Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative [1 ed.] 9781617616532, 9781607417545

Citation preview

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

FAMILY ISSUES IN THE 21ST CENTURY SERIES

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or anyInitiative, other professional services. Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

FAMILY ISSUES IN THE 21ST CENTURY SERIES Handbook of Parenting: Styles, Stresses and Strategies Pacey H. Krause and Tahlia M. Dailey (Editors) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-766-8 Marriage and Incarceration Leana H. Venten (Editor) 2010. ISBN: 978-1-60692-938-4

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative Gavin J. Buttone (Editor) 2010. ISBN: 978-1-60741-754-5

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

FAMILY ISSUES IN THE 21ST CENTURY SERIES

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE

GAVIN J. BUTTONE EDITOR

Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2010 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood initiative / editor, Gavin J. Buttone. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN  (H%RRN) 1. Fatherhood--United States. 2. Parenting--United States. 3. Family services--United States. 4. Child support--Law and legislation--United States. I. Buttone, Gavin J. II. Series: United States. Congress. HQ756.H383 2009 362.82'80973--dc22 2009031977

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.  New York

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

CONTENTS Preface Chapter 1

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Chapter 2

vii Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children Carmen Solomon-Fears Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative: Further Progress Is Needed in Developing a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach to Help HHS Improve Program Oversight U. S. Government Accountability Office

Index

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

1

31 81

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PREFACE This book looks at the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative whose goals are to strengthen marriages and relationships in low-income families which has emerged as a national strategy for enhancing the well-being of children. With the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), Congress appropriated $150 million in discretionary grants each year from 2006 through 2010 to implement the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative. The Initiative represents an unprecedented financial commitment by the federal government to support marriage and fatherhood programs. The focus of the Healthy Marriage program is to encourage the formation and maintenance of twoparent households through healthy marriage promotion activities, while the focus of the Responsible Fatherhood program is to strengthen the role of the father in a child's life. This is an edited, excerpted and augmented edition. Chapter 1 - In 2005, 23% of families with children were maintained by mothers. According to some estimates, 60% of children born during the 1990s will spend a significant portion of their childhood in a home without their father. Research indicates that children raised in single-parent families are more likely than children raised in two-parent families (with both biological parents) to do poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes. In hopes of improving the long-term outlook for children in single-parent families, federal, state, and local governments, along with public and private organizations, are supporting programs and activities that promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial fathers to their children and increase the participation of fathers in the lives of their children. These programs have come to be known as “responsible fatherhood” programs.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

viii

Gavin J. Buttone

Sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs include the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, TANF state Maintenance-ofEffort (MOE) funding, welfare-to-work funds, Child Support Enforcement (CSE) funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds. Beginning with the 106th Congress, the House but not the Senate passed bills containing specific funding for responsible fatherhood initiatives (in the 107th and 108th Congresses as part of welfare reauthorization bills). Moreover, from the start President Bush has been a supporter of responsible fatherhood programs; each of his budgets has included funding for such programs. In the 109th Congress, P.L. 109-171 — the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 — was enacted. It included a provision that provides up to $50 million per year (FY2006-FY2010) in competitive grants to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community groups (including religious organizations) for responsible fatherhood initiatives. Most fatherhood programs include media campaigns that emphasize the importance of emotional, physical, psychological, and financial connections of fathers to their children. Most fatherhood programs include parenting education; responsible decision-making; mediation services for both parents; providing an understanding of the CSE program; conflict resolution, coping with stress, and problem-solving skills; peer support; and job-training opportunities (skills development, interviewing skills, job search, job-retention skills, jobadvancement skills, etc.). To help fathers and mothers meet their parental responsibilities, many policy analysts and observers support broad-based collaborative strategies that go beyond welfare and child support agencies and include schools, work programs, prison systems, churches, community organizations, and the health care system. The federal government’s support of fatherhood initiatives raises a wide array of issues. This chapter briefly examines the role of the CSE agency in fatherhood programs, discusses initiatives to promote and support father-child interaction outside the framework of the father-mother relationship, and summarizes the debate over whether fatherhood programs should include the “promotion of marriage.” Chapter 2 - Strengthening marriages and relationships in low-income families has emerged as a national strategy for enhancing the well-being of children. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) appropriated $150 million in discretionary grants each year from 2006 through 2010 to implement the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative. To provide insight into how these programs are being implemented and monitored, GAO is reporting on (1) how the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded grants and the types of

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Preface

ix

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

organizations that received funding; (2) what activities and services grantees are providing, including those for domestic violence victims; (3) how HHS monitors and assesses program implementation and use of funds; and (4) how program impact is measured. GAO surveyed grantees, interviewed HHS staff, reviewed HHS records and policy, and visited several programs.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

In: Healthy Marriage and Responsible… ISBN: 978-1-60741-754-5 Editor: Gavin J. Buttone © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

FATHERHOOD INITIATIVES: CONNECTING FATHERS TO THEIR CHILDREN 

Carmen Solomon-Fears

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

SUMMARY In 2005, 23% of families with children were maintained by mothers. According to some estimates, 60% of children born during the 1990s will spend a significant portion of their childhood in a home without their father. Research indicates that children raised in single-parent families are more likely than children raised in two-parent families (with both biological parents) to do poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes. In hopes of improving the long-term outlook for children in single-parent families, federal, state, and local governments, along with public and private organizations, are supporting programs and activities that promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial fathers to their children and increase the participation of fathers in the lives of their children. These programs have come to be known as “responsible fatherhood” programs.



This is an edited, reformatted and augmented edition of a Congressional Research Service publication, Report RL31025, Updated October 2007.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

2

Carmen Solomon-Fears

Sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs include the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, TANF state Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) funding, welfare-to-work funds, Child Support Enforcement (CSE) funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds. Beginning with the 106th Congress, the House but not the Senate passed bills containing specific funding for responsible fatherhood initiatives (in the 107th and 108th Congresses as part of welfare reauthorization bills). Moreover, from the start President Bush has been a supporter of responsible fatherhood programs; each of his budgets has included funding for such programs. In the 109th Congress, P.L. 109-171 — the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 — was enacted. It included a provision that provides up to $50 million per year (FY2006-FY2010) in competitive grants to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community groups (including religious organizations) for responsible fatherhood initiatives. Most fatherhood programs include media campaigns that emphasize the importance of emotional, physical, psychological, and financial connections of fathers to their children. Most fatherhood programs include parenting education; responsible decision-making; mediation services for both parents; providing an understanding of the CSE program; conflict resolution, coping with stress, and problem-solving skills; peer support; and job-training opportunities (skills development, interviewing skills, job search, job-retention skills, job-advancement skills, etc.). To help fathers and mothers meet their parental responsibilities, many policy analysts and observers support broadbased collaborative strategies that go beyond welfare and child support agencies and include schools, work programs, prison systems, churches, community organizations, and the health care system. The federal government’s support of fatherhood initiatives raises a wide array of issues. This chapter briefly examines the role of the CSE agency in fatherhood programs, discusses initiatives to promote and support father-child interaction outside the framework of the father-mother relationship, and summarizes the debate over whether fatherhood programs should include the “promotion of marriage.”

INTRODUCTION In 2005, 28% of families with children (under age 18) were maintained by one parent;1 this figure is up from 11% in 1970. Most of the children in these single-parent families were being raised by their mothers; in 2005, 23% were

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

3

in mother-only families and 5% in father-only families. According to some estimates, 60% of children born during the 1990s will spend a significant portion of their childhood in a home without their biological father. Research indicates that children raised in single-parent families are more likely than children raised in two-parent families (with both biological parents) to do poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes as adults.2 Nonetheless, it is widely acknowledged that most of these mothers, despite the added stress of being a single parent, do a good job raising their children. That is, although children with absent fathers are at greater risk of having the aforementioned problems, most do not experience them. In hopes of improving the long-term outlook for children in single-parent families, federal, state, and local governments along with public and private organizations are supporting programs and activities that promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial fathers to their children and reduce the incidence of father absence in the lives of children. The third finding of the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) states: “Promotion of responsible fatherhood and motherhood is integral to successful child rearing and the well-being of children.” Moreover, three of the four goals of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program are consistent with the components of most fatherhood programs. The three fatherhood-related goals are: ending welfare dependence by employment and marriage; reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Thus, states may spend TANF and TANF state Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds on fatherhood programs. Further, any services that are directed to the goal of reducing nonmarital births or the goal of encouraging two-parent families are free of income eligibility rules. With the exception of the federal Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program, fathers historically have been ignored with regard to their input or participation in welfare programs. Moreover, it was not until 1996 that Congress broadened its view to acknowledge the non-economic contributions that fathers make to their children by authorizing the use of CSE funds to promote access and visitation programs. With the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law, which helped reduce the welfare rolls, increase the employment of low-income mothers, and strengthen the CSE program, Congress began focusing its attention on the emotional well-being of children. Historically, Congress had treated visitation and child support as legally separate issues, with only child support enforcement activities under the

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

4

Carmen Solomon-Fears

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

purview of the federal government. The 1996 law authorized an annual $10 million entitlement of CSE funds to states to establish and operate access and visitation programs.3 It appears that a consensus has occurred regarding the need to connect or reconnect noncustodial parents to their children. During the 106th Congress, Representative Nancy Johnson, then chair of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, stated, “To take the next step in welfare reform we must find a way to help children by providing them with more than a working mother and sporadic child support.” She noted that many lowincome fathers have problems similar to those of mothers on welfare — namely, they are likely to have dropped out of high school, to have little work experience, and to have significant barriers that lessen their ability to find and/or keep a job. She also asserted that in many cases these men are “dead broke” rather than “dead beats” and that the federal government should help these noncustodial fathers meet both their financial and emotional obligations to their children. While fathers must fulfill their financialcommitments, they must also fulfill their emotional commitments. Dads play indispensable roles that cannot be measured in dollars and cents:nurturer, mentor, disciplinarian, moral instructor, and skills coach, among other roles. Source: Executive Office of the President, A Blueprint for New Beginnings — A Responsible Budget forAmerica’s Priorities (February 2001), chap. 12, p. 75. During the 106th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, legislation was passed by the House but not by the Senate that would have established categorical competitive grants to community and faith-based organizations for responsible fatherhood programs. Moreover, each of President Bush’s budgets has included grant programs for responsible fatherhood programs to help reconnect noncustodial parents to their children by providing job-related services to them and by improving their parenting and social interaction skills. During the period from 2002-2004, the responsible fatherhood bills that were passed by the House were part of welfare reauthorization legislation. The 109th Congress introduced several welfare reauthorization bills that included funding for responsible fatherhood grant programs. P.L. 109-171 — the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (S. 1932; H.Rept. 109-362) — which was enacted on February 8, 2006, included a provision that provides up to $50 million per year (FY2006-FY2010) for competitive responsible fatherhood grants. (For a more

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

5

detailed legislative history of fatherhood initiatives, see the discussion of Legislative Action later in this chapter.)

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

WHAT ARE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVES? The realization that one parent, especially a low-income parent, often cannot meet the financial needs of her or his children is not new. In 1975, Congress viewed the CSE program as a way to make noncustodial parents responsible for the financial support of their children. In more recent years, Congress has viewed the CSE program as the link that could enable single parents who are low-wage earners to become self-supporting. With the advent of welfare reform in 1996, Congress agreed that many noncustodial parents were in the same financial straits as the mothers of their children who were receiving cash welfare. Thus, the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) requires states to have laws under which the state has the authority to issue an order or request that a court or administrative process issue an order that requires noncustodial parents who were unable to pay their child support obligation for a child receiving TANF benefits to participate in TANF work activities. As noted earlier, the 1996 law also provided funding for states to develop programs that supported the noncustodial parent’s right and responsibility to visit and interact with his or her children. To help fathers and mothers meet their parental responsibilities, many policy analysts and observers support broad-based collaborative strategies that go beyond welfare and child support agencies and include schools, work programs, prison systems, churches, community organizations, and the health care system. Although Congress only recently authorized federal funding specifically earmarked for responsible fatherhood programs, many states and localities, private organizations, and nonprofit agencies have been operating fatherhood programs for several years.4 Most fatherhood programs include media campaigns that emphasize the importance of emotional, physical, psychological, and financial connections of fathers to their children. To counterbalance some of the procedural, psychological, emotional, and physical barriers to paternal involvement, most fatherhood programs include many of the following components: 

Parenting education — a course that describes the responsibilities of parents to their children; it discusses the need for affection, gentle

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

6

Carmen Solomon-Fears

     

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

  



guidance, financial support; the need to be a proud example and respectful of the child’s mother; and the need to recognize developmentally appropriate behavior for children of different ages and respond appropriately to children’s developmental needs; responsible decision-making (with regard to sexuality, establishment of paternity, and financial support); mentoring relationships with successful fathers and successful couples; mediation services (communicating with the other parent, supervised visitation, discipline of children, etc.); providing an understanding of the CSE program; conflict resolution, coping with stress, problem-solving skills; developing values in children, appropriate discipline, participation in child-rearing; understanding male-female relationships; peer support; practical tasks to stimulate involvement — discussing ways to increase parent-child interactions such as fixing dinner for children, taking children to the park, playing a game, helping children with school work, listening to children’s concerns, setting firm limits on behavior; and job training opportunities (skills development, interviewing skills, job search, job retention skills, job advancement skills, etc.).

Although most people refer to programs that seek to help fathers initiate or maintain contact with their children and become emotionally involved in their lives as “fatherhood” programs, the programs generally are gender-neutral. Their underlying goal is participation of the noncustodial parent in the lives of his or her children.

Funding For FY2001, Congress appropriated $3 million for a nongovernmental national fatherhood organization named the National Fatherhood Initiative (P.L. 106-553), and an additional $500,000 for the National Fatherhood Initiative and $500,000 for another non-governmental organization called the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization (P.L. 106554). However, the House and Senate failed to reach agreement on H.R. 4678

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

7

in the 106th Congress, a bill that included funding for a nationwide fatherhood grants program ($140 million over four years). Similarly, during the 107th and 108th Congress the House and the Senate did not reach agreement on legislation that included a responsible fatherhood grant program. Nevertheless, several sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs already existed and continue to exist. They include the TANF program, TANF state Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) funding, welfare-to-work funds, CSE funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds.5 According to HHS, about half of all states use TANF funds for responsible fatherhood programs.6 In addition, many private foundations are providing financial support for fatherhood programs. As mentioned earlier, states can use TANF block grant funds and state MOE funds on programs or services that accomplish the broad purposes of the TANF program. These sources of funding are potentially the largest sources of funding for fatherhood initiatives.7 Pursuant to P.L.109-171, the TANF block grant program to states was reauthorized through FY2010 at a funding level of $16.5 billion annually. In addition, the state funding or MOE requirement (at the 75% level) is about $10.4 billion.8 The cash welfare caseload declined from a peak of 5.0 million Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) families in 1995 to 1.9 million TANF families in 2005. The 62% reduction in the cash welfare caseload, together with the fixed block grant funding, means that funds that otherwise would have been spent for cash assistance are now available for other purposes. These other purposes could include fatherhood initiatives, which are allowable uses of TANF and state MOE funds. Moreover, fatherhood initiatives are not subject to the requirements that apply to spending for ongoing cash assistance such as work requirements and time limits.9 P.L. 109-171, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (S. 1932; H.Rept. 109362), was enacted during the 109th Congress. It included a provision that provides up to $50 million per year (for each of the five fiscal years 2006 through 2010) for competitive responsible fatherhood grants to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious organizations, for responsible fatherhood initiatives. According to data from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 99 grantees were awarded five-year contracts to implement responsible fatherhood programs. The contracts (in aggregate) amounted to $41 million per year.10

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

8

Carmen Solomon-Fears

RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Research findings indicate that father absence affects outcomes for children, in terms of schooling, emotional and behavioral maturity, labor force participation, and nonmarital childbearing. These findings hold when income is taken into account, so the negative effects of father absence are not limited to those created by reduced family income.11 Both advocates and critics of the CSE program agree that parents should be responsible for the economic and emotional well-being of their children. They agree that many low-income noncustodial parents are unable to meet their financial responsibility to their children and are barely able, or unable, to support themselves. They also agree that some noncustodial parents do not know how to be responsible parents because they were not taught that knowledge or were not exposed to enough positive role models that they could emulate. Below are several examples of demonstration programs that seek to, or sought to, help low-income men become responsible fathers by helping them to gain employment or job mobility and by teaching them life skills so that they might reconnect with their children in a positive sustained manner.

MDRC Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration Project The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration was a national demonstration project that combined job training and placement, peer support groups, and other services with the goal of increasing the earnings and child support payments of unemployed noncustodial parents (generally fathers) of children on welfare, improving their parenting and communication skills, and providing an opportunity for them to participate more fully and effectively in the lives of their children.12 Between 1994 and 1996, over 5,000 noncustodial parents who were eligible to participate in the seven-site PFS demonstration were randomly assigned to either a program (experiment) group that would receive PFS services or a control group that would not receive PFS services. The interim report on the PFS demonstration, which was designed by MDRC and conducted and funded by public and private organizations, found that parents who received PFS services were more likely to pay child support through the CSE system than those who remained in the control group. In all seven sites, the proportion of parents who paid child support during the 18month followup period increased significantly; but the amount of child support paid over the

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

9

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

18 months increased by a statistically significant amount in only two of the seven sites. The final report on the PFS demonstration concluded that the program did not significantly increase employment or earnings among the full sample of PFS participants during the two years after they entered the program. However, the program did increase earnings among a subgroup of men who were characterized as “less employable” (i.e., those without a high school diploma and with little recent work experience).13 In addition, another of the final reports found that although PFS did not affect the frequency of fathers’ visits with their children, it did increase the level of disagreement between parents about child-rearing. According to the researchers, this finding might suggest that some noncustodial parents were becoming more involved in new areas of decision-making about the child, which the researchers viewed as a positive development. The report noted that the increased level of disagreements between the parents was not accompanied by an increased level of aggressive forms of conflict or domestic violence which researchers surmise might indicate that the parents were able to distinguish between legitimate parental differences of opinion versus latent animosity in their male-female relationship.14 One of the reports noted the following as lessons learned from the PFS demonstration. Low-income noncustodial fathers are a disadvantaged group. Many live on the edge of poverty and face severe barriers to finding jobs, while those who can find work typically hold low-wage or temporary jobs. Despite their low, irregular income, many of these fathers are quite involved in their children’s lives and, when they can, provide financial and other kinds of support.... Some services, such as peer support proved to be very important and valuable to the men and became the focal point of the program. Other services, such as skill-building, were hard to implement because the providers had little experience working with such a disadvantaged group; it was difficult to find employers willing to hire the men, and the providers were not equipped to deal with the circumstances of men who often were simply trying to make it from one day to the next. Finally, we learned about the challenges of implementing a program like PFS, which involves the partnership of various agencies with different goals, and about the difficulty of recruiting low-income fathers into such a program.15

Some of the recommendations for future programs included structure the program to encourage longer-term participation and to include job retention

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

10

Carmen Solomon-Fears

services; provide fathers who cannot find private sector employment with community service jobs; earmark adequate funding for employment services, involve custodial mothers in the program and provide fathers with legal services to help them gain visitation rights; and encourage partnerships between CSE agencies and fatherhood programs.16 Some researchers of the PFS approach contend that a broader array of intensive employment services, such as skills training combined with part-time work and community service employment for persons who were unable to get job, might have improved the outcomes of the program. Other analysts maintain that most of the fathers who participated in the PFS demonstration were estranged from their children when they entered the program and that some of them participated in lieu of serving time in jail. They assert that new unwed fathers are generally very attached to their children around the time of the child’s birth and probably are more motivated than fathers of older children to take advantage of the opportunities and/or services offered by fatherhood programs.17

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study A “fragile” family consists of low-income children born outside of marriage whose two natural parents are working together to raise them — either by living together or frequent visitation. According to the 1997 National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF), 25% of poor children under the age of two who were born outside of marriage lived with both of their biological parents; another 35% lived with their mother and saw their father at least every week.18 The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is following a group of 4,700 children who were born in 20 large U.S. cities.19 The total sample size is 4,700 families, including 3,600 unmarried couples and 1,100 married couples. The data were intended to be representative of nonmarital births in each of the 20 cities and also representative of all nonmarital births in U.S. cities with populations over 200,000. Both parents were interviewed at the child’s birth and again when the child was age 1, 2, and 5. In addition, in-home assessments of the children and their home environments were performed when the children were ages 3 and 5. The parent interviews provided information on attitudes, relationships, parenting behavior, demographic characteristics, health (mental and physical), economic and employment status, neighborhood characteristics, and public welfare program participation. The in-home

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

11

interview collected information on children’s cognitive and emotional development, health, and home environment. The study was expected to provide previously unavailable information on questions such as the following: 





Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.



What are the conditions and capabilities of new unwed parents, especially fathers? How many of these men hold steady jobs? How many want to be involved in raising their children? What is the nature of the relationship between unwed parents? How many couples are involved in stable, long-term relationships? How many expect to marry? How many experience high levels of conflict or domestic violence? What factors push new unwed parents together? What factors pull them apart? How do public policies affect parents’ behaviors and living arrangements? What are the long term consequences for parents, children, and society of new welfare regulations, stronger paternityestablishment, and stricter child support enforcement? What roles do child care and health care policies play? How do these policies play out in different labor market environments?20

Initial analysis of the baseline data collected in 16 of the 20 cities from April 1998 through August 2000 indicated that 51% of unmarried parents live together (i.e., are cohabiting), and another 31% are romantically involved with each other. Further, 74% of the participant mothers said that they expect to marry the baby’s father. The data also indicated that 30% of fathers had earnings of less than $10,500 per year, and 62% of mothers had earnings of less than $10,000 per year; about 43% of the mothers and 38% of the fathers lacked a high school degree. Although the data indicated that 85% of mothers and 98% of fathers worked at some point during the past year, 20% of fathers said that they were out of work during the week before the interview. The initial analysis also showed that 39% of the mothers drank alcohol, used drugs, or smoked during their pregnancies.21 A 2007 report that examined data pertaining to the surveyed children at age 5 found that 16% of participant mothers were married to the father at the time of the five-year interview. Despite not marrying, about 40% of the parents were still romantically involved at the five-year interview. In cases where the couple were no longer romantically involved, 43% of the fathers

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

12

Carmen Solomon-Fears

had seen their children in the month previous to the interview. According to the report: Fatherhood programs, such as education, training, support services, and content addressing issues of shared parenting, may also be appropriate for many new unmarried fathers. Engaging parents in responsible fatherhood programs (and weaving these programs into marriage promotion curriculums) early in their child’s life may also help new fathers develop important parenting skills crucial to their child’s healthy development. These programs may help fathers establish and maintain positive connections with their child and encourage their active participation in raising their child.22

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing in Middle Childhood Study received a $17 million grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the Department of Health and Human Services to field a nine-year follow-up. The purpose of this project is to combine the core telephone surveys, in-home study, and teacher surveys into one larger project. Data collection began in 2007 and will continue through 2009.23

Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Responsible Fatherhood Programs The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) provided $2.0 million to fund Responsible Fatherhood demonstrations under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. The programs operated in eight states between September 1997 and December 2002. The following eight states received Section 1115 grants or waivers from OCSE/Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to implement and test responsible fatherhood programs: California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington, and Wisconsin. These projects attempted to improve the employment and earnings of 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 shared common goals, they varied with respect to service components and service delivery. OCSE also provided about $500,000 for an evaluation of the demonstration projects. A report on the implementation of the programs (from initial start-up in late 1997 through December 1999) noted the following:

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

13

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

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.24

A second, outcome report on the programs found that (1) low-income noncustodial fathers are a difficult population to recruit and serve; (2) many of the participants found jobs with the programs’ help, but they were low-paying jobs and relatively few of the participants were able to increase earnings enough to meet their financial needs and those of their children; (3) child access problems were hard to define and resolve, and that mediation should be used more extensively; (4) child support guidelines result in orders for lowincome noncustodial parents that are unrealistically high; (5) CSE agencies should collaborate with fatherhood programs and pursue routine enforcement activities, as well as adopt policies and incentives that are responsive to lowincome fathers; and (6) criminal history was the norm rather than the exception among the program participants, many participants faced ongoing alcohol and substance abuse problems, many did not have reliable transportation, and many lacked a court-ordered visitation arrangement.25 On a more positive note, the outcome report found that employment rates and earnings increased significantly especially for noncustodial parents who were previously unemployed. In addition, child support compliance rates increased significantly especially for those who had not been paying previously. Moreover, the report found that 27% of the fathers reported seeing their children more often after completion of the program.

Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration HHS has an ongoing partnership with the private-sector initiative called Partners for Fragile Families (PFF). The Partners for Fragile Families Project is an initiative of the National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

14

Carmen Solomon-Fears

Community Leadership (NPCL), a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. The PFF was designed to help poor single fathers pull themselves out of poverty and build stronger links to their children and their children’s mothers. The PFF was established in 1996 to provide support for these “fragile families,” which are defined as low-income, never-married parents and their children. Research indicated that although many of the fathers in these families are involved with their children during the early childhood years, this involvement tends to diminish over time, often with negative consequences for the children. The PFF initiative is aimed at helping fathers work with the mothers of their children in sharing the legal, financial, and emotional responsibilities of parenthood. In March 2000, HHS approved 10 state waivers for the three-year Partners for Fragile Families (PFF) Demonstration projects. The purpose of the demonstration projects was to develop new ways for CSE agencies and community-based nonprofit and faith-based organizations to work together to help young noncustodial fathers (age 16 to 25 — who had not yet established paternity and who had little or no involvement with the CSE program) obtain employment, health, and social services; make child support payments to their children; learn parenting skills; and enable then to work with the mothers of their children to build stronger parenting partnerships. The PFF demonstration operated from 2000 to 2003 in 13 projects in 9 states.26 The demonstration project sites were located in California, Colorado, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.27 According to HHS, of the $9.7 million in federal funding budgeted for the projects, $7.1 million was spent. An additional $1.4 million was spent for an evaluation of the projects. The underlying theory of the PFF demonstration projects was that by targeting new fathers at a point when they had little or no previous involvement with the CSE system and when they still had an opportunity to develop a positive relationship with the mother of their children and the children themselves, the projects could better assist these young parents to become strong financial and emotional resources for their children. A recent evaluation of the implementation of the PFF projects included the following statement: Although the concept of PFF was unique when it was developed in 1996, by the time the demonstration was fully implemented, other responsible fatherhood programs had started in many communities nationwide. Independent of PFF, the child support enforcement system was already incorporating more “fatherfriendly” approaches to service delivery at about

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

15

the same time PFF was in its developmental stages. The child support system had begun to absorb the lessons learned from earlier fatherhood initiatives (such as the Parents’ Fair Share project and the Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration). By the time PFF was operational, some may have viewed it as less pioneering than when it was conceived several years earlier. In addition, the number of young fathers who had not established paternity for their children decreased in the mid- to late1990s as a result of the success of in-hospital paternity establishment initiatives across the country that established paternity at the time of a child’s birth. The pool of young fathers without paternity established for their children had diminished in the PFF sites by the time the projects were implemented.28

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has sponsored several other evaluations of the PFF demonstration projects. According to HHS, subsequent reports will include case studies of selected fathers and their families and an analysis of economic and child support outcomes.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

ISSUES An underlying tension in the debate on fatherhood initiatives is the concern of some women’s and mothers’ rights groups, such as the National Women’s Law Center and the National Organization for Women (NOW), that an emphasis on the importance of fathers may lead to undervaluing singleparent families maintained by mothers, that services for fathers may be at the expense of services for mothers, and that the “pro-fatherhood” discourse might give fathers’ rights groups some leverage in challenging child custody, child support, and visitation arrangements. Some analysts contend that the policy debate on fatherhood initiatives must be based on the view that the welfare of fathers, mothers, and children are intertwined and interdependent; otherwise, the debate will be very divisive and unproductive.29 Many issues are associated with the federal government’s support of fatherhood initiatives. A few examples are: Is the goal of federal policy to promote and support the involvement of fathers in their children’s lives regardless of the father’s relationship with the children’s mother? What if the father has children by more than one woman? What is the federal policy with regard to incarcerated parents and parents recently released from prison? Does the federal government support counseling, education, and supervised visitation for abusive fathers so that they can reconnect with their children?

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

16

Carmen Solomon-Fears

The discussion below examines two issues that will likely impact the success of congressional fatherhood initiatives. The first deals with the role of the CSE agency in fatherhood programs. Presently, the CSE program is the starting place for many fatherhood programs. Some analysts contend that since many noncustodial parents have a negative view of the CSE program, the use of the CSE program to recruit fathers does not bode well for the success of such programs. Several of the fatherhood bills would make competitive grants available to community organizations and other groups that have experience in working with low-income men. Many of the fatherhood bills introduced in recent Congresses included evaluation components. The second issue examines father involvement in the context of the father’s relationship to the child’s mother. The second issue is based on the premise that formal marital relationships last longer and are more conducive to long-term interaction between fathers and children than other types of relationships.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

CSE System and Noncustodial Parents Often at Odds During the period FY1978-FY2006, child support payments collected by the CSE agencies increased from $1 billion to $23.9 billion. Moreover, the program has made significant improvements in other program measures as well, such as the number of parents located, paternities established, and child support orders established. Advocates of the CSE program say that this dramatic program performance is aside from the indirect and intangible benefits of the program, such as increased personal responsibility and welfare cost-avoidance. Critics of the CSE program contend that even with an unprecedented arrayof “big brother” enforcement tools such as license (professional, driver’s, recreational) and passport revocation, seizure of banking accounts, retirement funds, and lottery winnings, and automatic income withholding from pay checks, the program still collects only 19% of child support obligations for which it has responsibility and collects payments for only 54% of its caseload. Although the CSE program has historically been the policy answer to the problem of father absence, because its focus until recently was exclusively on financial support, it has had the practical effect of alienating many low-income fathers who are unable to meet their child support obligations. Some policy analysts maintain that fathers are in effect devalued when their role in their children’s lives is based solely on their cash contributions. They argue that

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

17

public policies are needed to support the father’s role as nurturer, disciplinarian, mentor, and moral instructor.30 Information obtained from noncustodial fathers for various surveys and studies consistently tells the same story. Not surprisingly, noncustodial parents, especially low-income fathers, prefer informal child support agreements between themselves and the child’s mother wherein they contribute cash support when they can and provide noncash aid such as taking care of the children from time to time and buying food, clothing, presents, etc. as often as they can. Many noncustodial fathers maintain that the CSE system is dismissive of their financial condition and continues to pursue child support payments (current as well as arrearages) even when it knows that many of them can barely support themselves. They argue that for welfare families, the CSE program generally does not improve their child’s well-being because their child support payments are used to benefit the state and federal government (i.e., welfare reimbursement) rather than their child. They contend that the CSE program causes conflicts between them and their child’s mother because the women often use it as leverage by threatening to report them to CSE authorities, take them back to court, have more of their wages garnished, or have them arrested.31 Many observers maintain that noncustodial parents and the CSE program have irreconcilable differences and that the most that should be expected is for the noncustodial parent to clearly understand the purposes of the CSE program, the requirements imposed on the custodial parent, the noncustodial parents’ rights to have their child support payments modified if they incur a financial change in circumstances, and that they as noncustodial parents have a moral and societal responsibility to have (to build) a loving relationship with their children.32 If the CSE program continues to be the entrance to fatherhood programs, most observers contend that the fact that the CSE program has not been effective in gaining the cooperation and trust of many noncustodial parents must be acknowledged and addressed. Several analysts suggest that to be successful, fatherhood programs may need to operate independently of the formal CSE system. Others assert that more than any other agency of state government, the CSE program has the responsibility and is in the position to reach out to fathers who need supportive services. They state that CSE agencies are already involved in forging relationships with fathers through partnerships with community-based organizations. They also note that CSE agencies provide a natural link to coordinate with TANF agencies to help families achieve selfsufficiency.33

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

18

Carmen Solomon-Fears

Although we do not have any evaluations on the effectiveness of fatherhood programs delivered through a CSE framework versus fatherhood programs that place little emphasis on the formal CSE system, all of the fatherhood bills introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses included funding for evaluation, and so did many of the fatherhood bills in the 109th Congress. (Readers should note that P.L. 109-171 does not include funding for the evaluation of responsible fatherhood grant programs.)

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Noncustodial Father Involvement vs. Promotion of Marriage vs. Maintenance of Fragile Families The first finding included in the 1996 welfare reform law is that marriage is the foundation of a successful society. The second finding is that marriage is an essential institution of a successful society which promotes the interests of children.34 However, some child welfare advocates argue that marriage is not necessarily the best alternative for all women and their children. It is generally agreed that single-parent families are a better alternative for children than living with an abusive father. Many observers caution that government must be careful about supporting programs that provide cash incentives to induce people to marry or that coerce people into marrying. They note the problems associated with child-bride marriages and the short-term and often unhappy nature of the so-called “shotgun” marriage. Others respond that many longlasting marriages were based on financial alliances (e.g., to increase economic status, family wealth, status in the community, etc.). They also point out that most government programs are sensitive to the issues of domestic violence and include supports to prevent or end such actions. Many young children live with both of their parents who are not married but who are cohabiting. Noting this, some analysts argue that coercive policies designed to promote certain types of family structures (e.g., nuclear families) at the expense of others may undermine nontraditional familyrelationships. They contend that more emphasis should be placed on trying to meet the needs of these fragile families to enable them to stay together for longer periods of time. They maintain that if these parents wanted to be married they would be married.35 They also point out that because of the complexity of many family relationships, there are no easy answers. From their perspective, a single-focus policy, no matter whether it aims to support traditional family relationships or fragile families, can place children in less desirable situations. For instance, promoting marriage of biological parents may result in supporting situations

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

19

where some children in the household have a stepparent if all the children are not from the same union. Similarly, promoting fragile families also could result in supporting situations where a biological parent is absent if all of the children in the household are not all from the same union. Some pro-marriage analysts point out that about 75% of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents separate before they reach age 16, compared to about 33% of those born to married parents. Some observers note that even with supports it is unlikely that fragile families (unmarried couple) will remain together as long as married families. Thus, they argue that the promotion of marriage should be incorporated into fatherhood programs if the goal is lifetime involvement of fathers in the lives of their children. In contrast, fatherhood initiatives are sometimes viewed as incompatible with initiatives that encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families, and with initiatives that promote marriage. In fact, many observers argue that the focus should be the participation of fathers in their children’s lives, regardless of the marital status of the parents. As mentioned earlier, the TANF law states that the second purpose of the block grant is to “end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage.” The fourth purpose of the TANF block grant is to “encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.” There has been some discussion about whether the fourth purpose means marriedcouple families or just two parents who are involved in their children’s lives, regardless of whether they are married or even living together. In late 1999, the Clinton Administration issued A Guide on Funding for Children and Families through the TANF program which broadly interpreted two-parent families to mean not only married-couple families, but also never-married, separated, and divorced parents, whether living together or not. Thus, many states classify their fatherhood programs and programs that encourage visitation by noncustodial parents under the rubric of fulfilling the purposes of the TANF program.36 In addition, it should be noted that some research indicates that there may be a racial component in the marriage promotion versus fatherhood involvement debate. In 2005, 69.5% of black births were to unmarried women, whereas only 25.4% of white births were to unmarried women. Given this demographic reality of black and white families in the U.S., the authors of the study37 contend that proposals that earmark five times as much money for marriage promotion as for responsible fatherhood promotion38 seem “racially insensitive.” (Readers should note that P.L. 109-171 funds marriage promotion

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

20

Carmen Solomon-Fears

grants at twice the amount of responsible fatherhood grants (i.e., $100 million per year for five years versus $50 million per year for five years).

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

LEGISLATIVE ACTION During the 106th Congress, President Clinton’s FY2001 budget included $255 million for the first year of a proposed “Fathers Work/Families Win” initiative to help low-income noncustodial parents and low-income working families work and support their children. The “Fathers Work/Families Win” initiative would have been administered by the Department of Labor (DoL). The “Fathers Work” component ($125 million) would have been limited to noncustodial parents (primarily fathers) and the “Families Win” component ($130 million) would have been targeted more generally to low-income families. The proposed “Fathers Work” grant program was designed to help lowincome noncustodial parents who were not living with their children carry out their financial and emotional responsibilities to their children. The proposed “Families Win” grant program was designed to help “hard-pressed” working families obtain the supports and skills they need to get a job and succeed in the job and avoid TANF assistance. These funds were intended to leverage existing resources to help families retain jobs and upgrade skills and get connected to critical work supports, such as child care, child support, health care, food stamps, earned income tax credit, housing, and transportation. Neither the House nor Senate FY2001 appropriations bill (H.R. 4577, 106th Congress) for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies included funding for the Fathers Work/Families Win proposal. From the beginning of his presidency, President Bush has indicated his support for responsible fatherhood initiatives. President Bush’s FY2002 budget (issued in February 2001, 107th Congress) proposed $64 million in 2002 ($315 million over five years) to strengthen the role of fathers in the lives of families. This initiative would have provided competitive grants to faithbased and community organizations that help unemployed or low-income fathers and their families avoid or leave cash welfare, as well as to programs that promote successful parenting and strengthen marriage. The initiative also would have funded projects of national significance that support expansion of state and local responsible fatherhood efforts.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

21

President Bush’s FY2003 budget proposed $20 million (for FY2003) for competitive grants to community and faith-based organizations for programs that help noncustodial fathers support their families to avoid or leave cash welfare, become more involved in their children’s lives, and promote successful parenting and encourage and support healthy marriages and married fatherhood. President Bush’s FY2004 budget proposed $20 million annually (for FY2004FY2008) for promotion and support of responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage. The funding was expected to promote and support involved, committed, and responsible fatherhood and encourage the formation and stability of healthy marriages. The FY2004 budget proposal also would have increased the annual funding of the CSE access and visitation grant program gradually from $10 million annually to $20 million annually by FY2007. President Bush’s FY2005 budget proposed $50 million (for FY2005) for 75 competitive grants to faith-based and community organizations, together with Indian tribes and tribal organizations, to encourage and help fathers to support their families, avoid welfare, improve fathers’ ability to manage familybusiness affairs, and support healthy marriages and married fatherhood. President Bush’s FY2006 budget proposed $40 million (for FY2006) for a grant program to public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious organizations, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations, for demonstration service projects to help noncustodial fathers become more involved in their children’s lives and to encourage and support healthy marriages between parents raising children. President Bush’s FY2007 budget proposed $100 million for competitive matching grants to states for marriage promotion. It also included the $150 million for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs that was included in P.L. 109-171 as part of welfare reauthorization. As noted in this chapter, pursuant to P.L. 109-171, $50 million is specifically allocated for responsible fatherhood programs. President Bush’s FY2008 budget included the $150 million for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs that was included in P.L. 109171 as part of welfare reauthorization. As noted, pursuant to P.L. 109-171, $50 million is specifically allocated for responsible fatherhood programs.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

22

Carmen Solomon-Fears

106th Congress During the 106th Congress, legislation was twice passed by the House (but not acted on by the Senate — H.R. 3073, the proposed Fathers Count Act of 1999, and H.R. 4678, the proposed Child Support Distribution Act of 2000) that would have authorized funding ($140 million over two years in H.R. 3073 and $140 million over four years in H.R. 4678) to establish a program (usually referred to as fatherhood initiatives) to make grants to public or private entities for projects designed to promote marriage, promote successful parenting and the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, and help fathers improve their economic status by providing job-related services to them.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

107th Congress During the 107th Congress, several bills (H.R. 1300/S. 653, H.R. 1471, S. 685, S. 940/H.R. 1990, H.R. 2893, H.R. 3625, H.R. 409039, S. 2524, and H.R. 4737) that included fatherhood initiatives were introduced, but none were enacted. The purposes of the fatherhood programs in the bills introduced generally were the same: fatherhood programs must be designed to promote marriage through counseling, mentoring, and other activities; promote successful parenting through counseling, providing information about good parenting practices including payment of child support, and other activities; and help noncustodial parents and their families avoid or leave cash welfare by providing work-first services, job training, subsidized employment, careeradvancing education, and other activities. However, the structure of the fatherhood programs differed. For example, H.R. 4737 as amended and passed by the House would have added a new part C to Title IV of the Social Security Act to provide competitive grants to public and private entities to operate an array of fatherhood programs. The competitive grants would have been administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The appropriation amount for the fatherhood grants was set at $20 million a year for each of the five fiscal years FY2003 through FY2007; up to 15% of the annual appropriation was to be available for the cost of various demonstration projects and evaluations of the competitive grants. In contrast, H.R. 4737 as amended in the nature of a substitute by the Senate Finance Committee appeared to have more of an emphasis on helping

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

23

low-income noncustodial parents find and retain work. It would have amended part D of title IV of the Social Security Act (i.e., the Child Support section) to provide grants to states to (1) establish a noncustodial parent employment grant program and (2) conduct policy reviews and develop recommendations, and conduct demonstration projects with the goals of obtaining and retaining employment for low-income noncustodial parents, increasing child support payments, increasing the involvement of low-income noncustodial parents with their children, and coordinating services for low-income noncustodial parents. The HHS Secretary and the Secretary of Labor would have jointly awarded grants to eligible states for the purpose of establishing, in coordination with counties and other local governments, supervised employment programs for noncustodial parents who have a history of irregular payment or nonpayment of child support obligations and who are determined to be in need of employment services in order to pay their child support obligations. The appropriation amount for the noncustodial parent employment program was set at $25 million a year for each of the four fiscal years FY2004 through FY2007. The appropriation amount for the grants, administered by the HHS Secretary, to states for policy reviews, recommendations, and demonstration projects also was set at $25 million a year for each of the four fiscal years FY2004 through FY2007. Although H.R. 4737, amended, was passed by the House on May 16, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-460, Part 1), and reported favorably in the nature of a substitute by the Senate Finance Committee (S.Rept. 107-221) on July 25, 2002, it was not passed by the full Senate.

108th Congress The 108th Congress introduced several bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions (i.e., S. 5, S. 448, S. 604, and S. 657, S. 1443, and S. 2830; H.R. 4 and H.R. 936). None of the bills became law. On February 13, 2003, the House passed H.R. 4 (108th Congress), a welfare reauthorization bill (that was essentially identical to H.R. 4737 as passed by the House in 2002) that would have provided $20 million per year for each of FY2004FY2008 for a responsible fatherhood grant program. On September 10, 2003, the Senate Finance Committee approved its version of H.R. 4 (S.Rept. 108-162), which would have established a $75 million responsible fatherhood program composed of four components for each of the fiscal years 20042008: (1) a $20 million grant program for up to 10

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

24

Carmen Solomon-Fears

eligible states to conduct demonstration programs; (2) a $30 million grant for eligible entities to conduct demonstration programs; (3) $5 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to develop and promote a responsible fatherhood media campaign; and (4) a $20 million block grant for states to conduct responsible fatherhood media campaigns. Although H.R. 4 was debated on the Senate floor during the period March 29April 1, 2004, consideration of the bill was not completed when a motion to limit debate on the bill failed to garner the needed 60 votes. The Senate did not bring the bill back to the floor before the end of the session. During the period from 2002-2004, the responsible fatherhood bills that were passed by the House were part of welfare reauthorization legislation. (The funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, mandatory child care, and the abstinence education block grant — which were part of the 1996 welfare reform legislation (P.L. 104-193) whose funding authority expired on September 30, 2002 — continued under a number of temporary extension measures.)

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

109th Congress The 109th Congress introduced several welfare reauthorization bills that included responsible fatherhood provisions (i.e., H.R. 240/S. 105, S. 6, and S. 667). S. 1932 (the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005) also included a provision that provided competitive grants for responsible fatherhood activities. On January 4, 2005, a TANF reauthorization bill (H.R. 240) was introduced in the 109th Congress. It included provisions thatauthorized the HHS Secretary tomake competitive grants totaling $20 million for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious organizations, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations for responsible fatherhood demonstration programs. The purposes of the fatherhood programs were to (1) promote responsible, caring and effective parenting and encouraging positive father involvement, including the positive involvement of nonresident fathers; (2) enhance the abilities and commitment of unemployed or low-income fathers to provide support for their families and to avoid or leave welfare; (3) improve fathers’ ability to effectively manage family business affairs; and (4) encourage and support healthy marriages and married fatherhood. Not more than 15% of the annual appropriation would have been available for the costs of two multicity, multistate demonstration projects, projects of national significance that support

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

25

expansion of state and local responsible fatherhood efforts, and an evaluation of the programs. The fatherhood provisions in H.R. 240 were identical to those that were included in H.R. 4 as passed by the House on February 13, 2003 (108th Congress). S. 105, which is identical to H.R. 240, was introduced in the Senate on January 24, 2005. On January 24, 2005, another TANF reauthorization bill (S. 6) was introduced in the 109th Congress. It would have established a $75 million responsible fatherhood program composed of four components for each of the fiscal years 20062010: (1) a $20 million grant program for up to 10 eligible states to conduct demonstration programs; (2) a $30 million grant for eligible entities to conduct demonstration programs; (3) $5 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to develop and promote a responsible fatherhood media campaign; and (4) a $20 million block grant for states to conduct responsible fatherhood media campaigns. The purposes of the demonstration grants were to promote responsible fatherhood through (1) marriage promotion (through counseling, mentoring, disseminating information about the advantages of marriage and two-parent involvement for children, etc., (2) parenting activities (through counseling, mentoring, mediation, disseminating information about good parenting practices, etc.), and (3) fostering economic stability of fathers (through work first services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, education, etc.). The fatherhood provisions in S. 6 were identical to those that were included in H.R. 4 as passed by the Senate Finance Committee on October 3, 2003 (H.Rept. 108-162, 108th Congress). On March 17, 2005, the Senate Finance Committee reported S. 667, a TANF reauthorization bill. It would have established a $76 million responsible fatherhood program composed of five components for each of the fiscal years 2006-2010. It would have (1) appropriated $20 million for a grant program for up to 10 eligible states to conduct demonstration programs; (2) appropriated $30 million for grants for eligible entities to conduct demonstration programs; (3) authorized $5 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to develop and promote a responsible fatherhood media campaign; (4) authorized a $20 million block grant for states to conduct responsible fatherhood media campaigns; and (5) authorized $1 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit research and education fatherhood organization to establish a national resource center for responsible fatherhood. The fatherhood provisions in S. 667 were almost identical to those in S. 6, except that funding for the demonstration grants to states and eligible entities

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

26

Carmen Solomon-Fears

would have been assured because money was appropriated in the bill for those activities (S.Rept. 109-51, 109th Congress). On December 19, 2005, the House passed the conference report on S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (H.Rept. 109-362). On December 21, the Senate passed the conference report on S. 1932 with amendments. The conference report was subsequently passed again by the House on February 1, 2006. On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed S. 1932 into P.L. 109-171. Among other things, P.L. 109-171 reauthorized the TANF block grant at $16.5 billion annually through FY2010 and included a provision that provides up to $50 million per year (for each of the five fiscal years 2006 through 2010) in competitive grants to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community organizations, including religious organizations, for responsible fatherhood initiatives. Under P.L. 109-171, responsible fatherhood funds can be spent on activities to promote responsible fatherhood through (1) marriage promotion (through counseling, mentoring, disseminating information about the advantages of marriage and two-parent involvement for children, etc.), (2) parenting activities (through counseling, mentoring, mediation, disseminating information about good parenting practices, etc.), (3) fostering economic stability of fathers (through work first services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, education, etc.), or (4) contracting with a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to develop, promote, or distribute a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of parents in the lives of their children, particularly focusing on responsible fatherhood; and/or to develop a national clearinghouse to help states and communities in their efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood.

110th Congress Two bills that include responsible fatherhood provisions have been introduced in the 110th Congress. S. 1626 was introduced by Senator Bayh and Senator Obama and H.R. 3395 was introduced by Representative Danny Davis (et al.). Among other things, S. 1626/H.R. 3395, the proposed Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007 would increase funding for the responsible fatherhood grants (authorized by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, P.L. 109-171) from no more than $50 million per year for each of the fiscal years 2006-2010 to at least $100 million per year for those fiscal years.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

27

(The total for the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood grants would increase from $150 million to $200 million per year for each of the years FY2008-FY2010.)

End Notes

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1

U.S. Census Bureau. Family and Living Arrangements. Table FM-1: Families, by Presence of Own Children Under 18: 1950-2004. Internet Release Date: June 29, 2005. See [http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/fm1.pdf]. 2 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), see also L. Bumpass, “Children and Marital Disruption: A Replication and Update,” Demography, vol. 21(1984), pp. 71-82; Rebecca A. Maynard, ed., Kids Having Kids: A Robin Hood Foundation Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing (New York, 1996). 3 The child access and visitation program (Section 391 of P.L. 104-193) funded the following activities in FY2005: mediation, counseling, parental education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement, monitored visitation, neutral dropoff and pickup, supervised visitation, and development of guidelines for visitation and custody. In FY2005, about 69,000 individuals received services. The most common services were parenting education, supervised visitation, and mediation. Most states used a mix of services. Most of the service providers were Human Services Agencies. Individuals were referred to services by the courts, CSE or welfare agencies, and others, as well as by self-referral. Services were both mandatory and voluntary, as determined by the state. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, State Child Access and Visitation Grants: State/Jurisdiction Profiles for FY2005 (Washington, April 2007). 4 National Governors Association, Promoting Responsible Fatherhood: An Update (Washington, August 3, 1998). 5 “Funding Sources for Fatherhood Programs,” Welfare Information Network, vol. 5, no. 2 (January 2001). 6 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Fact Sheet: Promoting Responsible Fatherhood (Washington, April 26, 2002). 7 In addition to long-term welfare recipients, the $2.7 billion in welfare-to-work funds appropriated for FY1998 and FY1999 could have been used to provide services for certain noncustodial parents who were unemployed, underemployed, or having difficulty making their child support payments. States and localities were allowed to continue to spend their welfare-to-work funds through FY2004. 8 The TANF block grant program also has a MOE requirement that states continue to spend at least 75% (80% if they fail to meet TANF work requirements) of what they spent under prior law cash welfare-related programs in FY1994 on families that meet TANF eligibility requirements. 9 Dana Reichert, Broke but Not Deadbeat: Reconnecting Low-Income Fathers and Children (Washington, National Conference of State Legislatures, July 1999). 10 Information on the responsible fatherhood grants in each of the 10 HHS regions is available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/hmabstracts/index.htm]. 11 Meeting the Challenge: What the Federal Government Can Do to Support Responsible Fatherhood Efforts — A Report to the President [...] (Washington, January 2001), [http:// fatherhood.hhs.gov/guidance01].

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

28

Carmen Solomon-Fears

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

12

The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) demonstration was funded by a consortium of private foundations (the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Ford Foundation, the AT&T Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, and the Northwest Area Foundation) and federal agencies (the U.S. Department of Human Services and the U.S. Department of Labor).The PFS demonstration was conducted in seven cities: Dayton, Ohio; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Jacksonville, Florida; Los Angeles, California; Memphis, Tennessee; Springfield, Massachusetts; and Trenton, New Jersey. 13 John M. Martinez and Cynthia Miller, Working and Earning: The Impact of Parents’ Fair Share on Low-Income Fathers’ Employment (New York: MDRC, October 2000). 14 Virginia Knox and Cindy Redcross, Parenting and Providing: The Impact of Parents’ Fair Share on Paternal Involvement (New York: MDRC, October 2000). 15 Cynthia Miller and Virginia Knox, The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children: Final Lessons from Parents’ Fair Share (New York: MDRC, November 2001), pp. v-vi. 16 Ibid., p. v. 17 Sara McLanahan, Testimony before the Mayor’s Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, National Fatherhood Summit, Washington, D.C., June 14, 1999. 18 Elaine Sorensen, Ronald Mincy, and Ariel Halpern, Redirecting Welfare Policy Toward Building Strong Families (Washington: Urban Institute, March 2000). 19 The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is a joint effort by Princeton University’s Center for Research on Child Wellbeing (CRCW) and Center for Health and Wellbeing, and Columbia University’s Social Indicators Survey Center and National Center for Children and Families (NCCF). 20 Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, “Fragile Families and Child Well-Being: A Survey of New Parents,” Focus (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty), vol. 21, no. 1 (spring 2000), pp. 9-11. 21 Sara McLanahan, Irwin Garfinkel, Nancy E. Reichman, Julien Teitler, Marcia Carlson, and Christina Norland Audigier, The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study: Baseline Report (Princeton: Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, August 2001; rev. March 2003), at [http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/]. 22 Fragile Families Research Brief, June 2007, Number 39. Parents’ Relationship Status Five Years After a Non-Marital Birth. Princeton University and Columbia University. 23 For more information on the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, see [http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/about.asp]. 24 Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes, with David Price and Jane Venohr, OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Early Implementation Lessons (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies, June 2000) p. 9. 25 Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes, and Lanae Davis, with Jane Venohr, David Price, and Tracy Griffith, OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and Program Outcomes (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies [HHS Contract No. 100-98-0015], September 2003). 26 The Chicago, Illinois project withdrew from the demonstration. 27 See [http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/index.shtml] and [http://www.npcl.org/program/pff.htm]. 28 The Urban Institute. The Implementation of the Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Projects, by Karin Martinson, John Trutko, Demetra Smith Nightingale, Pamela A. Holcomb, and Burst S. Barnow. June 2007. [http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/PFF/imp/] 29 William J. Doherty, Edward F. Kouneski, and Martha Farrell Erickson, Responsible Fathering: An Overview and Conceptual Framework — Final Report Washington, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies [HHS-100-93-0012], September 1996).

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

30

29

Wade F. Horn and Isabel V. Sawhill, Making Room for Daddy: Fathers, Marriage, and Welfare Reform, Brookings Institution Working Paper (Washington, April 26, 2001), p. 4. 31 Maureen Waller and Robert Plotnick, “A Failed Relationship? Low-Income Families and the Child Support Enforcement System,” Focus (University of Wisconsin-Madison. Institute for Research on Poverty), vol. 21, no. 1 (spring 2000), pp. 12-17. See also Family Ties: Improving Paternity Establishment Practices and Procedures for Low-Income Mothers, Fathers and Children (Washington: National Women’s Law Center and Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy, 2000), pp. 9-11. 32 Waller and Plotnick,”A Failed Relationship?” 33 National Child Support Enforcement Association, Resolution on Fatherhood Initiatives, adopted by the NCSEA Board of Directors on July 29, 2000, [http://www.ncsea.org/files /2000_fatherhood_resol-final.pdf]. 34 The majority of pre-TANF evaluations of welfare initiatives that examine family formation decisions have found little, if any, impact of state policies on decisions to marry. One recent exception is an evaluation of the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP). In this program, compared to those who were subject to the AFDC requirements, more singleparent participants subject to new policies under MFIP got married and fewer of the twoparent participants had divorced within three years after the program began. 35 See “Is Marriage a Viable Objective for Fragile Families?” Fragile Families Research Brief 9 (Princeton: Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, July 2002). 36 Wade Horn, “Wedding Bell Blues: Marriage and Welfare Reform,” Brookings Review, summer 2001, pp. 40-41. 37 Ronald B. Mincy and Chien-Chung Huang, The M Word: The Rise and Fall of Interracial Coalitions on Fathers and Welfare Reform. Bowling Green State University Working Paper 02-7 (February 25, 2002), pp. 1-5, 32. 38 H.R. 4737 as passed by the House in the 107th Congress authorized $100 million annually for five years for competitive matching grants that require a dollar-for-dollar match for marriage promotion activities, resulting in total funding of $200 million annually for five years. Further, an additional $100 million per year for five years was authorized for research and demonstration grants and technical assistance related to the healthy marriage promotion activities. In contrast, H.R. 4737 (107th Congress) authorized $20 million annually for five years for responsible fatherhood grants. 39 H.R. 4090, as amended, was ordered reported by the House Ways and Means Committee on May 2, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-460, Part 1). The bill would have provided $20 million in grants per year for a five-year period (FY2003-FY2007) to public entities and nonprofit community entities, including religious organizations, and to Indian tribes and tribal organizations to promote responsible, caring and effective parenting and to encourage positive father involvement, including the positive involvement of nonresident fathers; enhance the abilities and commitment of unemployed or low-income fathers to provide support for their families and to avoid or leave welfare; improve fathers’ ability to effectively manage family business affairs; and encourage and support healthy marriages and married fatherhood. Note: H.R. 4737, a bill that included identical “fatherhood” provisions, passed the House on May 16, 2002.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

In: Healthy Marriage and Responsible… ISBN: 978-1-60741-754-5 Editor: Gavin J. Buttone © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 2

HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE: FURTHER PROGRESS IS NEEDED IN DEVELOPING A RISK-BASED MONITORING APPROACH TO HELP HHS IMPROVE PROGRAM OVERSIGHT Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.



U.S. Government Accountability Office WHY GAO DID THIS STUDY Strengthening marriages and relationships in low-income families has emerged as a national strategy for enhancing the well-being of children. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) appropriated $150 million in discretionary grants each year from 2006 through 2010 to implement the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative. To provide insight into how these programs are being implemented and monitored, GAO is reporting on (1) how the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded grants and the types of organizations that received funding; (2) what activities and services grantees are providing, including those for domestic 

This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a U. S. Government Accountability Office publication, Report GAO-08-1002, dated September 2008.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

32

U. S. Government Accountability Office

violence victims; (3) how HHS monitors and assesses program implementation and use of funds; and (4) how program impact is measured. GAO surveyed grantees, interviewed HHS staff, reviewed HHS records and policy, and visited several programs.

WHAT GAO RECOMMENDS

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

GAO recommends that HHS employ a risk-based approach to monitoring grantees and conducting grantee site visits, using its planned management information system and information from both progress reports and performance indicators to help identify those grantees at risk of not meeting performance goals or not in compliance with grant requirements. HHS also should create clear, consistent guidance and policy for monitoring Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantees. HHS is in the process of developing a risk-based approach to monitoring, but disagreed that they lacked clear, consistent monitoring guidance. GAO believes that its recommendations remain valid.

WHAT GAO FOUND Operating under a deadline that allowed HHS 7 months to award grants, HHS shortened its existing process to award Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grants to public and private organizations. During this process, HHS did not fully examine grantees’ programs as described in their applications, including the activities they planned to offer, and this created challenges and setbacks for grantees later as they implemented their programs. For example, some grantees told us that they were informed that certain activities were not permitted months into program implementation even though HHS had approved these same activities described in their grant applications. The Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood programs provide similar activities, but their focus and target populations differ. Healthy Marriage programs are more likely to provide marriage and relationship activities, while Responsible Fatherhood programs are more likely to provide parenting skills. Additionally, both programs serve low-income and minority groups, but Healthy Marriage grantees are more likely to target teenaged

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

33

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

youth, and Responsible Fatherhood grantees are more likely to target incarcerated parents. Both programs’ grantees reported that they refer domestic violence victims to specialists in their communities. HHS uses methods that include site visits and progress reports to monitor grantees, but it lacks mechanisms to identify and target grantees that are not in compliance with grant requirements or are not meeting performance goals, and it also lacks clear and consistent guidance for performing site monitoring visits. Moreover, HHS’s ability to readily identify which grantees are not in compliance or not meeting goals is hindered because it currently lacks uniform performance indicators and a computerized management information system that would enable HHS to more efficiently track key information on individual grantees. HHS told us that it is in the process of developing a management information system and has submitted uniform performance indicators for review. HHS has established a rigorous research agenda to gauge the long-term impact of healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood activities on diverse, low-income populations. HHS is sponsoring three multiyear impact evaluations of the Healthy Marriage program and one of the Responsible Fatherhood program.

Source: GAO photo. Domestic Violence Materials Distributed by Various Grantees

Abbreviations BSF DRA GED HHS Initiative

Building Strong Families Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 General Educational Development Department of Health and Human Services Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

34

U. S. Government Accountability Office

MSF-IP

SHM TANF

Initiative Marriage and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated and Re-entering Fathers and Their Partners Supporting Healthy Marriage Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

September 26, 2008 The Honorable Jim McDermott Chairman Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support Committee on Ways and Means House of Representatives

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Strengthening marriages and relationships in low-income families has emerged as a national strategy for enhancing the well-being of children. With the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), Congress appropriated $150 million in discretionary grants each year from 2006 through 2010 to implement the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative (Initiative). The Initiative represents an unprecedented financial commitment by the federal government to support marriage and fatherhood programs. The focus of the Healthy Marriage program is to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent households through healthy marriage promotion activities, while the focus of the Responsible Fatherhood program is to strengthen the role of the father in a child’s life. The Initiative supports two goals under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the federally funded block grant that funds programs designed to help needy families achieve self-sufficiency. The goals are to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. To implement the Initiative, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) competitively awarded grants to various organizations to support a broad range of activities to promote healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. To address domestic violence concerns, DRA required all grantees to consult with a domestic violence expert and to include information on how they will address domestic

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

35

violence issues in their grant applications to HHS. It also required that participation by individuals in the program be voluntary. To gain insight into how these programs are being implemented, you asked that we determine (1) how HHS awarded grants and the types of organizations that received funding; (2) what activities and services grantees are providing, including those for domestic violence victims; (3) how HHS monitors and assesses program implementation and use of funds, and (4) how program impact is measured. To respond to these questions, we conducted a web-based survey of all 122 Healthy Marriage and 94 Responsible Fatherhood grantees that provide direct services to program participants, asking them to provide information about various aspects of their programs including the characteristics of their organization, services they offered, curricula used, and their process and procedures for identifying domestic violence.1 Of the 216 grantees to whom we sent our survey, 211 responded for a response rate of 98 percent. Throughout this chapter survey results are based on the number of grantees responding to a particular question. Additionally, to obtain more in-depth information about services marriage and fatherhood grantees are providing, we visited 14 grantees in Washington, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Indiana, Oregon, and the District of Columbia. On 2 of these visits, we accompanied HHS staff responsible for monitoring grantees. We selected grantees to achieve variation in geographic location, type of grant awarded, award amount, services, organization type, and the programs’ target populations. In addition, we conducted telephone interviews with organizations that were awarded grants to provide technical assistance to grantees, and help organizations develop fatherhood programs. Moreover, to understand the criteria HHS used to award grants and the manner in which HHS monitors and assesses program implementation, we randomly selected 40 Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantee case files to review.2 In this review, we examined several documents, including applications, semiannual progress and financial reports, grantee selection panel score sheets, and correspondences between grantees and agency officials. To determine how program impact is measured, we interviewed organizations that have received contracts to conduct impact evaluations of Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood interventions and assessed their methodological approach to measuring impact. We also interviewed HHS officials about the uniform, program-wide performance indicators under development and surveyed grantees about how they measure program performance. We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to September 2008, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

36

U. S. Government Accountability Office

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. For additional information on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

RESULTS IN BRIEF Operating under a deadline that allowed HHS 7 months to award grants, HHS shortened its process to award grants to public and private organizations on time. Under DRA, which was passed in February 2006, HHS had to award the grants by the end of September 2006. Within that time frame, HHS had to write and publicize the grant announcements, develop criteria for selecting grantees, and convene panels to review and score the more than 1,650 applications for funding it received. After the applications were reviewed and scored, HHS awarded grants to a diverse set of grantees—216 public, private, and nonprofit organizations that provided direct services to participants— based on a range of criteria, including the grantees’ approach to recruiting and retaining participants and strategy to address issues of domestic violence. However, HHS did not fully examine grantees’ programs as proposed in grantee applications, including the activities they planned to offer, and this contributed to challenges for some grantees when implementing their programs. For example, during our site visits, 5 out of 14 grantees told us that even though they had received approval from HHS to implement their program as outlined in their grant applications, HHS informed them after they had begun serving participants that certain activities were not permitted under the grant legislation. Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood programs offer a range of similar activities, but their focus and target populations differ. Both Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood programs offer activities and services related to marriage and relationship skills, parenting, and economic stability, but according to our survey, Healthy Marriage programs are more likely to provide marriage and relationship services, whereas Responsible Fatherhood programs are more likely to focus on parenting skills. For example, 94 percent of Healthy Marriage grantees reported that they provide activities related to marriage and relationships, compared to 55 percent of Responsible Fatherhood grantees. On the other hand, 92 percent of Responsible Fatherhood grantees

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

37

report that they provide activities related to parenting compared to 47 percent of Healthy Marriage programs. Additionally, grantees from both programs reported that they refer domestic violence victims to specialists in their communities. By making referrals to domestic violence specialists in their communities, both Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood programs attempt to ensure that victims of domestic abuse receive services. Almost all grantees in both programs said they include domestic violence awareness as part of their programs and, according to our survey, have protocols in place for detecting and responding to signs of domestic violence. For example, grantees from both programs told us they have specific classroom sessions devoted to helping couples identify the signs of unsafe and unhealthy relationships. The services offered by the two grant programs are targeted to a range of groups, however, Healthy Marriage programs were more likely to target high school and teenaged youths, and Responsible Fatherhood programs were more likely to target incarcerated fathers. According to our survey, grantees inform individuals that their participation in the programs is voluntary through a range of methods, including verbal and written notification. HHS uses multiple methods to monitor grantees’ programs; however it lacks mechanisms to identify and target grantees that are not in compliance with grant requirements or are not meeting performance goals. To monitor Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantees, HHS uses a combination of site visits, phone calls, e-mails, and progress reports, but these tools are not used strategically to help identify problems grantees are experiencing. Our review of grantee case files found documentation of grantees that were not meeting performance targets, such as participant recruitment goals, or not in compliance with grant requirements, such as providing only those services allowed under the grant. However, HHS did not always give priority to these grantees for site visits or other monitoring activities, which was further confirmed during our interviews with grantees. Instead, HHS told us that the decision of which grantees to visit and in what order was left to the discretion of individual HHS staff, and monitoring site visits were scheduled based on staff preferences. When HHS conducted a site visit, we found that HHS staff lacked specific and clear guidance on how to conduct visits, and therefore the length and types of issues reviewed and documentation examined varied depending on who conducted the visit. For example, on some monitoring site visits, HHS staff observed grantees providing services and in other instances, staff did not. Finally, although HHS maintains paper files for each of the grantees, the breadth and detail of these files vary considerably. HHS told us that they plan to implement a

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

38

U. S. Government Accountability Office

computerized management information system in fall 2008 which would enable it to more efficiently track key information on individual grantees and combine grantee communications and performance data. According to HHS, the first phase of the web-based management information system has been completed. HHS also told us that it currently is in the process of developing uniform performance indicators that will eventually be part of its planned management information system. These performance indicators have been developed and are currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget. HHS has established a rigorous research agenda to gauge the long-term impact of healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood activities on diverse, low-income populations. HHS is sponsoring three multiyear impact evaluations of the Healthy Marriage program and one of the Responsible Fatherhood program. These evaluations will assess the effectiveness of marriage and fatherhood programs on low-income populations who traditionally have not been the focus of such studies. Using a research design that compares study participants that received marriage and fatherhood services to similar participants that did not, the researchers will be able to compare the groups and measure any differences resulting from their participation in the programs. One study is assessing the impact of healthy marriage promotion activities on low-income, unmarried couples around the time of the birth of a child using data collected at three stages of participants’ lives. This study will examine a range of outcomes, including whether marriage services improved marital relationships, changed couples’ attitudes toward marriage, reduced marital instability, and improved child well-being. Studies such as these often are difficult and take time to complete, but are considered the best method for assessing program impact. Results from these studies will not be available until after fiscal year 2010, when the current appropriation for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative expires, but HHS officials note that the results may help inform future policy decisions. To provide better program oversight, we are recommending that the Secretary of HHS employ a risk-based approach to monitoring grantees and conducting grantee site visits, using its planned management information system and information from progress reports and performance indicators to help identify those grantees at risk of not meeting performance goals or not in compliance with grant requirements. HHS also should create clear, consistent guidance and policy for monitoring Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantees.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

39

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND Welfare reform in 1996 made sweeping changes to the national welfare policy, including a new emphasis on marriage as an area of societal and governmental concern. With the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which established the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, Congress wrote into law that marriage is the foundation of a successful society and promotes the interests of children. Congress was, in part, prompted to address this issue because of what it deemed a “crisis in our Nation” in the rate of pregnancies and births to unmarried women. In the legislation, Congress cited the negative consequences to children that result from these pregnancies and births, including greater risk for child abuse and neglect, higher rates of poverty, and lower educational aspirations. TANF was reauthorized under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), and signed into law in February 2006. DRA appropriated $150 million a year for 5 years in discretionary grants for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative (Initiative).3 While the Initiative was established as part of TANF, the nation’s welfare program, it does not impose income limits for program participants. However, HHS designated a few priority groups for funding under the Initiative, including incarcerated fathers and low-income, unwed, expectant or new parents. In structuring the Initiative, HHS created two distinct grant programs—one relating to Healthy Marriage and one to Responsible Fatherhood—but with common aims. The Healthy Marriage program is aimed at encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent households to improve child well-being through healthy marriage promotion, and the Responsible Fatherhood program is designed to strengthen the role of the father as a means of promoting child well-being, specifically within the context of marriage. HHS has stressed that the overarching Initiative is not designed to encourage couples to stay in unhealthy marriages. In the legislation, Congress prescribed the “allowable” activities for the Initiative (see table 1). Given the broadness of these allowable activities, HHS developed examples of services grantees could provide, such as providing after-school programs for high school students and marriage education courses that incorporate information on financial literacy. Although providing services to victims of domestic violence is not an allowable activity (see table 1), organizations were required by DRA to describe in their grant application how their programs or activities would “address” issues of domestic violence, and commit in their application to consult with experts in domestic violence in

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

40

U. S. Government Accountability Office

developing their programs and activities. The DRA also required that organizations describe in their application what they would do to ensure and how they would inform individuals that participation in programs is voluntary. Table 1. Allowable Activities as Described in DRA

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Allowable activities

Healthy Marriage Public advertising camp-aigns on the value of ma-rriage and the skills nee-ded to increase marital stability and health. Education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting. Marriage education, ma-rriage skills, and relationship skills programs, that may include parenting skills, financial management, and job and career advancement, for nonmarried, pregnant women and nonmarried, expectant fathers. Premarital education and marriage skills training for engaged couples and for couples or individuals interested in marriage. Marriage enhancement and marriage skills train-ing programs for married couples. Divorce reduction programs that teach relationship skills. Marriage mentoring progr-ams that use married couples as role models and mentors in at-risk communities. Programs to reduce the disincentives to marriage in means-tested aid prog-rams, if offered in conjunction with any activity described above.

Responsible Fatherhood Activities to promote marriage or sustain marriage through activities such as counseling, mentoring, and disseminating of information about the benefits of marriage and dualparent involvement for children; relationship skills education; disseminating of information on the causes of domestic violence and child abuse; and skills-based marriage education and financial planning. Activities to promote responsible parenting through activities such as counseling, mentoring, and mediation, and dissemination of information about good parenting practices; and skills-based parenting education, encouragement of child support payments, and other methods. Activities to foster economic stability by helping fathers improve their economic status. Activities to promote responsible fatherhood such as the development, promotion, and distribution of a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of parents in the life of their child that are conducted through a contract with a nationally recognized, nonprofit, fatherhood promotion organization.

Source: Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-171.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

41

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Source: Analysis of budget information provided by HHS. Note: “Other” includes 1 percent for Tribal TANF child welfare expenditures and the remainder for TANF-related activities. Figure 1. Breakdown of DRA Funds for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, Fiscal Year 2007

In fiscal year 2007 most of the funding, approximately $113 million, was used to support Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood demonstration grants, while the remaining funds were used for research, technical assistance, administrative costs, and other TANF-related activities (see figure 1). As part of the agency’s overall research agenda, HHS has sponsored several impact evaluations of its programs. These evaluations are considered to be the best method of determining the extent to which the program, rather than other factors, is causing specific participant outcomes. Impact evaluations, which are awarded through a competitive bid process to experienced research firms, often are complex, multiyear studies that can be difficult and costly to undertake and require particular attention to both study planning and execution. Moreover, maintaining proper incentives to obtain and sustain the participation of populations that do not have financial and familial stability can be challenging. In previous work, we found that HHS has established a rigorous research agenda that regularly evaluates how well its programs are working.4 In particular, HHS has a diverse research agenda

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

42

U. S. Government Accountability Office

focused on TANF that includes research on strategies to help low-income individuals gain self-sufficiency.5

HHS AWARDED GRANTS TO A RANGE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS, BUT THE AWARDS PROCESS CONTRIBUTED TO CHALLENGES FOR SOME GRANTEES

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

HHS awarded grants to a range of public and private organizations, but its awards process later contributed to challenges for these grantees. HHS shortened its awards process to meet a deadline specified in legislation that allowed 7 months to award grants. HHS awarded grants to a diverse set of grantees that provided direct services to program participants in 47 states, the District of Columbia, and American Samoa. However, as part of its awards process, HHS did not fully examine grantees’ programs as described in grantee applications, including the activities they planned to offer, contributing to challenges for some grantees as they were implementing their programs.

HHS Shortened Its Existing Awards Process to Meet DRA Deadline for Awarding Grants HHS shortened its process to award grants by the end of the fiscal year (September 30). Under DRA, which became law in February 2006, HHS had to award grants in 7 months. Within this time frame, HHS had to perform several tasks related to the awards process. Specifically, HHS staff said they developed the grant announcements and the criteria for selecting grantees under tight time constraints and limited the amount of time organizations could apply for grants to fewer than the 60 days recommended in HHS’s policy manual. HHS officials, who told us they had not expected that more than 1,650 organizations would apply for funding, hired The Dixon Group, a management consulting firm, to receive applications, locate grant application reviewers, and assist with reviewer training.6 At the same time The Dixon Group was receiving applications, they also were selecting peer reviewers. Approximately 600 peer reviewers served on 40 to 50 review panels for 4 weeks during July and August. While the grant announcements stated that grant application reviewers should be experts, HHS allowed peer review of the applications and The Dixon Group and HHS characterized graduate students,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

43

professors, and practitioners as peer reviewers. Further, because individuals who were experts in the field of marriage and fatherhood applied for the grants, it limited the pool of available expert reviewers. We reviewed several of the resumes of the peer reviewers and found that while most had experience as federal reviewers, their professional and volunteer experiences were not always directly relevant to marriage and fatherhood services. For example, one peer reviewer had experience in nursing and another listed experience as a social studies teacher. To determine which organizations would receive funding, HHS developed guidance that outlined a five-part criteria for most grants, with each criterion worth a specific amount of points. Reviewers scored organizations’ applications using the guidance provided by HHS and by judging how well the applicant responded to each criterion. For example, a major criterion was the applicant’s “approach,” worth 40 points. For this criterion, applicants were asked to describe their approach to recruiting and retaining participants, their proposed activities, and time frames for accomplishing specific milestones. Applicants also were required to demonstrate that their proposed activities were consistent with the needs of their target population and that the rationale for the approach was based on the demonstrated effectiveness of similar activities. Finally, under their approach section, applicants also had to describe how they planned to address issues of domestic violence and ensure voluntary participation. For the “organizational profile” criterion, worth 20 points, organizations had to provide information that demonstrated their qualifications to serve participants, including organizational charts, financial statements, resumes, letters of support, and the qualifications of partnering organizations. As part of other criteria, applicants were asked to provide a budget and budget justification, and information on how they proposed to measure the outcomes of their programs. Applicants could receive up to 5 bonus points if they demonstrated prior experience in developing, implementing, or managing skills-based marriage or fatherhood education programs. See appendix II for a table of the criteria used for each type of grant. The peer reviewers used these criteria to score applicants, and HHS ranked the applications based on the scores. With some exceptions, applications that received the highest scores were awarded grants. HHS made exceptions to ensure, among other things, that grants were geographically distributed and reflected a diversity of target populations and communities served. In September 2006, HHS began notifying grantees of their awards, but experienced a setback when they had to reconvene review panels to rescore 31

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

44

U. S. Government Accountability Office

applications. When scoring some applications, some reviewers incorrectly gave applicants zero points for the “approach” section. According to the grant announcements, if applicants failed to discuss how they would inform individuals that program participation was voluntary, as well as discuss specific issues relating to domestic violence issues, they would receive no points for the “approach” criterion. HHS discovered that reviewers had incorrectly interpreted whether applicants satisfied this portion of the “approach” criterion, and after clarifying the criteria, required that they rereview the applications.7

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

HHS Awarded Grants to a Diverse Set of Grantees HHS awarded grants to a diverse set of grantees that included 216 different organizations—122 were Healthy Marriage and 94 were Responsible Fatherhood demonstration grants that provided direct services to program participants in 47 states, the District of Columbia, and American Samoa (see app. III). In responding to our survey, grantees selected multiple categories to describe their organizational type. The majority—89 percent of the grantees— classified themselves as nonprofits. However, faith-based, for-profit, and private organizations also received funding. Awards for Healthy Marriage demonstration grants ranged from $225,000 to $2.4 million, and awards for Responsible Fatherhood demonstration grants were for smaller amounts, ranging from $188,000 to $1 million. Over two-thirds of our survey respondents indicated that their organization had prior experience related to healthy marriage or responsible fatherhood activities. This experience included providing workshops for couples and singles, parenting classes, and relationship workshops for high school students. Some of these organizations also provided a broader array of other services to the community, such as mental health services and counseling services, and substance abuse treatment. Also, at least a dozen of the grantees had provided abstinence services and some Healthy Marriage grantees were previous recipients of grants from HHS for related purposes, including healthy marriage curriculum development and fostering healthy marriage within underserved communities.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

45

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

HHS’s Grant Awards Process Contributed to Challenges Grantees Had Implementing Programs HHS’s grant awards process contributed to challenges grantees later faced implementing their programs. HHS was able to announce grant awards by September 30; however HHS did not fully examine grantees’ programs as described in grantee applications. Specifically, we found during 5 of our 14 site visits that grantees, whose program activities had initially been approved by HHS, were later told that those same activities were not allowed under the conditions of their award. For example, during a site visit, one grantee reported that it proposed providing services to unmarried couples in its application and was doing so until HHS informed them that these services were not allowed under the conditions of their award. Another grantee told us that it was providing General Educational Development (GED) education as part of its Healthy Marriage program, but was later notified that the activity was not allowed. These grantees were well into program implementation when they were told to discontinue certain activities. One grantee we visited said it engaged in activities that were not allowable under the grant for a full year before being informed by HHS that the activities were not permissible. The grantee told us that it would have benefited from more timely review and feedback from HHS. In another case, HHS told a grantee that it would have to extend the length of its workshops for participants from 60 minutes to 90 minutes to 8 hours, even though the grant application noted that short, workshops would be provided.8 To implement this change, the grantee said it would likely incur additional expenses, such as paying facilitators for extra time and spending more for rental space. HHS told us that it received more applications than expected and this was the first time it awarded these grants. HHS also said it had learned from this experience.

PROGRAMS OFFER A RANGE OF SIMILAR ACTIVITIES, BUT THEIR FOCUS AND TARGET POPULATIONS DIFFER While the range of activities offered and populations served by Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood programs’ grantees are similar, their focus and target populations differ. Both programs offer a range of similar activities, but a greater percentage of marriage programs provided activities

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

46

U. S. Government Accountability Office

related to marriage and relationship skills and a larger percentage of fatherhood programs provided parenting skills. Grantees for both programs reported that they refer domestic violence victims to specialists when appropriate. Additionally, while both programs target such groups as minority and low-income populations, Healthy Marriage grantees are more likely to target high school or teenaged youths, and Responsible Fatherhood grantees are more likely to target incarcerated parents.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Both Programs Offer a Range of Similar Activities and Refer Domestic Violence Victims to Specialists When Appropriate, but They Differ in Which Activities They Offer Most Frequently Both programs offer a range of similar activities, and grantees from both programs said they refer victims of domestic violence to specialists in their communities when appropriate (see figure 2). However, according to our survey, while both programs offer many similar activities, Healthy Marriage programs focus more on those related to marriage and relationship services, whereas Responsible Fatherhood programs are more likely to focus on providing services teaching parenting skills. Specifically, 94 percent of Healthy Marriage grantees, compared to 55 percent of Responsible Fatherhood grantees, reported offering marriage and relationship activities. During our visits to several Healthy Marriage grantees, we often observed activities related to marriage and relationships. For example, we observed a Healthy Marriage workshop where couples took quizzes to determine how well they knew one another and then participated in a discussion about commitment, chemistry, and compatibility. Conversely, 92 percent of Responsible Fatherhood grantees, compared to 47 percent of Healthy Marriage grantees, reported in our survey that they provide services related to teaching parenting skills. For example, a Responsible Fatherhood grantee program we visited included in its curriculum parenting skills training, such as lessons on a child’s developmental needs and how to communicate with children of different ages. In addition, Responsible Fatherhood grantees were more likely than Healthy Marriage grantees to report that they focused on providing programs with specific services to help participants achieve economic stability, including assistance with finding a job. Healthy Marriage grantees also reported that they focus on economic stability activities, but to a lesser extent than Responsible Fatherhood programs. According to HHS, Healthy Marriage grantees can provide these services only within the context of allowed

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

47

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

activities (see table 1). For example, Healthy Marriage grantees might discuss financial issues as part of marriage and relationship skills. Depending on the conditions of the award, grantees might provide more than one of the services or activities listed in figure 2. Both Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantee programs offer services for varying lengths of time and in various settings. Some programs have one intensive session in a lecture setting, while others offer classroom settings that are more interactive and may be offered for 1 or 2 hours 1 night a week for up to 17 weeks. One grantee program we visited offered marriage workshops to participants at weekend retreats with paid lodging, and two Responsible Fatherhood programs we visited included optional home visits by staff. In addition, some grantees run advertisements or sponsor advertising campaigns that discuss the importance of healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. For example, one advertising campaign designed a billboard that read “a diamond isn’t the only thing that should last forever.”

Source: GAO analysis of Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantees’ responses to survey. Figure 2. Activities Provided by Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Grantees

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

48

U. S. Government Accountability Office

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

According to our survey, the majority of grantees—98 percent—deliver their services through classroom instruction using a curriculum (see fig. 3). Many survey respondents said they developed and used their own curriculum (41 percent of Healthy Marriage and 47 percent of Responsible Fatherhood respondents). For example, one grantee we visited said it developed its own Spanish-language curriculum because the few existing Spanish-language curricula for Responsible Fatherhood programs did not meet the specific needs of the Latino population the grantee served. Other grantees adapt commercially available curricula to meet the needs of participants. The mostcommonly-used, commercially available curriculum was the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program. This curriculum focuses on identifying strengths and weaknesses of a marriage, improving communication skills, and increasing the connection between the partners. Technical assistance providers make information about curricula available to grantees on their Web site. A list of curricula used by multiple grantees is in appendix IV.

Source: GAO photo. Figure 3. Examples of Curricula Used by Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Grantees

Most grantees—about 93 percent—reported in our survey that they include information on domestic violence in their programs. For example, several grantees modified their curriculum to include a discussion of domestic violence with participants. One survey respondent noted that it leads a discussion on domestic violence issues that helps participants self-identify and understand domestic violence. During our site visits, some Healthy Marriage

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

49

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

grantees told us that they focus on the characteristics of a healthy relationship. In addition to discussing topics related to relationship health and domestic violence awareness, grantees also distribute informational materials about domestic violence (see figure 4). For example, during a site visit to a Healthy Marriage grantee, we observed classroom instructors distributing pamphlets on recognizing signs of domestic violence. Handouts include state Directories of Domestic Violence Support Services; handbooks for domestic violence victims, and victims’ rights; and pamphlets on topics ranging from “recipes for safety” to the characteristics of an abusive relationship.

Source: GAO photo. Figure 4. Domestic Violence Materials Distributed by Various Grantees

Additionally, most grantees reported in our survey that they have protocols for how staff should handle instances where program participants may be victims of domestic violence, and many grantees train their staff on identifying signs of domestic violence, as well as on teaching program participants the signs of unhealthy relationships. Moreover, most grantees reported that they consult with domestic violence organizations and refer potential domestic violence victims to them. For example, one grantee we visited told us that it consulted with two different domestic violence organizations when designing its Responsible Fatherhood program. The domestic violence organizations helped the grantee develop part of a workshop related to domestic violence and also presented information to program participants. During our site visits, grantees also told us they refer program

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

50

U. S. Government Accountability Office

participants to domestic violence specialists when appropriate. For example, one of the grantees we visited said that when it encountered a potential domestic violence situation, it held a joint meeting with a caseworker, domestic violence expert, and a family services coordinator. Collectively they determined the appropriate referral for the person. The DRA does not include domestic violence services as an allowed activity, but does require that programs have in place mechanisms for addressing domestic violence.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Programs Focus Services on Different Target Populations Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantee programs focus on providing services to different populations, but they both target low-income and minority populations. According to our survey, 58 percent of Healthy Marriage and 52 percent of Responsible Fatherhood grantees target lowincome individuals, and 39 percent of Healthy Marriage and 36 percent of Responsible Fatherhood grantees target minorities (see figure 5). Healthy Marriage grantee programs target high school or teenaged youths at higher rates than Responsible Fatherhood grantee programs, in part, because education in high schools is one of the Healthy Marriage program’s allowed activities. On the other hand, Responsible Fatherhood programs target incarcerated parents, typically fathers, because HHS designated a portion of the program’s funding for this population. Both grantee programs allow men and women to participate in their programs—even though the Responsible Fatherhood programs were created specifically to target men, they are both open to men and women. An administrative complaint was filed by a legal advocacy organization centering on whether women have equal access to the program and subsequently HHS reminded grantees that the Responsible Fatherhood programs are open to eligible men and women.9 Grantees use a variety of methods to attract participants to the program. According to our survey, grantees rely heavily on word of mouth, but they also attract participants through educational handouts and brochures, referrals, and advertisements such as promotion campaigns (see figure 6). For example, one grantee we visited, which targets Latinos, indicated that while it advertises through a variety of methods including community-based advertising, radio, and door-to-door recruiting, it had difficulty attracting participants. Some grantees told us they devised numerous incentives to better retain participants. For example, one grantee we visited told us it provides food and child care at

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

51

each session, transportation subsidies, and Wal-Mart and Babies R Us gift cards once participants completed the program.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Source: GAO analysis of Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantees’ responses to survey. Figure 5. Grantee Target Populations

Source: GAO photo. Figure 6. Examples of Recruitment Materials Used by Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Grantees

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

52

U. S. Government Accountability Office

Source: GAO analysis of Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantees’ responses to survey.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure 7. Methods of Notifying Participants of Voluntary Participation in Programs

Participation in the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood programs must be voluntary as required by DRA, and according to our survey, grantees used a variety of methods to inform participants that participation was voluntary. Specifically, 95 percent of survey respondents indicated they provide verbal notification that participation is voluntary, while 89 percent indicated that they provide written notification (see figure 7).

HHS HAS A PROGRAM MONITORING SYSTEM, BUT LACKS MECHANISMS TO IDENTIFY AND TARGET GRANTEES NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH GRANT REQUIREMENTS OR NOT MEETING PERFORMANCE GOALS HHS has a program monitoring system, but it lacks the mechanisms to identify and target grantees not in compliance with grant requirements or not meeting performance goals. HHS uses multiple tools to monitor grantee

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

53

programs, such as site visits and reviews of reports submitted by grantees. However, HHS lacks specific guidance for conducting monitoring site visits. Moreover, HHS’s ability to target grantees in need of assistance is hindered by the lack of an effective Management Information System.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

HHS Uses Multiple Tools to Monitor Grantees To monitor Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantee performance, HHS uses multiple tools including a combination of phone calls, e-mails, grantee progress reports, and site visits. HHS also reviews grantee Single Audit Act reports.10 HHS is responsible for monitoring the 216 Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantees and according to our survey; almost all grantees reported some contact from HHS staff.11 According to the grantees we visited, HHS staff contact them at least once a month. Grantees said that HHS staff typically contact them to notify them of opportunities for technical assistance, address errors or issues that arise during review of required programmatic and financial progress reports, and to notify them of upcoming events. In addition, some grantees also initiate communication with HHS to ask questions regarding policy, to request approval for certain activities, or to request budget modifications. Semiannually, HHS requires grantees to submit both programmatic and financial progress reports, which, among other things, provide HHS with updates on grantees’ progress toward meeting performance goals that grantees established for themselves in their applications, as well as provide information on grantees’ compliance with domestic violence and other HHS policies. For example, some grantees report to HHS on the number of participants they expect to serve. Some grantees also may report on the types of activities and participant satisfaction with programs or services as well as changes in participant behavior before and after programs. They also may report on any problems they may be experiencing, including recruiting challenges. Because grantees can set their own program goals and establish their own measures for these goals, there is considerable variation among the information being collected. Financial progress reports contain information, such as financial statements, that allow HHS to track the use of grant funds. HHS also monitors grantees’ use of funds by tracking grantees’ draw down of funds. Specifically, HHS also is able to compare financial progress reports submitted by grantees with reports from the HHS electronic grant payment management system to monitor grantees’ withdrawal of funds. For example, if HHS observes that a

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

54

U. S. Government Accountability Office

grantee has not withdrawn funds according to its schedule, they will contact the grantee to determine the reason the grantee has not been withdrawing funds. For grantees that received federal funds in excess of $500,000, HHS monitors and reviews audit reports in accordance with the Single Audit Act. According to HHS, its review of grantee Single Audit Act reports covers compliance with audit standards, completeness, timeliness, and other audit considerations. As part of HHS’s on-site monitoring, at least one HHS staff member will interview grantee staff, review program documents, and in some instances observe programs in operation. For example, when we accompanied HHS during two grantee site visits in March of this year, HHS and one of the grantees discussed challenges the grantee was experiencing with recruiting participants. HHS discovered that the grantee, whose target population included a rural district, was struggling to meet its goal for the number of participants it initially believed it would serve. The HHS official referred the grantee for technical assistance in order to help it improve participant recruitment and retention. HHS officials told us that monitoring site visits was a priority for them and their goal was to visit all grantees within the first 3 years of the award period. As of August 2008, HHS told us that approximately 84 percent of grantees had received a site visit from HHS since September of 2006, when the programs were first funded. Our survey results confirmed that HHS had visited most of the grantees in the first 2 years.12

HHS Lacks Guidance for Conducting Site Visits and Other Monitoring Activities HHS staff lack specific guidance for conducting site visits and other monitoring activities, according to our interviews with HHS staff, visits and interviews with grantees, and file reviews. As a result, the length and types of issues reviewed and documentation examined by HHS during site visits varied depending on who conducted the visit. HHS officials told us that staff responsible for monitoring are to use the legislation, grant announcements, and site visit protocol as guidance to monitor grantee performance. Although legislation and grant announcements provide some general guidance, they do not specifically define what is permitted under each allowed activity. For example, the grant announcement lists marriage education as an allowed activity for some grantees, but does not specifically describe what marriage education activities are permitted under the grant. We also found the site visit

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

55

protocol provided by HHS was limited to a checklist of topics for HHS to cover during grantee site visits. The checklist did not detail the process, the criteria for conducting monitoring site visits, or the key items to be examined, leaving each monitoring staff member the discretion to determine what information to gather and how best to gather it. Moreover, we found other inconsistencies in how HHS conducts monitoring visits. For example, during some monitoring site visits, HHS staff observed grantees providing services while in other instances they did not. According to HHS officials, HHS staff are required only to observe services if the timing of the visit coincides with services, but they are not required to schedule monitoring site visits to coincide with sessions. Because some HHS officials do not observe grantees providing services, they cannot confirm that the services are in fact being provided or that the funding is being spent as intended. The lack of sufficient guidance from HHS may have led HHS staff to inconsistently apply HHS policy among some grantees. For example, through our interviews and file review, we found that some monitoring staff members allowed several Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantees to use incentives to retain program participants, while others were told they were not permitted to use similar incentives. From our review of grantee files, we found instances where HHS staff worked with grantees to adjust or lower the goals they developed for themselves to meet second-year targets. Other grantees who did not meet their year-1 performance goals were not permitted to adjust their performance targets. In another example, HHS officials told us that abstinence education was not allowable under the Healthy Marriage program, but we observed during our site visits and review of grantee data several Healthy Marriage grantees operating programs that focused on abstinence education.

HHS’s Ability to Target Grantees Not in Compliance with Grant Requirements or Not Meeting Performance Goals Is Hindered by the Lack of an Effective Management Information System The lack of an effective management information system that captures key information on individual grantees hinders HHS’s ability to appropriately identify which grantees are not in compliance with grant requirements or are not meeting performance goals. Although it maintains paper files on each grantee, the breadth and detail in these files vary considerably. For example, some HHS staff keep very detailed logs on grantees, while others maintain

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

56

U. S. Government Accountability Office

minimal records. Moreover, the information in these files is not always used to target grantees in need of assistance or to identify how grantees are using their funds. For example, one grantee used grant funds to provide marriage education services not allowed under its grant to participants. Although information such as how grantees are using their funds should be contained in the files, the grantee in this instance was notified months after initiating services that the program was not allowed, causing the grantee to use alternative sources of funding to provide services. Moreover, through our case studies, we found instances where grantees did not receive timely feedback on progress reports, documents that are part of the files HHS maintains on individual grantees. These files provide an early alert to problems grantees may be experiencing and could potentially identify grantees at risk of not meeting performance goals. Despite HHS having this information, some grantees told us that they did not receive timely feedback from HHS, causing them setbacks in implementing program activities. Without an effective management information system, HHS has not been able to take a strategic approach to conducting grantee site visits and other monitoring activities. Although HHS told us that grantees experiencing challenges should receive priority for site visits, our review of a random sample of grantee files showed that several grantees were having difficulty recruiting participants, yet HHS did not always give them priority for on-site review. Moreover, during our site visits, some grantees told us they were experiencing difficulty meeting participation goals or recruiting the number of participants they indicated to HHS they would serve through their program. These grantees also were not targeted specifically for on-site monitoring. Specifically, the decision of which grantees to visit and in what order was left to the discretion of HHS staff, according to HHS officials. Because grantees that were experiencing challenges did not always receive priority for monitoring site visits and these site visits were scheduled based on HHS staff scheduling preferences, we found that monitoring was not always based on grantee risk or need. HHS told us it is in the process of developing a database that will help it standardize and combine grantee communications and performance information. According to HHS, the first phase of the web-based management information system has been completed. The system is designed to replace the paper files and, according to HHS, will considerably reduce or eliminate inconsistencies in HHS’s recordkeeping. The management information system will capture performance indicators developed by the grantee and submitted semiannually in grantee programmatic progress reports, such as grantees’

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

57

progress toward meeting participant recruitment goals and changes in participant behavior. The new system should allow HHS to better manage and search for grantee information, upload grantee communications, and track data from grantee programmatic progress reports. It is not clear, however, when HHS will be able to include uniform performance indicators that it plans to collect from individual grantees. HHS officials told us that performance indicators have been developed, but are pending implementation while they are currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget. HHS said it anticipates having grantees begin collecting data in autumn or early winter of 2008, the start of the third year of funding for the 5-year initiative. According to HHS, the uniform performance indicators will eventually be part of its planned management information system.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

HHS HAS LONG-TERM RESEARCH UNDERWAY INTENDED TO ASSESS PROGRAM IMPACT HHS has four multiyear studies of marriage and fatherhood programs underway that are intended to assess the impact of the programs on various populations and understudied groups, the final results of which are expected between 2011 and 2013. Funded partially by the DRA, HHS awarded contracts to three organizations—RTI International; Mathematica Policy Research; and MDRC—that competitively bid to conduct the evaluations, which run over several years and across several marriage or fatherhood programs.13 Two of the impact studies will exclusively follow grantees funded under the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, while the other two studies will follow a mix of grantees and healthy marriage programs not funded under the Initiative. In all cases, the programs being studied primarily offer participants skills-based marriage or fatherhood education. The primary focus of HHS’s research is to determine the impact, if any, marriage and fatherhood programs have on couples, families, and fathers as a result of participation in the programs. Impact evaluations are the strongest method for assessing the efficacy of a program because they allow for a comparison between similar groups that differ only with respect to whether they received a service or “treatment.” However, they often are difficult and expensive to conduct because they take years to complete and it often is difficult to retain enough participants to produce meaningful results. Prior research has focused on the impact of marriage services on middle-income families and couples. A

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

58

U. S. Government Accountability Office

review of the literature, sponsored by HHS, on the overall impact of marriage and relationship programs found that, on average, middle-income couples receiving services showed increased relationship satisfaction and improved communication skills. HHS’s research agenda represents the first major federal effort to study the impact of healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs on low-income populations and is part of a wider body of research being developed by HHS.14 Two of the three healthy marriage studies—the Building Strong Families (BSF) and the Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM) evaluations—focus on low-income couples who are expecting or have recently had a child. The BSF is following 5,103 low-income unmarried couples across seven marriage programs around the time of the birth of a child using data collected at three stages of participants’ lives. The SHM study is examining the effects of healthy marriage programs on 6,860 married couples across eight marriage programs. The third healthy marriage study—the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative—expands its focus beyond specific target populations to entire communities: the initiative is comparing couples in three different geographic communities with federally funded healthy marriage programs— Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Dallas, Texas; and St. Louis, Missouri—with three demographically similar communities—Cleveland, Ohio; Ft. Worth, Texas; and Kansas City, Missouri—where there are no federally funded healthy marriage programs. The study, which involves 4,200 participants, will explore whether the presence of intensive healthy marriage programs promotes changes in attitudes and behavior toward marriage in the communities being studied. In addition to the three healthy marriage evaluations, HHS also is funding an impact evaluation of Responsible Fatherhood programs. The National Evaluation of the Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated and Re-entering Fathers and Their Partners (MFS-IP) began in 2006, when the first year of Responsible Fatherhood funds became available, and is currently enrolling participants. The MFS-IP, much like the three marriage studies, will explore changes in couple quality and changes in attitudes toward marriage. In addition, the MFSIP will assess changes in outcomes for employment and economic stability, in line with the parameters of activities allowed under the legislation for Responsible Fatherhood grantees (see figure 8). For all four studies, evaluators will collect outcome data for the couples participating in programs at various stages of the study and then compare the results against groups of couples who did not participate in the programs. Because the two groups are, by nature of the study design, similar in every

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

59

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

major respect, any differences between the two groups can be attributed to the program. The evaluators for the four studies differed on the methods they used to create these two groups. Two of the four studies, the BSF and the SHM, randomly assign couples to either a group that receives services (the experimental group) or group that does not (the control group). The other two studies are quasi-experimental. This type of study uses methods other than random assignment to create a comparison group, such as selecting a set of individuals who have similar characteristics to the group receiving the program services under study. To compare these groups in the four studies over time, the evaluators are conducting surveys and interviews, generally 1 year and 3 years after participating in a program, in order to gauge couples’ and families’ outcomes. The surveys ask questions about how couples are communicating after participating in a program; whether they are using the skills they learned in the program; and how they would rate, overall, the quality of their relationship since participating in the program. The evaluators also will administer the same surveys to the couples not participating in Healthy Marriage or Responsible Fatherhood programs in order to make comparisons between the two groups. For example, the BSF study will examine a range of outcomes, including whether marriage services improved marital relationships, reduced marital instability, and improved child well-being.

Source: Data provided by HHS. a The official title of this Impact Study is “The National Evaluation of the Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers and Their Partners.” Figure 8. HHS Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Impact Research Studies

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

60

U. S. Government Accountability Office

In general, we found the evaluations to be well-designed and rigorous, however, there are inherent difficulties presented by the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative, which assesses the impact of healthy marriage programs on entire geographic areas. Specifically, it may be difficult to find and study true comparison communities. One positive feature of the study is the collection of baseline data for each of the participating communities; however, it is difficult to determine if the contractors have captured and controlled for the important variables needed to match the communities. In addition, it will be difficult to determine if changes in the community stem from Healthy Marriage program services or some other factors.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSIONS Marriage and fatherhood programs have emerged as a national strategy for improving the well-being of children. The federal government has committed $150 million annually for 5 years for these programs and provided for an evaluation the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative to determine how well the Initiative is working for low-income populations. While HHS has made an effort to visit nearly all of the programs in their first 2 years of operations, absent mechanisms for detecting grantee compliance and performance issues, some grantees did not receive monitoring and technical assistance soon enough and had to make modifications to their program well into implementation. Moreover, effective monitoring was hampered by a lack of an effective management information system that captures key information, including uniform performance indicators for grantees, and the lack of consistent and clear monitoring guidance. Without an effective monitoring system or clear and consistent monitoring guidance, grantees may continue to be at risk of noncompliance with HHS policy or of not meeting performance requirements.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION In order to improve monitoring and oversight of Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantees, we are recommending that the Secretary of HHS:

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative 



61

employ a risk-based approach to monitoring grantees and conducting grantee site visits, using its planned management information system and information from both progress reports and uniform performance indicators to help identify those grantees at risk of not meeting performance goals or not in compliance with grant requirements; and create clear, consistent guidance and policy for monitoring Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantees.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION We provided a draft of this chapter to HHS for its comments; these appear in appendix V. In its comments, HHS concurred with our recommendation that it employ a risk-based approach to monitoring using its planned management information system and performance indicators to help identify grantees for monitoring, saying these tools would further enhance oversight and monitoring efforts currently underway. In its comments, HHS states that it has already developed and implemented this portion of the recommendation, including developing a customized approach to prioritizing site visits and technical assistance. However, HHS caveats that only the first phase of its web-based management information system has been completed and that performance indicators that would help them identify those grantees at risk, are still awaiting approval by OMB. A fully implemented management information system with performance indicators in place will further enhance HHS’s ability to monitor grantees based on risk. HHS disagreed with the portion of our recommendation that HHS lacks specific guidance for conducting monitoring site visits. In its comments, HHS stated that it developed a clear, comprehensive, and thorough protocol and trained project officers on the critical and essential items that must be covered during grantee site visits. As we stated in our report, this protocol was limited to a checklist of topics to be covered during the site visit and did not describe the process to be followed or criteria to be used to monitor grantees. Moreover, the lack of clarity in this protocol may have contributed to the inconsistencies in how site visits were administered by HHS staff, as noted in our report. HHS also stated in its response that fiscal oversight or monitoring a grantee’s fiscal compliance can be used as an alternative mechanism to confirm whether grantees are providing services or spending funds as the grant intended. While we agree that monitoring grantee’s fiscal compliance is

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

62

U. S. Government Accountability Office

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

essential, HHS’s comments do not change our view that observing activities is critical to confirming that grantees are actually providing services as intended by the grant. Finally, HHS commented on our finding that some grantees were operating programs focused on abstinence education. HHS stated that it is impermissible to use Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) funding for abstinence education, however, grantees may use funding from other sources to provide abstinence education through programs separate from the Healthy Marriage and Fatherhood programs. We visited one such program whose staff told us that they used DRA funding to support their abstinence education program and that abstinence education was not provided as a single lesson, but was the focus of the entire curriculum. HHS also provided technical changes to a draft of the chapter, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate. Sincerely yours,

Kay E. Brown Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

APPENDIX I: OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY To gain insight into how Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood programs are being implemented, we were asked to report on (1) how the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded grants and the types of organizations that received funding; (2) the activities and services grantees are providing, including those for domestic violence victims; (3) the manner in which HHS monitors and assesses program implementation and use of funds; and (4) how program impact is measured. To address the objectives, we conducted a Web-based survey of 122 Healthy Marriage and 94 Responsible Fatherhood grantees asking them to provide information about various aspects of their programs. We received a response rate of 98 percent. We also visited 14 grantees in Washington, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Indiana, Oregon, and the District of Columbia. In addition, we conducted telephone interviews with organizations that provide

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

63

technical assistance to grantees and help other organizations develop fatherhood programs. To further understand the criteria HHS used to award grants and the manner in which HHS monitors and assesses program implementation, we reviewed 50 grantee case files, 40 randomly and 10 deliberately selected, examining documents such as applications, semiannual progress and financial reports, grantee selection panel score sheets, and correspondences between the grantees and agency officials. To determine how program impact is measured, we interviewed organizations that received contracts to conduct impact evaluations of Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood interventions and assessed their methodological approach to measuring impact.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Survey of Marriage and Fatherhood Programs To address all of our objectives, we conducted a Web-based survey of all 216 demonstration grantees that provided direct services to participants, 122 Healthy Marriage and 94 Responsible Fatherhood grantees.15 We asked grantees about various aspects of their programs, including the characteristics of their organization, services they offered, experience providing similar services, curricula used, their process and procedures for identifying domestic violence, staff training; and any evaluations the grantees were conducting on their own. In order to identify respondents for our survey, we obtained lists of grantees and contact information from HHS’s Administration for Children and Families and their Office of Grants Management. We compared the two lists to compile the most accurate list of grant recipients and contact information. In some cases, we contacted the organization directly to determine the appropriate contact person and obtain updated information. Of the 216 grantees contacted, 211 provided information, for a response rate of 98 percent. The survey data was collected from February 2008 to April 2008. Because this was not a sample survey, it has no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in interpreting a particular question, sources of information available to respondents, or entering data into a database or analyzing them can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in developing the questionnaire, collecting the data, and analyzing them to minimize such nonsampling error. For example, prior to launching our survey, we worked with social science survey specialists to develop the questionnaire and

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

64

U. S. Government Accountability Office

minimize error. We tested the content and format of the questionnaire with multiple grantees prior to administering the survey to address issues such as differences in question interpretation, and differences in data tracking. We conducted 10 survey pretests. As a result of our pretests, we changed survey questions as appropriate and tested those changes with grantees that participated in our original pretests. Further, the final pretests were performed using the Web-based survey tool, which checked for accuracy and usability. To ensure grantees responded to the survey, we sent e-mail reminders and conducted follow-up telephone calls with nonrespondents. Since this was a Web-based survey, respondents entered their answers directly into the electronic questionnaire, eliminating the need to key data into a database, minimizing error. We used content coding, computer edits, and independent analysts to assess the reliability of the information collected.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Site Visits to 14 Grantees To gather information to respond to all of these questions, we visited 14 grantees—9 Healthy Marriage grantees and 5 Responsible Fatherhood grantees—in Washington, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Indiana, Oregon, and the District of Columbia. We selected grantees to achieve variation in geographic location, type of grant awarded, award amount, services, organization type, program curriculum, and the programs’ target populations. During each site visit we asked the grantees about the grant application process and their programs, including accessibility of funds, services provided, guidance and communication with HHS, and challenges the grantees experienced. During seven of these site visits, we observed the implementation of marriage and fatherhood services. Further, we also observed HHS staff in the process of conducting two grantee site visits. In analyzing our site visit interviews we arrayed and analyzed narrative responses thematically. The site visits were conducted from December 2007 through April 2008.

File Review Further, to learn about the criteria used to award grants and HHS’s monitoring activities, we conducted a review of 50 grantee case files out of the total 229 grants awarded in September 2006. We conducted a simple random sample of 40 Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantee case

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

65

files—28 Healthy Marriage grantees and 12 Responsible Fatherhood grantees. We also deliberately selected and reviewed an additional 10 grantee case files; the team deliberately reviewed case files for 1 technical assistance grantee, 6 grantees that assist other organizations with developing fatherhood programs, and 3 grantees we visited. During the case file review, we examined documents contained in the grantee’s case file including, the grantee’s original and continuation application, semiannual progress and financial reports, grantee selection panel score summary sheets, correspondences between the grantee and agency officials, and site visit reports. We reviewed the documents to assess HHS’s compliance with its grants policy manual and to understand how HHS monitors use of funds. We also reviewed Single Audit Reports for the selected sample of grantees. To facilitate the case file review, we developed a data collection instrument to record specific information for each case file reviewed. We used content coding to analyze the qualitative information from our data collection instrument. We conducted our review onsite at HHS’s Administration for Children and Families.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Review of Internal HHS Documents and Interviews with HHS Officials We also reviewed the HHS grant selection criteria included in the grant announcements and HHS’s internal guidance on grant selection processes which we compared to the selection of Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant recipients. In addition to these reviews, we interviewed HHS and the contractor responsible for hiring reviewers and organizing the review panels. To determine how HHS measures program impact, we collected survey instruments, design papers, and program guidelines for each of the four impact evaluations underway in order to assess their methodological soundness. In addition, we interviewed HHS staff responsible for overseeing the contractors responsible for the impact evaluations. To gauge how HHS is monitoring the progress of grantees, we interviewed HHS staff regarding its process for monitoring grantees, including guidance used and staff training provided to determine how HHS monitors and assesses program implementation and use of funds.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

66

U. S. Government Accountability Office

Interviews with Experts

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

To identify critical components that should be included in services provided by grantees, we interviewed multiple experts in the areas of marriage, fatherhood, and domestic violence. We also interviewed grantees and contractors that were not direct providers of healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood services but received funding under the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative to provide technical assistance to demonstration grantees, conduct research, and help other organizations develop fatherhood programs. We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to September 2008, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

67

APPENDIX II: GRANTEE SELECTION CRITERIA

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

40

Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Community Access (5 grants awarded)

National Fatherhood CapacityBuilding Grants(1 grant awarded) 35

40

Healthy Marriage Resource Center (1 grant awarded)

40

Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood Research Initiative (3 grants awarded)

Approach Staff and position data Results and benefits expected Objectives and need for assistance Budget and budget justification Organizational profile Evaluation Experience (bonus points) Total score possible

Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Grants(94 grants awarded)

Criteria

Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants (122 grants awarded)

Score values

40 20

45 15

15 10

10

15

10

15

15

15

15

15

10

20 15 5 105

20 15 5 105

20 15 5 100

20 15 105

20 20

100

Source: Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant announcements.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

100

68

U. S. Government Accountability Office

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX III: STATES AND TERRITORIES WITH GRANTEES THAT PROVIDE DIRECT SERVICES TO PARTICIPANTS AS OF FEBRUARY 2008 State or territory Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada

Number of Healthy Marriage grantees 2 0

Number of Responsible Fatherhood grantees 0 1

1

0

1

3 1 10 6 0 0

1 1 9 3 2 1

4 2 19 9 2 1

0

3

3

10 4 0 0 3 5 2 1 3 0 1 3 1 3 0 1 5 0 0 0

3 3 1 1 2 2 1 0 1 2 1 4 0 6 4 0 1 2 0 0

13 7 1 1 5 7 3 1 4 2 2 7 1 9 4 1 6 2 0 0

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Total 2 1

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

State or territory New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total

Table. (Continued) Number of Healthy Number of Responsible Marriage grantees Fatherhood grantees

69

Total

0

1

1

0 5 4

1 1 7

1 6 11

3

1

4

0 7 2 2 6 0

0 3 1 1 5 1

0 10 3 3 11 1

0

1

1

0 1 15 1 0 3 2 0 5 1 122

2 2 6 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 94

2 3 21 1 1 5 3 1 6 1 216

Source: GAO analysis of HHS-provided data. Note: These data represent Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood demonstration grantees only.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

70

U. S. Government Accountability Office

APPENDIX IV: CURRICULA BEING USED BY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD GRANTEES AND FREQUENCY OF USE

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Name of curriculum

ORG Designeda Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP)a PREPARE/ENRICHa 24/7a Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skill (PAIRS)a Premarital Interpersonal Choices & Knowledge (PICK)/ a.k.a. How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk or Jerkettea Focus and Re-focusa Nurturing Fathers Connections Love’s Cradle WAITa LoveU2 Family Wellness Fragile Familiesa Mastering the Magic of Love Inside Out Dads Loving Couples Loving Children STEPa Ten Great Dates Responsible Fatherhood Active Relationships Basic Training for Couples Fatherhood Development Quenching the Fathers Thirst Smart Steps for Stepfamilies Eight Habits of Successful Marriages

Number of Healthy Marriage grantees using curriculum 44

Number of Responsible Fatherhood grantees using curriculum 37

41

12

28 2

6 21

19

3

18

1

11 0 10 8 8 6 7 3 5 0 5 3 3 0 3 3 0 0 3 2

2 11 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 5 0 2 2 4 1 0 3 3 0 1

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

Name of curriculum

Table. (Continued) Number of Healthy Marriage grantees using curriculum

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Relationship Enhancement Bringing Baby Home Choosing the Best Power of Two Preparing for Successful Fathering Effective Black Parenting Building Blocks for Successful Relationships and Parenting Financial Literacy LINKS Married and Loving It

71

2 2 2 2 0 0

Number of Responsible Fatherhood grantees using curriculum 1 0 0 0 2 2

1

1

1 1 1

1 1 1

Source: GAO analysis of Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantees' responses to survey. Note: These data are from our survey question regarding curricula and include data from the options listed and those provided in the optional write-in box. In addition to these curricula listed, 59 grantees provided the name of a curriculum that only 1 grantee reported using. a Denotes curricula listed in survey question. Others provided in written responses by grantees.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

72

U. S. Government Accountability Office

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX V: COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

73

U. S. Government Accountability Office

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

74

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

75

U. S. Government Accountability Office

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

76

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

77

U. S. Government Accountability Office

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

78

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

79

End Notes

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1

In 2006, HHS awarded a total of 229 grants, of which 216 were Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood demonstration grants that provided direct services to participants. We surveyed all of these grantees. We did not survey the remaining grantees: those that either provided research or technical assistance, assisted organizations with developing fatherhood programs, or relinquished their grants. Moreover, we did not survey organizations that received money from grant recipients to provide direct services, subawardees. Since making the initial awards, 4 organizations have relinquished their grants, 1 organization had its grant terminated, and 1 new grant was awarded. There are 6 organizations currently pending non-continuation of award funds. 2 We purposively selected 10 additional case files to review. They were selected based on the types of assistance provided or were part of our site visits. 3 The DRA restricted HHS to awarding no more than $50 million each year for Responsible Fatherhood activities and $2 million each year for coordination between Tribal TANF and child welfare services. 4 GAO, Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity, GAO-03-454 (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2003). 5 GAO, Welfare Reform: More Information Needed to Assess Promising Strategies to Increase Parents’ Incomes, GAO-06-108 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2, 2005). 6 According to HHS, they amended an existing Dixon Group contract to include additional services relating to the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative. 7 At least one organization received a grant after having its application rescored. 8 Grant announcements noted that participants of marriage education services must receive a minimum of 8 hours of instruction delivered over time, or the number of instructional hours and days commensurate with the established guidelines required by the author of the curriculum used. 9 Eligible men include fathers, expectant fathers, and father figures and eligible women include mothers. 10 All nonfederal entities that expend $500,000 or more of federal awards in a year are required to obtain an annual audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1996 and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments and NonProfit Organizations.” A single audit combines an annual financial statement audit with additional audit coverage of federal funds. HHS receives an audit reporting package for grantees that expend more than $500,000 or more in federal awards from the Federal Audit Clearinghouse administered by the Department of Commerce. 11 All but 2 of 207 grantee respondents indicated they had contact with HHS monitoring staff. 12 When we surveyed grantees in February 2008, about 60 percent reported receiving a site visit from HHS. 13 Research is partially funded with DRA and other HHS funding. 14 The wider body of HHS’s research agenda includes four studies running alongside the impact evaluations that will evaluate how the marriage and fatherhood programs being studied for the impact evaluation are being implemented. HHS also has awarded three grants under the DRA to study Responsible Fatherhood curricula. 15 While 229 grants were awarded, we only surveyed the 216 demonstration grantees that provided direct services to participants.

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

INDEX

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

A abstinence, 24, 44, 55, 62 abusive, 15, 18, 49 accessibility, 64 accuracy, 64 ACF, 7, 12 administrative, 5, 41, 50 adults, 3 advertisements, 47, 50 advertising, 40, 47, 50 advocacy, 50 after-school, 39 age, 2, 10, 11, 14, 19 aid, 11, 17, 40 Alabama, 68 Alaska, 68 alcohol, 11, 13 alternative, 18, 56, 61 amendments, 26 analysts, viii, 2, 5, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 64 appendix, 36, 43, 48, 61 application, 39, 42, 45, 64, 65, 79 appropriations, 20 Arizona, 68 Arkansas, 68 AT&T, 28 attitudes, 10, 13, 38, 58 auditing, 35, 66

authority, 5, 24 avoidance, 16 awareness, 37, 49

B banking, 16 barriers, 4, 5, 9 behavior, 6, 10, 53, 57, 58 behavioral problems, vii, 1, 3 benefits, 5, 16, 19, 40, 67 biological parents, vii, 1, 3, 10, 18 birth, 10, 15, 38, 58 births, 3, 10, 19, 39 bonus, 43, 67

C campaigns, viii, 2, 5, 24, 25, 47 Census, 27 Census Bureau, 27 child abuse, 39, 40 child rearing, 3 Child Support Enforcement, viii, 2, 3, 12, 27, 29 child welfare, 18, 41, 79 child well-being, 38, 39, 59

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

82

Index

childbearing, 8 childhood, vii, 1, 3, 14 children, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31, 34, 39, 40, 46, 60 classes, 44 classroom, 37, 47, 48, 49 classroom settings, 47 Clinton Administration, 19 coding, 64, 65 Colorado, 12, 14, 68 communication, 8, 48, 53, 58, 64 communication skills, 8, 48, 58 communities, 14, 26, 33, 37, 40, 43, 44, 46, 58, 60 community, viii, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, 29, 44, 50, 60 community service, 10, 13 compatibility, 46 complexity, 18 compliance, 13, 32, 33, 37, 38, 52, 53, 55, 60, 61, 65 components, 3, 5, 12, 16, 23, 25, 66 conflict, viii, 2, 6, 9, 11 conflict resolution, viii, 2, 6 Congress, vii, viii, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 34, 39 Connecticut, 68 consensus, 4 constraints, 42 consulting, 42 contractors, 60, 65, 66 contracts, 7, 35, 57, 63 control, 8, 59 control group, 8, 59 costs, 24, 41 counsel, 13 counseling, 15, 22, 25, 26, 27, 40, 44 counterbalance, 5 couples, 6, 10, 11, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 57, 58, 59 courts, 27 credit, 20 curriculum, 44, 46, 48, 62, 64, 70, 71, 79 curriculum development, 44

D Dallas, 58 data collection, 65 database, 56, 63 decisions, 29, 38 Deficit Reduction Act, vii, viii, 2, 4, 7, 24, 26, 31, 33, 34, 39, 40, 62 Delaware, 68 delivery, 12, 14 demographic characteristics, 10 Demonstration Project, 8, 13, 28 Department of Commerce, 79 Department of Health and Human Services, viii, 7, 12, 15, 22, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 62, 72 discipline, 6 discourse, 15 discretionary, vii, viii, 31, 34, 39 distribution, 40 District of Columbia, 35, 42, 44, 62, 64, 68 diversity, 43 domestic violence, ix, 9, 11, 18, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 53, 62, 63, 66 draft, 61, 62 drugs, 11

E earnings, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 economic stability, 25, 26, 36, 40, 46, 58 economic status, 18, 22, 40 education, 20, 40, 62 emotional, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 20 emotional well-being, 3, 8 employers, 9 employment, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, 25, 26, 58 employment status, 10 encouragement, 40 environment, 11 execution, 41

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Index Executive Office of the President, 4 expenditures, 41

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

F facilitators, 45 faith, 4, 14, 20, 21, 44 familial, 41 family, 8, 10, 18, 24, 29, 50 family income, 8 family relationships, 18 family structure, 18 federal funds, 54, 79 federal government, vii, viii, 2, 4, 15, 17, 34, 60 feedback, 45, 56 financial planning, 40 financial support, 5, 6, 7, 16 firms, 41 focusing, 3, 26 food, 17, 20, 50 food stamp, 20 food stamps, 20 Ford, 28 funding, viii, ix, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 50, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 66, 79 funds, viii, ix, 2, 3, 7, 16, 19, 20, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, 41, 53, 56, 58, 61, 62, 64, 65, 79

G gauge, 33, 38, 59, 65 gender, 6 Georgia, 68 gift, 51 gift card, 51 goals, vii, 3, 9, 12, 23, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 61 government, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 34, 35, 60, 66 Government Accountability Office, 31 graduate students, 42

83

grants, vii, viii, 2, 4, 7, 12, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 62, 63, 64, 67, 79 groups, viii, 2, 8, 15, 16, 32, 37, 38, 39, 46, 57, 58, 59 guidance, 6, 32, 33, 37, 38, 43, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 64, 65 guidelines, 13, 27, 65, 79

H Harvard, 27 Hawaii, 68 health, viii, 2, 5, 10, 11, 14, 20, 40, 49 Health and Human Services, viii, Health and Human Services (HHS), viii, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 79 health care, viii, 2, 5, 11, 20 health care system, viii, 2, 5 health services, 44 high school, 4, 9, 11, 37, 39, 40, 44, 46, 50 high school degree, 11 hiring, 65 hospital, 15 House, viii, 2, 4, 6, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 34 household, 19 households, vii, 34, 39 housing, 20

I id, 9 Idaho, 68 Illinois, 28, 68 implementation, ix, 12, 14, 32, 35, 45, 57, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65 incentives, 13, 18, 41, 50, 55 incidence, 3, 34

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

84

Index

income, vii, viii, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 46, 50, 57, 58, 60 income tax, 20 incomes, vii, 1, 3 Indian, viii, 2, 7, 21, 24, 26, 29 Indiana, 14, 35, 62, 64, 68 indicators, 33, 38, 57, 61 instability, 38, 59 instruction, 48, 79 instructors, 49 instruments, 65 intangible, 16 interaction, viii, 2, 4, 16 interactions, 6 interview, 11, 54 interviews, 10, 35, 37, 54, 55, 59, 62, 64

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

J job mobility, 8 job preparation, 19 job training, 6, 8, 22, 25, 26 jobs, 9, 10, 11, 13, 20 justification, 43, 67

K Kentucky, 68

L labor, 8, 11 labor force, 8 labor force participation, 8 language, 48 Latino, 48 Latinos, 50 law, 3, 5, 18, 19, 23, 27, 39, 42 laws, 5 legislation, 4, 7, 22, 24, 36, 39, 42, 54, 58 lifetime, 19 links, 14 listening, 6

literacy, 39 living arrangements, 11 local government, vii, 1, 3, 23 long-term impact, 33, 38 Louisiana, 68 low-income, vii, viii, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 46, 50, 58, 60

M Maine, 68 maintenance, vii, 2, 3, 7, 18, 19, 34, 39 Maintenance-of-Effort, viii, 2, 7 management, 32, 33, 38, 40, 42, 53, 55, 56, 60, 61 marital status, 19 market, 11 marriage, vii, viii, 2, 3, 10, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 66, 79 marriages, vii, viii, 18, 21, 24, 29, 31, 34, 39 married couples, 10, 40, 58 Maryland, 12, 14, 68 Massachusetts, 12, 14, 28, 68 measures, 16, 24, 53, 65 media, viii, 2, 5, 24, 25, 26, 40 mediation, viii, 2, 6, 13, 25, 26, 27, 40 men, 4, 8, 9, 11, 16, 50, 79 mental health, 44 mentor, 4, 17 mentoring, 6, 22, 25, 26, 40 Mexico, 35, 62, 64, 69 Minnesota, 14, 29, 68 minorities, 50 minority, 32, 46, 50 minority groups, 32 Mississippi, 68 Missouri, 12, 58, 68 mobility, 8 models, 8, 40 MOE, viii, 2, 3, 7, 27 money, 19, 26, 79 Montana, 68

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Index motherhood, 3 mothers, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 79 motion, 24

N

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

nation, 39 natural, 10, 17 Nebraska, 68 negative consequences, 14, 39 neglect, 39 Nevada, 68 New Jersey, 28, 69 New Mexico, 35, 62, 64, 69 New York, 14, 27, 28, 69 noncustodial fathers, vii, 1, 3, 4, 9, 13, 14, 17, 21 nongovernmental, 6 North Carolina, 69 nuclear, 18 nursing, 43

O obligation, 5 obligations, 4, 16, 23 Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 38, 57, 61, 79 Ohio, 28, 58, 69 Oklahoma, 35, 62, 64, 69 Oregon, 35, 62, 64, 69 oversight, 38, 60, 61

P PAIRS, 70 paper files, 37, 55, 56 parent involvement, 25, 26, 40 parent-child, 6 parenthood, 14 parenting, viii, 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 32, 36, 40, 44, 46

85

parents, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 33, 39, 40, 46, 50 partnership, 9, 13 partnerships, 10, 14, 17 paternal, 5 paternity, 6, 14, 15 peer, viii, 2, 6, 8, 9, 42, 43 peer review, 42, 43 peer support, viii, 2, 6, 8, 9 Pennsylvania, 14, 69 percentage of fat, 46 performance indicator, 32, 33, 35, 38, 56, 60, 61 personal responsibility, vii, 1, 3, 16 phone, 37, 53 planning, 40, 41 play, 4, 11 poor, 10, 14 population, 13, 27, 43, 48, 50, 54 positive relation, 14 positive relationship, 14 poverty, vii, 1, 3, 9, 14, 39 pregnant, 40 pregnant women, 40 presidency, 20 President Bush, viii, 2, 4, 20, 21, 26 President Clinton, 20 private, vii, 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 22, 28, 32, 36, 42, 44 private sector, 10 private-sector, 13 problem-solving skills, viii, 2, 6 profit, 44 progress reports, 32, 33, 37, 38, 53, 56, 61 promotion campaigns, 50 protocol, 54, 61 protocols, 37, 49 public welfare, 10

Q qualifications, 43 questionnaire, 63 quizzes, 46

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

86

Index

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

R radio, 50 random, 56, 59, 64 random assignment, 59 range, 34, 36, 38, 42, 45, 46, 59 reality, 19 recreational, 16 recruiting, 9, 36, 43, 50, 53, 54, 56 regulations, 11 reimbursement, 17 relationship, viii, 2, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 32, 36, 40, 44, 46, 49, 58, 59 relationship satisfaction, 58 relationships, vii, viii, 6, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 31, 34, 36, 38, 46, 49, 59 reliability, 64 research design, 38 resolution, viii, 2, 6 resources, 13, 14, 20 retention, viii, 2, 6, 9, 54 retirement, 16 Rhode Island, 69 risk, 3, 32, 38, 39, 40, 56, 60, 61 RTI International, 57 rural, 54

S safety, 49 Samoa, 42, 44, 68 sample, 9, 10, 56, 63, 64 sample survey, 63 sampling, 63 sampling error, 63 satisfaction, 53, 58 scheduling, 56 school, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 37, 39, 40, 44, 46, 50 school work, 6 schooling, 8 scores, 43 search, viii, 2, 6, 25, 26, 57 seizure, 16

selecting, 36, 42, 59 Senate, viii, 2, 4, 6, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26 Senate Finance Committee, 22, 23, 25 service provider, 27 ssexuality, 6 sharing, 14 SHM, 34, 58, 59 short-term, 18 signs, 37, 49 sites, 8, 14, 15 skills, viii, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 20, 32, 36, 40, 43, 46, 48, 57, 59 skills training, 10, 40, 46 Social Security, 12, 22, 23 social services, 14 Social Services, viii, 2, 7 Social Services Block Grant, viii, 2, 7 South Carolina, 69 South Dakota, 69 sponsor, 47 sporadic, 4 stability, 21, 25, 26, 36, 40, 41, 46, 58 stages, 15, 38, 58 standards, 36, 54, 66 strategies, viii, 2, 5, 42 stress, viii, 2, 3, 6 structuring, 39 students, 39, 42, 44 subsidies, 51 substance abuse, 13, 44 summer, 29 support services, 12

T target population, 32, 35, 36, 43, 45, 54, 58, 64 target populations, 32, 35, 36, 43, 45, 58, 64 targets, 37, 50, 55 teaching, 8, 46, 49 technical assistance, 29, 35, 41, 53, 54, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 79 technical change, 62 telephone, 12, 35, 62, 64

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,

Index Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), viii, 2, 3, 5, 7, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 34, 39, 41, 42, 79 temporary jobs, 9 Tennessee, 28, 69 tension, 15 territory, 68, 69 Texas, 58, 69 threatening, 17 time constraints, 42 time frame, 36, 42, 43 timing, 55 title, 23, 59 tracking, 53, 64 training, viii, 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 22, 25, 26, 40, 42, 46, 63, 65 transportation, 13, 20, 51 tribal, viii, 2, 7, 21, 24, 26, 29 tribes, viii, 2, 7, 21, 24, 26, 29 trust, 17

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

U uniform, 33, 35, 38, 57, 60, 61 unmarried women, 19, 39 upload, 57 Utah, 69

87

V values, 6, 67 variability, 63 variables, 60 variation, 35, 53, 64 Vermont, 69 victims, ix, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39, 46, 49, 62 violence, 34, 37, 39, 48, 49

W wages, 17 wealth, 18 web, 35, 38, 56, 61 web-based, 35, 38, 56, 61 welfare, viii, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 39, 41, 79 welfare reform, 3, 4, 5, 18, 24 well-being, vii, viii, 3, 8, 17, 31, 34, 39, 60 winter, 57 Wisconsin, 12, 14, 28, 29, 58, 69 withdrawal, 53 women, 15, 17, 18, 19, 39, 40, 50, 79 word of mouth, 50 Wyoming, 69

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, edited by Gavin J. Buttone, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated,