OCSE Responsible

Fatherhood Programs

Early Implementation Lessons

Jessica Pearson, Ph.D.

Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D.

Center for Policy Research

1570 Emerson Street

Denver, Colorado 80218

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, Washington, D.C., under Contract No. HHS-100-98-0015 with Policy Studies Inc. In addition to support from 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.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary i

Chapter 1

The Context and Setting for the

Responsible Fatherhood Programs 1

Historical Context of the Programs 1

Demographic Profile of the Program Settings 6

Child Support Profile of the Program Settings 13

Organization of the Report 17

Chapter 2

Profile of the Programs 18

California 18

Colorado 21

Maryland 22

Massachusetts 24

Missouri 26

New Hampshire 27

Washington 29

Wisconsin 30

Chapter 3

Participant Recruitment, Qualifications,

and Retention 35

Recruitment 35

Target Population 44

No Shows and Retention 47

Chapter 4

Services and Service Integration: Employment5

and Child Support 50

Employment 50

Child Support 60

Chapter 5

Services and Service Integration: Access, Parenting, and Case Management 70

Access and Visitation 70

Peer Support and Parenting 75

Case Management and Other Services 80

Chapter 6

Lessons Learned 86

References 102

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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):

• automated case management and information systems;
• the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS);
• rigorous paternity establishment performance standards;
• expedited procedures to establish and enforce support orders;
• the mandated use of uniform guidelines to determine award levels;
• immediate and automatic use of wage withholding; and
• use of tax intercepts, property liens, credit bureau reporting, and license revocations.

The adoption of these measures has dramatically improved overall program performance (Sorensen and Halpern, 2000). There is a growing recognition among practitioners, however, that the program has been less effective with low-income and unmarried noncustodial parents than with other groups (Johnson and Doolittle, 1996; Furstenberg, et al., 1992). While tools such as FPLS, automatic wage withholding, credit bureau reporting, or matches with financial institutions are effective with noncustodial parents who have stable employment and residence patterns, they are far less effective with those who are low income, highly mobile, and sporadically employed.

Given these facts, it is not surprising that while state programs have improved outcomes for poor families, they have achieved limited success in generating child support monies from low-income noncustodial fathers. ⁽¹⁾ In 1990, only 35 percent of low-income noncustodial fathers paid any child support. Among never-married parents, the problem was even more severe. Census data reveal that only 24 percent of never-married women had a child support order and only about 15 percent reported receiving a child support payment in 1991 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991). By 1997, the child support receipt rate for never-married mothers had risen to 18 percent (Sorensen and Halpern, 1999a). Looked at somewhat differently, only 29 percent of poor children eligible for child support received some income from this source in 1996 (Sorensen and Zibman, 2000).

Some scholars argue that improved techniques to locate low-income, unmarried fathers will do little to remedy the poor payment pattern. They question the equity of support orders for the very poor, the ability of these fathers to pay, and the ability of child support to lift children out of poverty. For example, Edin, et al. (1998: 12) conclude that:

Many men's labor barely allows them the resources to get themselves to work the next day. Men earning $5 and $6 an hour, but spending large portions of their income on nightly or weekly residence, pre-cooked and carry-out food, and the clothing necessary to stay on the job, had few resources to share and little cushion to fall back on.

If they pay fully, fathers in the lowest income group pay 28 percent of their income for child support, while fathers in the highest income group pay 10 percent (Sorensen, 1995). More to the point, fathers of poor children are often poor themselves. In 1990, at least 29 percent of all noncustodial fathers had incomes (after paying child support) that were low enough to render them eligible for food stamps (Sorensen, 1997). Another study concluded that almost 37 percent of young noncustodial fathers were considered to be impoverished (Mincy and Sorensen, 1998). Annual earnings for never-married men stood at only $11,979 in 1997, while earnings for divorced and separated men averaged $33,963 (Sorensen and Halpern, 1999b). Using Survey of Income Program Participation (SIPP) data, Sorensen and Wheaton (1997) report that a $37.6 billion increase in the amount of child support collected in 1989 (the amount of additional child support they estimate noncustodial parents can actually afford to pay) would have reduced total welfare costs by only 8 percent, cut AFDC participation by 9 percent, and reduced the overall poverty rate by 5 percent (Sorensen and Wheaton, 1997). The 1997 National Survey of America's Families finds that child support reduces child poverty by 2 percent and the poverty gap by 8 percent (Sorensen and Zibman, 2000). Along the same lines, another study concludes that only 13 percent of the payment gap is due to the fathers of children on welfare (Oellerich, et al., 1991). Some researchers contend that even perfect collection of child support among the very poor would not result in big changes in child poverty, since the gains would be offset by higher levels of poverty among noncustodial parents, reductions in remarriages, and financial deprivations to children in new families (Bloom, et al., 1998).

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 Wisconsin found the father's work experience to be the strongest predictor of his remaining involved in the child's life (Danzinger and Radin, 1990). A 1996 study showed that unmarried parents who are employed are significantly more likely to acknowledge paternity on a voluntary basis (Pearson and Thoennes, 1996). Finally, several studies find that most parents who are not paying child support regularly attribute nonpayment to economic factors and unstable employment patterns (Pearson, et al., 1996; Haskins, 1985; Braver, et al., 1993).

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 United States. Two-thirds of those with frequent contact paid child support, while payments were made by only one-fifth of those with no contact. More recent census data show that noncustodial parents who owed child support in 1995 were more than twice as likely to have made payments if they had either joint custody or visitation rights (Scoon-Rogers, 1999).

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 (Martinez and Miller, 2000).

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.

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 Washington State a waiver to receive matching funds from the federal child support enforcement agency for programs aimed at providing services to help noncustodial parents. These eight programs, collectively referred to as the Responsible Fatherhood Projects, are the focus of the present report. Below, we provide some basic background information about each of these demonstration sites, including information about each site's child support policies.

Demographic Profile of the Program Settings

The OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Projects are based in the following locations:

• California, in San Mateo County;
• Colorado, in El Paso County;
• Maryland, in Baltimore City; ⁽³⁾
• Massachusetts, in the City of Boston;
• Missouri, in Cape Girardeau County;
• New Hampshire, in Merrimack, Belknap, and Hillsborough Counties;
• Washington, in Pierce County;
• Wisconsin, in the City of Racine.

Fatherhood programs operate within a demographic, economic, and public policy context. Programs must tailor recruitment and service strategies to accommodate the opportunities and constraints that each setting presents. The following is a brief overview of some of the relevant characteristics of the sites in which the OCSE Responsible Fatherhood demonstration projects are being conducted, including population size, ethnic composition, income and poverty levels, out-of-wedlock birth rates, and child support policies (particularly with respect to the treatment of low-income obligors). These patterns are summarized in Table 1 at the end of this section.

California

The California program is located in San Mateo County. This urban community has a population of slightly over 700,000 and is located approximately 20 miles south of San Francisco. Nearly 100 percent of the county is classified as urban, with less than 2 percent in rural, including farm, settings.

The population is composed primarily of White non-Hispanics (60.6%). The largest minority groups are Hispanics (16.6%) and Asians (16.8%), with African Americans comprising only 5.3 percent of the population. The County is relatively young, with 22 percent of the population under age 18 and 12 percent over 65 years of age.

The most prosperous community in the demonstration project, median household income in San Mateo in 1990 was $53,430, and the median value for homes in 1990 was nearly $344,000 and has now increased to over $550,000. The median income for families with children was $77,838, or twice the average for U.S. families ($33,536). The poverty rate for single parent families (16.8%) was less than half the national average of 38.2 percent. Based on 1990 data, nearly 40 percent of the workforce is employed in professional or managerial positions, and the unemployment rate, as of September 1999, was only 1.9 percent.

As might be expected, given the economic profile of the County, San Mateo is also a relatively well-educated community. According to 1990 Census data, nearly 85 percent of the adult population in the County hold at least a high school diploma, and nearly a third have a bachelor's or advanced degree.

San Mateo had the lowest non-marital birth rate of all the demonstration project sites (20.1%) and was well below the U.S. average of 32.4 percent in 1997. In part, this may be due to the fact that many of San Mateo's TANF births are handled in birthing facilities in adjacent counties.

Colorado

The Colorado program is located in Colorado Springs, approximately 70 miles south of Denver. The program serves the El Paso County area which has a population of nearly 500,000. The County is largely urban, with only 6 percent of the population in rural or farm areas.

The community is predominantly White non-Hispanic (81.5%), with minorities evenly divided between African Americans (7.1%) and Hispanics (7.9%). Approximately 28 percent of the population is below the age of 18 and approximately 8 percent are age 65 or older.

Median family income in El Paso County was comparable to the national average of $33,932. The percentage of single-parent families with incomes below the poverty level (36.5%) was also quite comparable to the national average at 38 percent in 1990. That same year, approximately 40 percent of the workforce was employed in professional and managerial occupations. The County also has a large military population. According to 1990 Census data, 13 percent of the labor force was in the Armed Forces.

In September 1999, El Paso County's unemployment rate was 3.2 percent. This figure is higher than the rates reported at many other project sites, but lower than the national average.

Like San Mateo, the El Paso County population is relatively well-educated. In 1990, over 88 percent of the adult population had completed high school and slightly more than a quarter had a bachelor's degree or advanced degree.

Finally, El Paso County has a relatively low non-marital birth rate of 24.5 percent and a below-average rate of single-parent families (21.8% versus 24.7% for the U.S. as a whole),

Maryland

The OCSE demonstration project is currently being conducted in Baltimore City. Baltimore, located approximately 35 miles northeast of Washington, D.C., has a population of 645,593 and is categorized as entirely urban in nature. For approximately eight months in 1999, services were also provided in Charles County, which is located about 70 miles from Baltimore, has a population of 101,154, and is 40 percent rural.

Baltimore City is comprised primarily of African Americans (59%) and non-Hispanic Whites (38%). In Charles County, approximately 78 percent of the population is non-Hispanic White, while 18 percent are African Americans. Charles County has a relatively young population profile, with 29 percent below age 18 and 6 percent above age 65. Baltimore has a somewhat older age distribution, with 24 percent below age 18 and 14 percent above age 65.

The median family income in Baltimore in 1990 was $29,363, and 40 percent of all single-parent families were living below the poverty line. A total of 31 percent of the workforce is categorized as professional or managerial. Baltimore City had one of the highest unemployment rates among the demonstration project sites and was 3.9 percent in September 1999.

Compared to Baltimore, Charles County is a more prosperous county, with a median family income approaching $50,000 in 1990 and only 16 percent of the single-parent families below the federal poverty level. Based on 1990 Census data, approximately 36 percent of the workforce is employed in professional and managerial occupations. As of September 1999, the Charles County unemployment rate stood at 2.1 percent.

Just over 60 percent of the Baltimore population age 25 and older had graduated from high school, and 15 percent held a bachelor's or advanced degree. In Charles County, over 80 percent of the adults age 25 and older had completed high school, and 16 percent held a bachelor's or advanced degree.

In Baltimore, nearly 70 percent of all births were to unmarried parents, while in Charles County the non-marital birth rate was close to the national average of 32.4 percent.

Massachusetts

The Massachusetts project is being conducted in Boston, an entirely urban location with a population of 555,447. About half of the population (52%) is composed of non-Hispanic Whites. African Americans constitute 42 percent, and there is a small population of Hispanics (8.6%) and Asians (4.0%).

Overall, Boston median family income in 1990 was $30,223 and individual income was $12,061. A substantial proportion of single-parent families had incomes that fell below the poverty level (45.4%). Approximately 44 percent of the workforce is employed in professional and managerial occupations, and unemployment in September 1999 was 3.4 percent. The non-marital birth rate, at 45 percent, exceeded the national average.

The higher educational profile of Boston residents resembles San Mateo, with 30 percent holding a bachelor's or advanced degree (but only 75% completing high school, which is comparable to the national average). Boston has the oldest age distribution among the project sites, with only 19 percent under age 18 and 11 percent over age 65.

Missouri

Missouri's demonstration project is being conducted in Cape Girardeau County, which is located in the southeastern portion of the state, approximately 50 miles south of St. Louis. With a population of only 66,314, it is the smallest setting among the OCSE demonstration projects. A third of the County is considered rural.

Cape Girardeau is primarily non-Hispanic White (93%). The largest racial minority group is African American (4.5%). Approximately 14 percent of the population is over age 65, while 24 percent is below age 18. The out-of-wedlock birth rate was 30.5 percent in 1997.

Among adults age 25 and older, 74 percent are high school graduates, and 19 percent have a college degree. The median family income stands at $30,795, with about 43 percent of single-parent families living below poverty. The unemployment rate is 2.6 percent, and 28 percent of the labor force is managerial or professional.

New Hampshire

The New Hampshire projects are being conducted in three contiguous counties: Merrimack, Belknap and Hillsborough. Hillsborough is the largest of the three counties (363,031), and Belknap is the smallest (49,216). The combined population for the three is approximately 542,893. Overall, 41 percent of the population in these three counties reside in rural areas.

Nearly all (96%) of the population in these counties is White non-Hispanic. The percentage of the population under age18 is 26, and 21 percent is over the age of 65.

The percentage of the population (age 25 and older) that has graduated from high school ranges from 80 to 83 percent across the counties. Between 20 to 26 percent have a college degree. Approximately 36 percent of the labor force population is employed in professional and managerial occupations.

Median family incomes in the three counties range from $36,260 to $46,249. Unemployment rates are very low, ranging from 1.4 percent to 2.1 percent. Not surprisingly, the percentages of single-parent families living below poverty were relatively low, ranging from 17.9 percent to 22.5 percent. The rate of non-marital births approached the national average in Belknap (32%), while falling well below it in Merrimack (24%) and Hillsborough (23%).

Washington

Washington's project is being conducted in Tacoma (Pierce County), which has an entirely urban population of 179,814.

Its ethnic distribution closely resembles the U.S. profile, with about three-quarters (76.6%) classified as White non-Hispanic and 11.4 percent classified as African American. Asians comprise the next largest minority group (7%), and 2.9 percent are Hispanic. Just over a quarter of the population is under age 18, and 14 percent is over age 65.

Nearly 80 percent of the population age 25 and older has completed high school. Approximately 16 percent have a college degree.

Approximately 30 percent of the labor force is employed in professional and managerial occupations. The unemployment rate stands at approximately 4.4 percent. Median family income in Tacoma falls somewhat below the U.S. average at $31,203. The percentage of single-parent families living below poverty is 43.3 percent. The city's out-of-wedlock birthrate is 43.3 percent.

Wisconsin

The Wisconsin project is being conducted in Racine, a city of 90,199 approximately 25 miles south of Milwaukee. Nearly three-quarters (72.9%) of Racine's residents are White non-Hispanic, 18 percent are African American, and Hispanics make up 7 percent of the population. The city has a large population under age 18 (29%), while those over age 65 make up about 13 percent of the population.

Among residents age 25 and older, 72 percent have a high school diploma and 15 percent have completed college. Racine's out-of-wedlock birth rate is close to the national average (33.1%).

Just over a quarter of the work force population is employed in professional and managerial positions. The unemployment rate in Racine was 5.9 percent in November 1999, the highest of any of the sites. Median family income in 1990 was $31,847. A substantial proportion (44.3%) of single-parent families live in poverty.

Summary

As Table 1 demonstrates, the nine program sites represent a diverse cross-section of the nation. Included are three sites with relatively large rural populations, as well as six urban settings ranging in size from 90,000 to over 700,000. The demonstration sites include one setting with a significant Hispanic population, and four with relatively large African American communities. Educational attainment also varies considerably across the sites. For example, high school graduation (among those 25 and older) ranges from a high of 88 percent to a low of 61 percent. Similarly, median family incomes range from less than $30,000 to over $50,000.

In many respects, San Mateo is the most affluent of the sites, while Baltimore (and to a slightly lesser extent, Racine) are the least affluent. For example, median income is greatest in San Mateo and lowest in Baltimore. College graduates are most common in San Mateo (and Boston) and least common in Baltimore (and Racine). Unemployment is lowest in San Mateo and highest in Baltimore and Racine.

Child Support Profile of the Program Settings

Child support agencies are key partners at all the Responsible Fatherhood Projects sites. While some manage or help manage the program, others serve primarily as a source of referrals. In Chapter 4, we describe the specific role the child support agency plays at each site. Here we present an overview of statewide IV-D operations in the eight project states.

As a result of the Child Support Performance Incentive Act of 1998, there are now generally accepted and nationally agreed-upon measures for comparing the performance of states and individual offices within states. These new federal performance standards place increased pressure on states to improve their program outcomes in several key areas. ⁽⁴⁾ These areas include: (1) the paternity establishment percentage (PEP), (2) the percentage of IV-D cases with a support order, (3) the proportion of current support owed on IV-D cases that was collected during the fiscal year, (4) the proportion of IV-D cases with collections on child support arrears, and (5) the cost-effectiveness ratio. Table 2 presents data on the last four of these performance measures, based on preliminary data released by the Federal OCSE for fiscal year 1998. ⁽⁵⁾ (States' PEP measures are not provided in the OCSE statistics.) The table also displays some other features about the IV-D programs in the eight states with Responsible Fatherhood demonstration sites.

Program Administration: The eight states are divided equally on this feature; that is, four states have state-administered IV-D programs, and four have county-administered programs. However, in two of the states with county-administered programs, the IV-D child support programs where the demonstration sites are actually located are operated by private contractors (El Paso County, Colorado, and Baltimore City, Maryland).

Order Establishment Process: Nationally, all states allow orders to be established judicially. However, in an attempt to streamline the process for entering child support orders, some states have also implemented an administrative process for the entry of orders. For the purposes of Table 2, we have defined an administrative process to mean that the IV-D agency can enter consent and default orders without filing a judicial action prior to entry of the order. Using this definition, three of the project site states (Colorado, Missouri, and Washington) allow orders to be established administratively, and thus have both an administrative and judicial process to establish orders. The other project site states use judicial processes exclusively to establish IV-D child support orders.

Child Support Guidelines: Five of the project states (California, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, and Washington) use an Income Shares model to compute the amount of the support order, meaning that the income of both parents is considered in setting the order amount. One project state (Wisconsin) uses a Percentage of Income guideline that is based only on the noncustodial parent's income, with the assumption that the custodial parent will contribute an equal proportion of his/her income to the care of the child. The New Hampshire guideline is a Percentage of Income, but uses both parents' incomes. Massachusetts uses a hybrid model, where the custodial parent's income is not considered in setting the order amount until it reaches a certain threshold.

All the project states, except Wisconsin, allow adjustments to support order amounts for noncustodial parents whose incomes are below a certain level. The threshold in California is $1,000 per month, the highest in the nation. Most of the other project states have thresholds that are set based on the federal poverty level for a single person at the time the guideline became law. ⁽⁶⁾ Below that level, a minimum order is established which recognizes that, while the obligor has a duty to pay support, he/she also requires a minimum level of disposable income to meet basic needs. Minimum orders typically range from $20 to $50 per month.

Program Performance Measures: As Table 2 illustrates, the statistics for the four federal performance indicators are not very useful in distinguishing between high and low performing states (much of the data for California and Wisconsin are largely missing). For example, Wisconsin has the best cost-effectiveness ratio (i.e., $5.43 of IV-D child support collected for every dollar of IV-D administrative costs spent), but also has the lowest proportion of the IV-D caseload under order (58.5%). Among the eight project states, the best performing state overall, based on the statistics for FY 1998, appears to be New Hampshire. It shows the highest proportion of current support due that was paid (68%), the highest proportion of arrears cases that paid (70%), the third highest proportion of the IV-D caseload with support orders (79%), and one of the highest cost-effectiveness ratios (4.49:1). By contrast, Missouri's performance ranks as the lowest of these eight states.

Organization of the Report

The remainder of this report is organized into five chapters. Chapter 2 presents a summary profile of each program in terms of its:

• organization and administration, particularly its relationship to the child support agency, to community-based organizations, and to local public service agencies;



• target population;



• major service components;



• outreach efforts; and



• status at the end of calendar year 1999.

These issues are discussed in greater depth in subsequent chapters.

Chapter 3 discusses client recruitment and retention, issues that every program has struggled to address. The chapter examines the different approaches the programs have used to attract voluntary participation in services and the degree to which each is perceived to be effective. It also reviews the sources of referrals, and their advantages and disadvantages. Finally, the chapter reviews each program's policy and philosophical approach to client retention.

Chapter 4 looks at two areas of service delivery: employment and child support. The services in these two areas offered at each project site are reviewed, including their content and method of delivery.

Chapter 5 presents information on other services the projects are offering, such as assistance with access and visitation, peer support, and case management. The chapter documents the sites' efforts to implement and maintain selected services, and how the content of services and service delivery have evolved as the programs have matured.

Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes some of the lessons learned to date about responsible fatherhood programs. These lessons are far from final. The programs are still growing and evolving, and the conclusions to be drawn about them may change over time. However, the early experiences of these programs may be useful to other new programs that attempt to serve similar populations.

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 December 31, 1999. Some elements of these dynamic projects undoubtedly have changed since then. Across the sites, the purpose of the programs was to explore ways of improving parental involvement among low-income noncustodial parents from both an emotional and financial point of view. Beyond this commonality, however, the sites had complete latitude in program design. The funders did not require the use of a single model of service delivery. Every site was at liberty to craft unique collaborations, select different clients, and offer different services. Highlights of the programs are summarized in Table 3 at the end of this chapter.

California

Administered by the child support enforcement agency in San Mateo County (known as the Family Support division), this project has two major components: services to promote contact between noncustodial parents and their children, and employment services. Services to promote contact are frequently referred to as access and visitation services, and include interventions like mediation and supervised visitation.

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:

• Editing, printing, and distributing a newsletter to all Family Support Division clients highlighting the mediation and employment assistance services;



• Developing and printing three new brochures for noncustodial parents in Spanish and English on child support, including paternity establishment and child support order modification;



• Developing a summary brochure that lists all "father friendly" services in the county that is sent to new Family Support Division clients and fathers signing the in-hospital paternity declarations;



• Providing in-service training programs for other county agencies and community-based organizations to educate them about the child support process;



• Implementing a high school "child support and parental responsibility class" in a number of schools throughout the county;



• Participating in numerous city, county, and community events to provide information about the Family Support Division services; and



• Working with other county and community agencies to create the "San Mateo County Fatherhood Collaborative," which will promote and coordinate programs throughout the county that support fathers.

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.

Colorado

Administered by the El Paso County Department of Human Services in Colorado Springs, this project, called the Parent Opportunity Program (POP), targets unemployed and under-employed noncustodial parents for job training and placement, parenting education, access assistance, and child support help. It involves a collaboration among a variety of public and private agencies: the El Paso Department of Human Services, including its special Center on Fathering; Maximus, the privatized child support vendor; Goodwill Industries, the privatized employment vendor; and the Women's Resource Agency.

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.

Maryland

The OCSE grant to the Community Services Administration of the Maryland Department of Human Resources funds two Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Projects. In Baltimore, the grant builds on the Young Fathers/Responsible Fathers Program (YF/RF), a state-funded initiative in operation since 1994. The OCSE-funded initiative is known as the Responsible Fatherhood Project (Baltimore RFP). The grant funds one staff member, but the project also draws on seven additional YF/RF staff members. The grant also affords the initiation of father-focused programming in Charles County, a suburban portion of the state.

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 South Baltimore: Harbor Hospital, which houses the project office and whose pediatric social work staff agreed to assist with recruiting new parents and pregnant teenagers; and the Southern Neighborhood Service Center, which has linkages to neighborhood associations and community groups in the area. Other major project collaborators are the Baltimore Urban League and the Baltimore Employment Exchange, which provide employment services and weekly employment development classes.

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 National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership (NPCL), which includes parenting, life skills, and relationship components. Those who attend at least 80 percent of the class sessions receive a certificate at a formal graduation ceremony. Graduates may participate in an "After Care Program" for continued group support. To promote attendance, participants receive two free bus tokens and a $4 MacDonald's gift certificate each time they come to Baltimore RFP for a class or meeting with a case manager. They also get a stipend of $50 at graduation and an interim stipend of $50 if they attend regularly for the first four months.

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 Charles County program, begun in late March 1999, served 23 participants by the end of 1999. At that point, the case manager, the only person staffing the project, changed jobs and the program became inactive. Operated through the Charles County Department of Social Services, the program targeted unemployed fathers of children receiving TANF. One of the primary objectives of the program was to recruit fathers into the employment program currently available to Charles County TANF recipients. Fathers were to participate on a voluntary basis. Only a few fathers actually participated in the employment program by the end of 1999.

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 Charles County at this time.

Massachusetts

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 Massachusetts. FFI seeks to serve fathers with low to no income and enhance their participation in their children's lives by addressing their needs and concerns. Designed to reintegrate the father into the family, the FFI case manager works with each client to assess the barriers to family reintegration that he faces and to identify the appropriate mix of services that he needs.

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.

Missouri

The Proud Parents program is administered by the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the Missouri Department of Social Services. It currently operates in Cape Girardeau County. Plans to expand the program to additional counties have been delayed due to problems with contracts, staffing, and other issues. The goal of the program is to offer a three-hour workshop for noncustodial fathers to address a wide range of fatherhood issues, including self-esteem, father-child relationship, mother-child relationship, and financial responsibilities. Seminar participants who need help with employment are referred to Parents' Fair Share, a statewide employment program that originated in the pilot phase of the national demonstration project of the same name, but is not independent and different. Those who need help seeing their children are referred to family mediation through Mediation Achieving Results for Children (MARCH).

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, Missouri's Parents' Fair Share, Department of Probation/Parole, Head Start, and other agencies. Proud Parents now targets unwed fathers with children age five or younger. Outreach workers receive a $10 bonus for each father they recruit to the parenting seminar. These efforts yielded 22 participants for three workshops between August and November, 1999.

New Hampshire

The program in this state, known as Phoenix Project, operates in three counties: Merrimack, Belknap, and Hillsborough. The Division of Child Support is the program grantee, but Phoenix Project is housed in Second Start, a community organization involved in adult education, day care, and a variety of other issues. The program serves noncustodial parents with low incomes who have child support orders and are delinquent in their child support payments. The primary source of referrals is the child support agency. Support technicians target unemployed individuals or those with low orders (i.e., those with $50 per month orders). Technicians give noncustodial parents a brochure and some information about the program and encourage them to call a case manager and enter the program. The case manager believes that most people follow through on this suggestion and do call to schedule an intake interview. In addition to child support, some clients are referred by adult education programs and community agencies such as those involved with consumer credit counseling.

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 p