child support needs of program participants. One way they accomplish this is by accessing child support records directly at Children UpFront offices. Case managers have direct access to the state automated system with read-only functionality. This allows them to know the child support situation of participants during the program assessment. As a result, case managers are sometimes the ones to "have to break the bad news to clients" about where they stand with respect to child support, arrears, and anticipated enforcement remedies.
Case managers have the paperwork for child support modifications at Children UpFront offices and complete forms on behalf of clients. Because case managers have relationships with technicians, they can access them more readily than clients on their own and attempt to negotiate, correct errors, and effect other needed child support actions. There are no adjustments to current support orders or arrearages for project participants on a program-wide basis.
In
The agency has been a major source of referrals for POP. Child support technicians routinely send clients to POP who appear to fit the project target profile: low-income, under- or unemployed noncustodial parents. The agency has special staff who serve as liaison to the project. Case managers identify clients who are complying with program requirements. For these clients, case managers work with Maximus to explore possible child support adjustments, such as suspensions while the client participates in job skills and job search programs, or modifications of orders. Suspensions of support are available for participants who have children collecting TANF benefits; in non-TANF cases, the custodial parent must sign a legal stipulation agreeing to the suspension. Child support suspensions are typically granted for 90 days while the client is receiving services, although this may be extended. Suspensions are only granted if the client has been actively involved in POP for at least 30 days. If the client becomes noncompliant, the suspension is discontinued.
Cases that receive these child support services are individually monitored on a monthly basis by the liaison worker at Maximus to ensure that the automated child support enforcement computer system accurately reflects the changes made to the client's case. An additional duty the child support technician performs is the informal calculation of the guidelines to determine whether child support would decrease, increase, or stay the same if a client requests a modification. The program case managers routinely report to Maximus when clients obtain employment; they do not wait for the new hire reporting process to take effect. As a result, wage withholding is implemented on an expedited basis. This policy was instituted when case managers discovered that newly employed clients failed to report their employment to Maximus and did not make voluntary support payments while waiting for a wage withholding order to take effect.
The grant to the Maryland Department of Human Resources is jointly
administered by the Community Services Administration Office of Community
Initiatives and Child Support Enforcement. As a result, Baltimore RFP staff have ready access to child support information for
project participants. Maximus, the privatized child
support vendor, has designated one child support technician to serve as a
liaison with Baltimore RFP. Case managers relay their concerns to this
individual, who deals with individual technicians. Although there are uniform
policies governing child support calculations, and case managers feel that
technicians are often reluctant to deviate from them, there are some
accommodations for Baltimore RFP. There is typically a lag of "2-3
paychecks" between employment and the commencement of wage withholding,
and this is appreciated by project participants. In addition, technicians avoid
imposing some enforcement remedies with Baltimore RFP participants who have
arrearages, such as driver's license suspensions and bench warrants. Unemployed
participants receive
|
Table 7. Role of the Child Support Agency in the Responsible Fatherhood Project |
||||||||
|
|
Conducts the project |
Collabor-ative partner agency |
Direct access to child support records |
Major referral source for project |
Makes adjustments, abatements, suspends enforcement |
Program staff assist clients in working with child support staff |
Participate in education programs for program participants |
Assists with job develop-ment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 5
Services and Service Integration:
Access, Parenting, and Case Management
While stable employment at liveable wages and the payment of child support are the central objectives of the Responsible Fatherhood Projects, they are far from the only ones. All sites are interested in improving the parenting skills of participants and connecting them with their children. To different degrees, the programs also try to address the more general needs of participants, and to enhance their chances of success in becoming self sufficient and involved parents. This chapter describes the services the programs offer to enhance access and parenting/peer support. We also discuss each program's experience with case management, and their mechanisms for monitoring client involvement and progress on an individual basis.
Access and Visitation
All the projects share the objectives of linking noncustodial
parents with their children and increasing their contact. As with the issues of
employment and child support enhancement, however, they have developed
different ways of pursuing these goals. Some programs focus on the legal
barriers to parental contact and provide legal services, mediation, and
supervised visitation. Other programs work on motivating fathers to spend
quality time with their children. They provide parenting classes, support
groups, and group activities to enhance parent-child contact. The programs
operating in
Because child support matters consume less court time than contested
divorces and frequently involve never-married parents, mediation has been less
extensively used with clients of the child support enforcement agency. One
exception was a program in
Through the OCSE responsible fatherhood grant, the Superior Court of San
Mateo was able to hire a bilingual mediator to handle cases referred by the
child support enforcement agency. Eligible parties are never-married,
separated, or divorced parents in the child support agency caseload who
disagree about custody or visitation arrangements for their children. The
intervention is available for non-paying, partially paying, and fully paying
child support clients. The goal of the intervention is to develop or modify a
parenting plan. Among the visitation issues that are addressed are where the
children will live, how often and when each parent will see the children,
problems with the visitation schedule, fighting between parents during pick-up
and drop-off, reintroducing a parent into a child's life after a long absence,
visitation for grandparents and other relatives, what goes on during visits,
and the children's safety during visits. Mediators also address the issue of
physical and legal custody.
Perhaps the chief difficulty the program has experienced has been in
scheduling mediation. Because both parents must participate, it is necessary to
contact each parent separately, explain the intervention, and schedule a
session.
According to the child support agency, approximately 40 to 60 parents request mediation every month. About 46 percent of these will fail to appear for mediation. While noncustodial parents are most apt to initiate the request for mediation (73%), a significant proportion of the requests come from custodial parents (27%). And although the issue parents want to deal with usually involves visitation (84%), 40 percent want help with custody issues too. Of those who attend mediation, 71 percent reach an agreement, a rate that is almost identical to those observed in many other studies of divorce mediation. The program believes that mediation leads to increased parent-child contact and the initiation of contact in cases where there has been none. It is also associated with better child support payment patterns.
While mediation is the main intervention offered to parents in
POP staff in
The chief problem that POP encounters with mediation at both the court and the Women's Resource Agency is the reluctance of many custodial parents to participate. There are many understandable reasons why this is the case. Unlike divorce mediation, where the courts can require parents to try to mediate before they are given a court hearing, mediation in a responsible fatherhood program is totally voluntary. In addition, unlike divorce mediation, which typically involves parents who have lived together, mediation in responsible fatherhood programs frequently involves unmarried parents who may not have had lived together. Based on the reluctance of many custodial parents to mediate, the Women's Resource Agency has made concerted efforts to incorporate educational components about the importance of fathers into the programs they offer and to encourage mothers to participate by offering them services and assistance. The POP program also offers supervised visitation at a special visitation facility funded by the Department of Human Services.
Another route that one program has pursued to promote access and visitation
is through legal services.
The Baltimore RFP program also has forms to establish and modify custody,
visitation, and child support available at project offices, and Baltimore RFP staff have been trained on how to complete them. The court
waives the $75 filing fee for Baltimore RFP participants, and all filings by
project participants are heard by two masters or one judge, all of whom have
had extensive exposure to the project and the population it serves through
periodic gatherings orchestrated by Baltimore RFP staff.
The
Still another way projects promote access and visitation is to sponsor group
outings, trips, and other recreational activities for noncustodial
parents and their children. Staff at Baltimore RFP try
to host periodic trips, outings, and events for fathers and children. This is
also the approach favored by FFI in
"Team parenting" is the central goal of
Proud Parents encourages paternal participation in its parent curriculum, but as a single-session education intervention, it provides no relevant services. At the intervention, presenters introduce program attendees to the mediation services available in the area. Clients who have an open child support case can receive free mediation services from MARCH, a community-based organization that receives funding from OCSE's visitation and access grants to the states. Proud Parents' intervention on access and visitation, however, is extremely limited and does not go beyond presenting literature on MARCH and explaining the importance of parental involvement and communication.
The case manager for
The FFI presently refers clients with access problems to court-based
mediation services or works with the parents directly to try resolving the
issues. Supervised visitation services are available through OCSE's access and visitation grants. As previously noted,
FFI sponsors periodic trips and outings for fathers and children in order to
promote access and make it more enjoyable. Through a
collaboration with the Boston Bar Association's Family Law Section,
plans are underway to provide legal assistance to fathers participating in FFI
and other social service programs for low-income parents. Like
|
Table 8. Services Available at the Responsible Fatherhood Projects to Promote Access and Visitation |
||||||
|
|
Formal Mediation |
Informal mediation or assistance by program staff |
Supervised visits |
General legal education |
Case specific legal assistance |
Help with legal paper work and filings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peer Support and
Parenting
There is often little practical distinction between peer support groups and parenting classes. Classes often begin with the presentation of information and then move to group discussions about how the topic affects the participants. Peer support groups often feature a special speaker or are organized about a specific topic. At some of the sites, peer support and/or parenting classes are the most popular program components. At other sites, they are little used.
For example, in
The other six programs offer more substantial peer support and/or parenting programs. Past research has found that clients enjoy and value such services. As an analyst of the Parents' Fair Share demonstration observed about the peer support component:
Ideally, participants learn that they are not alone in their problems and derive a sense of belonging, support, and encouragement from participation. The group serves as a natural experiment in interpersonal relations, helping participants to discover how what they say or do affects other people, what attitudes or situations make them angry or resentful, and how to practice better coping strategies (Johnson, et al., 1999:116-117).
The OCSE projects used variants of existing curricula dealing with
responsible fatherhood for their peer support programs. The original curriculum
for Parents' Fair Share, developed by MDRC, has 18 sessions with many
interactive exercises that were designed to prevent the sessions from turning
into classes or lectures. A second model is the curriculum developed by
The three projects that report the greatest success with peer support groups
are Children UpFront in
Children UpFront requires participants to attend a
week-long, co-educational class dealing with parental responsibility. It covers
child support issues, basic parenting, and life skills. According the project
staff, an initial exercise that is particularly helpful is to have participants
write an obituary for themselves. This is viewed as an excellent tool to help
individuals reflect on their current situation and their life path. Next,
mothers and fathers separate and attend a 25-session, sex-segregated class
called Motherhood and Fatherhood Development. An open-enrollment program,
participants must attend 80 percent of the sessions in order to receive a
certificate of completion. In addition, participants are expect
to attend peer support meetings. These open discussion forums are keyed to
material covered in the Motherhood and Fatherhood Development classes. Each
participant has a different attendance requirement.
FFI adapted the NPCL curriculum dealing with responsible fatherhood to suit its
purposes. FFI's 16-lesson course is described by
staff as "holistic," focusing on the "mind, the body and the
spirit." Like Children UpFront, individuals
enter on a rolling basis. Groups are held in the evening at four different
sites. Each two-hour session has both a structured and unstructured component.
As the facilitator puts it "We listen to the guys. It is not just
didactic. It is psycho dynamic." In addition to parenting, self-esteem,
employment and child support issues, the groups address other problems of
participants, including substance abuse and anger management. FFI characterizes
its peer support groups in the following way:
FFI is a 'one stop' service designed to reintegrate the father into the family.
FFI uses a holistic approach and offers a comprehensive program designed to
accommodate the psychological, physical and spiritual needs of low-income men.
We offer individual and group counseling and weekly support groups. More
importantly, FFI has developed a culturally sensitive curriculum to instruct
men in the practice of preventative health care techniques and to prepare them
for the many challenges of fatherhood (e.g., issues addressing manhood,
self-esteem, pre- and post-natal child care, child development, father/child
and male/female relationships, parenting etc). FFI also provides assistance to
men dealing with issues around substance abuse, anger management and/or
domestic violence.
Baltimore RFP utilizes the NPCL curriculum without modification. It consists
of a six month series of sessions that are held once a week and facilitated by
a case manager. All Baltimore RFP case managers have received training by NPCL
in the responsible fatherhood curriculum. Individuals enter the program twice a
year and attend for six months. Upon satisfactory completion of the curriculum,
there is a graduation. Participants receive a $50 incentive during the fourth
month of attendance and another $50 upon graduation. The sessions have both
educational and group therapy components. Among the most popular topics are
discussions of appropriate discipline techniques, caring for a sick child
("Dr. Dad"), male-female relationships, birth control, and sexually
transmitted diseases. Baltimore RFP graduates have started a program for
graduates known as Respectfully Organized and
Obligated to Teach (ROOT). The goal of the program is to mentor at-risk youth
in school settings. In addition to their mentoring activities, graduates meet
amongst themselves for continued discussions.
POP in
Of course, the site that focuses exclusively on parent education is
Proud Parents has had a very difficult time attracting participants to
attend its educational program. The problem is not unique to
Case Management and Other Services
A common theme in the study of fatherhood interventions is that men need to develop the capacity to care for themselves in order to become more effective and responsible fathers (Levine and Pitt, 1996). Case managers in fatherhood programs play a critical role in this process. They may enhance the participation of noncustodial parents through personal outreach efforts including phone calls, home visits, and one-on-one intake sessions. Case managers can also link project participants to a variety of needed community services. By encouraging participants to pursue things they have either avoided or never considered and advocating on their behalf, case managers can achieve results for participants that they would not have achieved on their own. Finally, by demonstrating care, concern, and respect, case managers can help participants overcome their extreme sense of isolation and powerlessness.
In three programs (
Case management is the core feature of
The Phoenix Project case manager also works with clients on problems that may be fairly unique to a given parent. For example, she refers clients in need of clothing to the Dress for Success program, where they can be outfitted with donated work clothes; provides referrals for those who need to access food pantries; arranges for clients to receive drug, alcohol, and psychiatric evaluations (sometimes through the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation); and refers sick clients to doctors and dentists who provide no- or low-cost services. And given the lack of public transportation, it is perhaps not surprising that the case manager frequently is asked to help with transportation costs. This includes paying for car repairs, filling gas tanks so participants can get to project appointments, paying for car registrations or car inspections, paying driver's license fees, and providing taxi fares.
Not surprisingly, perhaps, the Phoenix Project case manager says that clients check in with her "all the time." She maintains consistent contact with both active and inactive participants. An important component of the one-on-one interaction is to remind participants about how important it is to be a parent and to encourage them to make the effort. As she explains it:
I honestly found that they need hands-on help. A lot of them are procrastinators. Without meeting them at the employment office, they won't follow through or they'll get there, but be too afraid to go in. Some of the biggest barriers they face are their emotional problems and feeling beaten down. That's why they need the individualized, one-on-one help.
Of course, there are still unmet needs. The lack of reliable transportation remains a big problem for many participants, and this can impede both their work and visitation efforts. Housing is another big problem, and although the case manager refers clients to community-based housing programs that provide shelter residents with a security deposit and the first month of rent, getting affordable housing for project participants is an ongoing concern.
The Parent Opportunity Project in
There are also specific expectations regarding ongoing contact between case
managers and clients. During the first month of participation in POP, case
managers are expected to have phone or in-person contact at least once a week,
with face-to-face contact at least once every two weeks. After the first month,
case managers are instructed to have contact with participants at least once
every two weeks, with face-to-face contact at least once every six weeks.
POP case managers are also in regular contact with specialized service
providers handling active cases. At least once a week, they need to verify that
clients are complying with their service plan and meeting the program
requirements. With respect to the employment vendor, Goodwill Industries,
client compliance means attending all scheduled meetings with Goodwill case
managers and job developers, attending training sessions, and making at least
four contacts with potential employers each week. Depending upon the specific plan
agreed upon by the case manager and the client, the case manager will monitor
to see that the client is cooperating with other service providers. This
includes staying in close contact with the child support agency to ensure that
child support suspensions are only in effect for clients who are actively
participating in the program. If the case managers discover that clients are
not complying with program requirements, they are instructed to "confront
the problem quickly to avoid losing all contact with the participant."
In older cases that are no longer actively receiving services
("maintenance cases"), case managers are instructed to have contact
with participants at least once a month and face-to-face contact at least once
every three months. At all contacts, case managers update project files and the
telephone information needed to conduct follow-up interviews. Case managers
document all their contacts with participants; they also make note of attempted
contacts and actions taken. Similar records are maintained for contacts with
service providers. Clients who fail to cooperate with a service provider are
sent a discontinuation letter and asked to contact their case manager to
prevent its implementation.
Although case managers in
Participants who miss more than two consecutive group sessions receive a
letter of warning and are instructed to contact their case manager within five
days. If there is no response, they are dropped from the program.
Regardless of whether they are employed, Baltimore RFP participants are
required to participate in employment training and also required to attend
parenting classes. Both programs run for six months and there are day and
evening options to accommodate various work schedules. In addition to these
core program components, Baltimore RFP recently began to offer classes for
batterers. Led by certified treatment providers, the classes satisfy the
domestic violence treatment component required by the court. While regular treatment
programs for batterers in
FFI case managers in
FFI sponsors periodic events and trips for fathers and their children to
help further the parenting objectives of the program. They also arrange for
every project participant to get a physical examination and to enroll for
medical insurance, a feature that reflects the unique affiliation of the
program with a public health agency. Case managers try to handle the housing,
clothing, and emergency food needs of participants, using a variety of
community agencies.
Children UpFront also relies both on its case management and parent development classes to keep up with participants. There are four case managers: two males and two females. Like the other programs, case managers conduct assessments and work with clients to create a personal development plan. This charts the objectives of each participant and the range of needed services. All participants are required to attend parent development classes that run for 25 sessions, and this helps case managers keep track of participants and monitor their progress in the project. In addition, case managers try to schedule regular meetings with participants but are often thwarted by their mobility. As one case manager observed, "Case management requires creativity."
Case management is viewed as a way to provide more customized service interventions. One particular area of need is housing, and case managers struggle to find emergency housing and rent assistance for participants. Case managers also have access to vouchers for food and clothing to help participants meet their basic needs. In addition, case managers help clients complete forms requesting child support modifications. They also serve as facilitators in informal mediations between parents to develop parenting agreements and address communications issues and problems with access and visitation.
Chapter 6
Lessons Learned
OCSE's eight Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration
projects share a common goal of helping poor, noncustodial
parents get their lives together and become more effective parents. At their
root, all the projects attempt to improve the employment and earnings of under-
and unemployed noncustodial parents, and to motivate
them to become more financially and emotionally involved in the lives of their
children. This preliminary assessment of the projects demonstrates that there
are many different paths to pursue in the quest to achieve these goals. The projects have not followed
a single approach or format and they have not been required to test a specific
model of service delivery. In subsequent reports, we will explore how
well each project meets its key objectives.
This chapter highlights some of the early implementation lessons from these diverse "responsible fatherhood" pilot projects with respect to program organization, service delivery, and client recruitment. Table 9 summarizes these lessons.
|
Table 9. Summary of Lessons Learned |
|
|
Lesson 1: |
It is important for architects of programs seeking to increase income and stimulate responsible fatherhood to serve a broad group of participants, be flexible about program design and recruitment, and generate services that match the needs of participants. |
|
Lesson 2: |
Programs should take advantage of collaborations with other community agencies, but must be knowledgeable about eligibility restrictions imposed by other programs and funding sources. |
|
Lesson 3: |
It is important to "customize" and "personalize" services provided to project participants by outside agencies to ensure that they receive adequate attention and appropriate treatments. |
|
Lesson 4: |
Programs serving low-income fathers have identified important gaps in employment services to be filled: apprenticeships, on-the-job training opportunities, and jobs with wage growth. Parents with a history of incarceration and other barriers face particular difficulties. |
|
Lesson 5: |
Programs are collaborating with child support agencies in new ways to educate parents about the child support program, understand their cases, and explore their options. Staff at the programs would like the child support system to be even more responsive to participants' needs and financial limitations. |
|
Lesson 6: |
Legal information and assistance on access, visitation, and child support has proven to be extremely popular at every site where it is offered. |
|
Lesson 7: |
Peer support and case management help to cultivate the sense of concern and dignity that participants appreciate experiencing. |
|
Lesson 8: |
There is no single formula for recruitment and retention; many strategies need to be used to attract various populations. Referrals from child support agencies and mandatory referrals are important sources and should not be overlooked. |
|
Lesson 9: |
Recruiting young or new fathers has not been easy. Efforts based at hospitals have not been successful where they have been tried; programs are experimenting with school-based referrals. |
|
Lesson 10: |
Programs need to have dedicated and energetic staff who know about community services and are good at identifying resources. |
|
Lesson 1: It is important for architects of programs seeking to increase income and stimulate responsible fatherhood to serve a broad group of participants, be flexible about program design and recruitment, and generate services that match the needs of participants. |
No matter how extensive the planning process is, there are always elements of
surprise in implementing a responsible fatherhood program. Program architects
should be receptive to serving a wide range of participants and to adapting
services to accommodate their needs and interests. They should also be willing
to create new services to address new client demands and to fill in service
gaps in the broader community.
Flexibility on Population Targets
It is risky to define the target population for responsible fatherhood programs too narrowly. Programs that do so typically experience problems with recruitment. Programs must be ready to reconsider the criteria they use in selecting clients, and ready to serve the unexpected. For example:
Matching Service Offerings to Participants' Needs
When participants differ from those that architects planned to serve, the
mix of program services may have to be altered. Services that are popular with
some populations have less appeal for others. For example, peer support was not
a core service anticipated in the Implementation Plan for Charles County,
Maryland, but was a planned component for
Contrary to original expectations, there is also limited interest in purely teacher-focused classes on parenting. Parent education tends to be more popular when it includes group discussion, much like peer support groups. More instructional formats only tend to work with mandated populations in dependency and neglect actions who are required to attend parent education in order to be able to have contact with their children. This is consistent with courts' experiences with education programs for divorcing parents. Sparse voluntary attendance patterns have led courts in most jurisdictions to make attendance mandatory and require parents to attend before they receive a court hearing, or, in some cases, a divorce decree.
Still other service needs evolve over time and cannot be anticipated up
front. For example,
|
Lesson 2: Programs should take advantage of collaborations with other community agencies, but must be knowledgeable about eligibility restrictions imposed by other programs and funding sources. |
There are many public and private agencies in the community that can provide
services or funding for fatherhood programs. In addition, some states have been
able to extend TANF funding to programs assisting noncustodial
parents (e.g.,
Building Collaborations
All eight projects involve collaborations with a variety of public and private agencies in the community for both the recruitment of participants and the provision of services. The collaborations they have developed are diverse.
By pursuing collaborations, projects have augmented the range of services
they can offer, stretched their resources, and minimized their out-of-pocket
expenses. Indeed, some projects say that they only need to pay for case managers
to perform recruitment, intake, supervision, and referral services, along with
the facilitation of peer support or parenting sessions. Among the major funding
streams that projects have accessed through interagency collaborations are
Welfare-to-Work, TANF, and OCSE Access and Visitation grants.
Know
Eligibility Requirements
Although most programs take advantage of existing community services, not
all fatherhood program participants are eligible for all services provided by
collaborative agencies. Sometimes, the father's ineligibility is not known
until after he appears at the collaborative agency's doorstep. For example,
convicted felons may be ineligible for various programs offering employment
training or those providing supervised visitation. Other programs may have
educational prerequisites. Means testing may exclude noncustodial
parents if only gross income is considered and deductions are not allowed for
child support payments. Still other training options may prove to be
impractical if the individual has a parole plan requiring full-time employment.
Finally, many services, such as
Need for Flexible Funding
There is clearly a need to develop more flexible funding sources for parents enrolled in responsible fatherhood programs. One possibility is TANF program funds. These funds may be used for supportive services like employment, job preparation, job training, transportation assistance, marriage counseling, and any activities that promote the objectives of "job preparation, work and marriage."
States have a tremendous amount of discretion in how they use federal TANF funds and state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funds. Some states only extend these services to noncustodial parents whose children are current recipients of TANF. Other states adopt a more liberal definition of "needy parent" that would permit the provision of services to parents with low incomes whose children are not current TANF recipients. These definitions are critical to the responsible fatherhood programs. In an era of declining TANF caseloads, fewer program participants with low incomes have children who receive TANF. Restrictive definitions limit the range of services that programs and their collaborative partners can offer to project participants and mean that different services are available for different participants.
It is important for programs to know the eligibility rules for various programs so that participants do not experience discouraging rejection when they pursue recommended services. It is also important for programs to explore the feasibility of widening program requirements so that more noncustodial parents can be served.
|
Lesson 3: It is important to "customize" and "personalize" services provided to project participants by outside agencies to ensure that they receive adequate attention and appropriate treatments. |
While it makes sense for projects to refer participants to existing community
services and avoid service duplication, participants often need more personal
attention and assistance than is normally accorded to the general public. For
example, participants in
The Need
for Customized And Personalized Services
In programs that exclusively serve low-income parents, participants are
frequently unable to utilize public agencies effectively and lack the
education, skills, and self-esteem needed to advocate on their own behalf.
Without personal attention, they may miss appointments, misrepresent their
situation, or neglect to take advantage of opportunities. For this reason, a
number of programs try to ensure that project participants receive more
personal, intense, and focused interventions when they visit employment centers
and other public entities. Programs accomplish this in different ways. Some
programs, like
Access and visitation services may also need to be customized. For example,
some programs, like
The Need
for Personalized Outreach
Outreach must also be personalized to recruit and retain program participants. As one case manager observed, "This is a difficult population to engage." Given this characterization, it is not surprising that mass mailings have been the least effective recruitment tool. More effective recruitment mechanisms involve a personal touch, such as "word-of-mouth," booths at public events, public awareness campaigns targeted to the characteristics of the population, or direct referrals from other agencies.
Personalized Contact with Employers
Some placement specialists emphasize the importance of establishing personal
relationships with potential employers and cultivating those ties. For example,
Goodwill Industries, the employment vendor for
Staff at the Massachusetts FFI and the Department of Revenue's workforce development specialist are also working hard to develop personal relationships with employers who can offer quality jobs with wage growth potential. They have conducted interviews with employers to better understand their needs. They have conducted focus groups to pinpoint employers' concerns about hiring ex-offenders. Finally, they have customized informational sessions and interview events with hiring employers to facilitate the recruitment process and enhance the retention of suitable project participants.
|
Lesson 4: Programs serving low-income fathers have identified important gaps in employment services to be filled: apprenticeships, on-the-job training opportunities, and jobs with wage growth. Parents with a history of incarceration and other barriers face particular difficulties. |
Although there are many employment programs that offer "soft" skills
training like résumé writing and interviewing skills, the programs are
generally lacking in opportunities for paid apprenticeships or more substantial
training programs that lead to the acquisition of marketable skills. Lacking
income to support themselves while in a training
program and under pressure to pay child support, participants face the pressure
to find quick employment. This may lead them to accept temporary jobs or
low-paying positions with no opportunities for wage growth or benefits.
Under- and unemployed participants in responsible fatherhood programs
clearly need apprenticeships and on-the-job training programs.
Programs also need to develop employment opportunities for participants with a
criminal background. Case managers report that employment programs serving the
TANF population and the general program frequently do not address the needs of
ex-offenders, including ways to present a criminal history on an application
and in an interview. Nor do employment programs serving TANF clients
necessarily cultivate relationships with employers who will accept applicants
with a history of incarceration. This is an area of need that programs in
Finally, programs are trying to boost the number of employers who will accept
poorly educated individuals, ex-offenders, and other hard-to-place individuals.
Some have aggressively tried to cultivate ties with targeted employers. Others
like
Developing marketable skills and employing project participants at livable
wages is central to the success of responsible fatherhood programs. Without
quality employment, participants are unable to sustain themselves, pay their
child support obligations, play a meaningful role in the lives of their
children, and envision a future. No amount of peer support or case management
can ultimately compensate for a lack of employment opportunity. And no
adjustment in child support can be enough for individuals who only earn the
minimum wage and live in dire poverty themselves. These are tall orders for
programs that typically serve individuals who are hindered by their low
educational attainment, limited work experience, substance abuse problems,
criminal justice history, and alienated, discouraged world view. Skill
development and employment at livable wages, however, must be primary goals for
individual programs and the responsible fatherhood movement as a whole.
|
|
Most program participants are confused and/or unhappy about the rules of child support and their own personal situation. They welcome the more personalized and understandable explanations of the child support system and the options afforded them through the responsible fatherhood programs. But there are serious philosophical and practical issues for both child support agencies and programs. Child support agencies are being asked to be more flexible in their policies for low-income noncustodial parents who have taken many wrong turns and have incurred overwhelming debts. Among the steps they might take are higher self-support reserves, suspension of child support during education and training, and amnesty and/or debt compromise in cases with state arrears. Fatherhood programs are being asked to enforce unpopular policies that are frequently viewed as biased and unfair, particularly the collection of monies owed to the state for past payments of public assistance on behalf of children.
Helping
Participants Understand Child Support
and Comply with the Program
All programs try to help participants understand their child support situation, remedy errors in their case records, and pursue requests for modification. A key to their ability to do so is having access to a child support worker who understands the program and is willing to respond to requests for information, review, and modification on a timely basis. Child support agencies and programs have forged new relationships to ensure the flow of information about participants and to make case-by-case adjustments. The fact that case managers can either access the child support records themselves or reach a technician to review child support records means that project participants quickly and expeditiously learn about their status and their options. In addition to getting the facts, participants are shielded from insensitive and unresponsive child support workers. In the course of reviewing the records for participants, program staff and child support workers have an opportunity to assess whether errors have been made and to make needed adjustments. Finally, program staff can help participants apply for child support modifications. Although modification forms are designed to be completed by parents on their own, this is frequently an unrealistic expectation for the poorly educated and disenfranchised populations served by the programs.
Child Support Policies
With few exceptions, local child support agencies appear to be "playing by the book" with project participants and have not developed more flexible procedures with respect to order levels and payments. Thus, child support orders are established according to the guidelines, with the traditional self-support adjustments for low-income noncustodial parents, and there are no routine adjustments of child support arrears, including money owed to the state for past payments of public assistance. Finally, at most sites, orders are being enforced using standard remedies in accordance with federal mandates that preclude the retroactive modification of arrearages.
Nevertheless, a few sites have implemented some modifications to standard practice for project participants. These modifications include:
Case managers would also like child support agencies to review their policies on arrears and consider adjustments to state debt levels as rewards for good behavior, including the completion of educational programs, job training, and/or the regular payment of child support. They believe that these forms of flexibility would go far in helping to motivate participants to take the long, hard road to self sufficiency, financial responsibility, and employment in the legitimate economy.
Perhaps because they perceive the child support agencies to be relatively
inflexible, some programs are ambivalent about how and when they report
participant employment to the agency. Some staff take
the stance that it is up to child support to "discover" employment
through new hire wage reporting and see the opportunity for participants to
receive a few full paychecks before wage withholding takes effect as a way of
helping them get on their feet. Staff at
|
Lesson 6: Legal information and assistance on access, visitation, and child support has proven to be extremely popular at every site where it is offered. |
Every program that has offered participants legal information and assistance
with legal filings has found this service greatly appreciated and utilized. For
example,
With the rise in pro se divorce, the decline in government-funded legal services (especially for noncustodial parents), and the growth in out-of-wedlock births, participants usually need and appreciate information on their rights and responsibilities. Many have never had access to a lawyer, and they are mystified about where they stand with respect to child support, custody, visitation, and parenting time. Pro se filings are frequently too complicated for participants to complete on their own. Many have had negative experiences with the criminal justice system, which makes them reluctant to view court staff as potential sources of help. Clearly, some find it empowering just to talk to a lawyer. While a legal remedy may not be likely or even possible, there appears to be some value to having an assessment of options made by an expert in a dignified and respectful manner in a welcoming and supportive setting.
|
Lesson 7: Peer support and case management help to cultivate the sense of concern and dignity that participants appreciate experiencing. |
Responsible fatherhood programs help participants overcome their isolation and marginalization by helping individuals realize that they
are not alone, by listening and according respectful treatment to participants,
and by demonstrating genuine concern for and trying to help
participants. These are new experiences for many participants, and they are
powerful because they contrast so starkly with the disrespectful treatment so
many experience in their normal interactions with
bureaucracies. Peer support and case management help programs communicate
concern, help participants overcome their isolation, and motivate participants
to make pro-social changes in their attitude and behavior. They also attempt to
foster an interest in fatherhood and cultivate both the desire and the ability
to perform better as parents.
Peer Support Groups
Although peer support was the most popular feature of the Parents' Fair
Share demonstration projects, it does not work with every demographic group or
in every program setting. It appears to be extremely popular with poor,
minority men in dense, urban settings (e.g.,
Case Management
Case managers can also provide the sense of support and concern that is
typical of peer support groups. It is used in the sites that do not have peer
support (
|
Lesson 8: There is no single formula for recruitment and retention; many strategies need to be used to attract various populations. Referrals from child support agencies and mandatory referrals are important sources and should not be overlooked. |
Recruiting program participants takes a lot of energy, time, and initiative.
Programs should use many strategies to attract different populations. Over
time, word-of-mouth referrals may develop, but at least in the early stages,
program staff must be highly visible and aggressive in cultivating referrals
from all possible sources.
Referrals
from Child Support Agencies
PFS relied exclusively on referrals from child support agencies. One goal of
the OCSE demonstration programs was to broaden the referral base and generate
clients from a variety of sources. This has happened, but even sites that
actively cultivate community referrals rely heavily on referrals from the child
support agency too (e.g.,
Child support agencies routinely deal with noncustodial parents who are behind in making payments - the very population that the programs hope to serve. Technicians routinely hear noncustodial parents complain about visitation denial and other problems with access, and they regularly learn about under- and unemployment situations. Most child support technicians ignore these issues and try to enforce orders without reference to a noncustodial parent's social circumstances. Programs of the type funded by OCSE offer agencies a new, more humane "enforcement" remedy. Instead of ignoring the employment and child access concerns presented by noncustodial parents, technicians can refer clients to the programs. In time, this should widen program acceptance by noncustodial parents, and improve perceptions of responsiveness and customer satisfaction. As evidenced in the PFS demonstrations, referrals by child support technicians also have the potential to lead to higher payments of child support through the discovery of previously undisclosed employment activity.
Mandatory Referral Sources
NPCL, the architect of the Partners for Fragile Families (PFF) demonstration
projects, emphasizes the importance of cultivating voluntary
referrals from community-based organizations rather than "mandatory"
referrals from child support and criminal justice agencies. The OCSE
demonstration projects, however, suggest that so-called "mandatory" referrals
help some programs generate needed numbers of participants. It also appears
that the dichotomy between "voluntary" and "mandatory"
participants may be less meaningful than expected. Many clients who are
compelled to attend become eager and whole hearted
participants. Conversely, many clients who are voluntarily attracted to the
program drop out or fail to adhere to their plan for intervention. The key
appears to be triggering an individual's internal commitment to the program and
the plan of action it inspires. Mandated participants can respond fully and
positively. For example, program staff in
|
Lesson 9: Recruiting young or new fathers has not been easy. Efforts based at hospitals have not been successful where they have been tried; programs are experimenting with school-based referrals. |
In order to prevent the problems associated with an accumulation of unpaid
child support, OCSE had hoped to generate program participants at hospitals and
other settings that serve new parents. Hospitals are required to present
voluntary paternity acknowledgment forms to unmarried parents. It seemed
logical to combine information about programs for fathers with the paternity
offer, and to refer interested parents soon after the birth of their children.
To date, only two sites have aggressively pursued referrals from hospitals and
other health facilities that serve newly delivering parents. Despite
considerable staff energy, however, this outreach has not generated many
referrals. Several factors make it difficult to do outreach in hospital
settings. Hospital stays are extremely brief; the nursing staff changes
regularly; and new parents and hospital staff have many rival goals and
concerns, including breast feeding and the care of infants and mothers. More to
the point, research suggests that fathers who visit and acknowledge paternity
may well be the more stable ones who are employed and have long-term
relationships with the other parent, while those who fail to visit and do not
acknowledge paternity may have more tenuous relationships with
the other parent. New mothers may be understandably uninterested in worrying
about the employment needs and child contact concerns of uninvolved fathers at
such moments.
Some of the same factors also affect outreach at postpartum settings: visiting
nurses and other public health personnel are extremely busy and are preoccupied
with the issues of immunization, nutrition, and effective baby care. They are
also expected to screen for a host of problems like child abuse and neglect,
and make relevant referrals. They are not mandated to address the issues of
paternal involvement on both emotional and financial levels, and, in the
absence of requirements to do so, other priorities may prevail. Finally,
fathers tend not to be on scene at many public health and education settings
that are frequented by new mothers and babies. This includes public health
clinics, WIC offices, Head Start programs, child care providers, and
pediatricians. When fathers are not around, all project overtures must be made
through the mother, and this limits the effectiveness of program outreach
efforts.
An alternative way to reach young fathers is through the schools, and some
programs have initiated outreach programs in high schools. For example,
staffers at
|
|
The eight demonstration programs provide relatively few services for participants
on an in-house basis; they tend to rely on community providers. This type of
format requires that program staff be knowledgeable about community services in
order to maximize opportunities for participants. For example, program staff who are familiar with public benefits are often able
to link participants with programs specifically designed for low-income
populations. Those who know about vocational rehabilitation are adept at
referring participants to those agencies and the services they provide. Still
others are familiar with public health resources. And some staff have excellent connections with employers and are effective
in finding jobs for hard-to-employ populations.
Programs should recruit staff who have extensive familiarity with relevant community services and can access resources for program participants. First-hand knowledge is key. The best referrals are not made out of directories, but result from long-standing familiarity with community services, eligibility requirements, available resources, and relevant personnel. By the same token, many jobs for hard-to-serve populations come through personal ties, word-of-mouth referrals, and targeted job development efforts rather than from newspaper classified ads, Internet listings, and job postings.
Most importantly, the success of the Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Projects appears to be tied to the commitment of the staff. Reaching alienated and disenfranchised populations and convincing them to change their attitudes and behaviors is hard work. It takes time, persistence, repeated contacts, fast action, patience, firmness, and endless resourcefulness. Like so many areas of human services, there is no single solution that will work for every individual; outcomes are nebulous and performance benchmarks are hard to monitor and assess. Thus, programs need to recruit key program staff who are inspired and inspiring. Dedicated and energetic staff can better counsel and steer parents into a course of action that makes them more financially and emotionally responsible to their children.
References
Berkman, B. 1986. "Father Involvement and Regularity of Child Support in Post-Divorce Families." Journal of Divorce. Vol. 9, No. 3: 67-74.
Bloom, D., C. Conrad, and C. Miller. 1998.
"Child Support and Fathers' Remarriage and Fertility." In
Braver, L., S. Wolchik,
Cabrera, N. and V.J. Evans. 2000. "Wither Fathers in Welfare Reform."
Poverty Research News. Vol. 4, No. 2: 3-5.
Chambers, D. 1979. Making Fathers Pay: The Enforcement
of Child Support.
Clement, D.A. 1999. "1998
Nationwide Survey of the Legal Status of Parent Education." Family and Conciliation Courts Review. Vol. 37 No.
2: 219-239.
Coltri, C.
and J. Hunt. 1998. "A Model for Telephone Mediation." Family and Conciliation Courts Review. Vol. 36 No.
2: 179-194.
Danzinger, S., and N. Radin. 1990. "Absent Does Not Equal Uninvolved: Predictors of Fathering in Teen Mother Families." Journal of Marriage and the Family. Vol. 54, No. 4: 837-845.
Doolittle, F. and
Edin, K., L. Lein, and T. Nelson. 1998."Low Income, Non-Residential Fathers: Off-Balance in a Competitive Economy, an Initial Analysis." Health and Human Services Fatherhood Initiative Report. http://aspe.hhs.gove/fathers/ELN/eln98.htm.
Furstenberg, F., K. Sherwood, and M. Sullivan. 1992. Caring and
Paying: What Fathers and Mothers Say About Child Support.
Geasler, M. and K. Blaisure. 1999. "1998 Nationwide Survey of Court-Connected Divorce Education Programs." Family and Conciliation Courts Review. Vol. 37 No. 1: 36-63.
Haskins, R. 1985. "Child Support: A Father's View." In A.J. Kahn
& S.B. Kamerman (eds.) Child Support: From
Debt Collection to Social Policy.
Johnson, E., A. Levine, and F. Doolittle.
1999. Fathers' Fair Share.
Johnson, E., and F. Doolittle.
1996. Low Income Parents and the Parents' Fair Share Demonstration: An
Early Qualitative Look at Low-Income Noncustodial
Parents (NCPs) and How One Policy Initiative Has
Attempted to Improve Their Ability to Pay Child Support.
Johnson, E., and F. Doolittle.
1995. "Low-Income Parents and the Parents' Fair Share Program: An Early
Qualitative Look at Low-Income Noncustodial Parents (NCPs) and How One Policy Initiative Has Attempted to
Improve their Ability and Desire to Pay Child Support." Paper presented at
the Effects of Child Support Enforcement and Nonresident Fathers Conference,
Legler, P. 1996. "The Coming Revolution in
Child Support Policy: Implication of the 1996 Welfare Act." Family Law Quarterly. Vol. 30, No. 3: 519.
Levine, J., and E. Pitt. 1996. New Expectations:
Community Strategies for Responsible Fatherhood.
McLanahan, S.S. 1999. Testimony
before the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Mincy, R.,
and E. Sorensen. 1998. "Deadbeats and Turnips in Child Support
Reform." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
Vol. 17, No. 1: 44-51.
Oellerich,
D.T.,
Pearson, J., and N. Thoennes.
1998. "Programs to Increase Fathers' Access to Their Children." In
Pearson, J., Thoennes, N.,
Price, D., and R. Williams. 1996. Evaluation of the Child Access
Demonstration Projects: Report to Congress.
Pearson, J., and N. Thoennes.
1997. Supervised Visitation: A Portrait of Programs and Clients.
Pearson, J., and N. Thoennes. 1996. "Acknowledging Paternity in Hospital Settings." Public Welfare. Vol. 54, No. 3: 44.
Pearson, J., and N. Thoennes. 1988. "The Denial of Visitation Rights: A Preliminary Look at Its Incidence, Correlates, Antecedents, and Consequences." Law and Policy. Vol. 10, No. 4: 363-380.
Price, K., Williams, R., Pearson, J., and
N. Thoennes. 1994. Child Access
Demonstration Projects: Final Wave I Report.
Scoon-Rogers, L. 1999. "Child Support for
Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1995." Current
Population Reports.
Seltzer, J. 2000. "Child Support and Child Access: Experiences of Divorced and Nonmarital Families." Focus, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty, Vol. 21, No. 1.
Seltzer, J. 1991. "Relationships Between Fathers and Children Who Live Apart: The Father's Role After Separation." Journal of Marriage and the Family. Vol. 53.
Sorensen, E. 1997. "States Move to Put Low Income Noncustodial Parents in Work Activities." Public Welfare. Winter 1997.
Sorensen, E. 1995. "Noncustodial
Fathers: Can They Afford to Pay More Child Support?" Report prepared for
the U.S. Congressional Budget Office and the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
Sorensen, E. and A. Halpern.
2000. "Child Support Reforms: Who Has Benefitted?"
in Focus,
Sorensen, E., and A. Halpern. 1999a. "Child Support Enforcement is Working Better Than We Think." New Federalism: Issues and Options for States. The Urban Institute, Series A., No. A-31. April 1999.
Sorensen, E., and A. Halpern. 1999b. "Child Support Enforcement: How Well is it Doing?" Assessing the New Federalism. The Urban Institute, December 1999.
Sorensen, E., and C. Zibman.
2000. "To What Extent do Children Benefit from Child Support? New Information from the National Survey of
Sorensen, E., and L. Wheaton. 1997. "Potential Effects of Increased Child Support On Welfare Costs and Welfare Dependency." The Urban Institute. January, 1997.
Testa, M. and M. Krogh. 1995. "The
Effect of Employment on Marriage Among Black Males in
Inner City
Weitzman, L. 1985. The Divorce
Resolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and
Children in
1. While we recognize that either mothers or fathers may be noncustodial parents, most of the research being cited has been conducted with noncustodial fathers. As a result, this section of the report uses the term "fathers."
2. These projects were recently granted waivers to receive matching funds from the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement.
3. This report only briefly deals with the
4. Beginning this year (Federal Fiscal Year 2000), states will compete with each other for a share of the incentive payment pool appropriated by Congress each year. The actual amount each state will be entitled to receive from this pool is not easy to determine because it depends on a complex set of calculations as well as each state's performance relative to other states. Furthermore, the incentive formula is being phased in, with one-third of the incentives calculated based on the new formula in FY 2000, two-thirds in FY 2001, and 100 percent in subsequent years.
5. State-level statistics are used for comparison purposes, primarily because the program sites do not all correspond exactly to the jurisdiction of a IV-D office, but also because data are more difficult to obtain for local offices than they are for states.
6. The federal
poverty level is updated every year by the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The
poverty level for calendar year 2000 is $696 per month for a single person
living in the contiguous 48 states and the
[“I don’t pay no child
support, but we sort of got it worked out.
If she needs something, she calls me and lets me know and I try to raise
it.
But if I paid support to the court, I sure wouldn’t be able to give her stuff
like
I do now, and I know her, she wouldn’t
let me around like I am now.”
Broke But Not Deadbeat Reconnecting Low-Income
Fathers and Children
By Dana Reichert
William T. Pound, Executive Director
National Conference of State Legislatures
http://www.calib.com/peerta/pdf/broken.pdf]
7. Currently only the Melson formula, which is used in three states, exempts the noncustodial parent from paying child support if his or her own income is not sufficient to meet a self-support reserve.
http://fdncenter.org/grantmaker/cfvi/progs.html Virgin Islands Fatherhood Initiative