[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FATHERHOOD AND WELFARE REFORM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 30, 1998
__________
Serial 105-78
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-554 CC WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
BILL THOMAS, California FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut BARBARA B. KENNELLY, Connecticut
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
AMO HOUGHTON, New York SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON CHRISTENSEN, Nebraska
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri
A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Human Resources
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida, Chairman
DAVE CAMP, Michigan SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
MAC COLLINS, Georgia ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of
converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of July 23, 1998, announcing the hearing................ 2
WITNESSES
Baltimore City Healthy Start Program:
Joseph T. Jones, Jr.......................................... 8
Paul Hope.................................................... 14
Anthony Edwards.............................................. 16
Victor Downing, Sr., and Victor Downing, Jr.................. 17
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Wendell Primus........... 53
Ford Foundation, Ronald B. Mincy................................. 43
Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization,
Charles A. Ballard............................................. 38
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, Gordon L. Berlin.... 62
National Fatherhood Initiative, Wade F. Horn..................... 31
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Catholic Charities/North, Lynn, MA, statement.................... 79
Center for Families, West Lafayette, IN, and Purdue University,
statement...................................................... 81
Citizens for Parental Accountability, Chantilly, VA, Pam Cave,
statement...................................................... 82
Connecticut, State of, Commission on Children, Hartford, CT,
letter......................................................... 82
FATHERHOOD AND WELFARE REFORM
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1998
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:04 a.m., in
room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. E. Clay Shaw,
Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee), presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
CONTACT: (202) 225-1025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 23, 1998
No. HR-17
Shaw Announces Hearing on
Fatherhood and Welfare Reform
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr., (R-FL), Chairman, Subcommittee on
Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced
that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on fatherhood and welfare
reform. The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 30, 1998, in room
B-318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 11:00 a.m.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be taken from invited witnesses only.
Witnesses will include fathers whose children are on welfare,
individuals who have designed and conducted programs for low-income
fathers, advocates for fathers, and researchers. Any individual or
organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written
statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the
printed record of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this hearing is to examine the social, economic, and
legal difficulties faced by unmarried fathers of children on welfare.
Numerous studies suggest that these fathers tend to have lower levels
of education and income as well as elevated rates of unemployment and
incarceration as compared with other fathers. These problems make it
difficult for them to form two-parent families and to play a positive
role in the rearing of their children. Studies also show that the
consequence of father absence is that children, especially boys, are
likely to develop the same problems that afflict their fathers, thus
creating an intergenerational cycle of children being reared in female-
headed families.
On March 3, 1998, Chairman Shaw, along with several other Members
of the Subcommittee, introduced H.R. 3314, the ``Fathers Count Act of
1998.'' The purpose of H.R. 3314 is to prevent this unfortunate cycle
of children being reared in fatherless families by supporting projects
that help fathers meet their responsibilities as marital husbands,
parents, and providers. The bill is aimed at promoting marriage among
parents, helping poor and low-income fathers establish positive
relationships with their children and the children's mothers, promoting
responsible parenting, and increasing family income. The legislation
aims to accomplish these goals by providing a block grant to States to
select and fund community-based projects conducted primarily by non-
profit and faith-based organizations.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Shaw stated: ``These young men
face very difficult problems, and I want the American people and
Members of the Subcommittee to understand how these problems interfere
with their ability to become good husbands and good fathers. If we hope
to reverse the negative cycle of fatherless families, we must begin by
understanding the barriers faced by these fathers and by supporting
community-based and faith-based programs that can help them overcome
these barriers. Promoting marriage and two-parent families, and
aggressively helping these men become responsible parents, is the next
step in welfare reform.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The hearing will focus on two primary issues. First, based on
testimony from young fathers whose children are on welfare, the
Subcommittee hopes to learn first-hand what barriers these fathers face
in attempting to become better parents, to form two-parent families,
and to secure good jobs. Second, the Subcommittee will hear about
programs designed to help fathers overcome these barriers.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement
for the printed record of the hearing should submit six (6) single-
spaced copies of their statement, along with an IBM compatible 3.5-inch
diskette in WordPerfect 5.1 format, with their name, address, and
hearing date noted on a label, by the close of business, Thursday,
August 13, 1998, to A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways
and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. If those filing written statements
wish to have their statements distributed to the press and interested
public at the hearing, they may deliver 200 additional copies for this
purpose to the Subcommittee on Human Resources office, room B-317,
Rayburn House Office Building, at least one hour before the hearing
begins.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed
record or any written comments in response to a request for written
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or
exhibit not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed,
but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the
Committee.
1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must
be submitted on an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette WordPerfect 5.1
format, typed in single space and may not exceed a total of 10 pages
including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the Committee will
rely on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing
record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a
statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting written
comments in response to a published request for comments by the
Committee, must include on his statement or submission a list of all
clients, persons, or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.
4. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the
name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers where the witness or
the designated representative may be reached. This supplemental sheet
will not be included in the printed record.
The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material being
submitted for printing. Statements and exhibits or supplementary
material submitted solely for distribution to the Members, the press,
and the public during the course of a public hearing may be submitted
in other forms.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at ``http://www.house.gov/ways__means/''.
The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons
with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please
call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four
business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special
accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee
materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as
noted above.
Chairman Shaw. Good morning. I am very pleased after a very
late night last night, after 1 a.m., to see that we have got
this many of our Members here this morning. We will be getting
more as they come in. I am also very pleased to see the
interest in this most important subject that is shown by the
visitors and the Members or the people that are going to be
testifying this morning before us. I have been looking forward
to this hearing now for several months because I have come to
believe that fathers are an essential, crucial, irreplaceable
part of both low-income families and of welfare reforms, and
indeed of all families.
It would be impossible to exaggerate how much I respect the
job that single mothers do today. I have even greater respect
for them as a result of their very positive and constructive
response to welfare reform. I have dedicated a great deal of
work during my years in Congress to ensuring that low-income
mothers who are employed get plenty of public support through
the earned income tax credit, child care and medical
assistance, Medicaid assistance, all of which have been
expanded in recent years.
But my vision of America's social policy is not only that
we figure out ways to help single mothers support their
children. Because of my concern for the economic viability of
the family and even more important, for the adequate
development of children, I think we must move beyond simply
helping mothers work. We must take the next step by doing
everything we can do to increase the number of our Nation's
children being raised in two-parent families.
For too long, American social policy has aided and abetted
the creation of never-married female-headed families. As a
result, our Nation is now afflicted by a large number of
neighborhoods that have very few two-parent families--in some
neighborhoods, fewer than 20 percent of the families with
children have two parents living at home.
We have embarked on an experiment in civilization that
poses the following question. Can children--especially boys--be
raised by single mothers in neighborhoods where there are few
adult male role models? The answer is this: In 1995, death by
homicide by black teenage males was four times the rate for
white teenage males, and more than twice as high as it was for
black teenage males as recently as 1980. Similarly, the
homicide rate for white boys nearly doubled over the same
period. We must do something to increase marriage and two-
parent families.
Now I am aware that there are many, including some of the
most respected Members of my own party, who think that getting
government involved in promoting marriage or promoting
fatherhood is foolish. Perhaps so. But many of these same
critics also believe that the old AFDC, Aid to Families With
Dependent Children, Program, as well as our tax policy, have
contributed to the growth of single-parent families. If
government policy can contribute to creating single-parent
families, it seems reasonable to me to conclude a government
policy could also contribute to the demise of the single-parent
family.
Furthermore, the approach I want to take is to give States
money to support community-based and faith-based organizations
to work with these fathers. We are not funding government
programs. We are stimulating the growth of private sector and
faith-based programs.
I admit that there is little evidence to indicate that we
know how to mount effective programs that promote marriage. But
that is why we are having this hearing today. First, I want to
hear from the fathers themselves about how we can promote
marriage and two-parent families. I'll tell you this--I have no
doubt that the fathers who have so generously agreed to come
talk with us today are willing to have lots of changes in their
lives to help their children. I'll bet low-income fathers all
over the country feel the same way.
So here is the key. Fathers want to help their children. We
want to help fathers help their children. We can work this out.
But let's begin with the understanding that the road we will
take will be difficult. Now it's time to get moving.
[The opening statement follows:]
Opening Statement of Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida
I have been looking forward to this hearing for several
months because I have come to believe that fathers are an
essential, crucial, irreplaceable part of both low-income
families and of welfare reform.
It would be impossible to exaggerate how much I respect the
job single mothers do. I have even greater respect for them as
a result of their very positive and constructive response to
welfare reform. And I have dedicated a great deal of work
during my years in Congress to ensuring that low-income mothers
who are employed get plenty of public support through the
earned income credit, child care, and medical assistance--all
of which have been expanded in recent years.
But my vision of American social policy is not only that we
figure out ways to help single mothers support their children.
Because of my concern for the economic viability of the family,
and even more important, for the adequate development of
children, I think we must move beyond simply helping mothers
work. We must take the next step by doing everything we can to
increase the number of our nation's children being raised in
two-parent families.
For too long, American social policy has aided and abetted
the creation of never-married, female-headed families. As a
result, our nation is now afflicted by a large number of
neighborhoods that have very few two-parent families--in some
neighborhoods fewer than 20 percent of the families with
children have two parents.
So we have embarked on an experiment in civilization that
poses the following question: Can children--especially boys--be
raised by single mothers in neighborhoods where there are few
adult male role models? The answer is this: In 1995, death by
homicide for black teenage males was four times the rate for
white teen males and more than twice as high as it was for
black teen males as recently as 1980. Similarly, the homicide
rate for white boys nearly doubled over the same period.
So we must do something to increase marriage and two-parent
families.
Now I am aware that there are many, including some of the
most respected members of my own party, who think that getting
government involved in promoting marriage is foolish. Perhaps
so. But many of these same critics also believe that the old
AFDC program, as well as our tax policy, have contributed to
the growth of single-parent families. So if government policy
can contribute to creating single-parent families, it seems
reasonable to conclude that government policy could also
contribute to the demise of single-parent families.
Furthermore, the approach I want to take is to give states
money to support community-based and faith-based organizations
to work with these fathers. We are not funding government
programs. We are stimulating the growth of private sector and
faith-based programs.
I admit that there is little evidence to indicate that we
know how to mount effective programs that promote marriage. But
that's why we're having this hearing today. First, I want to
hear from the fathers themselves about how we can promote
marriage and two-parent families. I'll tell you this--I have no
doubt that the fathers who have so graciously agreed to come
talk with us today are willing to make lots of changes in their
lives to help their children. And I'll bet low-income fathers
all over the country feel the same way.
So here's the key. Fathers want to help their children. And
we want to help fathers help their children. We can work this
out. But let's begin with the understanding that the road will
be long and difficult. Let's get moving.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Levin, would you have an opening
statement?
Mr. Levin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I commend you
for holding this hearing on helping fathers meet their parental
obligations to their children. Like you, I believe we can do
more to increase the employment and related opportunities of
low-income fathers whose children are on welfare.
I also support efforts, very much so, to help promote
stable two-parent families, recognizing at the same time that
such a goal may not always be achievable. But that is only part
of the equation. We should also help noncustodial fathers make
a direct and immediate improvement in the lives of their
welfare-dependent children. One of the best ways to achieve
this would be to pass through at least a portion of the child
support payments to families receiving public assistance.
Although one could argue that this money should be used to
recoup government welfare costs as it does now, I believe a
better case can be made for sending at least a portion of it to
low-income families. Such a policy would not only immediately
improve the standard of living for many children in poverty,
but it would also make noncustodial fathers feel their efforts
to find and keep a job has made a real difference in their
children's lives. This sense of responsibility is surely
something we want to foster, especially when it could lead to
deeper emotional attachments between fathers and children.
Let me also say that as we discuss new ways, and I applaud
you for exploring them, to help noncustodial fathers meet their
obligations to their children, we should not forget that we
already have several existing programs designed at least in
part for that very purpose. Unfortunately, these same programs
have been mentioned as targets for budget cuts. For example,
the welfare-to-work grants, which the House Budget Committee
targeted for elimination, are being utilized by many States to
help noncustodial parents find and maintain employment.
In fact, my home State of Michigan has instituted a new
program to help noncustodial parents move to self-sufficiency.
Using the welfare-to-work grant moneys, the county friend-of-
the-court offices and the Michigan Jobs Commission are teaming
up to provide services such as unsubsidized employment,
community services, work experience, subsidized private and
public sector employment, on-the-job training, and
postemployment programs to help noncustodial parents. This
program provides an opportunity to ensure that all noncustodial
parents have sufficient employment so that they can make their
required child support payments and contribute to the
upbringing of their kids.
I also understand that some of today's witnesses have
developed programs to help fathers with funding from these
welfare-to-work grants and I look forward to hearing more about
these during their testimony. What is clear is that innovative
programs such as these would cease to exist if the welfare-to-
work program is zeroed out.
Furthermore, the earned income tax credit, EITC, which
could also be on the cuttingboard, increases the take-home pay
of all low-income working parents. It is important to remember
that noncustodial fathers who pay child support are considered
tax filers without qualifying children for the purposes of
EITC. This means that the Budget Committee Chairman's
suggestion to eliminate EITC for so-called childless workers is
clearly at odds with helping fathers support their children.
Finally, I want to mention an issue that impacts millions
of fathers and mothers alike, the availability and
affordability of child care. We have to recognize the intense
pressure on low-income families for both parents to work,
especially since a single minimum wage job leaves families well
below the poverty line. If we are going to help families face
the dual challenges of earning a living and raising a family,
then we have to ensure that they have access to quality
daycare. Unfortunately, no Subcommittee has yet to hold even a
single hearing on the President's proposal to make child care
safer, better, and more affordable for America's working
families.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony of
our witnesses today on helping parents support their children.
Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, I think you would join me in
this, that it seems appropriate during our discussion of
fatherhood, to remember two devoted fathers who recently lost
their lives defending the Nation's Capitol. By all accounts,
Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson were dedicated parents. All of
us could learn from their example. Perhaps we should join in a
brief moment of silence to honor these two fallen Capitol
policemen.
[The opening statement follows:]
Opening Statement of Hon. Sander Levin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing on
helping fathers meet their parental obligations to their
children. Like you, I believe we can do more to increase the
employment opportunities of low-income fathers whose children
are on welfare. I also support efforts to help promote stable
two-parent families, while at the same time recognizing such a
goal is not always possible.
But that is only part of the equation. We should also help
non-custodial fathers make a direct and immediate improvement
in the lives of their welfare-dependent children. One of the
best ways to achieve this would be to ``pass-through'' at least
a portion of the child support payments to families receiving
public assistance.
Although one could argue this money should be used to
recoup government welfare cost (as it does now), I believe a
better case can be made for sending it to low-income families.
Such a policy would not only immediately improve the standard
of living for many children in poverty, but it would also make
non-custodial fathers feel their efforts to find and keep a job
has made a real difference in their children's lives. This
sense of responsibility is surely something we want to foster,
especially when it could lead to deeper emotional attachments
between fathers and children.
Let me also say that as we discuss new ways to help non-
custodial fathers meet their obligations to their children, we
should not forget that we already have a few existing programs
designed, at least in part, for that very purpose.
Unfortunately, these same programs have been mentioned as
targets for budget cuts.
For example, the welfare-to-work grants, which the House
Budget Committee targeted for elimination, are being utilized
by many states to help non-custodial parents find and maintain
employment. In fact, my home state of Michigan has instituted a
new program to help non-custodial parents move to self-
sufficiency. Using the welfare-to-work grant monies, county
Friend of the Court Offices and the Michigan Jobs Commission
are teaming up to provide services such as: unsubsidized
employment, community services, work experience, subsidized
private and public sector employment, on-the-job training and
post-employment programs to help non-custodial parents.
This program provides an opportunity to ensure that all
non-custodial parents have sufficient employment so that they
can make their required child support payments and contribute
to the upbringing of their children. I also understand that
some of today's witnesses have developed programs to help
fathers with funding from these welfare-to-work grants and I
look forward to hearing more about them during their testimony.
What is clear is that innovative programs such as these
would cease to exist if the welfare-to-work program is zeroed
out.
Furthermore, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which
could also be on the proverbial cutting board, increases the
take home pay of all low-income working parents. It is
important to remember that non-custodial fathers who pay child
support are considered tax filers without qualifying children
for the purposes of the EITC. This means Mr. Kaisich's
suggestion to eliminate the EITC for so-called ``childless
workers'' is clearly at odds with helping fathers support their
children.
Finally, I want to mention an issue that impacts millions
of fathers and mothers alike-the availability and affordability
of child care. We have to recognize the intense economic
pressure in low-income families for both parents to work,
especially since a single minimum wage leaves families well
below the poverty line. If we are going to help families face
the dual challenges of earning a living and raising a family,
then we have to ensure they have access to quality day care.
Unfortunately, this subcommittee has yet to hold even a single
hearing on President Clinton's proposal to make child care
safer, better and more affordable for America's working
families.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony of
our witnesses today and helping parents support their children
in the near future.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Levin. I think that would be
both quite appropriate for us, just for one moment, to recall
and appreciate what they stood for and what they did for all of
us. So, we will have one moment.
Thank you. We will now call our first panel. We have Joseph
T. Jones, Jr., who is the director of the Men's Services and
Employment Initiatives at Baltimore Healthy Start Program; Paul
Hope, a participant in the Baltimore Healthy Start Program;
Anthony Edwards, a men's services counselor and graduate of
another responsible fatherhood program. We have a substitute
witness for our fourth member of this panel. The witness that
is on the program is ill, but we have Mr. Downing and we have
his son, which I am very pleased to say, came with him. We want
both Downing and son to join us at the witness table.
I thank all of you. Those of you who have submitted a
written statement, we have that statement for the record. Your
full statement will be made a part of the record. We invite you
to summarize as you see fit.
We will start with you, Mr. Jones.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. JONES, JR., DIRECTOR, MEN'S SERVICES AND
EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVES, BALTIMORE CITY HEALTHY START PROGRAM
Mr. Jones. Good morning, Chairman Shaw and other Members of
the Subcommittee. I want to take this opportunity to thank you
for inviting me to testify and for holding these hearings today
that have potential major implications for the field of
fatherhood.
I would also like to acknowledge some of my colleagues,
mentors, and contributors to my development and to the field.
First, I would like to thank a gentleman who is not here, Ed
Pitt, who is with the Fatherhood Project at the Families and
Work Institute, and also a colleague of mine who is here,
Charles Ballard, who for a long time has laid the path for a
lot of us to do work, and has been an inspiration to many. Also
Dr. Jeffrey Johnson and Ralph Smith, from the Annie E. Casey
Foundation. Mr. Johnson is with the NPCL. I cannot say the
entire name the acronym stands for, but NPCL which is here in
Washington, DC, and doing a lot of field development work.
Second, I would like to thank two people who have really
done a lot to get us to the point where we are today. First
would be Vice President Al Gore, who in 1994 held a family
reunion conference where the theme was the role of men in
children's lives. Many of us here today were at that
conference, and subsequent to that formed a network called the
National Practitioner's Network for Fathers and Families that
is designed to provide the kind of resources to fledgling
programs around the country who want to do this work, both
Republican, both Democrat, Independent, and maybe some others.
The other significant movement, activity in this movement,
happened a few months ago. Many of you here today were involved
with that event. That was Wade Horn and the National Fatherhood
Initiative's Fatherhood Summit. That probably is the single or
high profile event that's gotten us to the point where
fatherhood is a little bit more than just a little cute thing.
Last, I would like to acknowledge a key mentor of mine,
someone who I affectionately tease sometimes as having a Ph.D.
from MIT. That is Dr. Ronald Mincy from the Ford Foundation,
who has dedicated his life and a large part of his portfolio at
the Ford Foundation to the development of this field,
particularly as it relates to inner-city low-income
noncustodial parents and fatherhood. Without his support, I
can't tell you where the field would be today.
I also would like to acknowledge the other members on the
panel with me today, Victor Downing, Jr. I can tell you he is a
little bit nervous, but he says he is prepared. His dad, Victor
Downing, Sr., Paul Hope, and last, Anthony Edwards.
In 1993 the Department of Health and Human Services--excuse
me, 1992, the Department of Health and Human Services awarded
15 cities across the country Healthy Start dollars to reduce
infant mortality. In Baltimore, we chose to use a portion of
those funds to create a fatherhood component that would work
with the fathers of babies born to women enrolled in Healthy
Start. In Baltimore, we have two target areas in our poorest
communities where women go door to door recruiting pregnant
women. The fathers in my program are the fathers of babies born
to women who live in those poorest communities. Many of the
moms, over 98 percent of them, are on welfare, formerly known
as AFDC, now TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The
fathers in the program, and I would like to give you a brief
profile of the fathers in our program.
Currently, we have 200 fathers in the program. I have two
programs, one in east Baltimore and one in west Baltimore, and
100 fathers in each. Currently, the average age of fathers in
the program is 24 years. The average father dropped out of
school prior to getting a high school diploma, around the ninth
grade. At enrollment, 80 percent of the 200 fathers in the
program are unemployed. The majority of the fathers in the
program have had little to no contact or any meaningful
relationship with their own fathers. Second, there is a huge
involvement with the criminal justice system. Most of the
offenses are minor and most of them are drug related, usually
possession.
But I think the problem goes a little deeper than that, Mr.
Chairman. Some people look at these guys and say well, why
shouldn't they do the right thing. But because of some of the
chaotic lifestyles they lead, one particular aspect I want to
highlight, and that's the fact that most of the men in the
program don't have a government-issued ID. Now why is that
important? Because once a person decides he wants to be
involved in mainstream activity, that is usually your license
to participate. It is your access to a bank account, it is your
access to credit, it is your access to a lot of things.
What does that mean? That means that the men in the
program, in order to get a driver's license have to have a
birth certificate, a Social Security card, and two pieces of
correspondence with their address on it before they can obtain
the government-issued ID. Most of the men do not have
possession of their birth certificate or their Social Security
card, and must go to two different facilities to obtain those
particular documents prior to getting an ID. That is one of the
things that we require men to do at the onset at this point.
Prior to now, we did not do that. We found ourselves spinning a
tremendous amount of wheels when we tried to get a guy into
employment.
Although this profile is discouraging, through advocacy,
education, support, and a no-nonsense approach to providing
services to the men, we have seen significant changes in
attitudes and behavior.
I want to take a second to tell you about a little guy.
This is a guy who was born to a mom and dad who were married,
who were struggling to build their professional careers, and
who lived in Baltimore's public housing projects. At about 11
years of age, at the child's 11th year of age, the mom and dad
were having significant marital problems and decided to
separate. Two years after their separation, at age 13, this
little boy began to inject heroin and subsequently cocaine for
approximately 17 years. It took 17 years of H-E-L-L before that
person was able to get the kind of support where they could
turn their life around and then take on these mainstream
behaviors and participate in the kind of activities all of us
either participate in and would like to see other people
participate in.
Unfortunately, that little boy I am talking about was me.
Fortunately, I was able to get the kind of support necessary to
move forward and get additional education, and then commit my
life's work to working with young men who happen to be fathers
from America's poorest communities. I say that because I am not
unlike these guys, or the other guys who are here from the
program, I really want you to take an opportunity to ask these
guys candid questions and me, because we will not turn our back
on any question that you ask. We want to help move forward the
Fathers Count Initiative and other legislation that would
support the field.
Almost every man who enters the program says, ``I need
assistance with getting a job.'' I mentioned to you that 80
percent of the men in enrollment, and currently we have 200
again, are unemployed. We have integrated a grant we have
received from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development that is dedicated to do lead abatement in the
community, where we give awards to contractors to do the work,
and then the property owners must rerent or sell the property
to families that have children 6 years of age and under. We
have carved out a portion of that grant to develop a job
training program where fathers who go through all the hurdles
we ask them to go through, obtain the ID, change of mindset,
commit themselves to volunteering in the community, and then
are able to get involved in this HUD-funded project.
Paul Hope, who you will hear from, is one of the graduates
from that program, who is now gainfully employed with
unsubsidized employment. Recently, we implemented the STRIVE
jobs readiness program. This nationally recognized program was
featured on the CBS news show ``60 Minutes.'' It uses a no-
nonsense tough love approach in preparing hard-to-employ
residents from America's poorest communities for employment and
placement into real jobs. One of the key elements in STRIVE is
this commitment to follow graduates for 2 years following
placement. Graduates maintain an 80-percent job retention rate
during that period. Fathers from the program who are not
referred to the HUD-funded project and display the kind of
negative attitudes that would not allow them to get a job or
keep a job are referred to STRIVE.
Finally, I would like to comment on the Fathers Count
Initiative. As I understand it, the project is designed to
achieve two goals. First, the projects must encourage marriage
and better parenting by fathers. Second, the project must
feature activities to help fathers obtain employment or
increase their skills so that they can qualify for higher
paying jobs. I believe that the program's goals of encouraging
better parenting by fathers and the emphasis on employment
activities to increase skills for access to higher paying jobs
are widely supported.
The requirement that a potential grantee must encourage
marriage is a very very sticky point for the fathers who fit
the profile I described and who are represented here today.
There is however, a possible solution, a common ground, if you
will. That common ground I call the principles of marriage.
Many of the communities where poor fathers reside, and I would
like to go back to something you mentioned very early on, Mr.
Chairman. If I can quote you correctly, you said single moms
raising children where there are few adult male role models, is
really a formula for disaster. I would submit to you that in
many of the communities where poor fathers reside, there are
very few households where the model of marriage exists, another
formula for disaster.
Fatherhood programs could, for example, add an addendum to
existing curricula. This is something that we plan to do in
Baltimore with our curriculum, the Fathers' Journal, is add
sessions on the principles of marriage in developing discussion
groups around what marriage actually is. When you look at these
guys when they first come in the door, they are not marriage
material. If your daughter came home, and if my daughter came
home and told me she was going to marry a guy who was 24 years
old, only had a ninth grade education, was unemployed, had a
substance abuse problem, and had been involved in the criminal
justice system, I would fall out. There are steps that we have
to take, interim steps that we must take and that many of the
fatherhood programs have employed to help a guy get from point
A to point B to where he becomes a candidate for marriage.
I am so proud to be married and the father of three
children, a 20-year-old son, a 17-year-old girl, and a 6-year-
old little boy. Mr. Chairman, I am scared to death of the
prospects of life for my 6 year old, not because of what I will
be able to or not be able to provide, but because of the number
of children around him who do not have fathers in the
household. Every day when I go home and I pull up in my
neighborhood, and I live in a poor community, children from
households around my community run to my front. It has gotten
to the point now where I have to go into the back, sneak in my
own house because I have to get a few minutes break before I go
out on the front with these little kids and my son.
Mr. Chairman, these men, when given an opportunity to move
from point A, which is nowhere, to point Z, which is to be a
candidate for marriage and employed, give an opportunity for
other children in the community, especially their own children,
to stand up and make America very proud.
In short, Healthy Start is a unique and wise investment, an
excellent example of true partnership between public and
private sector and urban America.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Joseph T. Jones, Jr., Director, Men's Services and
Employment Initiatives, Baltimore City Healthy Start Program
Good morning, Representative Shaw, and other members of the
Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. With me
is Mr. Anthony Edwards, employed as an advocate with Men's
Services of Baltimore City, and a graduate of a responsible
fatherhood program. Also, Mr. Paul Hope, a Men's Services
participant and a graduate of our employment initiative
program, who is now gainfully employed and the father of two
young children. And finally, Mr. Jimmy LaPraid who recently
enrolled in the program, is an expectant father, and is helping
to raise his girlfriend's two other children. All of whom you
will hear from shortly.
In 1990, the Baltimore City Health Department implemented a
locally funded infant mortality reduction program called The
Baltimore Project. From 1990 to 1992, this initiative provided
intensive outreach, home visiting, and case management services
to pregnant women who resided in a poor West Baltimore
community known as Sandtown-Winchester.
During this time period, I was an Addictions Specialist
working with our substance abusing pregnant women. In this role
I visited women in their homes to provide counseling and
support to help them be more compliant with pre-natal and
pediatric appointments and to abstain from using drugs. While
conducting these home visits, I would often come into contact
with the father-to-be or the significant male. My strategy for
working with this couple was to focus my attention on the male
to reach his comfort level so that he would be clear that my
purpose for being in the house was to help his partner have a
healthy baby. Upon gaining his confidence, almost always I was
asked by the men if we provided services for fathers.
Unfortunately, at that time we were unable to provide formal
services to men due to limited resources.
As one of only two men on a staff of 22, I began to have
philosophical conversations with my superiors and others about
the importance of including fathers in our strategy to reduce
infant mortality. Although people involved in these
conversations agreed with this premise, there simply was no way
to provide formal services to fathers.
In 1992, the Baltimore City Health Department, Office of
Maternal and Infant Care, was awarded one of 15 federal Healthy
Start grants. These dollars allowed us to greatly expand on the
Baltimore Project model and to include services to fathers. The
first year of the grant was spent in research, planning and
program design. I was selected as the person responsible for
the development of the new Men's Services Program.
On June 8, 1993, we began a pilot program targeted to 60
men who were the fathers of babies born to Healthy Start female
clients. We established four goals during the pilot phase. They
were as follows:
Attendance at pre-natal appointments;
Attendance at pediatric appointments;
Attendance at fathers' curriculum groups;
Attendance at a therapeutic support group.
The staff consisted of the Coordinator and two Men's
Services Advocates. In July 1994, at the conclusion of the
pilot phase, we expanded the program to include 100 men. We
increased the staff to include two additional Men's Services
Advocates.
In December 1995, the program further expanded to provide
services to 100 additional fathers in East Baltimore. Each site
has a Coordinator and four Men's Services Advocates, with a
total enrollment as of July 22, 1997, exceeding 200 fathers.
The Men's Services staff takes the highest risk dads and
transforms them into nurturing parents through an intensive
support and case management process.
Over the course of the last four years, a general profile
has emerged of the fathers we have served:
The average age is 24.2 years.
The average father dropped out of school after the
ninth grade.
At enrollment, approximately 80% of the fathers
report being unemployed or underemployed.
The majority of the fathers have little or no
relationship with their fathers.
Although this profile is discouraging, through advocacy,
education, support, and a no-nonsense approach in providing
services to the men, we have seen significant changes in
attitudes and behavior. Examples of the types of changes that
can occur are Anthony Edwards and Paul Hope.
Fathers like Anthony and Paul can be very difficult to
engage. With our intensive outreach and home visiting efforts,
we are able to meet these men in their own communities and
convince them that we are a positive alternative to their often
chaotic lifestyles on a voluntary basis. Men who enroll in the
program are assigned an advocate, receive intensive case
management services, parenting and life skills, peer support,
and real jobs.
All fathers enrolled in the program, who meet our standards
and show a commitment to their families, to their communities,
and to themselves are eligible for our two employment programs.
We have integrated a lead abatement grant from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development into the Men's
Services program and are able to guarantee employment in the
construction field for those men who are committed to turning
their lives around.
Recently, we implemented the STRIVE job readiness program.
This nationally recognized program was featured on the CBS news
show ``60 Minutes.'' It uses a no-nonsense, tough love approach
in preparing hard to employ residents from America's poorest
communities for employment and placement into real jobs. One of
the key elements in STRIVE is its commitment to follow
graduates for two years following placement. Graduates maintain
an 80% job retention rate during that period. Fathers from the
program who are not referred to our HUD funded project are
referred to STRIVE.
Finally, I would like to comment on the ``Father's Count
Initiative.'' As I understand it, the project is designed to
achieve two goals. First, projects must encourage marriage and
better parenting by fathers. Second, projects must feature
activities that help fathers obtain employment or increase
their skills so they can qualify for higher-paying jobs. I
believe that the program's goals of encouraging better
parenting by fathers, and the emphasis on employment activities
to increase skills for access to higher paying jobs, are widely
supported.
The requirement that a potential grantee must encourage
marriage is a sticky point. Earlier, I gave a profile of
fathers in my program that I have found to be similar to the
profile of fathers enrolled in a number of responsible
fatherhood programs around the country. As a practitioner, I
can tell you that programs that work with low income non-
custodial fathers and promote or encourage marriage without
first working on the aforementioned barriers will lose
credibility, with not only participants, but with the community
at large. There is however, a possible solution. A common
ground called ``the principles of marriage.'' Many of the
communities where poor fathers reside have very few households
where the model of marriage exists. Fatherhood programs could,
for example, add an addendum to existing curricula that
outlines the principles of marriage and hold discussion groups
that would allow fathers an opportunity to be introduced to
this institution. This is what the Men's Services program is in
the process of doing. There are other activities that can be
designed that could also address this issue.
For example, we have received funding from the Ford
Foundation to develop a concept called ``Team Parenting.'' This
concept involves working with low income parents, even if they
are not a couple, and helping them mediate their relationship
so that the children maintain access to both parents.
We believe that this strategy will lay a foundation, not
only for an effective parental relationship, but also for a
relationship that has the potential for marriage.
Finally, a preliminary cost-benefit analysis of the Men's
Services program has shown that the program has already paid
for itself in reduced incarceration costs alone. Moreover, it
has dramatically benefitted the young fathers and their
families in East and West Baltimore in terms of expected future
wages, given the program's emphasis on linking the male
participants to livable wage employment.
We are currently involved in the Partnership for Fragile
Families initiative, also funded by the Ford Foundation. This
initiative encourages partnership between state and local child
support agencies and community based fatherhood programs to
encourage fathers to acknowledge paternity and to pay child
support.
At the same time, the Office of Child Support Enforcement
provides a funding stream that allows fatherhood programs to
offer support, education, and training. As welfare reform
continues to evolve, we believe that we should encourage our
fathers to acknowledge their paternity and financially support
their children, while at the same time helping child support
officials understand that a ``collections only'' mind set is
not the way to engage America's poorest fathers.
In short, Healthy Start is a unique and wise investment, an
excellent example of a true partnership between the public and
private sector and urban America.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Hope, would you pull the microphone over to you? Put it
right close to you. We now recognize you for a statement.
STATEMENT OF PAUL HOPE, PARTICIPANT, BALTIMORE CITY HEALTHY
START PROGRAM
Mr. Hope. My name is Paul Hope. I am 25 years old. I am the
biological father of two children, but father of many. I don't
really know where to begin. I am not really a big speaker, but
I'll start from the beginning. A few years ago before I came
into the group, I wouldn't be the type of person that you would
want to meet. I can even say my first encounter with the group,
I went to the group with a pistol because that's what I felt as
though I needed to get by in the area where I lived in. So the
group, Healthy Start, our fatherhood group is like a family.
Where though you couldn't go to your friends or your family and
talk about certain things, you can go there and talk about it.
Like I said, I wasn't a very pleasant person. I mean I very
seldom smiled, joked, played, or anything. I took things for
what they were here and now. I wasn't thinking about tomorrow
or the next day. They wasn't here so I wasn't worrying about
them. It was here and now. That was what I was worrying about.
Since I joined the program in 1993, I went through the LEAD
Initiative Program. I graduated from it. My children and my
kids' mom have never been on welfare, never. Even though we are
not together, she still hasn't been on it. That is something
that I feel as though that I got to do. It basically teaches
you for where we live at, like in the city of Baltimore, we get
this false sense of fatherhood. A father won't chump down from
a fight or something like that. You know. But that is not true.
There is nothing wrong with turning a cheek or humbling
yourself. That is what the group basically showed me because of
my problem. I had a quick temper. I would also overreact, then
think about it. Now, I will think about it, think of my
decisions, think about my consequences. If the consequence is
not bad, then that is my decision.
The group took me, I then made a complete 360-degree turn.
Before I came to the group, I knew I would either be dead or in
prison doing life for some of the dumb stuff I had done. I have
been stabbed, shot at, in a number of fights. The way I think
now is not the same. It's not about here and now. I have got to
go. I have plans. I know what I want to do. I like
construction, home improvement. I am going to continue in that
field. I am going to get more training until I will be the best
in it. Not second best. I am going to be number one in it.
As far as my kids, my love for them never changed. I still
love my kids, but also not just mine, this man's kids, this
man's kids, and all the guys back there's kids. When we come
into the group and we bring our kids, you really wouldn't know
who the father is because the baby gets passed around or the
young boy or young girl gets passed around so much. You would
be like well, is that the father? No, is that the father? Until
they make a statement of who the father is.
It's like this group means a lot to me personally. As far
as written testimony, I don't have one. I am a testimony of it.
Like I said, I knew if I didn't walk through the doors back in
1992 and 1993, I would be dead or incarcerated from growing up
on the streets. Not too many people in business, corporate
America are going to come to where I live at, Harlem and
Fremont, and talk to me about getting my life together. First,
back then I would look at you and think you are crazy, what are
you doing down here. I am glad that Joe Jones and Kyle, Mannie,
Eddie, and the other advocates of Healthy Start didn't give up
on me. I hope that the Subcommittee will hear our testimonies
and don't give up on them. You all may not see results tonight,
tomorrow or whenever, but changes are happening. I can go
through any area in Baltimore city and people know me through
things that I did through Healthy Start, from the television.
It's wild. I can use that and pivot off of it and talk to
somebody else who might be going through a similar problem that
I went through when I was younger and I handled it the wrong
way. But look you pick up that gun, you are going to jail, or
death, or that person will come back and get you.
This group means a whole bunch to me. I mean even if they
do lose funding, we are going to still keep it going. It is
going to go on with or without the funding from here, Congress,
wherever. Even if we have got to have our groups in our
backyards, we are still going to go on with our group. This is
my family. I love them dearly. I am sure they feel the same way
about me.
Thank you.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY EDWARDS, MEN'S SERVICES COUNSELOR,
BALTIMORE CITY HEALTHY START PROGRAM
Mr. Edwards. Good morning. First of all I would like to say
my name is Anthony Edwards. I am a 22-year-old men's service
advocate, advocate counselor. I work for Joe Jones. I have a
son that's 4 years old. But what I would like to give off or my
testimony would be this morning, is the process on how I was
able to receive an opportunity to be employed with Mr. Jones.
Back in 1994, due to my extravagant lifestyle, I made some
negative choices and ended up in some negative places. My son
is 4 years old. In months, that would be 48 months. I have been
an active part of my son's life for 45 months and 2 weeks. The
other 3 months and 2 weeks I was incarcerated, as I said
earlier, due to some negative choices. However, upon my leaving
my incarceration, I met up with a pastor in Baltimore City by
the name of Eleanor M. Brian. I had just had my son. He was 3
months. I was carrying him around with me. His mother and I, we
were discussing some immediate goals, some short-term goals,
some long-term goals on how I can get back into society and be
productive as a man coming from where I come from, as a black
man coming from the inner city.
My pastor gave me a lead to the program entitled the Young
Fathers Responsible Fathers Program, which is the brother to
our Heathy Start's Men's Services Program in Baltimore City. I
went through the program, and as Paul stated, because our
process or our living conditions, a lot of times, we put on
particular defense mechanisms, meaning that our attitude and
our behavior kind of shies us away from things that we may need
to do or steps that we may need to take to help us progress.
However, because the program worked so intensely with me and
gave me so much support, they were able to help me to adjust my
attitude, to help me modify particular parts of my behavior to
be a successful father.
However, upon my graduation, the challenge was me
implementing particular parts of whatever I needed to do with
me to make myself the best Anthony Edwards that I can possibly
be. I would see Mr. Jones around the city at particular events
discussing fatherhood. I would say, Wow man, if only I could
have a chance to work with brothers who came from particular
places like I have, then maybe I'd feel like I can give them
something significant and sincere and genuine, because I know
the struggles of growing up in the inner city, being a man in
our community and dealing with a lot of issues that we may deal
with.
I was given a call back in 1997 to work with Baltimore City
Healthy Start Men's Services. Of course, I hopped upon the
opportunity because it is not about whatever money I make, it
is about helping save somebody's life or help somebody be
productive who has come from where I have come from. Now what I
want to say, as Paul stated, our program is very helpful. We
stress for the guys to participate in events outside our
groups. We give them 24 hours access to call us because we are
there to support them. We are not there to look down our nose
at them or to demean them. We stress for the guys to bring
their kids to the group. As Paul said, we are all fathers. Our
main goal in the program is to be the best men we can be, the
best fathers we can be, and the best assets and to be as
productive to our communities as we can possibly be.
So with that, I would like to say that programs like these
has helped to save my life and lives like Paul and some of the
men who you see behind us. You can't ask for no more than that.
In urban communities, programs like this are needed, because
these programs give you hope, give you inspiration, give you
the support that you need. We know we deal with the issues that
pertain to us that we can identify and relate with.
I have been hearing the word marriage being thrown around
this morning. We have had many our clients in our program who
have had interest in marriage. However, they are still in the
process to reach the point of marriage in dealing with your
individual self and allow your mate to deal with herself as
well as dealing with each other. So with programs like this,
you are able to deal with those processes such as attitude
adjustment, such as Dr. Dad, such as compare and compromise in
particular situations so that you can be productive and/or as
productive as you can possibly be in marriage. You know, we
stress that. That is one of our goals.
However, but before we get to this particular goal, we have
to deal with the self. We practice a saying in the Young
Fathers Program and here at Healthy Start, the 10 most
important two-letter words is, ``If it is to be, it is up to
me.'' Right? Well, I say that. I also say, ``If it is to be, it
is up to we.'' Because sometimes me needs support from we. That
is what we are here to do at Healthy Start.
Thank you.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that Anthony did
not mention is he recently was promoted from an entry level
position in the Men's Services Program to a men's services
counselor. He also will be entering into his junior year of
college at Coppin State as a psychology major this coming
September.
Chairman Shaw. I guess that makes him marriage material.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Jones. That's right.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Downing, we will hear from you and then
from young Mr. Downing.
STATEMENT OF VICTOR DOWNING, SR., PARTICIPANT, BALTIMORE CITY
HEALTHY START PROGRAM; ACCOMPANIED BY VICTOR DOWNING, JR.
Mr. Downing, Sr. OK. I am kind of nervous too.
Chairman Shaw. We are, too. Just take your time.
Mr. Downing, Sr. I am going to start out. I also came up
with a single parent. My father wasn't there for me. My mom
raised nine of us. As I got older, I saw that she needed help
with the bills and stuff like that, so I did what I had to do
to bring in the money to help her out. That was to sell drugs.
So, I was a drug dealer.
As time went on, I met his mom. Then he came in the
picture. Then I was doing this to also take care of him because
that is all I knew, was how to sell drugs. I never had a job
before. I came up selling drugs. My brother taught me how to do
that. We went on from there.
As we went on, we got into some drug wars, I mean fighting
other drug dealers over territory, something that wasn't even
ours. His mom was pregnant with him. When I really should have
been paying more attention to her, I was out there all the time
trying to make money. As he came in the world, you know, he was
here for a while and me and her weren't getting along any more,
so we became separated. I stopped doing for my son and her
because I was like if I can't have her, then I don't want to
have nothing to do with him either. That is how I was. I was
selfish like that.
She also was using drugs. We were both using drugs. I
became my best customer. I was giving it to her. We were using
them together. Sometimes when she didn't do what I wanted, I
would not give it to her and things like that. As time went on
and she became ill from using drugs, she had to have open heart
surgery and things just weren't going well. My son was getting
ready to go into a foster home, so I had to decide if I was
going to let him go into a foster home or take responsibility
and become a father, which I really wasn't ready to do.
As time went on, we went to court and things like that. I
decided that I would go ahead and take care of him. I got him
and I really wasn't ready yet to be a father, not just yet
because I used to like to hang out and run the streets. I was
scared that I was going to have to stop doing those things. So,
I took him. He was 3 years old. My mom helped me raise him. She
did. She helped me out a lot. She was always there for me, for
me and him both. She made sure I did what I was supposed to
have done, to look out for him. I was still selling drugs. I
had also gotten my first job. I was working a job and also
still using drugs. The job didn't last long on the fact of my
using drugs. I could not work and use drugs too. One had to go,
and I chose for the job to go.
I continued taking care of him. Time went on. My drug habit
got worse. His mom was ill, but she hadn't gotten real ill just
yet. She was out there. She would come and see him and stuff
like that. She was there for him, but not really there. Neither
one of us was really there. We was like, you know, it was the
drugs first and then the child.
As time went on, I lived with my mom still. I had a friend
that was in the Healthy Start Program. I seen what it was doing
for him, so I asked him to help me get into the program. He
introduced me to, I think he introduced me to--I forgot who he
introduced me to. I got into the program. I asked them for some
help. I told them I had a drug problem. I asked them for some
help because they were trying to offer me a job. I told them I
wasn't ready to work because I could not pass the drug test.
They got me into the Turke House for 30 days. I stayed there
for 30 days. I wanted to leave, but the only reason I wanted to
leave is because I didn't want them to waste their money. I
really wanted to go back out there and use.
I stayed there for 30 days and cleaned up for 30 days, came
back out. I went down to Healthy Start. As a matter of fact,
they came and picked me up from the Turke House. My niece kept
my son for me. I came back out. I went down, talked to them.
They congratulated me for staying for 30 days and gave me a
certificate and everything. I was so in a hurry to get a job
from them then after I cleaned myself up, which I wasn't really
ready to work yet because I went back out there and used again.
I stayed out there for a while on the corners. They would
come through and pick me up and take me to group meetings. I
would duck them up when I saw a van coming and stuff like that.
I would hide because I didn't want them to see me. But they
never gave up on me. They would see me on the corner. They
would come into drug areas and get out the van and pull me up
off the corner and ask me when it was I was coming back, I
don't have to hide from them, and ask me how my son was doing.
I would tell them that he was doing all right. I would just
tell them I would be down there and I would never go. They
would keep coming.
One day, I decided to go back down there. I went back down
there. I started taking my son to the meetings and stuff like
that. They got to know him. He got to know them real good. I
just decided that I was tired, tired of doing what I was doing.
I wanted to become a father because all the guys in there were
doing so good. There were some guys in there that had also used
before and they had jobs and they had houses. They were doing
good. They had their own places. I decided that I wanted to
straighten up. I went back to them again and told them that I
wanted some help. But they didn't trust me. They thought I was
going to go back out there and do the same thing again. They
kept telling me to wait and see what I was going to do.
As time went on, I went back out there again. I had got a
job and I started stealing and cheating, doing whatever I can
to get the drugs. I guess I hit my rock bottom because I got
locked up. I was in central booking. When I went through
central booking I couldn't go through that again. Central
booking, I ain't wanting to go back over there again. I came
out of central booking. Ever since I came out of central
booking, I have been off of drugs. That's been for 7 months,
going on 8. I got a job now. As a matter of fact, I have a job.
I am working on another part-time job. I have my own apartment.
It's well-furnished. I have a closer relationship with my son.
That is my best friend there. I just have been doing great
thanks to the program for not giving up on me.
I still go to the meetings when I can, when I have time
off. They are always there for me. I also was going through
something as far as relationship too. I brought that to the
table. They listened. They gave me some feedback on it. I also
have four other children. I am not with either one of their
mothers, but I now pay child support, which I wasn't doing. I
send them money every other week. Everything has been going
great for me so far, as far as me staying clean.
Chairman Shaw. Let's hear from your son then.
Mr. Downing. Pull that microphone up and pull it down just
a little. That's right.
How do you like having a real dad now?
Mr. Jones. He said he would rather you all to ask him
questions.
Chairman Shaw. All right. I'll start out then. How have you
seen your dad coming along as far as have you seen a real
change in him?
Mr. Downing, Jr. Yes.
Chairman Shaw. Describe how he was when you first can
remember him back when you were a real small child. Did you see
much of him then?
Mr. Downing, Jr. No.
Chairman Shaw. Where was he, out on the streets all the
time?
Mr. Downing, Jr. Yes.
Chairman Shaw. And where are you living now? Are you living
with your dad?
Mr. Downing, Jr. My grandmother.
Chairman Shaw. You are living with your grandmother? But
your dad gets over there and visits with you a lot?
Mr. Downing, Sr. He is kind of nervous. We live together in
our own apartment.
Mr. Downing, Jr. When you were on the street, Dad.
Chairman Shaw. I am talking about now.
Mr. Downing, Jr. Yes. I live with my father.
Chairman Shaw. Now you are together. Let's get that clear.
You all want to get out in the hall and get your story
straight? [Laughter.]
Chairman Shaw. I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear.
But what is the difference? You don't remember back when
they were thinking about foster care. You can't remember back
that far, can you?
Mr. Downing, Jr. No.
Chairman Shaw. But just thinking about that is probably
pretty scary to you right now. Isn't it?
Mr. Downing, Jr. Yes.
Chairman Shaw. That you could have been put in foster care
and really not have known your dad?
Mr. Downing, Jr. Yes.
Chairman Shaw. Are you in school now? What grade are you
in?
Mr. Downing, Jr. Eighth now.
Chairman Shaw. Eighth grade?
Mr. Downing, Jr. Yes.
Chairman Shaw. What do you want to become? What do you want
to do?
Mr. Downing, Jr. Be a police officer.
Chairman Shaw. Be what?
Mr. Downing, Jr. Police officer.
Chairman Shaw. Very good. But you have got to finish school
now and do that. You have got to go all the way through and use
your dad as both a bad example and a good example, as to what
you can do with yourself. Right?
Mr. Downing, Jr. Yes.
Chairman Shaw. You have seen, I guess you have seen him go
through the problems he has had with drugs, haven't you?
Mr. Downing, Jr. Yes.
Chairman Shaw. And it's tough when you get into that stuff
to get off of it, isn't it?
Mr. Downing, Jr. Yes.
Chairman Shaw. But you have seen a real difference in him,
haven't you?
Mr. Downing, Jr. Yes.
Chairman Shaw. That's great to see.
Before we go onto the rest of the panel, does anyone else
have any questions for young Mr. Downing?
Mr. Levin. Maybe we'll give him a few moments. Why don't we
talk to that big fellow next to him.
Why don't you describe the array of services. I don't think
you really covered that. What is there, what kinds of services?
Mr. Jones. First of all, we have a recruitment team
primarily made up of women who go door to door through a
specific target area, through census tracts, knocking on doors
every 6 weeks looking for pregnant women. Once they identify a
pregnant woman, they attempt to enroll her in the program. Once
she enrolls, she is assigned to a case management team that
work with pregnant moms around the pregnancy, whether it's
access to prenatal care, housing, nutrition. Whatever the
issues are, they work with her to support her, to stabilize
what may be an at-risk pregnancy.
Once they get her to reach her comfort level, they do an
internal referral to my program that basically hopefully we get
an address, hopefully a phone number, maybe just a hangout.
With that referral, my staff goes out and looks for these guys.
I kind of say we have a bailbondsman mentality, but we go out
to support guys. In America, I don't care what color you are,
what economic background you come from, nobody has ever really
gone out to reach, outreach to men. This is a real phenomenon
for America. But that is one of the approaches we employ.
Once we can engage him, we try to get him to come to the
group, see his peers around him, to get him to be comfortable.
Then finally when he enrolls, we do an assessment. Johns
Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health is the evaluator
for Baltimore City Healthy Start. In conjunction with them, the
policy staff and myself and Hopkins developed an assessment.
It's about 25 pages, 26 pages that looks at family formation
and in terms of the number of kids this guy has, by how many
different women, his educational background, criminal justice
involvement. We actually put on there whether or not he has a
government-issued ID or not, some of his attitudes and
behaviors around sexually transmitted diseases and family
planning.
From that, a plan is developed, what we call one man's
plan. The guy sits down with his advocate and a case
coordinator. They develop a plan with some preset goals and
also some goals that he says he needs to achieve to be the best
man, the best father he can be. Those goals and that plan are
reviewed monthly by the case coordinator and the advocate. When
the goals are reached, they are taken off. New goals are put
on. If he doesn't reach a goal, we come up with new strategies
to help him reach that goal. We have now redesigned the program
so that that plan and his involvement in the program will have
a 1-year cap on it.
Mr. Levin. Let me ask you, and thanks from all of us for
your being here. These are stirring accounts. What kinds of
services, just quickly, and my colleagues may have further
questions. For the gentlemen here, for the children perhaps, as
well as for the mothers. What is the array of services?
Mr. Jones. Case management is probably the heart and soul
of the services provided. That would entail dealing with crisis
situations.
Mr. Levin. How many would each, if I might interject, how
many people would each caseworker be working with?
Mr. Jones. The way that the program is staffed, I have a
program at east Baltimore, west Baltimore, each program has a
case coordinator or a case manager, if you will. Under that
case coordinator, there are four positions called men's
services advocates. Two of them have just been changed to men's
services counselor. You have a case coordinator, you have two
men's services counselors, and two entry level positions we
call men's services advocates. The entry level positions, and
there are four because we have the two programs, are reserved
for fathers who go through the program who display an ability
to do some volunteer work in the community, can get a reference
from somebody, and can command respect and give respect to
their peers. When those positions are available and a guy is
ready, we try to hire a client from the program to do that.
That would be the staff.
Mr. Levin. Is there job training, for example? Just go
quickly through what is available through your agency, through
your entity. Is there job services?
Mr. Jones. Job services. I would like to put something
before job services. We have GED onsite. Also adult basic
education and pre-GED so if a guy doesn't or a mom doesn't have
a high school education, which is the basic foundation of what
a person has got to have in this country, they are referred to
the GED Program.
Mr. Levin. GED, so right on the site there.
Mr. Jones. Onsite. Correct.
Mr. Levin. And then there are job training facilities or--
--
Mr. Jones. Right. We have a grant from HUD to do lead
abatement. Prior to now actually, we gave contracts to home
improvement contractors who then were required to hire the
fathers from the program to do the work. This was subsidized
job training for up to 1 year.
Mr. Levin. The funds come from?
Mr. Jones. HUD, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Mr. Levin. And are there health and psychological services
available?
Mr. Jones. Those kind of services are referred. We don't do
any clinical services onsite.
Mr. Levin. But you refer them to entities within the
community?
Mr. Jones. Yes.
Mr. Levin. And who pays for those?
Mr. Jones. Most of the people in the program are on
welfare. However, for the men, who most of them do not have
healthcare, so we use community resources. There is a community
clinic that will take men into the clinic at no cost and will
do as much as they can. If they are acute issues, then they
will refer them to the appropriate healthcare facility that has
to take indigent patients.
Mr. Levin. And psychological services, are they available?
Mr. Jones. Psychological services, while they may be
available, is a very difficult issue to deal with in the inner-
city communities that we live and work in. Mental health has a
very negative stigma. When you start talking about
psychological and psychiatric issues, it takes very intensive,
very individual and private work to get somebody to acknowledge
that they need to see somebody regarding psychological and
psychiatric services. We do do it, but it is on a very intimate
basis.
Mr. Levin. Thank you.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Camp.
Mr. Camp. I want to thank you, Mr. Jones. I apologize for
coming in a little late. I have read your statement. I want to
thank you for coming here. I want to thank all of you for the
honesty and courage really and for speaking from the heart.
What I have heard has been very very meaningful.
I did want to ask just a couple of questions. I realize
this is a federally funded program. Are there any restrictions
that you are seeing that is making it difficult for you to
operate the Healthy Start Program?
Mr. Jones. Yes. The biggest restriction is that there are
no dedicated dollars for my program. We just decided in
Baltimore to use some of the dollars that were earmarked for
the infant mortality program, primarily for the services to
pregnant women, to develop this pilot program called men's
services. My program in the entirety is currently on the
cuttingblock. Our budget last year was $5 million. Healthy
Start has put a cap on our program this year, where we will
only receive up to $2.5 million. In essence, it will decimate
the Men's Services Program.
Mr. Camp. Nationwide, how many Healthy Start Programs of
this kind are there? Do you know?
Mr. Jones. In 1992 the Department of Health and Human
Services funded 15 Healthy Start Programs around the country.
The next year they added seven projects that were called
Special Projects. In the last several years, they have expanded
to approximately 50-something communities around the country.
They may even do further expansion. However, the further
expansion is with reduced dollars that again, will decimate the
Men's Services Program.
Mr. Camp. Thank you. Again, I just want to thank all of you
for coming. It is not an easy thing to do. I think it is very
helpful what you have done. I admire what you have done. Thank
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. McCrery.
Mr. McCrery. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank all of you for
coming and joining us today and offering your testimony.
Mr. Jones, how many men are in your program?
Mr. Jones. There are 200, 100 in west Baltimore and 100 in
east Baltimore.
Mr. McCrery. And are there other programs similar to yours
in the Baltimore area?
Mr. Jones. There's a couple of small programs that aren't
well resourced. The other program, brother or sister program,
if you will, is the Young Fathers Responsible Fathers Program
which is a State-funded initiative by the Glendening
administration that has really been strongly supported by Alvin
Collins, who is the secretary of the Department of Human
Resources at the State level. They have a program that is in
Baltimore City. It is the program that Anthony Edwards
graduated from. They also have I think five programs in other
jurisdictions around the State.
Mr. McCrery. How many men are in the State-supported
program?
Mr. Jones. I'm not real sure of their numbers.
Mr. McCrery. Do you work with the State program? Is there
any relationship?
Mr. Jones. Yes. We are currently involved in the project
called Partners for Fragile Families. That is an initiative
funded by the Ford Foundation. What it will do, it will allow
the Young Fathers Responsible Fathers Program and the Healthy
Start Men's Services Program to work in conjunction. This is a
situation I would not have been in about 1\1/2\ to 2 years ago,
to partner with the State Child Support Administration. The
grant actually goes to the child support.
The two basic points about this initiative, it requires
that community-based fatherhood programs help Child Support
establish paternity among men who happen to be fathers who have
never established paternity, but who don't have arrearages,
because the guys who have arrearages, it's kind of hard to
manage that situation at this point in time. But this new entry
for community-based programs and State Child Support, is to
help Child Support meet its Federal mandate to increase
incrementally paternity over several years until 1991. But also
for Child Support to create a funding stream so that community-
based programs can provide services to fathers, including
education and training.
Mr. McCrery. Do you happen to know how the Glendening
administration finances its State program?
Mr. Jones. I think they use discretionary dollars.
Mr. McCrery. Do you know if any of those dollars come from
their block grant for TANF?
Mr. Jones. No. I am not sure of the mechanism of their
funding stream.
Mr. McCrery. Mr. Hope, why did you join this program? What
compelled you? What made you want this program? I know now you
are sold on it and you like it and it's a swell place to be.
Mr. Hope. I guess when I got stabbed in 1991 in a street
fight, and like a light clicked, I can't go on living like
this, you know. Then I found out my kid's mother was pregnant.
I really can't go on like this. What really got me hooked is
when I came to the group and I was carrying a firearm. Joe
Jones, I don't know if he saw it or I don't know how, he asked
me about it. I told him, yes, I have one. He took it from me.
He was like, you'll get it back at the end of the group. I am
sitting in the group and I am listening to everybody. When are
the police going to come through the door. He never came. At
the end of the group, he gave it back. He said he was going to
get me to the point where I can come to group or walk the
streets without having a firearm on me.
Now, I don't carry a firearm. As a matter of fact, I don't
have a firearm no more. I don't worry about problems as much as
I used to. There is no problem that I can't talk out, talk my
way out of it. I don't have to ball my fingers up and make a
fist no more.
Mr. McCrery. How did you hear about this program?
Mr. Hope. One day me and my kid's mother was walking down
the street. A lady named Ms. Bush, she used to work there, and
she asked was she pregnant. She said yes. At the time, it was
called the Baltimore Project. She enrolled. Then after she
enrolled, I met up with Joe Jones. I asked him whether you all
got a fatherhood group. At the time it wasn't there yet. During
the course of the time of her going, of my kid's mother going
to her group, I would go and sit in and I would listen.
Sometimes I would participate in the group.
Then Joe came to me and told me that they got the group
started up now, the fatherhood group. I stayed with that. I
went there. I just had a problem out in the street and I went
there and I listened and I talked. It was all good from there,
all up hill.
Mr. McCrery. Thank you. Mr. Jones, does your program have a
marriage education component? Do you talk about marriage? Do
you promote marriage in your group?
Mr. Jones. We do not necessarily promote marriage. In my
prepared testimony, I talked about where we are today. We are
about to add an addendum to our curriculum. We have a document
called Father's Journal, that I can leave with you, Mr. Chair.
We are going to add an addendum to that that will outline the
principles of marriage.
We have had a few men in the program who have actually gone
through our jobs program, one of which I tried to have here
today, his employer wouldn't let him off, but who has gotten
married as a result of going from point A to point Z. But the
principles of marriage were missing from the community. There
are just not enough models out there for men to look at, these
guys to look at and say that's what a husband should do. We
need to start incorporating those in there as opposed to
encouraging marriage at a point right now where they have got
so many other things to deal with. Most of them don't even have
a fixed address, and you want to talk about encouraging
marriage. I think it is somewhere along the continuum of the
curriculum. We will place the principles of marriage in that
document and hold discussion groups around it.
Mr. McCrery. Thank you. If you get married, you will find
that your fixed address will be a lot more fixed. [Laughter.]
Mr. Jones. I am married, and my address is more fixed than
I ever thought it would be.
Mr. McCrery. There you go.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Coyne.
Mr. Coyne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jones, were you
with the Healthy Start Program when it was only a program that
helped provide a healthy start for newborns?
Mr. Jones. Yes. Paul Hope mentioned the Baltimore Project,
which was the predecessor to Healthy Start. It was a locally
funded program by the Abel Foundation. It was still a small
infant mortality reduction program. I worked with pregnant
women who were substance abusers at that time and did a lot of
home visits. Working with women, I often encountered the men
who were the significant others or the fathers of the babies.
They always said, ``Can you help me?'' Over time, I went back
to my superiors and convinced them that once we got the Healthy
Start dollars, could we please include fathers in our
strategies to help us reduce infant mortality.
I was selected to develop that program and have been there
since its inception.
Mr. Coyne. So, it's not that money was taken from the
Healthy Start for newborns and deferred to this program. You
are doing both.
Mr. Jones. Correct.
Mr. Coyne. The Fathers Count Initiative that we are talking
about here today, the legislation, requires that 75 percent of
that money would go to nongovernmental entities. Do you have
any concerns about that?
Mr. Jones. No. We are actually a nonprofit 501(c)(3)
corporation set up under the administration of the Baltimore
City Health Department with the blessings of Mayor Kurt L.
Schmoke.
Mr. Coyne. What percentage of your current budget is
governmentally sponsored?
Mr. Jones. One hundred percent.
Mr. Coyne. One hundred percent.
Mr. Jones. Except for some special initiatives that we have
been funded for by the Ford Foundation. I mentioned the
Partners for Fragile Families. The other example of where we
could go with this whole idea of marriage is this concept
called TEAM parenting. What TEAM parenting will be designed to
do is to work with young couples who may be in real fragile
relationships who don't know how to mediate and negotiate their
relationships, and try to stabilize those relationships so that
even if they choose not to be together, the children will
always have access to both parents.
Some of the literature suggests that when you work with
families that way, an outcome in the end is the selection of
marriage as an institution.
Mr. Coyne. Thank you.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Jones, what did you say your overall
budget figure is? How much money does your budget consist of in
1 year?
Mr. Jones. Are you talking about Healthy Start overall or
the Men's Services Program?
Mr. Collins. You have two different programs?
Mr. Jones. Well the Men's Services Program is a component
of Baltimore City Healthy Start.
Mr. Collins. What is your overall budget?
Mr. Jones. Last year, our last fiscal year, $5 million.
Mr. Collins. And you said that is being reduced to $2.5
million?
Mr. Jones. Right. We can get up to $2.5 million this year.
Mr. Collins. That is for both programs?
Mr. Jones. That is for all. Everything that we did last
year with $5 million, we will only be getting up to $2.5 to do
that same thing. I don't have to tell you what that means in
terms of a reduction in the services.
Mr. Collins. Yes. How much of that $5 million now, the
$2.5, is for the fatherhood program?
Mr. Jones. It's approximately $450,000, comes out a little,
I think a little less than $2,000 per man for 1 year. If you
look at what it takes to incarcerate somebody annually, it is a
drop in the bucket when you talk about being able to work with
them outside of the prison system and prevent them from ever
getting there.
Some of our early cost benefit analysis suggests that we
can reduce incarceration costs. We can also increase child
support payments. We can also help the Census Bureau get an
accurate census count. When you get men out into the mainstream
and into employment now with new hire requirements, with Social
Security numbers and names must be sent to the State to cross
reference, you then can get a more true assessment of who is
actually in-households as opposed to the rough guesstimate we
usually get with most inner-city communities, particularly when
women are on welfare and have their boyfriend, maybe their
brother and their cousins are in the house and will not tell
anyone that they exist.
Mr. Collins. Will you reduce the fatherhood program in
proportion to the reduction in your funding?
Mr. Jones. We had a budget meeting last week. My program is
one of the programs on the cuttingblock.
Mr. Collins. It will not?
Mr. Jones. It was on the cuttingblock.
Mr. Collins. OK. Do you have any religious activities in
your program?
Mr. Jones. You know when you talk about religion, I am
going to ask the guys when we close this panel, to join me in a
brief ritual that we do that takes about 10 seconds. We
recently began to take guys to church on Sundays. I was really
caught in between this Federal church and state stuff. I just
decided to heck with it, whatever happens, happens. The church
that we attended is co-pastored. The mom is actually the
pastor. Her son has now taken over the realm. Here is a guy who
has a master's in theology who grew up on the streets of
Baltimore, is a recovering addict, and uses every tool and
technique of the street to reach and meet guys like these guys
where they are. That has been our entry into religion, if you
will.
But I would like to twist it a little bit more and talk
about spirituality because that is a void that is just clearly
missing from a lot of the lives of the men we provide services
to. They want to do better, man. When you see a guy 18 years
old and you see his eyes have no sparkle, and he is a father
and he is responsible for transferring whatever he has to that
child, and he has nothing to transfer, and he has no hope, and
he is exposed to guns and drugs, poor housing, poor education,
I think it is practical, the behavior we see displayed on
television as it relates to inner-city America because that is
how they have been trained. They haven't been trained in Coppin
State, Morehouse State, Harvard. They have been trained on the
streets. That is how they should respond if that is the only
training they have been exposed to.
Mr. Collins. That type of training very seldom has anything
to do with a Supreme Being or God.
Mr. Jones. That's right.
Mr. Collins. You mentioned child support, does your program
actually suspend child support obligations while a father is
engaged in your program?
Mr. Jones. No. Prior to about 1 year ago, I know Dr.
Johnson is here. This guy over here, his shop is here in
Washington. You should visit NPCL, believe me. This guy took me
home one night and convinced me. It took about 3 hours. I
wanted him to leave. He had taken me home and we were sitting
in front of my house and he is talking about the potential of
the benefit to children if community-based fatherhood programs
entered into a relationship with child support, not as an
adversarial and not as a collections-based activity, but in a
supportive way. Yes, we need to look at acknowledging paternity
and men being responsible financially and emotionally for their
children. But also the potential for child support to create a
funding stream so the fatherhood programs can operate so that
we would get away from deadbeat dads. Nigel Van I believe is
here. Nigel will tell you they are not deadbeats, they are dead
broke.
Mr. Collins. Yes. That's often the reason they don't pay
their child support.
You mentioned the fact that you said to heck with the
church and state relationship that is often looked upon by the
Federal agencies, the Federal Government. Have you presented
this program to the churches throughout your community for
possible funding so that you would never have that question of
separation of State by having Federal dollars involved in your
program?
Mr. Jones. I think they would embrace it, but I do believe
they need a lot of technical assistance to get there. To run
fatherhood programs where there are standards that can be
evaluated, the field is not there. I mean you have got to be
real clear about putting dollars out there and the standards
that programs, whether they are faith based or community based,
what standards they adhere to.
I am proud to be a part of the National Practitioners
Network for Fathers and Families that is funded by the Ford
Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Charles Mott
Foundation, and one other foundation that escapes me right now.
But I am on two committees. One of the committees is the
standards committee, along with another guy named Jerry
Hamilton from Racine, Wisconsin. The two of us right now are
working on developing standards for the field that will be the
standards that programs will have to adhere to to be a part of
the National Practitioners Network. I am sure a lot of public
and private funders will look at that as a gauge on whether or
not a program should be funded and whether or not it is
effective.
Mr. Collins. But if your program includes Federal dollars,
there is always that question of separation of State.
Mr. Jones. There is always that question. But let me tell
you something. When it gets down to doing the work, you ain't
got time to worry about a lot of regulations, man, because you
are talking about guys who are coming whose kids are at risk.
Yes, you have to be mindful of it.
Mr. Collins. That's true, but we have an unfortunate
situation where oftentimes some of the people who run the
agencies step in and say they have a difference of opinion and
your dollars are cutoff.
Mr. Jones. Correct.
Mr. Collins. I hope you will maintain that train of thought
that you need to have some type of religious activities,
attending church. I would hope that you would confront the
churches in your community about support, either support
monetarily or support in changing the attitude and opinions of
a lot of those who are involved in Federal agencies who do not
have and share the same opinion that you have.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. English.
Mr. English. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I just want
to congratulate these men for having the courage to come in and
bring us up to speed on why this fatherhood program is an
enormous opportunity for Congress.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you. I will be very brief in my
question because the House goes in at 1 o'clock. I don't want
to get stuck with a bunch of votes here and keep people waiting
beyond the time, and we have a very good panel following this
one.
But I want to ask Mr. Edwards, Mr. Hope, and Mr. Downing,
were all of you from single-parent homes? Did you have a father
living at home? Mr. Edwards, did you have a father living at
home?
Mr. Edwards. I was raised in a single-parent home.
Considering my biological parents, yes, my mother raised me. I
had very little to no contact with my biological father.
However, I had a stepfather involved. He showed me particular
things that I needed to do. He didn't live with me, however, he
was my mother's mate. He tried to show me particular things,
particular behaviors and the attitude that I needed to be
successful in modern society.
However, because of not having that in-house, in-home
training day to day, not having that particular discipline
which he was not able to do because he was not my biological
father, I still made negative choices which gave me negative
consequences.
Chairman Shaw. I love that expression, negative choices and
negative consequences. You are what, in psychology?
Mr. Edwards. Yes.
Chairman Shaw. I figured that. [Laughter.]
I like that.
Mr. Hope.
Mr. Hope. No. My father wasn't actually in the household,
but I had access to him.
Chairman Shaw. Did he spend any time with you?
Mr. Hope. Yes and no. It was like first of all, I love my
father dearly despite all his decisions or whatever he's done.
He is still my father. I have got the utmost respect for him.
Things that I learned from him weren't actually the same things
I learned in the group. I learned what I could learn from him
and I used it to the best of my ability to use it. Even though
sometimes it may not have been right by some people, it got me
by for the short period of time when I was living that way. Now
I have got the right tools I need to go on further so----
Chairman Shaw. He wasn't exactly the best role model.
Mr. Hope. Right. But on the same note, maybe I just took
what I did learn from him and the negative stuff that I
learned, and I used it in a positive. He wasn't the best role
model but he was my father and I respect him dearly.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Downing, you have already told us that
you were what, one of nine kids or six kids and your mother
raised you all. You didn't have a father at home. Did you have
any contact with your dad?
Mr. Downing, Sr. Yes. As a matter of fact, he lives right
around the corner from my mom. We don't really talk, but we see
each other. I have brought him to one of the meetings when we
were having a meeting. They were telling me that I should go
and approach him and ask him why we don't talk as much as we
should. I just haven't had the courage to do it.
Chairman Shaw. That's interesting. You have got to be very
concerned about the role model that you are for your son here
that's next to you at this point.
Mr. Downing, Sr. Yes.
Chairman Shaw. I was very taken by the slogan. Mr. Edwards,
I think you said it and I think it is probably something that
all of you, if it is going to be, it's up to me. I can't think
of anything--everybody has got an excuse it seems, and it seems
that facing reality if it's going to be, it's got to be me I
think is a wonderful thing.
I would like to underscore one thing that Mr. Jones said
that I think that this panel and this hearing should certainly
take notice of because it's something I learned just a few
months ago. I think my staff heard it from you. That is a
question of these guys come in, they don't have a Social
Security card, they don't have a birth certificate, they have
no ID, government ID at all unless they just bought something
off the street. That is amazing when you really think about it,
that the first thing you have got to do is get them a Social
Security card and put them on that track. It is amazing that
the people out there and that so many of the people you deal
with--what percentage of the people you deal with come in with
no identification?
Mr. Jones. Man, it's anywhere from 60 to 80 percent. I
haven't looked at the numbers.
Chairman Shaw. Most of them.
Mr. Jones. But most of them.
Chairman Shaw. It probably means they have never worked.
Never had a real job, a legal job.
Mr. Jones. It's not just that they haven't had a real job.
In some cases they have. But you know, when you get
incarcerated, you have papers with you. They take the papers
from you. By the time you get released, you can't get the
papers back. You live someplace 1 week and you put your stuff
there. The family may move. Your papers are thrown someplace
else. It is just chaotic. It is not just the fact that they
never had it. Often times they have had it, they just are not
in possession of it now. They have to go back and get it again.
But there is that population that has never had it as well.
Chairman Shaw. Well, we have got a big job ahead of us.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. With your help, we will continue.
Chairman Shaw. That all of you on this panel are on the
right track of getting things done.
You said you had something you wanted to end with.
Mr. Jones. Yes. Serenity prayer, guys?
Grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
prepare to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the
difference.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shaw. Very good. Thank you. Thank all of you. We
appreciate your being here.
Our next panel, many are very familiar faces and people we
have worked with on the past on this and other matters. Wade
Horn. Dr. Wade Horn is president of the National Fatherhood
Initiative in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Charles Ballard, founder
and chief executive officer of the National Institute for
Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization here in
Washington, DC. Dr. Ronald Mincy is a senior program officer of
the Ford Foundation. Dr. Wendell Primus, who we have known for
many years as a staffperson on this Subcommittee, now with the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, DC. And
Gordon Berlin, who is a senior vice president of Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation of New York, New York.
Again, we have your full statement which will be made a
part of the record. We would invite you to proceed as you see
fit and summarize if you would. We are going to try to conclude
this hearing before 1, as we do expect votes approximately at
that time.
Dr. Horn.
STATEMENT OF WADE F. HORN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FATHERHOOD
INITIATIVE
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
here today. I am here representing the National Fatherhood
Initiative and to testify in strong support of the Fathers
Count Act of 1998 for four reasons. First, by supporting skill-
building programs for fathers, the bill sends a clear message
that fathers do matter, and not just financially. Second, by
including as one of its purposes the promotion of marriage, it
contains a strong message that marriage is the most effective
pathway to responsible fatherhood. Third, by including $2
billion in block grant funding, it will help to nurture and
support the growth of community-based fatherhood programs all
across America. Fourth, by helping low-income men become and
stay employed, it enhances not only their own life prospects,
but also their viability as responsible fathers and as marital
partners.
There are of course some who have objections to this bill.
Chief among them is the fact that the bill explicitly promotes
marriage. government, in the view of these critics, has no
business promoting personal values. Instead, they insist that
government policy should be neutral when it comes to things
like marriage. This argument might be persuasive if not for the
fact that for the past 30 or 40 years, government policy rather
than being neutral to marriage has actually punished marriage.
For example, when two-earner couples head for the altar instead
of cohabiting, their taxes actually go up, in some cases,
costing families with modest incomes $5,000 or more annually.
Things are even worse for low-income couples.
This would not be so bad if marriage didn't matter, but it
does, and not just a little. Marriage matters a lot. Children
fare better if they are raised in married intact two-parent
households. Men and women when they are married are happier,
healthier, and wealthier than their unmarried counterparts. The
best indicator of violent crime in a community is not race,
it's not ethnicity, it's not income, it is the prevalence of
marriage. Given that marriage is good for children, good for
adults, and good for communities, why on Earth should public
policy shy away from encouraging more of it?
By emphasizing the need to increase the number of children
living with married fathers, I don't mean to imply that
divorced or unwed fathers should be tossed overboard. Children
need their fathers. The fact that their fathers don't live in
the same household does not lessen that need. But in working
with divorced and never-married fathers, we should not shy away
from the ideal of married fatherhood. To do otherwise sends an
ambiguous message to the next generation of fathers. For their
future children's sake, we need to be clear that men should
wait until they are married before fathering children. Once
married, they should do everything they can to ensure their
marriage stays strong and vital.
A related objection comes from libertarians. They say that
government ought not to be in the business of social
engineering. But the truth is that in many low-income
communities today, fatherhood and marriage have disappeared,
and not just recently, but for many generations. How on Earth
does a young man who is growing up in a fourth generation
fatherless household in a community where there are no married
fathers to look to, how on Earth do we expect dismantling
government alone is going to teach that man how to be a good,
responsible man, a responsible father, and a loving husband?
The answer is it ain't going to happen.
What about the fatherless children? Do we just shrug our
shoulders and say gee, you should have picked a better father
when you were born? The fatherless children need and deserve
our support as well. Dismantling government alone is not going
to fix that.
Given the clear connection between fatherlessness and such
social ills as poverty, crime, educational failure and
substance abuse, we simply cannot afford social indifference on
this issue. Government cannot solve all of our Nation's ills.
But what it can do it must do. I am not suggesting that any
piece of legislation, and certainly not this one, is going to
magically transform America from a fatherless Nation into one
full of real fathers and good husbands. Nor do I believe that
this legislation is perfect. In particular, I think there are
ways to strengthen the requirement that marriage be set as an
ideal, not just for some programs supported by this block
grant, but for all programs supported by it.
The Fathers Count Act of 1998 is the start. And start we
must, because if we do not, we will continue to see our Nation
slide into fatherlessness, and we will be a nation forever in
decline. The good news is we are starting to see for the first
time in over 30 years a leveling off of the number of children
growing up in fatherless households. I believe that with
concerted effort, we can actually reverse the trend of
fatherlessness, not just stem the tide, but reverse it in the
next 5 years. But doing so will require that we take a firm
stand, not only on supporting the importance of responsible
fatherhood, but marriage as the most likely pathway to a
lifetime father for a child.
Effective public policy means encouraging more skilled
fathering, more work, and more marriages. The Fathers Count Act
of 1998 does all three, which is why it has my wholehearted
endorsement. Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Wade F. Horn, President, National Fatherhood Initiative
My name is Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. I am a child psychologist
and President of the National Fatherhood Initiative, an
organization whose mission is to improve the well-being of
children by increasing the number of children growing up with
an involved, responsible and loving father. Formerly, I served
as Commissioner for Children, Youth and Families within the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and was a
presidential appointee to the National Commission on Children.
I also served as a member of the National Commission on
Childhood Disability and on the U.S. Advisory Board on Welfare
Indicators. I appreciate this invitation to testify on
promising approaches to promoting fatherhood, including the
Fathers Count Act of 1998 (H.R. 3314) recently introduced by
members of this Subcommittee.
The Consequences of Fatherlessness
The family is the primary institution through which we
protect and nurture our children, and upon which free societies
depend for establishing social order and promoting individual
liberty and fulfillment. However, over the past several decades
the United States has been experiencing a dramatic decline in
the institution of marriage and reliance on two-parent families
to raise children. Even more precisely, what we have been
experiencing has been a decline of fatherhood. When marriages
fail, or when children are born out of wedlock, it is almost
always fathers who are absent. The absence of fathers has, in
turn, severely increased the life risks faced by their
children.
Almost 75 percent of American children living in single-
parent families will experience poverty before they turn
eleven-years-old, compared to only 20 percent of children in
two-parent families.\1\ Children who grow up absent their
fathers are also more likely to fail at school or to drop
out,\2\ experience behavioral or emotional problems requiring
psychiatric treatment,\3\ engage in early sexual activity,\4\
and develop drug and alcohol problems.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Commission on Children, ``Just the Facts: A Summary of
Recent Information on America's Children and Their Families,''
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993).
\2\ Debra Dawson, ``Family Structure and Children's Well-Being:
Data from the 1988 National Health Survey,'' Journal of Marriage and
Family 53 (1991); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
National Center for Health Statistics, ``Survey of Child Health,''
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993).
\3\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center
for Health Statistics, ``National Health Interview Survey,''
(Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).
\4\ Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, Single Mothers and Their
Children (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 1986); Susan
Newcomer and J. Richard Udry, ``Parental Marital Status Effects on
Adolescent Sexual Behavior,'' Journal of Marriage and the Family (May
1987): 235-240.
\5\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center
for Health Statistics, ``Survey on Child Health,'' (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children growing up with absent fathers are especially
likely to experience violence. They are three times more likely
to commit suicide as adolescents \6\ and to be victims of child
abuse or neglect.\7\ Violent criminals are also overwhelmingly
males who grew up without fathers, including up to 60 percent
of rapists,\8\ 75 percent of adolescents charged with
murder,\9\ and 70 percent of juveniles in state reform
institutions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, ``Trends in White Male
Adolescent Young-Adults and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common
Underlying Structural Factors?'' Social Science Research 23 (1994): 57-
81; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for
Health Statistics, ``Survey on Child Health,'' (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1993).
\7\ Catherine M. Malkin and Michael E. Lamb, ``Child Maltreatment:
A Test of Sociobiological Theory,'' Journal of Comparative Family
Studies 25 (1994): 121-130.
\8\ Nicholas Davidson, ``Life Without Father,'' Policy Review
(1990).
\9\ Dewey Cornell, et al., ``Characteristics of Adolescents Charged
with Homicide,'' Behavioral Sciences and the Law 5 (1987): 11-23.
\10\ M. Eileen Matlock, et al., ``Family Correlates of Social
Skills Deficits in Incarcerated and Nonincarcerated Adolescents,''
Adolescence 29 (1994): 119-130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of these data, noted developmental psychologist
Urie Bronfenbrenner has concluded:
``Controlling for factors such as low income, children
growing up in [father absent] households are at a greater risk
for experiencing a variety of behavioral and educational
problems, including extremes of hyperactivity and withdrawal;
lack of attentiveness in the classroom; difficulty in deferring
gratification; impaired academic achievement; school
misbehavior; absenteeism; dropping out; involvement in socially
alienated peer groups, and the so-called `teenage syndrome' of
behaviors that tend to hang together--smoking, drinking, early
and frequent sexual experience, and in the more extreme cases,
drugs, suicide, vandalism, violence, and criminal acts.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Urie Bronfenbrenner, ``What do Families do?'' Family Affairs
(Winter/Spring 1991): 1-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Historic Role of the Father in Public Policy
Since the 1950's, the fathers' role in public policy has
been mostly about paternity establishment and child support
enforcement. This is not, of course, without merit. Any man who
fathers a child ought to be held financially responsible for
that child. But as important as paternity establishment and
child support enforcement may be, they are by themselves
unlikely to substantially improve the well-being of children
for several reasons.
First, paternity establishment does not equal child
support. In fact, only one in four single women with children
living below the poverty line receive any child support from
the non-custodial father.\12\ Some unwed fathers, especially in
low-income communities, may lack the financial resources to
provide economically for their children. For these men,
establishing paternity may not translate into economic support
for the child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Ways and Means Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, 1996
Green Book. Washington, D.C., 1996, p. 580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But a lack of earnings does not seem to be the only
explanation for the low rate of child support. Although studies
show a substantial range of income, the average child on AFDC
has a father who earns an annual income of approximately
$15,000, indicating some ability to pay child support.\13\
Thus, even when unwed fathers can afford to pay, many don't--
this despite spending over $3 billion dollars annually on child
support enforcement efforts. Although precise data are not
available, reasons frequently cited for lack of payment by non-
resident fathers who could afford to pay child support include
parental conflict, paternal substance abuse, re-marriage, and
simple disinterest in the welfare of the child or mother.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ E. Clay Shaw, Nancy L. Johnson, and Fred Grandy, Moving Ahead:
How Americans Can Reduce Poverty Through Work. U.S. House of
Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, June, 1992, Table 7 (p.
26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, even if paternity establishment led to a child
support award, the average level of child support (about $3000
per year \14\) is unlikely to move large numbers of children
out of poverty. Some may move out of poverty marginally. But
moving from poverty to near poverty is not associated with
significant improvements in child outcomes,\15\ absent changes
in family structure or workforce attachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Ways and Means Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, 1996
Green Book. Washington, D.C., 1996, p. 578.
\15\ See, for example, Kristen A. Moore, Donna Ruane Morrison,
Martha Zaslow and Dana A. Glei, Ebbing and Flowing, Learning and
Growing: Family Economic Resources and Children's Development. Paper
presented at the Workshop on Welfare and Child Development sponsored by
the Board of Children and Families of the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development's Family and Child Well-Being Network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, an exclusive emphasis on child support enforcement
may only drive these men farther away from their children. As
word circulates within low-income communities that cooperating
with paternity establishment but failing to comply with child
support orders may result in imprisonment or revocation of
one's driver's license, many may simply choose to become less
involved with their children. Thus, the unintended consequence
of such policies is to decrease, not increase, the number of
children growing up with fathers, proving once again that no
good policy goes unpunished.
Finally, a narrow focus on child support enforcement
ignores the many non-economic contributions that fathers make
to the well-being of their children. While the provision of
economic support is certainly important, it is neither the only
nor the most important role that fathers play. Emphasizing
fatherhood in largely economic terms has helped to contribute
to its demise. After all, if a father is little more than a
paycheck to his children, he can easily be replaced by a
welfare payment. If we want fathers to be more than just money
machines, we will need a public policy that supports their work
as nurturers, disciplinarians, mentors, moral instructors and
skill coaches, and not just as economic providers.
If paternity establishment and child support enforcement by
themselves are not the answer, then what is?
Recommendations for a Pro-Father Public Policy
First, our culture needs to send a more compelling message
to men as to the critical role they play in the lives of their
children. Currently, fathers are generally seen as ``nice to
have around'' and as a source of economic support, but are not
understood as contributing much that is particularly unique or
irreplaceable to the well-being of their children. To counter
this rather limited view of the importance of fathers, public
policy must communicate the critical role fathers play--as
nurturers, as disciplinarians, as teachers, and as role
models--in the healthy development of their children. One way
to do this is through the funding of public education
campaigns.
Over the past several years, the National Fatherhood
Initiative has developed and implemented a series of public
education campaigns designed to highlight the importance of
fathers to the well-being of children, families and
communities. Working in conjunction with the Ad Council, we
developed and distributed a national public service
announcement (PSA) campaign to raise awareness that fathers
make unique and irreplaceable contributions to the lives of
their children, and that collectively we need to do more to
encourage and support men to be good and responsible fathers.
To date, this PSA campaign has garnered in excess of $100
million in donated broadcasting time.
We have also developed, in partnership with Radio America,
a series of radio PSAs. These fatherhood PSAs feature a mix of
celebrities and experts to remind fathers how important it is
for them to spend time with their children. Among those who
appear in this series are General Colin Powell (Ret.), Vice
President Al Gore, former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, U.S.
Senators Dan Coats and Bill Bradley, U.S. Representatives J.C.
Watts and Steve Largent, and Penn State football coach Joe
Paterno. We have also developed a state-wide public education
campaign promoting responsible fatherhood in partnership with
the Virginia Department of Health.
For those who may believe that PSA campaigns do not have
much of an effect, an independent evaluation of the public
education campaign we developed for the state of Virginia
suggests otherwise. This evaluation, conducted by researchers
at the University of Virginia, found (1) nearly 1 of every 3
adult Virginians could recall having seen the PSAs; (2) 40,000
fathers reported they were spending more time with their
children as a result of seeing the ads; (3) and 100,000 non-
fathers reported reaching out to support or encourage a father
in their community.
Second, a pro-father public policy must also be a pro-
marriage policy. All available evidence suggests that the most
effective pathway to involved, committed and responsible
fatherhood is marriage. Research consistently documents that
unmarried fathers, whether through divorce or out-of-wedlock
fathering, tend over time to become disconnected, both
financially and psychologically, from their children. Forty
percent of children in father absent homes have not seen their
father in at least a year. Of the remaining 60 percent, only
one in five sleeps even one night per month in the father's
home. Overall, only one in six sees their father an average of
once or more per week.\16\ More than half of all children who
don't live with their fathers have never even been in their
father's home.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., and Christine Winquist Nord,
``Parenting Apart: Patterns of Child Rearing After Marital
Disruption,'' Journal of Marriage and the Family, (November 1985): 896.
\17\ Frank Furstenberg and Andrew Cherlin, Divided Families: What
Happens to Children When Parents Part (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unwed fathers are particularly unlikely to stay connected
to their children over time. Whereas 57 percent of unwed
fathers are visiting their child at least once per week during
the first two years of their child's life, by the time their
child reaches 7\1/2\ years of age, that percentage drops to
less than 25 percent.\18\ Indeed, approximately 75 percent of
men who are not living with their children at the time of their
birth never subsequently live with them.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Robert Lerman and Theodora Ooms, Young Unwed Fathers: Changing
Roles and Emerging Policies (Philadelphia, PA: Temple, 1993): 45.
\19\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even when unwed fathers are cohabitating with the mother at
the time of their child's birth, they are very unlikely to stay
involved in their children's lives over the long term. Although
a quarter of non-marital births occur to cohabitating couples,
only four out of ten cohabitating unwed fathers ever go on to
marry the mother of their children, and those that do are more
likely to eventually divorce than men who father children
within marriage.\20\ Remarriage, or, in cases of an unwed
father, marriage to someone other than the child's mother,
makes it especially unlikely that a non-custodial father will
remain in contact with his children.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Moore, Kristin A., ``Nonmarital Childbearing in the United
States.'' In: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ``Report to
Congress on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing,'' DHHS Pub. no. (PHS) 95-1257,
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995): vii.
\21\ Linda S. Stephens, ``Will Johnny See Daddy This Week?''
Journal of Family Issues 17 (1996): 466-494.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The inescapable conclusion is this: if we want to increase
the proportion of children growing up with involved and
committed fathers, we will have to increase the number of
children living with their married fathers. Unmarried men, and
especially unwed fathers, are simply unlikely to stay in
contact with their children over the long term.
By emphasizing the need to increase the number of children
living with married dads, I do not mean to imply that divorced
or unwed fathers should be tossed overboard. Children need
their fathers. The fact that their father does not reside in
the same household does not lessen that need. But in working
with divorced and never-married fathers, we should not shy away
from the ideal of married fatherhood. To do otherwise sends an
ambiguous message to the next generation of fathers. For their
future children's sakes, we need to be clearer that men should
wait until they are married before fathering children, and once
married, they should do everything they can to ensure their
marriage stays strong and vital.
One way to strengthen marriage, especially within low-
income communities, is to expand participation in welfare-to-
work employment programs to include the broader population of
low-income males--not only as a means to increase their own
life prospects, but also as a means to increase their
marriageability. Research has found that the availability of a
suitable potential husband, primarily defined as being employed
and not in jail or prison, had a greater effect on marriage and
nonmarital fertility than did AFDC benefit levels.\22\ This
literature indicates clearly that if men are employed, they are
better potential marital partners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ William J. Darity, Jr., and Samuel L. Myers, ``Family
Structure and the Marginalization of Black Men: Policy Implications.''
In M. Belinda Tucker and Claudia Mitchell-Kernan, eds. The Decline in
Marriage Among African-Americans. New York: Russell Sage Foundation,
1995, pp. 263-321; see also Randall Stokes and Albert Chevan, ``Female-
Headed Families: Social and Economic Context of Racial Differences,''
Journal of Urban Affairs, 18, 1996, pp. 245-268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In expanding employment services to low-income males,
government should be careful not to condition receipt of
services upon having fathered a child out-of-wedlock. To do so
may only serve to introduce perverse incentives for men to
father children out-of-wedlock, in much the same way that AFDC
provided perverse incentives for women to bear children out-of-
wedlock. The cultural and public policy message must be this:
we stand ready to assist low-income males who play by the rules
and wait to have children until after they are married.
Third, public policy needs to do more to support the
growing number of community-based organizations interested in
implementing local fatherhood programs. At the founding of the
National Fatherhood Initiative just three years ago, we could
barely find a hundred community-based fatherhood programs.
Today, that number has swelled to well over two thousand.
Nearly everywhere one turns in every part of the country, there
seems to be a new interest in implementing fatherhood outreach,
support, and skill building programs.
That's the good news. The bad news is that the fatherhood
field is still quite fragile. Again and again, we hear from
practitioners of the need to build greater capacity within the
emerging fatherhood movement. Building capacity requires
additional resources. Additional resources means money.
While many private foundations today talk a good talk about
the need to reach out to and support fathers, far too few
actually provide any resources to do so. Public funding for
fatherhood promotion, support and skill building programs is
practically non-existent. Consequently, most fatherhood
programs today exist on shoestring budgets. Some on no budgets
at all. Without additional resources, the nascent fatherhood
movement is likely to fail.
In addition, we need more and better evaluations of
existing fatherhood programs. The truth is we don't know what
works best and for whom. While there are many promising
approaches, no approach has yet been proven, using generally
accepted scientific evaluation methods, to yield its intended
effects, especially in the long-term. Whatever government
decides to do in terms of fatherhood promotion, it must also
commit to providing adequate resources to determine the
effectiveness of those efforts.
Fourth, while supporting fathers, we can not forget the
importance of supporting children growing up in father absent
households. The fact is that nearly 4 out of every 10 children
in America today--nearly 24 million overall--are growing up in
a home in which their father does not live. In working with
fathers, we can not forget the importance of reaching out to
the fatherless. Although providing a fatherless child with an
adult male mentor is not the same thing as providing a real
live, in-the-home, love-the-mother, father, it can be very
helpful in teaching fatherless boys what it means to be a
responsible man, and in teaching fatherless daughters what to
demand from men in their lives.
The Fathers Count Act of 1998
Given these recommendations for a pro-father public policy,
the Fathers Count Act of 1998 is the right legislation at the
right time for the following three reasons: First, by
supporting skill building programs for fathers, it sends a
clear message that fathers do matter, and not just financially.
Second, by including as one of its purposes the promotion of
marriage, it contains a strong message that marriage is the
most effective pathway to responsible fatherhood. Third, by
including $2 billion dollars in block grant funding, it will
help nurture and support the growth of the fatherhood field.
There are, of course, objections to the bill. First, there
are some who dislike the fact that the legislation explicitly
promotes marriage. Government, these critics maintain, has no
business promoting personal ``values.'' Instead, they insist,
government policy ought to be neutral when it comes to
marriage.
This argument might be persuasive if not for the fact that
for the past thirty years government policy, rather than being
neutral, has actually punished marriage. For example, when two-
earner couples head for the altar instead of cohabiting, their
taxes actually go up, in some cases costing families with
modest incomes $5000 or more.
Things are even worse for low-income couples. In fact,
should a single mother on welfare choose to marry a low-wage
earner and, in doing so, give her children a real live in-the-
home dad instead of a child support check, her benefits are
frequently reduced, if not eliminated. According to
calculations by Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, when a
man working full-time at a minimum wage job marries a mother on
welfare with two children, the new family's combined earnings
plus benefits would be $3,862 less than if the couple did not
marry and the woman stayed on welfare.\23\ Hardly an incentive
to get married.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Gene Steuerle, ``Removing Marriage Penalties: Is This a
Preventative Strategy?'' Presentation at The American Enterprise
Institute conference on ``America's Disconnected Youth: Toward a
Preventative Strategy.'' Washington, D.C., May 16, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn't be so bad if marriage didn't matter. But it
does. And not just a little. It matters a lot. Children fare
much better when raised in a married, intact, two-parent
household. In addition, research indicates that both married
men and married women are happier, healthier, and wealthier
than their unmarried counterparts. Furthermore, the best
indicator of the violent crime rate in a community is not race,
ethnicity or even income, but the prevalence of marriage. Given
that marriage is good for children, adults and society, public
policy should not shy away from encouraging more of it.
A second objection comes from those who say we can not
afford any new spending. I agree. But this isn't new spending.
Funding for the fatherhood block grant would come from cutting
other federal spending. Some options could conceivably cut more
money than new spending promoting responsible fatherhood. If
so, passage of the Fathers Count block grant would actually
save money, especially in the long run when teenage pregnancy,
crime, violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and child poverty are
reduced as a result of the return of the fathers.
A final objection is that government ought not to be in the
business of social engineering. But the truth is that in many
low-income communities, fatherhood and marriage have virtually
disappeared. And not just recently; but for many generations.
How in the world does a young male growing up in a fourth
generation fatherless household and in a community largely
without dads of the married variety, come to understand what
responsible fatherhood and marriage are all about? How does
simply dismantling government teach these young men the skills
to be good, involved and committed dads? And what of the
children of these fathers? Do we just sit back and say, ``Gee,
you should have chosen your pop better.''
Given the clear connection between fatherlessness and such
social ills as poverty, crime, educational failure, and
substance abuse, we can not afford social indifference on this
issue. Government can not solve all of our nation's ills, but
what it can do it must. This legislation would make a
significant step toward reducing the three decade long slide
into fatherlessness and social decay.
I want to be clear. I'm not suggesting that merely passing
a piece of legislation is going to magically transform our
increasingly fatherless nation into a nation of real fathers
and good husbands. Nor do I believe the Fathers Count Act of
1998 is perfect legislation. I would, for example, prefer to
see marriage as the over-riding goal of all fatherhood programs
working with fathers supported through the block grant,
including those working with low-income fathers.
But the Fathers Count Act of 1998 is a start. And start we
must, for until we solve this crisis of fatherlessness we will
be a nation in decline.
Conclusion
There exists today no greater single threat to the long-
term well-being of children, our communities or our nation,
than the increasing number of children being raised without a
committed, responsible and loving father. Our nation is known
for its optimism and fondness for reforms of many sorts that
promise to make society safer, stronger, and richer. Yet, all
social reforms we have attempted in the past, or may attempt in
the future, will likely pale in comparison to the good that
would come if we could turn back the tide of fatherlessness.
This tide will not be turned easily, and certainly not by
changes in public policy alone. But public policy can have a
significant effect upon how potential parents view marriage and
parental responsibilities.
As government at all levels proceeds with reforms in this
area, it should keep in mind both the importance of fathers to
the well-being of children and the fact that marriage is the
most effective route to increasing the number of children
growing up with an involved, committed, and loving father. As
in the past, states will be tempted to conclude that promoting
responsible fatherhood is mostly about child support
enforcement. But child support enforcement alone is
insufficient to ensure that every child grows up with a
legally, morally, and socially responsible father.
The good news is that we are starting to see, for the first
time in over thirty years, a leveling off of the number of
children growing up in father absent homes. I believe that with
concerted effort we can actually reverse the trend toward
fatherlessness within the next five years. Not simply stop the
rise in fatherlessness, but reverse it. Doing so will require
that we stand firm on the issue of marriage, for marriage is
the most likely--not perfect, but certainly the most likely--
pathway to a lifetime father.
Simply put: children need their fathers, and men need
marriage to be good fathers. Effective public policy means
encouraging more skilled fathering, more work, and more
marriages. The Fathers Count Act of 1998 does all three.
I thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this
testimony in support of this important legislation, and would
be pleased to answer any questions you might have concerning my
testimony.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Dr. Horn.
Mr. Ballard.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. BALLARD, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD AND FAMILY
REVITALIZATION
Mr. Ballard. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great privilege
to be here today. I want to encourage you, Mr. Chairman, to
stick to this bill. I remember 22 years ago when I started my
work with fathers, there were many nay sayers who said it
wouldn't work. I look around the country and this Subcommittee
today, which is an example I think of what can happen when you
stick to it.
On what Dr. Horn has said, I agree with it, all of that,
and had some of that in my speech. Of course the panel before
us was a demonstration of that. I would like to kind of cut to
the chase and go right to the heart of the matter. Most of the
emphasis that we're looking at for fatherhood is placed upon
the urban central community in which people are leaving the
community in large numbers, leaving behind disconnected,
uneducated, poor families.
Just a note, my program alone cannot effectively address
the issues. This year in this country 250,000 African-Americans
are going to die prematurely. That is a city the size of
Birmingham, Alabama. Mostly fathers, mostly mothers. We learned
about 1 month ago that for the age group 25 to 45, AIDS is the
number one killer. I heard you indicate homicide among young
men. All these are lifestyle diseases, lifestyle deaths of
which government cannot effectively address those because they
are moral issues, they are spiritual issues that only the
community and individuals can address effectively.
I was amazed to discover that out of the prison
institutions, 51.5 percent of those men are of African descent.
We represent only 10 percent or less of the population. We are
overpopulating that area. We must be concerned not only about
the fathers being involved, but we are discovering men coming
out of prison with AIDS. They are passing it onto their
girlfriends and to their wives. That institution that is one
for corrections is really breeding more diseases than ever
before.
I think about the issues of marriage in which I believe
without this institution, no matter what we put forth, is not
going to work. I remember reading that in 1890 in this
community we are talking about, we had the highest rate of
marriage of all groups, which means that during slavery they
had three things. A sense of God-consciousness, a sense of
family, and a sense of community. Those were lost I believe
with integration, when people began to move out of the
community to seek for better land and leaving behind young
women, uneducated and unskilled.
How do we address this? Well the Institute for Responsible
Fatherhood, which I direct and have done for the last 16 years
as founder, believe that, and we have expanded from Cleveland,
Ohio, into now into six different States, California,
Tennessee, Wisconsin. In fact, in Tennessee, Governor Sundquist
funds the program almost entirely. We just received a $4.5
million grant from Labor, to help fathers find jobs. We are
seeing great success in that area. In fact, Chuck Hobbs, who is
with the American Institute for Full Employment, and we are in
partnership with that program. We just finished our training in
Alabama, are training 12 new couples to go out and do our work.
That is what we do.
We take married couples who have small children in many
cases, who love each other, who believe in God and family and
community, and who really hold the community as a very high
value. They move into those communities. They actually live
there, buy homes, lease houses, for the major purpose of
portraying marriage and family as the preferred relationship
for children. I believe this bill is right on target. We also
believe that men who have good jobs become better fathers and
better supporters.
I just want to categorically say to you you are right on
target with this bill. There are programs like mine, like the
one Joe Jones directs, that need your support. If we get that
kind of support through this bill, we will not only reach
fathers, but turn their hearts to their children and increase
marriages in our community.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. BALLARD, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD AND FAMILY REVITALIZATION
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I AM BOTH PLEASED AND HONORED TO
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU THIS MORNING ON AN ISSUE TO
WHICH I HAVE DEVOTED ALL OF MY ADULT LIFE--THE RE-INTRODUCTION
OF FATHERS INTO THE HEARTS AND LIVES OF THEIR CHILDREN, THEIR
FAMILIES, AND THEIR COMMUNITIES. MY NAME IS CHARLES A. BALLARD
AND I AM CONSIDERED BY MANY TO BE THE FOUNDER OF WHAT IS BEING
CALLED THE ``MODERN-DAY FATHERHOOD MOVEMENT IN AMERICA.'' I AM
ALSO THE FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE INSTITUTE
FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD AND FAMILY REVITALIZATION, A
NATIONAL, PRIVATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT HAS FOR
SIXTEEN YEARS SPEARHEADED THE EFFORT TO BRING TO THE FOREFRONT
THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE AND ROLE OF FATHERHOOD IN THE
RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION OF THE FAMILY, AND IN THE
REVITALIZATION OF OUR COMMUNITIES.
THE MISSION OF THE INSTITUTE IS SIMPLE--CHANGING FATHERS,
CHANGING FAMILIES, WHICH CHANGES COMMUNITIES. MEN WHO BECOME
RESPONSIBLE, NURTURING FATHERS AND HUSBANDS TRANSFORM THEIR
LIVES, THE LIVES OF THEIR CHILDREN, THE LIVES OF THEIR
FAMILIES, AND THE HEALTH OF THEIR COMMUNITIES. ENDURING CHANGE
STARTS IN A PERSON?S HEART SO THE INSTITUTE SEEKS TO TURN THE
HEARTS OF FATHERS TO THEIR CHILDREN, AND THE HEARTS OF CHILDREN
TO THEIR FATHERS. RATHER THAN FOCUSING ON THE EXTERNAL
ENVIRONMENT, WE AT THE INSTITUTE DEAL WITH THE INTERNAL
INDIVIDUAL, HELPING HIM TO IDENTIFY ROOT CAUSES ? AND TO EXPAND
THE SCOPE OF HIS POSSIBILITIES. WE LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY; WE
REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY; AND WE BREAK THROUGH THE BARRIERS
THAT HAVE CRIPPLED THE COMMUNITY. IN SHORT, WE ARE THE
ARCHITECTS OF PERSONAL TRANSFORMATION THAT BRINGS ABOUT
COMMUNITY RESTORATION.
RECENTLY, THE INSTITUTE WAS ONE OF 49 ORGANIZATIONS
SELECTED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TO RUN A NATIONAL
WELFARE-TO-WORK DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM IN SIX CITIES ACROSS THE
COUNTRY. THIS PROGRAM WILL PLACE OVER 500 NON-CUSTODIAL FATHERS
AND MOTHERS INTO OUR NATIONAL WORKFORCE. THESE WORKING CITIZENS
WILL NOW BE CONTRIBUTORS TO THE PUBLIC REVENUE BASE THAT
FORMERLY SUBSIDIZED AND SUPPORTED THEM. MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT IS
OVER 500 FAMILIES THAT WILL BE CHANGING THE FACE OF THEIR HOMES
AND THEIR COMMUNITIES.
THE CURRENT DEMAND FOR THE INSTITUTE'S SERVICES FAR EXCEEDS
ITS CAPACITY. OVER 60 CITIES, STATES AND COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE ASKED FOR THE INSTITUTE'S ASSISTANCE IN
DESIGNING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS. OTHER WELFARE-TO-
WORK GRANTEES HAVE ALREADY REQUESTED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM
THE INSTITUTE OUT OF RECOGNITION OF THE SUCCESS OF ITS APPROACH
WHICH STATES ``THE MOST POWERFUL JOB CREATION PROGRAM EVER IS
TO REINSTILL IN THE FATHER THE LOVE FOR HIS CHILD.''
THE INSTITUTE'S APPROACH HAS BEEN STUDIED OVER THE YEARS TO
ASSESS ITS EFFECTIVENESS AND OUTCOMES. IN FACT, TWO INDEPENDENT
THIRD-PARTY RESEARCH EVALUATIONS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED THAT
ILLUSTRATE THE IMPACT OF THE INSTITUTE'S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD
APPROACH. IN 1992, RESEARCHERS AT CASE WESTERN RESERVE
UNIVERSITY IN CLEVELAND, OHIO EVALUATED THE INSTITUTE'S PROGRAM
AND FOUND THE FOLLOWING:
97% OF INTERVIEWED FATHERS SPENT MORE TIME WITH
THEIR CHILDREN AND ARE PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT;
96% EXPERIENCED AN IMPROVED RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
CHILDREN'S MOTHER;
70% OF FATHERS COMPLETED THEIR HIGH SCHOOL
EDUCATION; AND
62% ARE EMPLOYED FULL-TIME, AND 11% ARE EMPLOYED
PART-TIME.
THIS YEAR, THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE COLLEGE OF SOCIAL
WORK RELEASED AN EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTE'S WORK WITH NON-
CUSTODIAL FATHERS IN GOVERNOR SUNDQUIST'S FAMILIES FIRST
PROGRAM. THE REPORT DOCUMENTED THAT THREE-FOURTHS OF THE MEN
PARTICIPATING IN THE INSTITUTE'S NASHVILLE PROGRAM--ACTUALLY
77.3%--ARE FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING THEIR CHILDREN, EITHER
VOLUNTARILY OR DUE TO COURT ORDER. THE REPORT WENT ON TO NOTE,
AND I QUOTE, ``MANY CHANGES IN FAMILIES WHO HAVE WORKED WITH
THE INSTITUTE WERE REPORTED BY FOCUS-GROUP AND INTERVIEW
PARTICIPANTS. SOME NEGATIVE BEHAVIORS THAT STOPPED INCLUDED
DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE AND ACTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILD
ABUSE...FATHERS REPORTED BECOMING INVOLVED WITH THEIR CHILDREN
AND SPEAKING AND SPENDING MORE TIME WITH THEIR FAMILIES, WHEN
BEFORE THEY HAD NOT.''
WHEN I BEGAN THIS WORK MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO IN CLEVELAND,
THE PROBLEMS FACING AMERICA'S COMMUNITIES HAD A SIMILAR FACE TO
THAT OF TODAY--DRUG USE AND ABUSE; HIGH RATES OF HOMICIDE AND
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; JUVENILE DELINQUENCY; LACK OF ADEQUATE CHILD
CARE; INADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND RESOURCES; OUT-
OF-WEDLOCK BIRTHS AND TEENAGE PREGNANCIES. BUT THE FACE OF OUR
URBAN COMMUNITIES TODAY HAVE MORE DEEPLY ETCHED LINES OF
ANGUISH AND PAIN THAN EVER BEFORE. IN THE HEIGHT OF OUR
NATION'S ECONOMIC RESURGENCE, OUR INNER CITIES ARE PLAGUED
WITH:
INCREASING RATES OF ADULT MALE INCARCERATION--
51.5% OF AMERICA'S ADULT MALE PRISON POPULATION IS AFRICAN
AMERICAN--AND MANY ARE FATHERS--YET, AFRICAN-AMERICAN MALES
MAKE UP LESS THAN 8% OF OUR COUNTRY'S TOTAL POPULATION;
ACCELERATED RATES OF JUVENILE MALE INVOLVEMENT IN
THE CRIMINAL JUSTIC SYSTEM--65% OF YOUNG, AFRICAN-AMERICAN
MALES, MANY OF THEM TEENAGE FATHERS, ARE INVOLVED IN AMERICA'S
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM;
RECORD NUMBERS OF CHILDREN IN THE FOSTER CARE
SYSTEM--68% OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN CHILDREN FROM BIRTH TO AGE 18
ARE INVOLVED IN AMERICA'S FOSTER CARE SYSTEM.
MORE SOBERING IS THE RELENTLESS ASSAULT ON THE LIVES OF OUR
INNER-CITY RESIDENTS WHO ARE DYING IN RECORD NUMBERS:
AIDS IS THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH FOR AFRICAN-
AMERICANS IN THE 25 TO 44 AGE GROUP, WHICH ARE THE PRIME AGES
FOR PARENTING;
HOMICIDE IS THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH FOR
AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES IN THE 15 TO 25 AGE GROUP;
SUICIDE IS THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH FOR
AFRICAN-AMERICAN CHILDREN IN THE 9 TO 15 AGE GROUP--A 114%
INCREASE NATIONWIDE SINCE 1980!!; AND
DEATHS OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN MALES DUE TO CANCER,
CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE, TUBERCULOSIS, AND HYPERTENSION ARE
INCREASING FOR ALL AGE GROUPS IN AMERICA.
CLEARLY, WE HAVE A MORAL IMPERATIVE TO ACT DECISIVELY TO
SAVE FAMILIES AND THE SOUL OF THIS GREAT NATION. AS RESIDENTS
OF THE INNER-CITY SUFFER THIS UNRELENTING ASSAULT ON THEIR
SAFETY, THEIR HEALTH, THEIR HOMES, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THEIR
FAMILIES, THEY FIND LITTLE SOLACE IN WHAT HAS HISTORICALLY
UNDERGIRDED IMPOVERISHED AND SEGREGATED COMMUNITIES--THE
PRESENCE OF STRONG, UNIFIED AND NURTURING FAMILIES AND
NEIGHBORHOODS. THESE CORNERSTONES OF AMERICA'S CENTRAL-CITY
COMMUNITIES ARE FLEEING TO THE SUBURBS, LEAVING IN THEIR WAKE
THOSE WHO ARE LEAST ABLE TO HOLD OFF THE DECAY AND ENCROACHING
DESTRUCTION OF THE COMMUNITY.
THERE IS AN UNPRECEDENTED FLIGHT FROM THE INNER CITY BY
MIDDLE-CLASS AFRICAN AMERICANS--AND BY IMMIGRANTS--WHO,
HERETOFORE, NOT ONLY HAVE BEEN THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA'S
INNER-CITY COMMUNITIES, BUT ALSO ITS NUCLEUS. WITHOUT THE
NUCLEUS, AN ORGANISM, OR THIS CASE, A COMMUNITY, DIES. THIS IS
PRECISELY WHY THE INSTITUTE HAS ESTABLISHED ITSELF IN THE HEART
OF THE COMMUNITY. OUR TECHNOLOGY REBUILDS THE FOUNDATIONS OF
COMMUNITIES. WE BRING STRONG, UNIFIED AND NURTURING FAMILIES
INTO THE COMMUNITY TO LIVE AND WORK AND MODEL LOVING AND
SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIPS. WE BRING HUSBANDS AND WIVES WHO HAVE
SUCCESSFULLY TRANSCENDED LIVES CHARACTERIZED BY HOPELESSNESS
AND HIGH-RISK BEHAVIORS--SMOKING, DRINKING, DRUG USE, VIOLENCE,
ABUSE--BACK INTO THE CENTRAL CITY TO SERVE AS BEACONS TO LIGHT
THE PATHWAY TO PERSONAL TRANSFORMATION AND COMMUNITY
RESTORATION. DAY-IN AND DAY-OUT, WE WORK TO RESTORE THE HEART
OF THE COMMUNITY--ITS FAMILIES.
THIS COMMITTEE HAS PLAYED A PIVOTAL ROLE IN SHAPING THE
RECENT REFORMS THAT ALLOWED THE STATES TO DEMONSTRATE THE
EFFICACY OF A WORK FIRST APPROACH TO WELFARE. FOR THE MILLIONS
OF AMERICAN CHILDREN WHO REMAIN IN FATHERLESS HOMES, OR WHO ARE
THE VICTIMS OF NEGLECT, FAMILY VIOLENCE AND ABUSE, I SUBMIT TO
THIS COMMITTEE THAT WORK FIRST MUST BE COUPLED WITH WHAT
TENNESSEE GOVERNOR SUNDQUIST HAS APTLY CALLED ``FAMILIES
FIRST.''
MR. CHAIRMAN, THE FATHERS COUNT BLOCK GRANT WOULD PROVIDE A
MUCH NEEDED BOOST TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD ACTIVITIES ACROSS
THIS NATION, BY ALLOWING THE STATES TO DEMONSTRATE THE CRITICAL
IMPORTANCE OF FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AS A LOGICAL NEXT STEP IN THE
WELFARE REFORM PROCESS. AS YOU KNOW, FOR DECADES FEDERAL
WELFARE POLICIES, AS WELL AS PUBLIC HOUSING, CREATED INCENTIVES
FOR FAMILY BREAK-UP AND DISINTEGRATION, WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO
THE SPIRAL OF WELFARE DEPENDENCY AND URBAN VIOLENCE. JUST AS
THE FAMILY IS THE NUCLEUS OF A COMMUNITY, A FATHER IS THE
NUCLEUS OF A FAMILY. IT SEEMS ONLY FITTING, THEN, THAT THE
FATHERS COUNT BLOCK GRANT WOULD USHER IN THE NEW ERA OF FEDERAL
POLICIES THAT FOSTER FAMILY RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION.
THERE ARE THOSE ON THE EXTREME RIGHT AND LEFT WHO ARE
NAYSAYERS ON THIS ISSUE. I HOPE THIS COMMITTEE WILL HAVE THE
COURAGE TO RISE TO THE OCCASION AS DID SENATOR MOYNIHAN THREE
DECADES AGO WHEN HE DELIVERED HIS PROPHETIC STATEMENTS ON THE
DECLINE OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY, AND THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN FAMILY
IN PARTICULAR.
ON THE FAR RIGHT, WE HAVE HEARD IT SAID THAT THIS BILL
COULD POSITION THE GOVERNMENT TO PLAY A DIRECT ROLE IN FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT--NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. THIS BILL
DEVOLVES DIRECT ASSISTANCE NOT THROUGH GOVERNMENT, BUT THROUGH
THE GRASSROOTS, FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY-BASED FAMILY
REUNIFICATION EFFORTS THAT ARE SWEEPING AMERICA. THIS BILL HAS
THE POTENTIAL TO REVERSE DECADES OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES THAT
SEPARATED LOW-INCOME MEN AND WOMEN--AND MEN AND THEIR
CHILDREN--THROUGH POWERFUL DISINCENTIVES.
I HOPE THIS COMMITTEE WILL RESIST ANY EFFORTS TO REGULATE,
AND PROSCRIBE, FATHERHOOD ORGANIZATION RULES BY FEDERAL
AGENCIES THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE SPIRIT AND THE INTENT OF THIS
LEGISLATION. SUCH RULES, UNLESS CAREFULLY CRAFTED TO EMBRACE
THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THIS BILL, MAY HAVE AN UNINTENDED
BACKLASH THAT COULD HAMPER THE ABILITY OF SUCCESSFUL FATHERHOOD
PROGRAMS TO CONTINUE TO INVOKE THE STRATEGIES AND TECHNOLOGY
THAT HAVE ACHIEVED SO MUCH SUCCESS FOR SO MANY FATHERS,
FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES. OF COURSE, FEDERAL OVERSIGHT AND
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AS A BASIS OF FUTURE SUPPORT WOULD BE A
PART OF THE PROGRAM, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EVALUATIVE
TOOLS AND POLICY REGULATIONS SHOULD BE A COOPERATIVE AND
COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE FATHERHOOD
ORGANIZATIONS, BUSINESSES, AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.
ON THE FAR LEFT, WE FIND OTHERS WHO FEEL THE ROLE OF NON-
CUSTODIAL FATHERS SHOULD BE RELEGATED TO THAT OF AN ATM
MACHINE; THAT THE FATHER'S EXCLUSIVE ROLE IS AN ECONOMIC AND
FINANCIAL ONE. WE CATEGORICALLY REJECT THAT VIEW, FOR AS MY
WIFE FRANCES HAS OFTEN STATED, ``IF YOU ASK A CHILD WHAT HE
WANTS, THE FIRST CONSIDERATION THAT COMES TO MIND WOULD NOT BE
A FINANCIAL ONE. HE WOULD SAY, `I WANT A DAD WHO CARES ABOUT
ME--WHO IS TENDER, LOVING AND KIND, WHO SHOWS UP WHEN I NEED
HIM. A DAD WHO LOVES AND RESPECTS MY MOM, AND WHO LOVES ME. A
DAD WHOM I COUNT ON.' ''
THE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD AND FAMILY
REVITALIZATION BELIEVES THAT TO RESTORE THE FABRIC AND FIBER OF
AMERICAN COMMUNITIES, WE MUST REVIVE THE NUCLEUS OF THE
FAMILY--THE FATHER. WE MUST SUPPORT HIS PERSONAL TRANSFORMATION
AND ENCOURAGE THE PRINCIPLES OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, FAMILY
RESPONSIBILITY, AND COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY. WE MUST ENSURE
THAT FATHERS HAVE MAXIMUM OPPORTUNITIES TO BE THE BEST FATHERS
THEY CAN BE, AND TO PROVIDE THE BEST QUALITY OF LIFE THEY ARE
ABLE FOR THEIR FAMILIES. ONLY THEN WILL AMERICA EXPERIENCE THE
RESURGENCE OF SAFE, STRONG, VIABLE AND CONTRIBUTING COMMUNITIES
WITHOUT REGARD TO GEOGRAPHICS, ECONOMICS OR ETHNICITIES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, FOR
AFFIRMING YOUR COMMITMENT TO THIS PRINCIPLE IN THE FATHERS
COUNT LEGISLATION.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Ballard.
Dr. Mincy.
STATEMENT OF RONALD B. MINCY, SENIOR PROGRAM OFFICER, HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, FORD FOUNDATION
Mr. Mincy. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee. I thank you for this opportunity to comment on
the work that you are doing and on the Fatherhood Counts bill.
My first comment is to genuinely thank you for addressing
an issue that is long neglected in U.S. social welfare policy.
Like the effort that you began in the 1996 welfare reform bill,
this bill could bolster efforts of hundreds of practitioners
all over the United States who, to my knowledge, are the only
ones who are paying attention to your goal of encouraging the
formation and maintenance of two-parent families, at least in
low-income communities.
A common theme among these practitioners is the notion of
restoring the hearts of fathers to their children. This is a
phrase taken from Malachi, which also speaks to the need to
heal and bring wholeness to communities. In a very fundamental
way, that is what the work of Joe Jones and his colleagues from
around the United States is doing.
I want to make four brief comments. First of all, the panel
that you heard from this morning is a representation of a very
large cohort of young men throughout the United States who are
not able to support their own children, let alone to
successfully float a marriage proposal. If you could turn
quickly to the tables at the end of my testimony, I want to
emphasize that this cohort is very large. It consists of about
3 million men, 2 million of whom are not paying--have incomes
so low that they are not paying their child support.
Second, these men look very much like women who are having
difficulty escaping from welfare. About one-quarter of the men
who should be paying child support are not able to do so. If
you just turn quickly through the tables, you will also see
that most women who are poor and who do not receive child
support are women----
Chairman Shaw. Help us out on what chart you are looking
at. We're just kind of flipping through it trying to figure out
where you are.
Mr. Mincy. I'm sorry. I am turning to this huge circle.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you.
Mr. Mincy. Beginning there and moving quickly. Again, about
a quarter of men who are not paying child support have incomes
that would qualify them for food stamps. To the next table, I
am trying to draw some relationships between those men and
women who are poor and do not receive child support. About 86
percent of them do not receive child support because they don't
have an order which is indicative that they are not married.
Skipping to the next table and onto the next, these men and
women are basically about half of them are young, under 30
years old. Quickly to the next table, about half of them, men
who do not pay and women who do not receive, have less than a
high school diploma which puts them out of the mainstream of
the U.S. economy. Onto the next page, if you sum up the number
of Latinos and African-Americans, 60 percent of them are
minorities. Minorities are a very small portion of the U.S.
population as a whole.
What we see here is essentially a marriage market in which
young men and young women who are poorly prepared for the
mainstream are having children out of wedlock. As you were
focusing earlier this week on the discovery that minorities are
having a harder time moving off the welfare rolls, I think it
is going to be the case that in order to change welfare as we
know it and be successful at that, we are going to have to help
both the young men and young women in these communities who are
having children and are not capable of supporting them, let
alone qualifying for a marriage partner.
I just want to close my comments by saying a few other
things. First of all, a major barrier to family formation among
low-income couples with children is child support in the way in
which it is traditionally enforced. First of all, there is no
provision any more in the Federal statute for the pass through.
When the father makes the child support payment to the State,
he is unable to say to his partner that I am making a
contribution to my children.
Second, the process of child support as it's traditionally
enforced encourages very high arrearages at the beginning of
the person's child support career. The child support can be
established retroactively to the birth of the child. The
Bradley amendment prohibits the forgiveness of arrearages even
if disability, incarceration, or long-term unemployment are the
reasons that the man is unable to pay his child support. States
can order fathers to pay child support based upon their
hypothetical ability to earn with no reference to their present
employment and their present capacity.
Finally, there is no provision in child support to help a
man bond and attach to his child, much like the young men that
you saw. In fact, in order to do visitation in this arena, a
person has to have the capacity to have an attorney. That is
something that is beyond his financial capability.
Quickly, I think the Fatherhood Counts bill will make it
very difficult for the programs and this field to rise to the
challenge of helping fathers support their children. The goal
of marriage is clearly beyond their reach. Something toward
which the field is moving, but for you to attach this as a lead
criterion associated with funding under this program, would
really damage the ability of many of the programs that are
making real progress to create an infrastructure to support
fatherhood in low-income communities.
Finally, it is important to move things closer to the State
and local level. However, we have a field that is very young,
that has no place in our infrastructure for supporting low-
income children and families. I think there needs to be some
more provision in the bill to enable the field to build the
capacity that it needs to understand what is doing better, to
disseminate best practices, and to network it around the
country so that they establish standards and become better at
what they are doing.
I thank you for your indulgence and absolutely for the work
that you are doing.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Ronald B. Mincy, Senior Program Officer, Human Development
and Reproductive Health, Ford Foundation
Chairman Shaw and members of the Human Resources
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means, thank
you for this opportunity to comment on the your efforts to
promote fatherhood and in particular on the Fatherhood Counts
bill. My first comment is to express my sincere gratitude for
the courage and wisdom you have displayed in addressing a long-
neglected area in U.S. social and family policy. If you are
successful in passing a bill that will provide support for
programs that promote fatherhood, it will be helpful to the
fatherhood field in general. However, the same bill can be
critical to the success of the effort you began with the 1996
welfare reform law. This effort has energized hundreds of
practitioners all over the United States, who have been working
with low-income fathers over the last two decades, with little
support or attention from the federal government.
My testimony is based on what I have learned while: 1)
growing up in a poor community without a father, among many
similarly situated young people; 2) becoming a supportive and
loving husband to my wife of over 20 years and father to my
two, now-adult, sons; 3) working as a researcher and policy
analyst to understand how father absence and other family and
community problems limit the potential of young people growing
up in poor communities, including several years at the Urban
Institute; 4) leading the Non-custodial Parents' Issue Group in
the Clinton Administration's Welfare Reform Task Force; and 5)
working as a member of a dynamic team of researchers, policy
analysts, program administrators, and policy makers involved in
the Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative, which I have
managed for the almost 5 years at the Ford Foundation. However,
I speak for myself, and none of my positions or conclusions
necessarily reflects positions or policies of the Ford
Foundation or its trustees.
In the next five minutes I will cover the following four
brief points.
1. The three men you met earlier represent part of a large
cohort of young, low-income, non-custodial fathers who are
working hard to become full contributors to the financial,
emotional, spiritual, and developmental well-being of their
children, against substantial obstacles.
2. One of their most important obstacles is the traditional
child support enforcement system, which thwarts the efforts of
these fathers to provide for their children and to repair
relationships with their child(ren)'s mothers. If this system
does not change it will defeat efforts to achieve the goal,
which the Congress set out in the 1996 welfare reform law, to
encourage the formation and maintenance of two parent families,
at least in poor, minority communities.
3. The Fatherhood Counts bill, as currently framed, may
also pose obstacles to these fathers and the programs that
serve them because it may discourage and diminish the important
intermediate steps between doing nothing for these young
fathers and encouraging them to marry.
4. To promote fatherhood in the communities where these
fathers and their families live, the Fatherhood Counts bill
must do more than support individual fatherhood programs. The
bill must also help to institutionalize the public-private
relationships between these programs and public agencies that
are part of the general framework we use to support low-income
children and families.
Responsible Fatherhood Goals: Restoration and Reclamation
In low-income communities, the primary goals of community-
based responsible fatherhood programs are to restore, reclaim,
and make whole the fathers and families on which society has
given up.\1\ For example, practitioners in this field often
quote a phrase about ``restoring the hearts of fathers to their
children.'' Many of you know that this phrase comes from the
Bible, ``And he shall restore the hearts of the fathers to
their children, and the hearts of the children to their
fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse'' (Malachi
4:6, New American Standard Version). These are the last words
of the Old Testament, but the chapter is alive with language
and images of reclamation and restoration, as in an earlier
verse that speaks of a ``Sun of Righteousness'' arising with
healing in its wings. The work of Joe Jones and his colleagues
throughout the country is fundamentally about healing,
redeeming, and restoring fathers to their communities and to
society, by first restoring these fathers to their children and
their children's mothers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Anne Gavanas, ``Making Fathers into Role Models: The
``Fatherhood Responsibility Movement'' and African American
Masculinities,'' paper in progress, Stockholm University, Department of
Social Anthropology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1998
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underground Fathers and Fragile Families
The young fathers you met this morning are part of a large
cohort of low-income, non-custodial fathers who would be unable
to provide for their children or to attract a marriage partner,
without the assistance of community-based responsible
fatherhood programs.\2\ My colleague, Elaine Sorenson at the
Urban Institute reports that there are three million non-
custodial fathers with incomes low enough to qualify for food
stamps.\3\ One million of these fathers pay child support, a
burden so great that it can drive their family incomes 130
percent below the poverty line. The other two million do not
pay child support for their four million children.\4\ Together,
the low-income, non-custodial fathers who do not pay child
support represent about \1/4\ of all non-custodial fathers (See
Figure 1.) \5\ These fathers look very much like the women on
welfare who do not receive child support (see Figure 2.). They
are young, unmarried, poorly educated, and disproportionately
minorities, who had their first children before completing high
school or acquiring much work experience (see also Figures 3-
6). These are also the characteristics of long-term welfare
recipients whose exit from welfare is limited because these
characteristics make them poor prospects for work or marriage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ronald B. Mincy and Elaine Sorenson, ``Deadbeats and Turnips in
Child Support Reform,'' Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17
(Winter 1998).
\3\ Elaine Sorenson, Where Should Public Policy Go From Here, (The
National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community
Leadership, 1998)
\4\ Sorenson, Ibid.
\5\ Mincy and Sorenson.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8554.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8554.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8554.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8554.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8554.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8554.006
These data are evidence of what sociologists call
assortative mating, which it is key to the success of your
efforts to promote self-sufficiency and key to the success of
your efforts to promote fatherhood. This week, the New York
Times reported that members of Congress were surprised to learn
that minorities are leaving the welfare rolls at a slower pace
than non-minorities. Custodial mothers who began receiving
welfare with the same characteristics as the young, non-
custodial fathers represented in these figures are having more
difficulty leaving the welfare roles. Even in tight labor
markets, employers are reluctant to hire men and women with
this profile. Like it or not, I believe that the Congress is
going to have to adapt the national welfare reform effort to
help these women acquire the skills they need to find jobs.
In a similar way, promoting responsible fatherhood will
require multiple strategies, tailored to the barriers that
impede family formation and maintenance in different groups. I
believe that the current draft of the Fatherhood Counts bill
does not proceed from an understanding of the barriers to the
formation and maintenance of two-parent families in low-income,
minority communities. Unless the bill adopts a more flexible
approach, so that communities can overcome different barriers,
it will not achieve the kind of success that this
subcommittee's efforts so richly deserve.
In most communities, father absence is the result of a
divorce or separation of a mature couple. Their relationship
began, was formalized in marriage, matured, and then expired,
after at least one of the spouses decided that they had had
enough. The role of public policy in such cases is to ensure
that the non-custodial parent, usually the father, provides
adequately for the child(ren). This will ensure that the mother
and child(ren) avoid poverty, which often results when the
father withdraws his, usually, higher income, after the divorce
or separation. Then, to ensure that conflict between the
parents does not cause undue emotional stress for the child,
public policy may also require that the parents participate in
some sort of mediation process. Often, with this kind of help,
the mother can get back on her feet, find her way back into the
labor market and into the community. In many cases she
remarries and returns to a middle class lifestyle. After a
period of hurt, insecurity, and confusion, the child(ren)
adjust to their parents' separation and to their new family
form. In short, the process of family formation has run its
full course. The role of public policy is to help families to
bring their union to an amicable end and then to recover.
This is not the situation we find among the low-skilled,
unmarried, long-term welfare recipients and the equally
disadvantaged fathers of their children. Many of these young
women and men have their first children before they are mature
enough to manage a committed relationship and before they
understand the full implications of unmarried, unprotected sex
and child bearing. Because rates of morbidity, mortality,
unemployment, underemployment, and incarceration of young men
are extremely high in their communities, there is little
evidence of successful marriage for young people to emulate.
Finally, in part because of the sixty-year old legacy of
welfare, there is no cultural imperative to marry after a child
is conceived out-of-wedlock. Instead, a system of cash,
housing, medical, job search, and child care benefits replaces
men as guardians and breadwinners for children and families.
Despite these significant obstacles, the fathers you met
today desperately want to be involved in the lives of their
children and to reconcile their relationships with their
partners. All around the country, practitioners like Joe Jones
have rallied around these fathers. They help them and their
partners to recast the end of innocence as the beginning of a
process of family formation. While most observers see the unwed
birth as a problem, these parents, like most parents, want to
see their child(ren) as new beginnings.
Armed with this hope, the practitioners help low-income,
unwed parents learn that both the mother and father are
critical to their child(ren)'s well-being and that their
personal feelings toward one another must be subordinated to
the needs of their child(ren). Thus, building a cooperative
relationship between the parents, which we call team parenting,
is key to child well-being. As they focus on their child(ren)'s
needs, fathers learn how to subordinate their own needs to the
needs of others who depend on them. This helps them learn how
to find and keep a job, based on their current skills. It also
helps them manage their earnings, so that they can contribute
to their child(ren)'s financial needs. Finally, it helps them
to manage their time, so that they can seek and pursue
opportunities to improve their skills and increase their
earnings. In the process of developing team parenting skills,
young fathers and mothers acquire hope, maturity, and ability
to forgive their partners' failures and shortcomings. These are
the keys they need to sustain a marriage and a family. They may
even heal, build, or rekindle their personal relationships and
decide to marry one another. But first they must focus their
joint attention on the needs of their children.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ronald B. Mincy and Hillard Pouncy, ``There Must Be Fifty Ways
to Start a Family: Social Policy and the Fragile Families of Low-
Income, Noncustodial Fathers,'' paper prepared for the conference
Fatherhood Movement: A Call to Action, Minneapolis, October 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is good news and bad news in recognizing that it will
require different strategies to promote fatherhood in different
communities. The good news is that the possibility of continued
family formation still exists in communities where marriage is
rare, unwed births are common, and young men and women are
poorly prepared to enter the mainstream. The bad news is that
the longer we delay the interventions needed to help them, the
longer are the odds that both the father and the mother will be
able to nurture and provide for their children.\7\ The parents
and children are vulnerable, their relationships are immature,
and the process of family formation through which they are
going is precarious. For these reasons, I call such parents and
their children, fragile families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Mary Achatz and Crystal A. MacAllum, ``Young Unwed Fathers:
Report from the Field,'' Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, this potential for family formation is
invisible to most Americans. As a result, we structure income
and family supports for these fragile families as if they have
the same needs and barriers as middle-aged, middle income,
divorced men and women. It is not surprising that these
supports create obstacles for these families.
Why Traditional Child Support Enforcement Impedes Fragile Family
Formation
Some of the most important obstacles arise in the
traditional child support enforcement system. This system is
designed to deal with non-custodial parents for whom the family
formation process is complete, because their marriages have
ended in divorce or separation.\8\ It works well because
questions of paternity establishment are moot for these fathers
and they have the resources to pay child support, though not
willingness to do so. However, traditional child support
enforcement is often an impediment to the process of family
formation in fragile families, because, in several ways, it
discourages the involvement of low-income, non-custodial
fathers in the lives of their children (Sorenson and Turner,
passim): \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ronald B. Mincy and Hillard Pouncy, ``Paternalism, Child
Support Enforcement, and Fragile Families,'' in The New Paternalism,
ed. Lawrence M. Mead (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press,
1997).
\9\ Elaine Sorenson and Mark Turner. ``Barriers in Child Support
Policy That Discourage Noncustodial Fathers' Involvement in the Lives
of Their Children: A Literature Review,'' paper prepared for the System
Barriers Roundtable, sponsored by the National Center on Fathers and
Families, Philadelphia, PA, May 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Until the 1996 welfare law, the system allowed the state
to keep all but $50 of the father's child support payment to
offset welfare costs. Under the new law, most states keep the
entire child support payment, passing none of it along to
custodial mothers and their children.
2. Most states allow child support orders to be established
retroactively to the birth of a child, even when no action to
establish paternity is taken until long after the unwed birth.
3. The Bradley Amendment prohibits the courts from
forgiving or reducing child support arrears, even when
disability, incarceration, or long periods of unemployment
prevented fathers from keeping their child support payments
current.
4. States can order non-custodial fathers to pay child
support based on their potential earning ability even when they
do not have a job at the time the order is established.
5. Child support guidelines tend to be regressive,
requiring low-income, non-custodial fathers to pay a larger
share of their income toward child support than higher-income
fathers.
6. Except for the financial obligation, the child support
system has little to say about non-custodial fathers'
involvement in their children's lives.
7. The child support enforcement system does not provide a
way for low-income, non-custodial fathers to establish or
enforce their rights to visitation their children.
In 1996, forty percent of Hispanic children and nearly
seventy 70 of black children were born out of wedlock. Hispanic
and black men are over-represented among the low-skilled men
whose wages and employment prospect have declined the most,
despite a booming economy. Given the barriers to family
formation, which child support poses for low-skilled men and
their families, I have long wondered how Congress expected to
achieve the fourth goal of the welfare reform law. I have
waited for an opportunity to ask members of Congress: How would
you encourage young disadvantaged men and women in these
communities to form and maintain two-parent families? In the
interim, I have worked, along with grantees of the Ford
Foundation's Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative, to
build capacity in the field of community-based responsible
fatherhood programs. These programs show low-income, unwed
fathers:
1. how to manage the pain they feel because they have not
had relationships with their own fathers and because they have
broken their vows to be responsible for their own child(ren);
2. how to promote their child(ren)'s development;
3. how to manage their sexuality;
4. how to conduct a job search and acquire job-related
skills;
5. how to deal with child support enforcement; and
6. how to heal and strengthen their relationships with the
mothers of their children.
In the past two decades, Congress has worked to strengthen
the provisions of welfare laws that require and enable
recipients to become self sufficient. Enabling provisions
include various forms of transitional assistance such as health
care, child care, and transportation assistance for custodial
mothers who leave the welfare roles for work. Low-income, non-
custodial fathers of children in fragile families need similar
transitional arrangements and on-ramp services, to help them
find jobs and adjust to the child support enforcement system.
However, there is no place in our system of supports for low-
income children and families to develop the kinds of services
that community-based responsible fatherhood programs provide.
Supporting Responsible Fatherhood Programs That Strengthen Fragile
Families.
Failure to perceive the potential for family formation has
led mainstream Americans to structure a system of income
supports that pose obstacles to family formation among low-
income, unwed parents and their children. In a similar way, the
Fatherhood Counts bill threatens to structure supports for
fatherhood that will create additional obstacles. These
obstacles will occur because the draft bill treats programs
that promote marriage more favorably than programs that first
focus the attention of fathers (and mothers) on their
child(ren) and the steps parents must take to promote their
child(ren)'s well-being. To avoid these obstacles the
Fatherhood Counts bill should acknowledge and support fathers,
like those who you have met today, who despite having an out-of
wedlock birth, are working to strengthen their fragile
families. Specifically, the bill should place on an equal
footing programs that explicitly promote marriage and
comprehensive programs that, without explicitly promoting
marriage:
a. promote an understanding of childhood development;
b. teach parenting skills;
c. help participants manage their sexuality;
d. supply assistance in finding and keeping a job;
e. offer participants advice on their obligations and
rights in regard to the child support enforcement and
visitation; and
f. encourage participants to become team parents.
Few community-based responsible programs operating in low-
income communities promote marriage as an explicit goal.
However, these programs prepare fathers to meet the needs of
children, who are passive recipients of anything a parent has
to offer. They also help young fathers (and mothers) to develop
the relationship skills they need to sustain a long-term team
parenting relationship, and if desired, a marriage. However, a
partner is not a passive recipient of a marriage proposal. A
father may support his child(ren) financially. He may persuade
his former partner that he can be trusted to care for the
child(ren)'s physical, emotional, spiritual, and developmental
needs.
Despite these achievements, the local culture, economy, and
environment surrounding low-income communities provides few
supports for marriage. As a result, even a responsible father
may be unable to persuade the mother of his child to accept his
marriage proposal. Moreover, after having an opportunity to
mature and acquire new skills, either parent may decide that
they are not ideally matched with the person with whom they
conceived a child, during their younger, more careless, years.
Practitioners, who have worked with parents in low-income
communities know this, and therefore, have made child-well-
being and fatherhood development, not marriage, the primary
goals of their services. These programs should not be penalized
for understanding the needs of their clients.
Institutionalizing the Responsible Fatherhood Field
Finally, the current version of the Fatherhood Counts bill
requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services to make grants to the states for fatherhood projects
run by private organizations. It provides just $20 million for
the administration and evaluation of individual efforts funded
by this block grant program. This strategy will encourage
autonomy and innovation at the state level, but states have
little incentive to build networks and capacity in a field that
operates across the country. This network and capacity building
is important so that the field may develop standards for its
own members, disseminate best practice, and educate the public
about the value of the services it provides. Moreover, the
block-grant approach leaves the field of community based
responsible fatherhood with little infrastructure at the
federal level, where the rest of the nation's family support
policies are developed and maintained. As a result, the field
will be unable to integrate fatherhood development into the
national framework for supporting low-income children and
families. Because the national framework features strong
institutional advocates for low-income mothers and children, it
is imperative that fatherhood have a voice at the national
level.
The field of responsible fatherhood is more than twenty
years old, but because public and private support has been
small and episodic, no program in the country has been
rigorously evaluated for its effects on child well-being and
family formation. Such an evaluation would be premature,
because the field is still learning how to define and measure
its impact on these important outcomes. Thus, Fatherhood Counts
should begin to provide the resources needed to help
institutionalize the field. Practitioners, like Joe Jones
should know who in the Department of Health and Human Services
will continue to be responsible for fatherhood development
services. Currently, I believe that responsibility should be
housed somewhere in the Administration for Children and
Families. I also believe that such an office should have a
close working relationship with the Federal Office of Child
Support Enforcement, which, under the leadership of
Commissioner David Grey Ross, has been our greatest ally in
removing the barriers that traditional child support
enforcement poses to fragile families. It has taken sixty years
to build the income security and family support systems that in
many ways undermine now the role of fathers in the lives of
low-income children and families. These systems are well
integrated at federal, state and local levels. It will take
more than a brief, block-grant program to restructure these
systems, so that they can help restore fathers to their
children and families.
Nevertheless, these two small flaws in the current draft of
the bill do not diminish the enormous potential of your efforts
to promote fatherhood in this country. Along with other
participants in the Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative,
I look forward to working with you to achieve our mutual goals.
I also look forward to your questions and the opportunity to
exchange ideas during the dialogue that follows these comments.
Thank you again for your efforts in this critical area.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Dr. Mincy.
Dr. Primus, welcome back.
STATEMENT OF WENDELL PRIMUS, DIRECTOR OF INCOME SECURITY,
CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES
Mr. Primus. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of
promising approaches to promote fatherhood. I would like to
congratulate you on calling attention to the importance of
fathers and the need to assist noncustodial parents in meeting
their parental obligations. The center supports the thrust of
this hearing and the goals that it seeks to attain. We support
the intent of H.R. 3314, but we have two serious concerns with
the bill as currently drafted.
First, the resources in the bill need to be more narrowly
focused on those noncustodial parents represented by the first
panel that testified here today. Second, we believe the bill
should also include a set of policies that would ensure that
when noncustodial parents pay child support, their children's
financial circumstances actually improve. Even if H.R. 3314 can
spend no more than $2 billion, I suggest that the Subcommittee
consider reallocating a portion of the bill's limited funds for
this purpose.
Just as welfare reform during the early nineties
transformed welfare offices from disbursement offices to a
focus on placing mothers in the work force, child support
offices must continue to enforce the collection of child
support, but also assist fathers to move into the work force,
to help them be better fathers and have more interaction with
their children. In that way, assist noncustodial fathers in
being better parents, both financially and emotionally, and
then I think the promotion of marriage will come automatically.
Child support offices cannot be expected to provide all of
these services on their own, and probably should not. But they
must be encouraged to develop strategies and linkages to the
services of other agencies. Much of this vision can be
implemented at the local level without any changes in Federal
law. The center's support for the bill is contingent upon the
bill being paid for. Any financing for the bill must not reduce
any other means-tested program.
I am convinced that the most promising strategy to assist
disadvantaged fathers in becoming better parents is one that
combines the following. Fatherhood programs that provide
mediation, parenting, and peer support services and a broad
array of employment services, plus maybe actual employment in
some cases to overcome the disadvantages of substance abuse,
that are tailored to the particular needs and strengths of the
individual father, these fathers are diverse, and enforced
through the tools of the child support enforcement program, and
reinforced by a set of strong economic incentives that assure
that when child support is actually paid it increases child
well-being. H.R. 3314 provides needed funding for the first two
sets of services, but not for the last. All of these
ingredients must be present, I believe, for the strategy to
work.
I would like to describe one concrete addition to the bill
that I would urge you to consider. In this era of no unfunded
mandates and devolution, I recognize that States cannot just be
ordered to pass through a certain amount of child support. I
would urge you to legislate the following offer to States. They
do not have to turn over their child support collections to the
Federal Government if they pass through a significant portion
of the child support collected on behalf of noncustodial
parents. The States would be given the simple choice, pay the
family or pay the Federal Government. This would cost both the
Federal and State governments, but would greatly benefit low-
income families, and also change the dynamics of the
relationship between custodial and noncustodial parents.
For example, as you see on the chart, in Florida where
there is no pass through of child support under current law,
the tax rate on extremely low-income families is 100 percent.
In most contexts both liberals and especially conservatives
rebel against 100 percent tax rates. As you can also see, a
noncustodial father in Florida should be paying a very large
proportion of his earnings in child support, leaving him with
very little income.
I went back and double checked these numbers this morning
because I could not quite believe them myself. Maybe in the
real world they don't happen. But at least on paper and reading
all of the fine print, this father here represented in that
sixth line, when he is earning only $7,500, the mother has
child care expenses, he is expected to pay 44 percent of his
earnings in child support, leaving him with an income level
that is only 38 percent of the poverty line, while providing
the custodial family with no additional income. Is it realistic
to expect low-income fathers to pay these child support orders
when their children do not even benefit from them? The chart
also shows that the resulting increases in the custodial
family's income if child support is completely disregarded
increases by from 6 to 20 percentage points.
Another way this could be accomplished is by subsidizing
child support payments. As you know, the Tax Code contains a
number of provisions that benefit families, such as personal
exemptions, child tax credits, and EITC. These provisions,
however, only benefit families with earnings. Because some
custodial families have little or no earnings, they are unable
to take full advantage. These unused credits could be tallied
and used to subsidize and incentivize the child support that
should be paid by the noncustodial parents. For example, $2,000
of unused child tax benefits from the custodial mother could be
providing additional payment of $1 for every $1 that the
noncustodial parent pays.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would note that there are
several programs already in existence that would support the
goals of H.R. 3314. Specifically, the welfare-to-work
legislation you passed last year, title 20, the EITC for
childless workers and TANF, could all be used to currently
promote these goals. Accordingly, cuts to these programs for
the purposes of offsetting the cost of this bill or any other
legislation severely undermines the goals you have set forth
for this bill.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for displaying
leadership in resisting reductions to the TANF block grant. I
know the efforts you have made. Moneys from that block grant
can be used to support the goals of the block grant proposed
here. I therefore urge you to continue fighting cuts in the
TANF block grant and to continue calling attention to the
importance of fathers and the need to assist noncustodial
parents as well as custodial parents in meeting their parental
obligations.
[The prepared statement and attachment follow:]
Statement of Wendell Primus, Director of Income Security, Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Human
Resources:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of
``promising approaches to promote fatherhood'' and specifically
the proposed ``Fathers Count Act of 1998'' (H.R. 3314). As the
Director of Income Security at the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities--a nonpartisan, nonprofit policy organization that
conducts research and analysis on a variety of issues affecting
low- and moderate-income families--I would like to congratulate
you on calling attention to the importance of fathers and the
need to assist noncustodial parents in meeting their parental
obligations.
The Center supports the thrust of this hearing and the
goals that it seeks to attain--``helping poor and low-income
fathers establish positive relationships with their children
and the children's mothers, promoting responsible parenting and
increasing family income''--and the message it sends that
government policy should acknowledge the importance of fathers
assuming legal, financial, child-rearing and emotional
responsibility for their children. We support H.R. 3314 to the
extent that it supports these goals. However, I have two
serious concerns with the bill as currently drafted that are
critical to address if the bill is to achieve the goals laid
out in this hearing.
First, the income and demographic targeting requirements of
the bill do not target the resources provided narrowly enough
on those non-custodial parents who could most benefit--and
whose children could most benefit--from participating in
training and parenting programs. As currently drafted, H.R.
3314 requires states to use 80 percent of the monies provided
on parenting, employment, and marriage-promotion programs for
fathers (including both custodial and non-custodial fathers)
whose earnings are below average male earnings--roughly $30,000
per year. Instead, limited resources should be targeted on non-
custodial parents with far lower incomes. These non-custodial
parents (most of whom will be fathers) are among those most
likely to benefit from employment-related services and whose
children are most likely to benefit from increased child
support payments.
Second, the bill should also include a set of policies that
would ensure that when low-income non-custodial parents meet
their obligations and pay child support, their children's
financial circumstances improve. In many states currently, if a
non-custodial parent pays child support and his children
receive TANF-funded assistance, the child is ``made no better
off'' than if the father did not meet his obligation to pay
support. This substantially reduces a father's incentive pay
support--a father may not think paying child support is
important if his children are no better off--and leaves
children deeper in poverty than if a substantial portion of
child support payments were passed-through directly to families
and disregarded when determining eligibility for cash
assistance. In addition to including provisions that would
address these issues, tax policies that reward non-custodial
parents who pay their child support should also be considered.
These provisions would cost money. Even if H.R. 3314 can spend
no more than $2 billion, I suggest that the Committee consider
allocating a portion of the bill's limited for these purposes.
Our current welfare system is inherently sexist--we expect
women to assume all of the parental roles of breadwinner,
caretaker, and nurturer, while the men in these low-income
families have no required responsibilities except to pay child
support if they are able. The intention of welfare reform was
to move the custodial parent into the workforce and up the job
ladder. But, there is little federal commitment to provide
employment-related services to noncustodial fathers. Public
policies should provide both economic opportunity and
responsibility to both parents.
Research shows that statistically, children reared in
single-parent families are at greater risk of adverse outcomes
than those reared in two-parent families.\1\ While some studies
have demonstrated that fathers have a notable positive effect
on their children's well-being, others have revealed that
fathers are peripheral to certain measures of child and
adolescent well-being.\2\ New research, however, focused on the
qualitative dimensions of fathering, finds that father
involvement does have a positive effect on some social-
psychological outcomes for adolescents.\3\ In response to the
growing problem of children being raised in single-parent
female-headed households, fatherhood programs have sprung up
around the country to encourage noncustodial parents to be
involved in the lives of their children through job development
and training, assistance with child support enforcement
offices, mediation, teaching parenting skills and promoting a
stronger attachment to their children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur. Growing Up with a Single
Parent: What Hurts, What Helps.rvard University Press, 1994.
\2\ See Frank Furstenberg, Jr. ``Intergenerational Transmission of
Fathering Roles in At-Risk Families.'' Paper presented at the NICHD
Family and Child Well-Being Network's Conference on Father Involvement,
October 1996 and Alan J. Hawkins and David J. Eggebeen. ``Are Fathers
Fungible?: Patterns of Coresident Adult Men in Maritally Disrupted
Families and Young Children's Well-Being'' in Journal of Marriage and
the Family 56: 963-972.
\3\ See Marcy Carlson. ``How Does Family Structure Matter?: Father
Involvement and the Behavior of Young Adolescents.'' Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Chicago,
April 1998; Marc A. Zimmerman, Deborah A. Salem and Kenneth I. Maton.
``Family Structure and Psychosocial Correlates among Urban African-
American Adolescent Males'' in Child Development 66: 1590-1613 and
Kathleen Mullen Harris, Frank F. Furstenberg and Jeremy K. Marmer.
``Paternal Involvement with Adolescents in Intact Families: The
Influence of Fathers Over the Life Course'' in Demography 35(2): 201-
216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, many of these children will spend some of
their childhood years in poverty. Many poor children in single-
parent families will be able to escape from poverty--or avoid
being pushed still deeper into poverty--only if they can
benefit from a combination of wages earned by their mother,
earnings from their father paid in the form of child support,
and government assistance in the form of earned income tax
credits, child care subsidies, food stamps and health
insurance. As mothers earn income or as fathers pay child
support, governmental assistance must not be reduced dollar for
dollar.
Child support is also a critical part of welfare reform--as
welfare reform encourages families to rely on earnings and
eventually moves them off of public assistance, income from the
child support system will become an increasingly more important
mechanism for providing income to children in single-parent,
low-income families. In order for this to happen, however, the
culture of the child support office must change. Just as
welfare reform during the early 1990s aimed to transform the
culture of welfare offices from disbursement offices to
agencies which focus on placing mothers in the workforce, child
support offices must continue to vigorously enforce collection
of obligations while working with other agencies that help
noncustodial fathers be better parents--both financially and
emotionally.
I have spent a great deal of time traveling around the
country working with child support agencies, welfare offices,
fatherhood groups, employers and employment and training
service providers to attempt to get these organizations to work
together to provide fathers with a comprehensive group of
services which will help them be better parents by enabling
them to assume legal, financial, child-rearing and emotional
responsibility for their children. Child support offices cannot
be expected to provide all of these services on their own and
probably should not, but must be encouraged to develop
strategies and linkages to the services/jobs of these other
agencies/organizations to encourage these fathers to be better
parents, rather than just collect their check and end the
relationship there. I have spoken at numerous conferences and
written several papers that develop in much more detail the
vision I summarize below. Much of this vision can be
implemented at the local level without changes in Federal law.
H.R. 3314 should help accomplish this vision by providing
funding for the services and programs these men need to help
them become better fathers, thereby improving their children's
well-being and increasing paid child support.
This proposed bill will spend $1.9 billion over 5 years and
the financing offsets for the bill have not yet been
identified. The Center's support for the bill is contingent
upon the bill being paid for--in other words, we stand firmly
behind the pay-as-you-go rules--and any financing mechanism for
the bill must not reduce any other means-tested program.
Increasing Child Well-Being and Paid Child Support
Our efforts should be focused in three areas in order to
realize these goals:
Provision of services to noncustodial fathers that
will make them more employable or capable of earning higher
wages, such as job readiness activities, job retention
services, on-the-job training, trial employment and by creating
jobs for those who are the hardest to serve, thereby increasing
their earnings and child support paid;
Provision of services to noncustodial fathers that
will enable them to build stronger relationships with their
children, such as programs to help instill better parenting
skills, mediation, and peer support services, thereby
encouraging them to assume not only financial responsibility
for their children, but also legal, child-rearing and emotional
responsibility; and
Increasing the effectiveness of paid child support
by passing-through and disregarding substantial amounts of paid
child support and subsidizing those child support payments,
thereby allowing paid child support to actually improve the
well-being of their children and encouraging them to want to
support their children financially.
I am convinced that the most promising strategy to assist
disadvantaged fathers in becoming better parents and to improve
the well-being of their children is one which combines the
following: a broad array of employment services (plus actual
employment in some cases) and fatherhood programs that are
tailored to the particular needs and strengths of the
individual father; strong enforcement of child support
obligations through the enforcement aspects of the child
support enforcement program; and strong economic incentives for
noncustodial fathers to pay child support through policies that
ensure that child support paid increases children's economic
well-being. H.R. 3314 could provide the needed funding for the
first two sets of services, but not for the last, although the
last is equally as important. Local communities should be
encouraged to test a variety of ways of implementing this broad
approach.
Increasing Earnings of Noncustodial Fathers and Child Support
Paid
First, we should provide services to noncustodial fathers
that help increase their earnings in order to make them able to
support their children financially. H.R. 3314 should be used to
fund such programs, including workforce development programs,
programs that help fathers overcome the barriers they face to
becoming employed, such as on-the-job training and trial
employment, job readiness activities, publicly funded jobs, and
job retention services.
The new welfare law makes important strides in the child
support enforcement arena, strengthening the tools for
collecting child support from noncustodial fathers who have
income. However, it does little to help jobless noncustodial
fathers enter the labor force, and consequently, little to
increase child support collections from noncustodial fathers
who lack earnings from which to make these payments. This is
problematic given that the economic circumstances of young men,
particularly those with limited skills and education
credentials, have been decaying at an alarming rate over the
past two decades. The inflation-adjusted average annual
earnings of 25- to 29-year-old men without a high school
diploma fell by 35 percent between 1973 and 1991.
This suggests that the payoff from tighter enforcement may
be constrained by the inability of some noncustodial fathers to
pay.
The problem is that low-income, noncustodial fathers face
significant barriers to employment, many of which are the same
as the employment barriers faced by poor, custodial mothers.
These barriers include a range of problems that make them
unattractive to employers or make it difficult to find
available jobs, such as: low levels of educational attainment;
criminal records and other legal problems; a lack of
transportation; substance abuse problems; the disappearance of
low wage, blue-collar, industrial jobs; an erosion in real
wages in the low-wage sector; changing skill requirements; the
declining value of a high school diploma; the relocation of
manufacturing jobs from the central cities to the suburbs and
discrimination. All of these barriers prevent fathers from
obtaining jobs and being able to pay child support.
Fathers are also discouraged from paying child support by
the child support system itself, as many noncustodial parents
deem the system to be fundamentally unfair.\4\ This is
particularly true for low-income noncustodial parents who
frequently are presented with support obligations that far
exceed their ability to pay or are not adjusted appropriately
when their earnings decrease. As a result, many of these
noncustodial parents do not make the required child support
payments and accumulate a debt in the amount of owed child
support; are charged with paying retroactive support and
Medicaid childbirth costs (plus interest and court costs)
dating back to the time the child first received AFDC or TANF
and in some states dating back to the child's birth or default
on their orders and as a result incur fines, have their wages
withheld, or have liens placed on their property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Matching Opportunities to Obligations: Lessons for Child
Support Reform from the Parents' Fair Share Pilot Phase, Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation, April 1994, pp.74-5 and Working
with Low-Income Cases: Lessons for the Child Support Enforcement System
from Parents' Fair Share, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation,
May 1998, pp. 12-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The existence of this child support debt--which can be
substantial--can be daunting to noncustodial parents in low-
wage jobs. Because the noncustodial parents may feel they never
will be able to pay off their child support fully even if they
are working, these arrearages may actually deter them from
seeking stable employment or making child support payments,
encourage them to move into the underground economy, or cause
them to completely sever ties with the family. All of these are
adverse outcomes from a societal viewpoint.
Funds from H.R. 3314 should be used to help fathers
overcome these obstacles to paying child support--those created
by poor labor market opportunities and those created by the
child support system itself--by providing them with services
that will make them more employable or capable of earning
higher wages or by creating jobs for those who are the hardest
to serve.
Building Stronger Relationships Between Noncustodial Fathers
and Their Children
Second, while welfare reform will cause poor children to
become financially more dependent on the earnings of both
parents to keep them out of poverty, children in most
families--regardless of welfare reform--also benefit from
emotional support from both of their parents. However, many
noncustodial fathers face considerable barriers to becoming
involved in the lives of their children. In many instances,
they themselves lacked a role model for good parenting skills.
Also, without a pay check, some males feel that they do not
deserve to see their children. The concept of ``father'' is
tied closely to being a breadwinner and the lack of employment
often becomes a significant barrier. Child support rules also
affect father involvement. From the male's perspective the
child support system is only interested in his role as
breadwinner, not his role as parent. There are many strong
tools enforcing the payment of monies through child support but
little or no effort is expended in enforcing access and
visitation rights.
Services should therefore be provided to fathers which will
help them to build stronger relationships with their children
and overcome these barriers to their parental involvement.
Again, monies from H.R. 3314 should be used to fund such
programs, including programs to help instill better parenting
skills, mediation, and peer support services. It should be
noted, however, that in some families domestic violence makes
positive interaction between the noncustodial parent and
children impossible and not in the best interest of the
children and the mother. As policies are put in place to
increase noncustodial fathers' involvement with their children,
care must be taken to ensure the safety of children and their
mothers.
Increasing the Effectiveness of Paid Child Support
While H.R. 3314 does not provide funding for such purposes,
it is also important to enact policies that increase the
effectiveness of paid child support. Substantial pass-throughs/
disregards \5\ of child support and subsidization of those
payments to help eliminate the high tax rates on child
support--or rather, increase the small or nonexistent amount of
paid child support that actually benefits low-income children--
would help attain the goals of the legislation and would
perfectly complement the programs that will be funded by the
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Throughout this testimony, a child support pass-through and
disregard are intended to mean the same thing. In other words, I am
advocating that a substantial portion of the child support paid should
be passed through to the mother, but without affecting the level of
TANF benefits--it is disregarded from income when calculating the
benefit level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncustodial parents are often reluctant to pay--and
sometimes go to great lengths not to pay--their child support
orders because they do not feel that the payments are actually
benefitting their children. Disregarding substantial amounts of
child support paid and subsidizing those child support payments
would help ensure that the child support that is paid actually
helps improve the children's well-being and thereby encourages
noncustodial fathers to want to pay child support.
I would like to describe one concrete addition to the bill
that I would urge you to consider--passing through a
substantial portion of paid child support. Prior to the mid-
1980s, all child support collected on behalf of welfare-
receiving families was retained by the government as
reimbursement for Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) payments to the family.\6\ This was a contributing
factor to the reluctance of noncustodial parents to pay child
support. To help address this problem, the Deficit Reduction
Act of 1984 changed the provisions governing distribution of
child support to families receiving AFDC by ``passing-through''
up to $50 of child support collected by the Child Support
Enforcement Office to the AFDC family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ With one minor exception: in approximately 11 states with
``fill the gap'' policies, not all of the child support collected was
retained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the 1996 welfare law repealed this pass-through
requirement. Under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) block grant rules, states are free to continue the pass-
through, completely eliminate it, or expand it. Regardless of
what pass-through policy they adopt, states must send to the
federal government a fixed share of the total amount of support
collected on behalf of children receiving assistance from TANF-
funded programs. Sixteen states have chosen to continue the
pass-through, 33 states have completely eliminated it, and 2
states have expanded the pass-through.\7\ In two states--
Wisconsin and Connecticut--the entire amount of child support
paid is passed through.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Paula Roberts. State Action Re $50 Pass-through and Disregard.
Center for Law and Social Policy, January 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing pass-throughs/disregards would not only improve
children's financial well-being, but would also provide an
incentive to the noncustodial father to pay child support. I
would therefore urge you to consider a substantial disregard of
child support (of 50 percent, 75 percent or even more), as it
would greatly complement the legislation. In this era of no
unfunded mandates and devolution, I recognize that states
cannot just be ordered to pass through a certain amount of
child support. I would urge that you legislate the following
offer to states: they do not have to turn over their child
support collections to the Federal government if they pass
through a significant portion of the child support collected to
the custodial families. I would also apply the disregard to
monies collected through the child support enforcement system,
including changes in the IRS refund distribution rules that
would make the distribution ``family friendly.'' \8\ The states
would be given the simple choice: pay the family or pay the
Feds. This would cost both the federal and state governments,
but would greatly benefit low-income families and also change
the dynamic between custodial and noncustodial parents because
custodial parents would have a more vested interest in whether
or not the noncustodial parent pays child support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 (PRWORA) established ``family friendly'' payment
distribution rules, whereby child support paid by the noncustodial
parent would first go to pay child support debt to the custodial family
and the remainder would go towards repaying debt to the state last.
However, these rules do not apply to child support debt collected
through the IRS. I am proposing that these family friendly rules be
extended to include child support payments collected through the IRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The money passed through to the custodial families would
significantly improve the well-being of the children. For
example, in Florida, where there is no pass-through of child
support under current law, the tax rate on child support for
extremely low-income families is 100 percent. In most
contexts--both liberals and especially conservatives--rebel
against 100 percent tax rates. Even custodial families that are
receiving little or no TANF assistance benefit very little from
the child support that is paid. The attached chart shows that
the effective tax rates on the child support paid to these
families (the scenarios on the bottom half of the chart) are
well over 50 percent.
Meanwhile, the noncustodial father in Florida is paying a
very large portion of his earnings in child support, leaving
him with very little income. For example, when he is earning
only $7,500 he is expected to pay 44.4 percent of his earnings
in child support, leaving him with an income level that is only
37.5 percent of the poverty line, while providing the custodial
family with no additional income. Is it realistic to expect
low-income fathers to pay these child support orders when their
children do not even benefit from them?
However, with a complete pass-through of child support the
custodial family would receive 70 percent of the child support
that is paid by the noncustodial father, \9\ reducing the tax
rate on child support from 100 percent in many cases, to only
30 percent.\10\ This increase in the portion of the child
support that actually reaches the children improves their well-
being by increasing their income. The attached table shows the
resulting increases in the custodial family's income if child
support is completely disregarded. As a percentage of poverty,
the custodial family's income increases between 6 and 20
percentage points if all child support is passed through to
them. Passing through child support would especially help
custodial mothers with very little or no earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ With one exception--in the last case, the effective tax rate
increases to 44.7 percent because at this specific level of earnings,
the custodial family becomes ineligible for food stamps.
\10\ The 30 percent tax rate is due entirely to the treatment of
paid child support in the calculation of food stamp benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way to accomplish this is by subsidizing child
support payments. The tax code contains a number of provisions
that benefit children in low-income families, such as personal
exemptions, child tax credits and the EITC. These provisions,
however, generally only benefit low-income families that have
at least some earnings. Because many custodial parents have
little or no income, they are unable to take full advantage of
these tax provisions. Meanwhile, it is possible that
noncustodial parents have income that is low enough to qualify
for these provisions yet high enough that they are able to gain
some benefit from the credits and exemptions. However, they are
not eligible to receive these credits and exemptions, because
their children do not live with them. Children whose parents do
not live together are therefore deprived of the benefits of the
tax code provisions that were specifically established to
assist them because they cannot take advantage of both parents'
incomes. These ``unused'' credits could be tallied and used to
subsidize and incentivize the child support that is paid by the
noncustodial parent. For example, $2,000 of ``unused'' child
tax benefits from the custodial mother from the past year could
provide an additional payment of one dollar to the custodial
family for each dollar the noncustodial father paid in child
support (assuming his order was also $2,000) in the current
year.
Suggestions for Improving H.R. 3314
There are several concerns I have about some aspects of the
bill and several areas where I believe the bill can be
improved. My major concern is that the bill is not targeted to
the low-income noncustodial fathers who are most in need of
these services. I know that you do not want to require a
complicated means-test, but the needs of very low-income
noncustodial fathers are so great that the bill should include
much clearer targeting requirements. The only income targeting
in the bill requires at least 80 percent of the funds to go to
services and programs for noncustodial fathers with annual
incomes below the state average income of male earners. This
income level could fall between $25,000 and $35,000.\11\ This
means that a majority of the funds could go to serve middle-
class, rather than the low-income fathers or fathers with
children on welfare who really need the services. The Chairman
has stated that the proposed legislation and today's hearing
seek to help low-income fathers and fathers of children on
welfare. I would therefore urge you to target the bulk of this
block grant to disadvantaged and low-income noncustodial
fathers below 200 percent of poverty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Economic Report of the President, February 1998, Table B-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, I would argue that block granted programs are
better administered when local or state governments are
required by a matching rate to invest their own money in the
programs, just as was done in the Welfare-to-Work block grant
to the states. The block grant in the Fathers Count Act does
not involve any matching rate, but rather gives the states a
lump sum of money for them to spend. I would recommend changing
the structure of the block grant to require states also to
invest their own money in the fatherhood programs funded by the
bill.
Third, I am concerned about the bill's silence on domestic
violence. There are certainly cases where it may not be in the
child's best interest to have interaction with his/her father
or where such interaction needs to be supervised or monitored.
While the bill provides funds that could be used for domestic
violence and abuse counseling for fathers, the bill is
completely silent on this issue in the preparation of state
plans. I would urge that states be required in the submission
of state plans to take domestic violence into account in the
delivery of these program services.
Fourth, I agree that marriage is an important institution.
However, government law and regulation cannot make happy,
loving, stable families. As much as I would like that result
100 percent of the time, in the real world, it is not a
reality. In those cases where the marriage has failed or where
the children were born out-of-wedlock, the children still need
both economic and emotional support from both of their parents,
whether married or not.
Finally, I would recommend a slower phase-in of the funds
and an increase in the funds in the later years of the block
grant. Often when states are presented with such a large amount
of money in the first year, it goes unspent because states are
not given enough planning time. Instead, I would suggest
redistributing the funding levels in the following way:
$50,000,000 for FY 2000; $200,000,000 for FY 2001; $450,000,000
for FY 2002; $600,000,000 for FY 2003; and $600,000,000 for FY
2004.
Other ``Promising Approaches to Promote Fatherhood''
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would note that there are
several programs already in existence which support the goals
of ``helping poor and low-income fathers establish positive
relationships with their children and the children's mothers,
promoting responsible parenting and increasing family income.''
Specifically, Welfare-to-Work, Title XX, the EITC for childless
workers and TANF currently promote these goals of the Fathers
Count Act. Accordingly, cuts to these programs for the purposes
of offsetting the cost of this bill or any other legislation
severely undermine the goals you have set forth.
Fourteen states currently have competitive Welfare-to-Work
grants that target noncustodial parents and 15 states currently
have formula grants that target noncustodial parents. Michigan
is spending almost all of its Welfare-to-Work dollars on this
population. These grants are seed money for the vision that I
have laid out today and for the goals that you, Mr. Chairman,
have set for low-income fathers.
Since the time when you originally introduced the Fathers
Count Act, the Congress has taken a big step backwards in
achieving the goals you have laid out in the bill. Almost all
of the goals of the Fathers Count Act could have been served
under Title XX, but since the introduction of H.R. 3314, Title
XX was cut in the highway bill by some $2.7 billion over the
time frame of H.R. 3314. As much as I support H.R. 3314, we
must recognize that cuts like those to Title XX are moving us
away from the goals of the Fathers Count Act and further cuts
will significantly undermine the ability of states to achieve
these goals.
Meanwhile, the EITC for childless workers helps to provide
some tax relief for a portion of the noncustodial fathers that
the Fathers Count Act is trying to help. These workers receive
little aid from other government assistance programs and pay an
unusually high percentage of their small incomes in federal
taxes.\12\ Eliminating the EITC for childless workers would
substantially increase the federal tax burdens for these
fathers, making it even more difficult for them to pay a
portion of their small earnings in child support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Robert Greenstein and Isaac Shapiro. The Consequences of
Eliminating the EITC for Childless Workers. Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, July 9, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for displaying
leadership in resisting reductions to the TANF block grant.
Again, monies from that block grant are being used and can be
used to support the goals of the Fathers Count block grant
proposed here. I therefore urge you to continue fighting cuts
in the TANF block grant and to continue calling attention to
the importance of fathers and the need to assist noncustodial
parents--as well as custodial parents--in meeting their
parental obligations.
Disregarding Child Support Significantly Increases the Income of Custodial Families in the State of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings Effective Tax Rate on Income as a Percentage of Poverty
----------------------------- Child Support Child Support -----------------------------------------
Order as -------------------------- Custodial Family Noncustodial
Percent of -------------------------- Parent
Custodial Noncustodial Noncustodial ---------------
Family Parent Parent's Current Law Proposal Current Law Proposal Current Law
Earnings and Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 10,000 17.8 100.0* 30.0 56.0 65.5
2,500 7,500 26.7 100.0* 30.0 71.7 82.5 53.4
5,000 5,000 33.2 100.0* 30.0 87.5 96.3 32.4
0 15,000 30.7 85.2 30.0 61.2 80.7 87.1
3,750 11,250 37.1 91.0 30.0 82.5 101.9 59.9
7,500 7,500 44.4 100.0* 30.0 101.6 119.4 37.5
0 20,000 29.5 73.2 30.0 68.1 87.6 115.0
5,000 15,000 35.5 77.9 30.0 96.5 115.9 78.7
10,000 10,000 39.8 69.3 30.0 122.1 134.1 51.4
0 25,000 28.5 65.7 30.0 74.7 94.2 143.5
5,000 20,000 33.2 68.3 30.0 103.6 123.0 106.1
10,000 15,000 36.2 58.8 44.7 129.9 135.8 77.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Calculations use 1998 Florida child support and TANF parameters and federal tax and food stamp parameters,
but assume the $500 child tax credit is fully phased in (even though this will not be the case until 1999) for
a family with two children and assume that the full child support order is paid. The poverty threshold for the
custodial family is the threshold for a family of 3, or $13,086 in 1998 and the poverty threshold for the
noncustodial parent is the poverty threshold for one person, or $8,359 in 1998. The proposal is a complete
pass-through of paid child support to the custodial family and a complete disregard of paid child support for
the purpose of calculating TANF benefits.
* These famreceive TANF under current law.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you. I hope your praise doesn't get me
in trouble.
Dr. Berlin.
STATEMENT OF GORDON L. BERLIN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, MANPOWER
DEMONSTRATION RESEARCH CORPORATION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Mr. Berlin. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
promising approaches to promote fatherhood. My remarks today
about the needs of fathers are drawn from MDRC's experience in
developing and evaluating the Parents' Fair Share Demonstration
Project, arguably the most comprehensive research and
demonstration project in existence that involves unemployed
noncustodial fathers.
Authorized by the Family Support Act of 1988 and operating
in seven States, Parents' Fair Share's underlying assumption is
that when fathers are supported and playing an active role in
their children's lives, and when fathers have gainful
employment, they are more likely to pay child support on a
consistent basis. Delivered by a partnership of local child
support, fatherhood, and employment training organizations, the
program offers employment and training to help fathers find and
hold jobs, peer discussion classes to support and foster
responsible parenting, and dispute resolution services to
resolve conflicts that might arise with the custodial parent.
In addition, child support systems agreed to suspend or lower
orders while fathers participated in the program.
I am going to draw upon two forthcoming reports on this
project that will be released in the next month or so to answer
or address three issues. Who are these fathers, what have we
learned about what works in terms of services that might help
them gain employment, be better fathers and pay child support,
and what policy issues should the next generation of programs
for low-income fathers consider?
Who are the fathers in this program? They are a
significantly disadvantaged group. Most of them live at or near
the edge of poverty with little access to employment or public
assistance programs. About half do not have a high school
diploma or GED. In terms of employment, about half of them work
at low-wage jobs intermittently while the other half have been
unemployed for long periods of time.
As you know, as a result of changes in the labor market
over the last 20 years or so, employment prospects for poorly
educated men have deteriorated precipitously through no fault
of their own. Without regular work, this group of fathers
seldom feel adequate as parents. While most saw their children
frequently and tried to be involved in their lives, without
income, they often had difficulty. Not surprisingly, without
jobs, they seldom paid what they owed in child support. Many
face staggering debts. Twenty percent of the sample owed some
$8,000 in child support payments, in part because those arrears
continue to build even when fathers are unemployed.
Despite their involvement with their children, we found
that the PFS fathers they often lacked basic understanding of
how to be a parent. What was age-appropriate behavior, what
forms of discipline were appropriate, what kinds of activities
to engage in with their children.
What have we learned about the effectiveness of the
services this program offered? The first lesson was that
parenting instruction and support was successfully provided
through a group peer support model where a facilitator met
regularly with groups of fathers to discuss parenting issues.
It was feasible to operate this program component. The fathers
came. They participated at significant levels. You have heard
from the previous panel testimonials about what these kinds of
opportunities to engage fathers can mean to them.
The second lesson, getting fathers more and better jobs
than they could have gotten on their own, proved very
difficult. We have a lot more work to do in that area. We did
get fathers jobs, but we often found we were getting them the
same kinds of jobs they got previously. Two of the sites were
more promising. We have a long way to go in the followup
period. We are hoping that some trends will emerge there that
will give us some additional lessons about effective employment
and training strategies.
The third lesson: despite the absence of employment and
earnings impacts during the early followup period covered in
our forthcoming reports, the package of PFS services did lead
to increases in child support payments. The program had a
payoff beyond the help it gave fathers in making them better
parents.
Four policy recommendations emerge from these lessons and
this experience. First, there is a tremendous need for services
to help low-income fathers learn about and be supported in the
active roles they already play as fathers. It is feasible to
deliver these services. Fathers will participate. Our
observations of the program in action suggests that the
services make a difference in fathers' knowledge about and
their approach to parenting.
Second, making these programs effective requires a lot of
collaborative work by a range of agencies with different goals:
child support systems, fatherhood programs, and employment and
training agencies. It also takes resources; the funding
proposed in H.R. 3314 is critical to the success of these
programs. Its links to TANF and welfare-to-work programs are
wise.
Third, more work is needed to develop employment and
training services that would increase low-income fathers'
employment and earnings. Los Angeles and Memphis emphasize
skill building activities in conjunction with work. Some
related approaches that we might try include developing new
ways to combine work and skill-building activities and to
provide job retention services to help low-income men hold onto
the jobs when they get them. But it is also true that about a
third of the fathers who participated in this seven-State
effort had little or no recent work history. For these fathers,
transitional community work experience jobs are needed to help
them build credible work histories.
Fourth and last, in the final analysis, our society still
defines the father's role as provider. But poor men, even when
they work can seldom meet the 30 percent or more of gross pay
demanded of them by the child support system. When they do meet
those demands, they are often left poor themselves. Unlike
middle-class fathers who often end up better off financially
after a divorce, poor fathers often end up worse off. As a
result, they often feel the system is stacked against them. If
their children are on AFDC or now TANF, they don't get credit
for having paid child support because the payments go to offset
their welfare payments. Child support systems need to be more
responsive to the changing ability of fathers to pay. The
orders need to be rationalized and standardized to reduce the
likelihood that fathers who do try to pay still end up with
huge debts.
In addition, to address the impoverishment that results
when fathers do pay child support, we should give some thought
to how we might take advantage of the EITC, possibly by
allowing noncustodial parents who pay what they owe in child
support to claim any unused portion of the earned income tax
credit.
In conclusion, fathers do count. Services really can make a
difference. They can enhance involvement with their children,
and it can result in increased child support payments. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Gordon L. Berlin, Senior Vice President, Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation, New York, New York
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today at
this hearing on promising approaches to promote responsible
fatherhood. My name is Gordon Berlin. I am a senior vice
president at the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation
(MDRC). MDRC is a non-profit, non-partisan social policy
research organization created in the mid-1970s to examine
programs designed to address some of the nation's most pressing
social problems. We learned about the needs of fathers from our
experience in developing and evaluating the Parents' Fair Share
Program (PFS), a program for low-income noncustodial fathers of
children growing up in single-parent households.
Authorized by the Family Support Act of 1988, Parent's Fair
Share, gave us an opportunity to test the value of employment
and training services for unemployed fathers who were not
paying child support for their children who were receiving AFDC
benefits. PFS is supported by an unusual consortium of public
and private funders. In exchange for father's current and
future cooperation with the child support system, a partnership
of local organizations offered services designed to help
fathers: (1) find more stable and better-paying jobs; (2)
assume an important and responsible parental role; and (3) pay
child support on a consistent basis. PFS's underlying
assumption is straightforward: when fathers are supported in
playing an active role in their children's lives, and when
fathers have gainful employment, they are more likely to pay
child support on a consistent basis.
Parent's Fair Share provided a mix of services: employment
and training to help fathers find and hold jobs; peer
discussion classes to support and foster responsible parenting;
and dispute resolution services to resolve conflicts that might
arise with the custodial parent. To provide an incentive for
fathers to participate in the program, local child support
systems agreed to temporarily lower or suspend the child
support payment obligation. The idea was that once a man found
a job, his child support order would be restored to an
appropriate level. In essence, the demonstration tried to
strike a bargain with low income fathers: if they cooperated
with the child support system, they would get help in finding a
job to meet their obligations. The program began in 1992 with a
pilot phase to refine the model and test its operational
feasibility, and then became fully operational in seven sites
during the demonstration phase that followed in 1994. (Dayton,
OH; Grand Rapids, MI; Jacksonville, FL; Los Angeles, CA;
Memphis, TN; Springfield, MA; and Trenton, NJ.)
The research on PFS will not only measure whether the
program was effective or not, it will also capture information
about the men and their families. There were over 5,500 men in
the demonstration. For most of the sample, we are collecting
quarterly administrative records data that reflects employment
patterns and child support collections. In addition, we are
learning about the relationships between the fathers and their
children (500 men will be asked detailed survey questions) and
we are learning about the mothers of the father's children
(2,400 mothers are being interviewed to obtain an independent
view of changes in fathers' roles). In addition, we conducted
an in-depth ethnographic study of 50 fathers over a two-year
period. During this time, the interviewer had several
conversations with each father to create comprehensive life
histories.
Over the next few months, MDRC will be releasing two
reports: the first--Surviving is Not Enough: Low-Income
Noncustodial Parents' Perspective on the Ability of the Parents
Fair Share Program to Change their Lives--relies on the life
history interviews to tell the fathers' personal stories. The
second report--Parents' Fair Share: Implementation and Initial
Impacts--tells two stories: first, it tells the
``implementation story'' by describing the program, explaining
how it operated, and identifying these program approaches that
worked best. Second, it tells the ``early impact'' story which
explains if the program made a net difference in the low-income
men's employment and child support payments (i.e., if more men
had higher earnings and more men paid their child support
payments than would have done so without the program). These
impacts are considered ``early'' because they rely solely on
administrative records; they do not include any of the survey
data (which is still being processed); they cover only a part
of the full PFS study group; they provide only a year and a
half follow-up information; and they do not cover several key
goals of the program (most importantly, helping fathers become
more effective and responsible parents).
My testimony today draws on these forthcoming reports to
address three issues: 1) Who are these fathers?; 2) What have
we learned about the role of services in helping them gain
employment, be better fathers, and pay child support?; and 3)
What policy issues should the next generation of programs for
low-income fathers consider? While PFS is arguably the most
intensive and comprehensive research effort ever undertaken
about low-income fathers, keep in mind that the men in this
study are not representative of all low-income men. The
children of the fathers in this study have received welfare
benefits, and the fathers have already established paternity
and have fallen behind in their child support payments. This is
a group that is seldom included in our national surveys, and
the policy community, as a whole, knows little about them. For
policy making purposes, information about this group of parents
should be used in conjunction with other information about low-
income fathers who are included in national surveys.
Who Are The PFS Fathers?
The fathers in PFS are diverse in terms of race, age,
living arrangements, and employment experience. They are also a
significantly disadvantaged group; most of them have lived at
or near the edge of poverty with little access to public
assistance or employment programs. Approximately 80 percent of
the overall study group are African American or Hispanic, but
there is great variation across the seven sites; for example, a
fifth of eligibles in Springfield, MA and Grand Rapids, MI are
white. Nearly two-thirds of the sample have never been married,
and nearly 70 percent had been arrested on a charge unrelated
to child support problems after they had turned 16 years of age
(a non-juvenile offense). Many of the men rely on family and
friends to make ends meet or for a place to stay. Even though
the men's average age is 30 years, more than 60 percent live
with a relative, usually their parents (45 percent).
In terms of employment history, it is possible to loosely
divide the PFS population into two distinct groups: one that
had a recent history of employment (about 47 percent reported
being employed at some point in the three months prior to
entering the program), and another group that was characterized
by repeated spells of unemployment (43 percent earned $500 or
less in the nine months prior to entering the program; half of
the sample had not held any job in the three months prior to
entering the program).
Even though the first group had a history of employment, it
was a history of being in relatively low wage jobs. This group
wanted help finding higher-paying jobs. In contrast, the second
group had tenuous connections to the mainstream labor market
and their recent employment histories consisted of lengthy
spells of unemployment and frequent changes from one low-wage
job to the next. This group needed help finding stable jobs.
While the employment goals of PFS were straightforward (the
program aimed to get fathers employed in better and more stable
jobs than they had been able to obtain on their own), the
program and the fathers faced several challenges in meeting
these goals. The challenges included ``supply-side'' issues
like high arrest rates and low education levels and ``demand-
side'' challenges like the shrinking labor market demand for
low-skilled men, especially those living in inner-city areas.
On the supply-side, nearly 70 percent of the men reported
being arrested and, not surprisingly, those with criminal
records had more difficulty with getting hired. Nearly half the
study group did not have a high school diploma or GED, and only
2 percent had taken any college courses. The vast majority
(more than four in five) had no involvement with an education
or training program in the last year. Not surprisingly, their
overall employment rate is low too: 47 percent were employed
during the three months prior to the program --compared to an
87 percent employment rate for all men and a 78 percent rate
for Black men between the ages of 20 and 54 (March, 1995.)
On the demand-side, changes in the labor market exacerbated
these barriers. Employment prospects for less educated men have
deteriorated over the last 25 years. Depending on the inflation
adjustment measure used, between 1973 and 1996, real weekly
earnings of male high school graduates may have fallen by as
much as one-fifth, while school dropouts earnings fell by one-
fourth or more. The decline in job prospects has been
especially severe for young black men; earnings for black
school dropouts age 20 to 29 are down by a third or more. The
consequences of these declines for families and for family
formation are profound. In 1973, the average 25 year-old, high-
school dropout with a full-time job earned enough to support a
family of three above the poverty line. Today, that is no
longer true.
Broad statistical portraits fail to capture the nuances in
individuals' lives. We were able to capture the experience of
fifty PFS fathers and the life histories that emerged led us to
believe that the broad statistical portrait does not exaggerate
the barriers they face. The life history field research,
conducted by Dr. Earl Johnson, found that the noncustodial
parents in this group exhibited substantial job mobility, often
moving from low-wage job to low-wage job with intermittent
periods of unemployment. One reason for this instability was
that many of the jobs they obtained were temporary, as one man
explained:
``.... the times I was working, I never had a job over six
months ... I wasn't fired. It was always temporary.''
And without regular work, fathers seldom felt adequate as
parents. Many of the men's perceptions of themselves as good
fathers were tied to their ability to provide for their
children. As a result, some men voluntarily fell out of contact
with their children when they lacked money to provide support.
As one father related:
``It's hard when you are trying to be a father, right, and
then you turn around saying you're the best father in the world
to your kids, which you're trying to be, and then all of a
sudden you can't even buy a pack of Pampers, you know.''
Not surprisingly, these fathers seldom paid what they owed
in child support. Only 23 percent of the noncustodial parents
made a child support payment through the child support system
in the 3 months prior to entering the study. As a result, many
fathers face staggering child support debts. Nearly one in five
fathers owed more than $8,000 in child support payments. The
median amount of arrears for the whole study group was $2,755.
While a portion of the outstanding arrears amounts may consist
of reimbursing Medicaid for the costs associated with child
birth (in some cases, this was retroactively billed to the
noncustodial parent), the sheer size of some outstanding
arrears also suggests that the system may be unresponsive to
the challenges fathers face in meeting their payments when they
do not have a steady stream of employment; it appears that
orders are seldom adjusted down when fathers do not have
earnings.
Despite not paying formal child support, most fathers had
regular contact with their children. When questioned about how
frequently they see their youngest child, nearly half of the
fathers reported that they had contact with the child once a
week. While only seven percent of the full sample said they had
not seen the child in the last year, this varied widely across
the sites: 28 percent of the men in Trenton and 73 percent of
the men in Springfield had not seen their child in the last
year. However, most of the fathers (three-quarters) lived
within ten miles of their child's residence.
While the overwhelming majority of fathers were involved in
the lives of their children and described strong feelings of
love for them, program staff who worked with the fathers
reported that many did not fully appreciate or understand a
father's role. For example, staff noted that many fathers
defined their role in purely financial terms. Similarly, some
peer support facilitators who facilitated a discussion on
parenting found that the time fathers spent with their children
was often not ``productive.'' Staff attributed these attitudes
and behaviors, in part, to a lack of positive male parental
role models--some men simply did not know how to be supportive
parents, at least not by traditional middle class standards.
How Did PFS Respond to the Need for Jobs and Parenting Services?
The consortium of diverse agencies assembled to deliver PFS
services faced a number of challenges. Employment and training
organizations had to work with very disadvantaged men who were
ordered to participate by the courts. Traditionally, these
organizations are used to working with volunteers. Further
complicating their task, the program model called on them to
emphasize on-the-job training, a service which the system had
sharply curtailed just as PFS was starting up. Finally,
nonprofit organizations dedicated to helping fathers had to
commit to the program's child support collection goals, goals
that could conflict with their mission of helping poor fathers,
since failure to pay child support or to actively participate
in PFS could have led to an arrest on a contempt of court bench
warrant.
Parenting instruction and support was successfully provided
through a group peer support model where a facilitator met
regularly with groups of fathers to discuss parenting issues.
The facilitator followed a ``Responsible Fatherhood''
curriculum that included 18 modules covering such topics as the
role of fathers in their children's lives, developmentally
appropriate behavior for children of different ages, rights and
obligations under the child support system, managing conflict,
racism, and relationships with significant others. Groups
generally met two to three times a week, covering a topic each
week.
Peer parental support was generally well received by the
noncustodial parents, providing them an opportunity to relate
to a peer group in constructive ways, discuss troubling
personal and societal problems, develop new problem-solving
skills, and have access to an advocate who believed in their
potential. In Dayton, the facilitator developed creative new
ways to encourage parents to become involved with their
children by, for example, giving participants assignments such
as ``make dinner for your child'' or ``take your children to
the park'' and report back to the group on the experience, and
holding special events such as an Easter egg hunt that involved
participants' families.
As reported in the forthcoming ethnographic report, for
many PFS fathers, what was truly special about peer support was
that for the first time in a long time they were listened to
and heard. Two PFS enrollees who participated in MDRC's
ethnographic interviews reported:
``I have a lot to thank for ... because he's instilled in me
one thing: I have no fear of sharing anything that has hurt me.
There was years and years of me walking around not trusting
anybody to talk to about it. Now ... I don't walk around
feeling as though I'm going to have an angina attack or I feel
as if the top of my head is going to explode from blood
pressure because I keep holding all this crap in me. It's got
to come out. It helped me to be a better father, to get better
perspective on what I'm suppose to do as a father, and I
appreciated that.''
``I used to avoid my child because when he asked me to buy
him Nikes I did not have the money and I could not face the
disappointment. But now, I've learned that what my child is
most going to remember is the time we went to the park or
fishing and talked about things that were concerning him. That
has given me a whole new outlook on what it means to be a
father.''
Peer support served as the focal point for the program
around which all of the other services and activities were
built. Participation was high--over 60 percent of those
referred participated, even though the referral was initiated
from a court order for failure to pay child support, not
exactly a ``warm'' supportive referral. The sessions proved to
be powerful and personal. For example, men with daughters had
an opportunity to ask their peers for advice about how to be a
father to a girl or young woman; they shared strategies for
becoming involved with the school as a concerned parent; and
they advised each other on how to handle issues in the home
environment provided by the mother of their child, such as drug
abuse or lax supervision, and they learned together about
constructive ways to discipline their children. They talked
openly, and with emotion, about the limited role their own
fathers had played in their lives, and asked each other what
their own children might say about them as fathers. In our day-
to-day lives, there are few forums for fathers to learn their
trade or share their concerns. Our observations of the sessions
and our discussions with the facilitators and with the men
themselves revealed that the fathers in PFS found peer support
to be a valuable and helpful experience. In the coming year, we
will be analyzing the surveys we conducted with fathers and
mothers to see if these add more supporting evidence that the
program did improve the parenting skills of participating
fathers.
The additional support that PFS provided through peer
support is not simply a need of poor fathers. James A. Levine
and Edward W. Pitt, directors of The Fatherhood Project, note
in their book, ``New Expectations: Community Strategies for
Responsible Fatherhood,'' that many institutions may
systematically, albeit usually unknowingly, fail to include
fathers in their programmatic activities. For example, Head
Start centers are designed to engage mothers, but not fathers.
And school teachers tend to look to mothers when they call to
discuss a child's school performance. Many other examples
abound, examples we often don't see until we look for them.
Getting fathers more and better jobs than they could have
gotten on their own proved difficult; new models and approaches
are needed. The design of PFS assumed that for the program to
have a substantial impact on parents' employment and earnings,
sites would have to offer an array of short-term skills
training and on-the-job training to help participants obtain
higher-wage or longer-lasting jobs, and job club/job search
services to help those with only limited labor market
attachment find employment. In practice, there was a tension
between the program's interest in encouraging noncustodial
parents to take the time to invest in skill-building
activities, and the realization they could not afford to be out
of the labor market for a long time. In most sites, these
pressures led to an emphasis on getting parents into jobs
quickly. But for the most part, fathers seemed to get jobs at
about the same rate and of the same type as they had gotten in
the past. Thus, for this early sample, and with about 6 months
of follow-up for the full sample, the program does not seem to
be increasing program eligibles' earnings, although two sites
did appear to modestly increase employment rates for a brief
period of time. Two sites made job development an integral part
of their program, and as a result were able to emphasize
getting participants better jobs than they had been able to
find on their own, although the long run payoff was unclear.
Participation was relatively high, although not
particularly long or intense when measured by hours of
participation. Seventy percent of those parents referred to PFS
participated in at least one PFS activity, usually parenting
instruction and/or job club. Behind this average was
substantial site variation related to differences in intake
methods, service offerings, and the way in which referral back
to child support enforcement was used. Participation rates
varied from a high of 82 percent in Los Angeles to a low of
around 60 percent in Memphis. Rates appear to be higher when:
(1) the intake process produced parents who were motivated to
participate in the program; (2) labor market opportunities for
those referred to the program were weaker (because of high
unemployment or substantial barriers to employment); and (3)
when PFS activities started promptly after referral and
participation was closely monitored. The shift from an emphasis
on skill-building activities to job club/job search resulted in
a decline in the expected average length of program
participation. Parents who participated in PFS were active in
some service for an average of approximately five months.
Despite the absence of employment and earnings impacts
during this early follow-up period, PFS did lead to increases
in child support payments. At this time, we do not know whether
the increases were simply the result of more fathers paying
child support through the official child support system, rather
than paying it directly to the mothers of their children or if
the increases were the result of fathers who had not previously
paid support beginning to do so. If this represents a true net
increase in support paid, it could be because PFS' parenting
program helped fathers to understand the importance of paying
child support, or it may be because the program's intake and
enforcement processes discovered fathers with earnings and
income that were missed by the official systems monitored by
child support agencies.
Policy Recommendations
When these two PFS reports on the lives of fathers and the
lessons learned about program effectiveness are published at
the end of the summer, an important body of knowledge will be
available about delivering services for very disadvantaged
noncustodial parents. While the story will not be complete--
additional reports will follow in about a year--it does suggest
several lessons for future programming.
First, there is a tremendous need for services to help low-
income fathers learn about and be supported in the active roles
they already play as fathers. While the research literature on
the value of the contribution noncustodial parents make in the
lives of their children is mixed, our own personal experiences
as fathers suggest that fathers matter to their children. Yet,
parenting is a humbling, imperfect, trial and error experience
for us all. Most of us in this room have more resources to draw
upon in learning how to play that role--our own fathers,
relatives, and well-baby care that often brings ongoing advice
from the family doctor, to name a few. Low-income noncustodial
parents could benefit from supports that helped to fill these
gaps when they exist.
Second, while the PFS experience indicates that it is
possible to build the agency partnerships required to deliver
services to this population, it takes considerable ongoing
work, and even with support, PFS sites fell short of its goals.
Moreover, fathers interviewed in the life history study
provided many examples where they thought the program had not
delivered on its promises of better jobs or a more responsive
child support system. These criticisms suggest that technical
assistance and adequate funding will be necessary for new
programs to succeed.
Third, more work is needed to develop employment and
training services that would increase low-income fathers'
employment and earnings. A lack of fit between the employment
and training services emphasized in the sites and the needs of
a substantial portion of the PFS parents contributed to the
program's lack of overall impacts on employment and earnings.
Because the PFS sample was largely men who had worked--with
varying degrees of regularity--at low-paying jobs, the
challenge for the program was to help them find better jobs.
The employment and training system does not have a lot of
experience in successfully obtaining these kinds of jobs. There
were signs of a modest trend toward positive impacts in two
sites, Los Angeles and Memphis; these sites emphasized skill-
building activities in conjunction with work. In retrospect,
that combined approach may have been better suited to boost
earnings. Suggested new approaches that might better meet the
needs of these fathers include:
Developing new ways to combine work and skill-
building. Doing so, may help these men secure incremental wage
increases which could raise their incomes over time.
Developing temporary community service jobs.
While, on average, the fathers in Parent's Fair Share had some
work experience, about a third of them had little or no work
experience at all. In some inner-city areas, unemployment rates
remain persistently high, suggesting that some men simply did
not have the opportunity to gain valuable work experience.
Finally, as part of a longer-term strategy,
provide job-retention services to help low-income men hold the
jobs they get.
Fourth, in the final analysis, our society still defines
the fathers' role as provider. But when the men served in this
program were working, they seldom had enough income left over
after meeting their own basic needs to contribute to the needs
of their children. As a result, they often feel the system is
stacked against them. Consideration should be given to two
possible responses:
Child support systems need to be more responsive
to the noncustodial parent's economic position when it sets
orders, and it needs to respond when earnings change. To avoid
saddling poor fathers with debts that they will never be able
to pay, initial orders should reflect current earnings, and
when paternity is established near the time of birth, arrears
should not be charged. Most states expect fathers to pay about
30 percent of their gross income in child support, which is a
substantially higher share of their net income than it is for
high income parents. Rationalization of orders by income and
greater uniformity across states could help.
To treat fathers who do the right thing equitably,
we should treat them in the same manner as mothers; thus,
noncustodial parents who work and pay child support should be
made eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), now
available primarily for custodial parents who are working. To
avoid family-splitting incentives, the EITC could be split
between the two noncustodial parents, if both are working, or
one could claim the entire credit, when only one is working, or
fathers could be limited only to any unused credit amount. This
will be complicated to implement, but we need public policies
that line up better with our values.
Finally, I want to conclude with the words of one of the
fathers who participated in the PFS program:
``The opportunity to change, turn my life around through
education and the motivation to make a real impact in my son's
life for the better, it's just made all the difference in my
life, and I believe in [my son's] life too. We have our hard
times, but I think we get along better. We understand each
other a little bit more--a lot more, and Parents' Fair Share
was--if it weren't--I don't know what it would have taken to
improve our relationship that much if there wasn't a forum and
a guiding hand and all of that. We've spent probably more time
together since Parents' Fair Share than we did all the time
before.''
Being a good father is difficult for us all. Being poor and
unemployed makes parenting even harder. Developmentally and
financially, all children need fathers involved in their lives.
The PFS experience demonstrates that it is possible to provide
valuable services, particularly around parenting. We have much
to learn, however, about effective employment and training
services for low-income fathers. But there is a strong case for
trying new approaches: no group has been hit harder by the two
decades long secular decline in earnings for those with low
skills. And an important part of the nation's children depend
on them.
Thank you for this opportunity to preview lessons about
working with low-income fathers from the PFS project.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Dr. Berlin.
Mr. Levin, do you want to be recognized for a unanimous
consent request?
Mr. Levin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to submit for
the record a summary of some of the initiatives the Department
of HHS has undertaken to help fathers support their children,
including the recent effort to improve outreach to fathers in
the early Head Start Program.
Chairman Shaw. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Department of Health and Human Services Accomplishments
Fatherhood and Changes to the Welfare System Hearing
In response to the President's directive in 1995
that all federal agencies strengthen the roles of fathers in
families, HHS established an intra-departmental Fathers' Work
Group. Deputy Secretary Kevin Thurm serves as Chair of this
work group.
In October 1997, HHS awarded $1.5 million in
demonstration grants to states for projects to improve child
support enforcement (CSE), including collaboration among CSE,
Head Start and Child Care programs and programs to provide
special services to low income non-custodial fathers. A
management information system is being developed for the
fatherhood programs and evaluations to assess the
implementation of the demonstration projects will be conducted
during the next 12 months.
HHS awarded $10 million in block grant funds in
October 1997 and will award a similar amount in FY 1998 to all
50 states, DC and territories to promote access and visitation
of children by their non-custodial parents. This program was
proposed by President Clinton in his 1993 welfare reform
proposal and authorized in PRWORA.
HHS has incorporated boys and young men into
National Strategy to Prevent Teenage Pregnancy by funding
demonstration programs through the Title X Family Planning
Program and other efforts.
In 1997, HHS added a new component to the Early
Head Start Research and Evaluation Project, the Fathers Studies
Project, which examines the role of fathers in early childhood
development and how program interventions can strengthen and
improve father involvement. This project is being funded by the
Head Start Bureau, the National Institute for Child Health and
Human Development, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation, and the Ford Foundation.
Since 1993, HHS has supported the evaluation of
Parents' Fair Share, a demonstration project for low income
fathers who owe child support but are not paying it. HHS,
Labor, Agriculture, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Ford Foundation,
and AT&T have invested more than $10 million in the
demonstration.
HHS, under the leadership of the Federal
Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, has completed
a multi-year collaborative project to review the state of
research on fathers. The Forum has just issued a report that
contains the results of this review and recommendations for how
government research in this area can be improved. The Report
``Nurturing Fatherhood: Improving Data and Research on Male
Fertility, Family Formation and Fatherhood'' is available on
the Internet at http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/fathers/fhoodini/htm.
Presently, HHS is taking a more systematic and
thorough approach to incorporating fathers' involvement in our
programs and research. We are working to remove barriers within
and across agencies, to promote positive partnerships, and to
increase the visibility of fatherhood issues with the public
and media.
Mr. Levin. I am going to leave, Mr. Chairman. I thank you
for this hearing. I think this panel indicates how broad based
this effort needs to be.
I just may say to Mr. Ballard, you say in your testimony
that you believe to restore the fabric and fiber of American
communities, we must revive the nucleus of the family, the
father. I assume you mean the father and the mother?
Mr. Ballard. Well, in many communities fathers are seen as
the lead person, the priest of the household, the one everyone
looks to when there needs to be authority and guidelines. We
just brought this to the forefront. It is something that women
accept, not as so-called browbeaters or head of the household,
so to speak, but men who are serving heads. We promote in our
program that men must first serve their wives and their
children, then he becomes a head.
Mr. Levin. I would hope we could come together even if
there are differences about that. I hope that doesn't keep us
from attacking this problem.
Mr. Camp. It didn't sound like a difference to me.
Chairman Shaw. I can say that it gives us all something to
strive for.
Mr. Levin. I think my wife feels we are both the nucleus.
Mr. Ballard. Well, see, in any corporation, and the family
is the same way, there has to be a final decision made.
Sometimes the two people may not agree. Someone has to make the
final decision. In many cases, that is the father. I don't
think we need to really get caught up on this issue because
right now they are not at home in the first place. We have to
get them back. But I wanted to show you that what we model in
our program, we actually move back into the community and we
model the responsible fatherhood piece.
The women are held as equal partners in the relationship.
But again, the final decision has to be made by someone. In
fact, if we see mothers and fathers as unisex, then kids become
confused. There is difference in both roles or both parents.
When as distinctly seen by children, they grow up in a healthy
way.
Chairman Shaw. I would like to add to that. That is an
interesting observation. I don't think I have the sensitivity
to have picked up on it, but it is interesting that you did. I
think what we are trying to accomplish is to bring the father
back from a position of irrelevancy. You have got to have
goals. I think that one of the first things that you learn, and
I know, Mr. Ballard, that you worked very hard on this, as does
Mr. Jones and other programs such as yours, you have got to
first talk about self-esteem. These guys are worthless when
they come in and they feel worthless. They are irrelevant to
their family. They are not the fathers. They don't have any
goals in life. It is just a completely drifting back and forth.
You first have got to teach them they are somebody.
I really like that thing, if it is going to be, it has got
to be me. I think bringing that in, and if it's a--I don't
think any of us are going to get bogged down as to who is going
to be the head of the family or whether it's going to be shared
power, but I think that we all need goals and the goal has to
be at least to be part of that nucleus. I think that is
something that all of us are going to have to work on.
Mr. Camp.
Mr. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I haven't been here all
that long, but as we debated welfare reform--first, I want to
thank all of you for coming and taking the time to testify.
But as we debated welfare reform, we had a goal. That goal
was that able-bodied people work. There were many people who
testified before this Subcommittee and fought that tooth and
nail and said you will destroy the system. You will only impact
the rolls between 1 and 3 percent. We have seen in some parts
of the country welfare rolls declining up to 40 percent. We
have seen very positive change. Now we have seen the studies
come back that the people that have left welfare have actually
gone to work, the University of Oregon and others, that I know
all of you are aware of.
The ideal or goal that marriage be promoted I think is
something that is critical because it is going to set a
standard. Clearly from the testimony we have heard, we are not
there yet in many communities. Some are further along. But it
isn't something that is going to happen tomorrow. But if you
don't set that lofty goal, which may seem unattainable now, and
may even seem counterproductive, as the work requirement we
were told was counterproductive. But clearly that has not been
the case. I just want to say I think that is something that we
have got to do.
Then just last, Dr. Primus, I just want to make a point
that your testimony, what we have tried to do is talk about
support after welfare as well. Clearly, under our changes
families are getting more money after welfare reform, after
they move off welfare in terms of the child support than they
were getting under the old system. What we want to do is not
look at a model that rewards the dependents, but continues to
make sure that more of those child support dollars actually
improve the life of that family after welfare. I think you
would agree that is the case now under the current law.
But I think this has been a very good discussion. I look
forward to working with all of you as we continue to move on
this legislation. Mr. Ballard, I would just say I think the
idea of servant leadership is a very good one. I appreciate
your bringing that forward. Thank you.
Mr. Ballard. Thank you. I would like to just make a
comment. Joe Jones from Baltimore indicated that there are few
marriage models in the central city. We can't preach marriage.
We have more churches today than ever before and the problems
are worse. Religion itself is not the answer. There has to be a
deeper sense of spirituality, a respect for self and community
and family.
What this agency does, it takes young couples who have been
trained by us and we move them back into the community. They
buy homes so they are a seed in the community, what we call
human antibiotics, to not only turn the problems around, but to
increase viability for those communities. I think that marriage
must become the cornerstone of America again. Unless it does,
all the money in the world would not get us any place. I think
the Subcommittee is right on target. That is why I support the
bill. I could not support it if marriage was not a linchpin of
it because we not only support it in terms of a precept, but
our examples of moving to the worst communities in America,
southeast and so on, I think testifies to that.
Mr. Camp. Thank you.
Mr. Mincy. Seventy percent of African-American children
today are born out of wedlock. Forty percent of Hispanic
children are born out of wedlock. My question to the
Subcommittee has long been how do you promote marriage in a
context in which most children are born after the fact? The
response I have is not one that says that marriage is not an
ideal, but it deals with what the practitioner and what the
families in those communities deal with on a day-to-day basis,
and asking very pragmatic questions about what the on-ramp to
family formation is in these communities. I don't want to be
misunderstood.
Also, as Joe Jones commented, we are encouraging the whole
field, not just individual programs, to learn about the
practice of team parenting, to teach couples how to have a
dialog, how to manage difficulties and conflicts. Those are the
cornerstones of what marriage is about. But the devil is going
to be in the details of this bill. When you, if you put
allocation mechanisms in the bill that reward programs that
tell you that they are going to be promoting marriage, my
experience and my sense of the field is that you will skew that
funding, you will skew what is happening in communities in ways
that do not build upon the work that is taking place in the
field over the last 20 years.
I think we can get there, but I think pragmatically we have
to be very careful.
Mr. Camp. I appreciate your comment that we can get there,
because I think that is where we need to go. Clearly, Mr. Jones
is developing that kind of program on his own. So, he knows. I
don't know, but he seems to think that there is a way to begin
that. Realizing that is very far down the road for some people.
I am not saying that you are going to see instantaneous results
there. These are very long-term efforts. But I think the ideal
is critical. I think we have agreement on that. I appreciate
that and thank you.
Chairman Shaw. Wendell is chafing at the bit over there.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Camp. He's been here before. We better let him talk.
Mr. Primus. Just a couple of responses to what you said,
Congressman Camp. One is I think most of us never had a problem
with the work. I think there was unanimous agreement that work
was important.
Mr. Camp. Not right away. It took a while to get there. We
all got there, that's true. We eventually linked arms and
jumped over that vine.
Mr. Primus. The issue was time limits and block grants. The
issue was never work, I would submit. I guess even having
recognized the importance of work, I think we in this society
have to recognize that there are going to be some parents, both
custodial and noncustodial, that aren't going to be able to
earn enough in our free market society. They may not have the
God-given gifts to earn a livable wage. In those situations, we
are going to have to look for government assistance to help
them.
But the key I think, and most States have now recognized
this in terms of earnings disregards and EITC, that as
government--when mothers earn, we don't reduce government
assistance dollar for dollar. I guess when I look at that chart
and see the 100-percent tax rates, why should those fathers
pay? I think we need the regulation. They ought to pay, but
they also--it needs to be reinforced by a set of economic
incentives.
Even if they are off of welfare, and I accept the goal of
trying to reduce welfare by getting families into the work
place, why not subsidize. I mean if the mother can't use up all
of the tax credits that she is entitled to, why not give them
over to the father to incentivize his child support payments
and then add to his check as we transmit it to the mother.
I guess I am a little--my final point, I think it's a
little too early to call welfare reform a success yet. I mean--
--
Chairman Shaw. You are still waiting on the recession.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Primus. No. I'm not waiting on the recession. I am
waiting on to see whether or not we have really improved child
well-being. I think you and I would both agree that's what we
are all about. My understanding of some of the people that are
leaving the rolls is only about 50 percent have earnings, not
all. I think the jury is still out.
But one of the things about welfare reform, it has enabled
at the local level us to have this discussion. Some of the
funding that you have provided, TANF and welfare to work, can
actually be used today to start and seed some of the vision you
have in the Fathers Count bill.
Mr. Camp. I would just say, and I appreciate those
comments, it took 40 years to get the work requirement. I am
not sure there was agreement from the very beginning on that.
It took a long time and it took a change in parties and
majority to do that.
We have been at this a few short years, so there is no one
saying that the world is fixed. But clearly the dire
predictions that were made about what welfare reform would do
have not come true. In contrast, it has been the other way. The
number of people working have exceeded even the predictions,
the positive effects at least initially. A lot of that is
partly a result of a strong economy. Let's hope that recession
doesn't come very soon because clearly we'll have a lot of
strain and problems as we always do and as we did under the old
system. That wasn't necessarily a perfect system in a recession
either.
But I think the idea is true. How do we improve the lives
of families and particularly the lives of children in those
families. I look forward to working with you on that.
Mr. Primus. Just one final comment. I said in testimony
that just as we tried to transfer welfare offices, I think
that's what has got to go on with child support. I guess I
firmly believe, and some of my friends say well, the child
support offices aren't even doing a good enough job collecting
child support, how can they take on anything more. But a lot of
the reason, as you stated, is they don't have a job. We need to
help them get that job and earn higher wages, help them be a
better dad. The child support office by linking I think, I mean
you may have thought I was a detractor or critic of welfare
reform. I am now saying that is exactly what has to happen to
the child support office, which is a very critical part here in
the fathers' lives.
Chairman Shaw. Before we put this one to rest, and I think
it is a very small part of this particular hearing, but you
have brought us something with regard to child support that we
should take a close look at. I assure you we will.
Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. You know there is
an old saying, a hit dog hollers.
Chairman Shaw. Say that again.
Mr. Collins. A hit dog hollers. [Laughter.]
Mr. Camp, you were right. The intent of the welfare reform
bill was to encourage work and promote people to work and get
off of welfare rolls. I understand there were even a few people
who quit their jobs because the welfare reform bill was signed.
I don't know who those people were or who any one particular
person was.
Chairman Shaw. They are not in here.
Mr. Collins. I think it was that dog we heard from a while
ago.
Mr. Ballard, it was very interesting to listen to your
analysis of how a lot of this came about in a lot of our cities
and communities where people just kind of moved from
communities, and a lot of activities began to take place in
those communities. You said that the churches alone can't do
this. I am not convinced the churches alone can do it either.
But I do think that all of our youngsters, and we know this,
all of our youngsters at some time or another are exposed to
education. We as a government prohibit even the hanging of the
10 most sensible laws that were ever scribed. We prohibit those
from being within any public building. I think that is where
the Federal Government is obstructing the opportunity to
promote just good morals, as you spoke of, in conjunction with
our churches.
We appreciate each of you being here. Mr. Primus, we look
forward to your return. It is always interesting to listen to
your comments.
Mr. Primus. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. We're all in high hopes that everything that
we have done will work as it was intended to. But we all know
that we're all human, and that's the reason that the Chairman
continues to hold these types of hearings and promote different
ideas of how to deal with a situation that is going to take a
long time to change and go back to where we were 30, 40, 50
years ago with community and families.
It is interesting too to hear you state that this could be
funded with existing funds, with existing programs, meaning
that there would not be an additional cost, but just with the
discretionary provisions that we put in for the States, that
they could take some of those funds and use them for this type
of purpose and to help promote fatherhood and family.
Hopefully, the Federal Government will not step in and try to
challenge any portion of this idea of Chairman Shaw's that
would promote, allow religious faith-based organizations to
participate.
Mr. Mincy, do you want to say something?
Mr. Mincy. Yes. Mr. Collins, not only is this a
hypothetical, but it is occurring. You heard Mr. Jones' comment
about the Partners for Fragile Families project in which the
Office of Child Support Enforcement and the Ford Foundation and
the Mott Foundation are working together in now 13 communities
around the country where they are using existing funding and
finding more creative ways of using child support funds to
support fathers engagement with their children, to support team
parenting, to support employment and training services for
fathers, and to help you get to your goal, which was to
increase paternity establishment rates, to increase work, and
to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent
families.
I think one of the issues is that as we sort of observe how
this project is working out on the ground, there is a lot of
uncertainty at the State level as to whether or not they indeed
can take advantage of the flexibility that the Congress has
provided. I think over the next 3 years that this project will
be running, it will be a very important laboratory of how, with
existing funds, we can restructure the set of incentives and
penalties in relationships across agencies in ways that do get
to your goal, which is to encourage the formation and
maintenance of two-parent families within a revised structure
with existing funds.
Mr. Ballard. Mr. Collins, Dr. Mincy in his opening comments
quoted Malachi 4, verse 5 and 6 which is a cornerstone in our
agency. We believe that a man's heart when it is changed by
God, he will find his own job. He will go into his own
education and become a good man.
I was in prison 30 years ago and was very violent, hadn't
finished high school. I was honorably discharged. My heart was
converted to Christ in prison. I came out of prison. I have a
son who is 5 years old. I adopted him in 1959. Jobs were hard
to get. But I took the worst kind of jobs because my heart was
different. It was changed by the power of God. There's a
difference I think in God and church, one is an organization
and one is a person. I subscribe that if a man has God in his
heart, at the seam of his life, you don't have to tell him to
get married. He will see fit to get married, as I have done.
I guess what I am saying is that I am taking the model in
my life and over 5,000 fathers, at which 20 percent of those
fathers have gotten married because of our example. If a
government insists on a father being out of the home, and we
see what has happened because of that, but over the past 40
years, we need a different thinking to reverse that. That same
thinking that pushed them out of the homes cannot be the thing
we use to bring them back.
I think what Chairman Shaw is suggesting here is a whole
different thinking about the family, which means that we must
bring marriage to the forefront as loving, compassionate,
secure environment for kids to be raised in. When we do that, I
think America becomes safe for all of us.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, if I may add one thing here. I
would hope that this Subcommittee would not interpret Mr.
Mincy's comments to indicate that there is unanimity of opinion
here that one does not need this legislation because one could
do this with existing funds. If that is Mr. Mincy's opinion,
please, I hope this Subcommittee understands it is only his
opinion.
I think that this legislation is very important, regardless
of whether or not there is flexibility with existing funds
within the TANF block grant, because it sends a very important
signal that a priority of this Congress is to include fathers,
not just as an afterthought, but to include them as central to
what we are trying to do to rebuild America. And that we need
to promote marriage as well.
If Mr. Mincy meant to indicate that we don't need this
legislation, I just want to let you know I think we need it
quite dramatically.
Chairman Shaw. No. I didn't interpret it that way.
Let me just conclude by a little bit of a summation about
what I have observed today and what has happened. I think we
have had a very, very good hearing. We all want to go the same
direction. We think different roads are going to get us there
and all of the roads are not going to get us there. I feel very
strongly that just as we felt in welfare reform that belief in
the human spirit was very important. We believe in the human
spirit and we are being proven right. I am sure that many will
say with the help of a strong economy. But in any event, it is
working. Our faith has not been misplaced.
I think the same is true as far as these fathers are
concerned. We can look in the history and we can see a lot of
things that have gone wrong. But we know exactly where the
results are. The results are that we have seen a disintegration
of the family. We also know statistically, and all of us would
agree statistically that with the disintegration of the family
that we have seen, that the kids are the ones who have really
suffered.
Having raised four kids myself, I know how strong they can
be, particularly when they get into adolescence. I don't see
how these moms can do it alone. I can readily see that a one-
parent family is going to have big, big problems raising their
kids. I don't care what color they are, I don't care what
economic stratum they are in. There is going to be a problem,
that is statistically proven. That means we have got to do
something, everything we can to encourage marriage and not
discourage it, whether we are talking about the Tax Code or
whether we are talking about legislation such as this.
Dr. Mincy, you have mentioned that this should not
necessarily be a goal of the legislation. However, and I don't
think I misinterpreted you. Perhaps I am using some type of a
license that doesn't clearly point out exactly where you are.
But there is one thing that has come through very clearly in
this hearing, and it's come all the way through, is that if we
make these guys marriageable, women will want to marry them and
they will get married. Whether we put it in the legislation or
not, it is going to happen if we are successful in what we are
doing.
Mr. Ballard, I have seen some of the accomplishments that
you have had out at the housing project here in the District of
Columbia, where you have brought these young people in. I
remember the testimony that they gave to us when we were
unveiling this legislation as to how these things will
definitely work. We need to not only have faith in the human
spirit, but we also have to let people know that we have faith
in them. We have to raise that bar of expectation. That bar of
expectation that went all the way down to the ground with some
of these people because we expect nothing from them as we see
them on the street corners. That is wrong. We have got to help
them get their self-esteem up and their self-worth so that they
feel that they are worth something.
Dr. Horn, I heard you express on a television program that
you and I were on together, which has yet to be aired, however
you expressed something which I hadn't thought anything about,
I never noticed before. But since you have said it I have given
it a great deal of thought. I have also noticed it in watching,
particularly in these situation comedies. It is always the male
who is the boob. He is the dummy. Particularly when you look at
your African-American family situation comedies. This guy is
just a guy who if it weren't for the women making him feel that
he did the right thing or something, he would be absolutely a
disaster.
You even brought up ``Home Improvement.'' You see that. You
can see the guy is constantly the dummy in the whole situation.
I think when we talk about bringing the man back to the
nucleus, whether he is the nucleus or shares the nucleus, it is
very important that the male's self-worth as a member of the
family and his self-esteem as an important part of that family
has got to be emphasized. It's got to be emphasized.
I am not getting into an equal rights situation. Believe
me, I know better than to get into that thing. I don't do that
at home either. But I think that he has to feel that he's vital
to the family image. If he doesn't, he is going to hang out on
the corners and he is not going to rise beyond our expectation
of him.
This has been a great hearing. I think we have had some
great insight here and learned quite a bit. I would like to see
this legislation move ahead. I will be filing it again. I think
the calendar is very much against us now, but we will hope that
in the next Congress this will become law.
Yes, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to comment to Mr.
Ballard that sir, I make the final decision in our household.
It's ``Yes, ma'am,'' or ``No, ma'am.'' [Laughter.]
Chairman Shaw. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the hearing was adjourned,
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Submissions for the record follow:]
Statement of Catholic Charities/North, Lynn, Massachusetts
Catholic Charities/North, a community service site of
Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Boston, Inc., wishes
to include the following program description in the proceedings
of the hearing on Fatherhood and Welfare Reform. We believe
that we have developed an effective program to meet the
challenges of this population. It is clear that national
attention must be drawn to such services. A recent PBS
documentary ``Fatherhood USA'' featured our program and others
like it which are attempting to make a difference in the lives
of these young men. We are grateful for such interest and are
willing to assist in this effort in any way.
Project Description
Catholic Charities/North is seeking support in sustaining
and expanding the Young Fathers Program. Americans have come to
recognize that fathers' involvement in the development of their
children is extremely important. Nearly 25% of our children, or
more than 19 million, live in families with no father. The long
term effects of this trend are very sobering: diminished
opportunity for learning how to be a partner in a stable two
parent family, economic loss, fewer educational opportunities,
and increasingly limited access to employment. family
adequately. Research also demonstrates that girls from single
parent families have a threefold greater risk of bearing
children as unwed teenagers. Catholic Charities has recognized
the vital importance of services to young fathers, many of whom
would otherwise be caught up in a web of criminal activity,
domestic violence, and economic disarray. We are very clear
that, if we are serious about creating a safe place in which to
raise a child, we have to make a father's contribution to his
child, both in terms of finances and parental nurturing, an
absolute priority.
The target population of the Young Fathers Program is men
who have become fathers, often unintentionally, who are
undereducated, underemployed, and living in disadvantaged
neighborhoods. Referrals have been made through other Catholic
Charities' programs which primarily serve young mothers and
their children. Fathers are identified, and aggressive outreach
efforts are made to engage them in services. Specific programs
generating referrals are: Second Chance School for pregnant
teens, co-sponsored by the Lynn School Department; the Amity
Transitional Housing Program for young mothers, partially
supported by the Lynn Housing Authority and a past recipient of
Block Grant funds; the Educational and Parenting Skills Center,
a GED program primarily serving young mothers; and the Young
Parents Outreach program, supported by the Department of Social
Services. Strong relationships have been developed with many
other agencies including the departments of Probation and
Social Services and other individual providers.
In the past year, 38 fathers, primarily under the age of
25, have been assisted directly in stabilizing their lives.
Many more have contacted our agency and have been exposed to
the principles upon which the program in based. A majority of
those helped directly have been able to sustain employment,
with few cases of criminal recidivism.. We have seen tremendous
improvement in the living conditions of these young fathers and
in their abilities to demonstrate appropriate parenting and
relationship skills.
The program, currently staffed only by a half-time outreach
social worker, contains two vital elements. First is the weekly
Fatherhood group during which the young men are taught the
basics of being responsible fathers in an atmosphere of
positive encouragement. The focus is on five specific
principles:
1. As a father, it is my responsibility to give affection
for my children.
2. As a father, it is my responsibility to give gentle
guidance to my children.
3. As a father, it is my responsibility to give financial
support to my children and to the mother of my children.
4. As a father, it is my responsibility to demonstrate
respect at all times to the mother of my children.
5. As a father, it is my responsibility to set a proud
example by living within the law without the taint of drug or
alcohol abuse.
The Fatherhood group provides weekly speakers who
underscore specific principles and assist the men in learning
how to incorporate these principles into their lives.
The second element of the program is the outreach and
support of the social worker. By going ``where they are,'' he
provides a mentoring relationship for these men who have never
known a positive relationship with their own fathers. The
social worker encourages, leads, and connects young fathers to
employment, education, and other necessary resources. He is
there for them in crisis situations and provides a father's
perspective regarding issues of child development, behavior
management, and relationship concerns.
In the past year, the Young Fathers Program has been
recognized in many arenas as a model for reaching this
difficult population. The graduate School of Social Work at
Boston College has utilized this as a placement site for their
interns and, we hope they will continue to do so in the future.
The Program Director is currently a member of a taskforce of
the Governor's Commission on Father Absence and Family Support.
Program staff have been asked to speak at national conferences
in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Arizona, and Washington DC on
building community partnerships to address the national problem
of fragile families and father involvement.
Project Objectives
1. To contact young men who have become, or are about to
become, fathers to encourage them to become responsibly
involved in the lives of their children.
2. To teach young fathers the necessary skills for
responsible parenting and respectful, committed relationships
with the mothers of their children.
3. To increase opportunities for young fathers to become
sufficiently employed in order to provide basic necessities for
their children.
4. To assist young fathers to end their involvement with
the legal system, thus making them more able to be employed and
to support their children.
5. To develop a network of supports that will empower young
fathers to become active, contributing members of this
community.
Anticipated Accomplishments
Children growing up without the positive support of a
father are more likely to live in poverty. Boys who grow up
without a father are more likely to be involved in criminal
activity and become incarcerated. The elimination of these
factors is the long-term goal of the Young Fathers Program. In
the short term, through the continued development of
comprehensive services, young men will have the opportunity to
increase their confidence, motivation, and productivity. Young
mothers will be able to increase their sense of safety and
security as they get realistic support from their children's
fathers. Young fathers will take an active role in providing
safe, affordable housing for their children, as well as
encouraging them to improve their own lives. With a decrease in
unemployment and criminal activity for this population, it is
clear that resources can be utilized in other ways to build a
stronger community.
Expansion Proposal
Catholic Charities/North is hoping to expand services in
this important initiative. To insure the quality of services
and to reach a greater number of young families, we are hoping
to increase the outreach and social work staffing. We believe a
``team approach'' is extremely effective in outreaching to and
supporting these young men.
The outreach worker and social worker are the heart and
soul of the program. These individuals will provide resource
development, encouragement, and mentoring. They know what is
possible and what is available to help young fathers meet their
individual goals. The program director provides supervision and
support, as well as assists in networking with other community
agencies serving these families.
Program Benefit
The Young Fathers Program is providing a necessary services
to a very ``hard-to-reach'' population. Since its inception,
the program has served nearly 100 men, including 38 in the past
year. Many other young men have been exposed to the principles
of being a responsible father as the graduates of our program
outreach to their friends and relatives. It is impossible to
determine what proportion of the young parent population may
have been effected in some way by this contact.
With the additional funding, our hope is to provide ongoing
support to the young men currently involved in the program as
well as to increase annual individual contact to 125
individuals. Well over 90% of program participants have been
and will continue to be from low-income and ``inner-city''
sections of Greater Lynn.
Statement of Center for Families, School of Consumer and Family
Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Purdue University Center for Families and Cooperative Extension Service
Communities Working Together with Fathers
``It's My Child Too''
A Parent Education Program for Young Fathers
What does it mean to be a responsible father? What are the
roles and responsibilities associated with fatherhood? What
role do communities play in supporting young fathers to
increase their commitment and involvement in the lives of their
children?
The Center for Families at Purdue University has found
supportive parent education programs such as It's My Child Too,
disseminated through the Purdue University Cooperative
Extension Service, to be a valuable resource for young fathers.
The Center for Families and the Purdue Cooperative
Extension Service collaborate in the implementation of this
model program for young fathers. The Center for Families is a
catalyst for initiating and integrating outreach, teaching, and
research activities that support families. The Purdue
University Cooperative Extension Service is an educational
organization operating in each of Indiana's 92 counties to
maximize the contributions that Purdue, a land grant
university, makes to the well-being of Indiana residents.
The It's My Child Too program is aimed at young fathers 14-
25 years of age in need of knowledge and skills associated with
competent parenting. Most participants to date have been living
in high-risk circumstances due to limited economic and
educational resources. The short-term parent education program
(minimum 6 90-minutes sessions) is viewed as a first step in
heightening young men's awareness of the roles,
responsibilities, and skills of fatherhood. The content is
tailored to the needs of participants. Major content areas
include: young father's roles in the lives of their children;
responding appropriately to children's developmental needs;
coping with stress; communicating with the mother of the child;
and responsible decision-making (sexuality, financial support,
and establishment of paternity).
The unique county-team design calls for community
collaboration to support the successful implementation of the
It's My Child Too program. Technical assistance and evaluation
provided by Purdue University's Center for Families further
supports county teams through resource, referral and evaluation
feedback.
Statement of Citizens for Parental Accountability, Chantilly, Virginia
A Real Rx for Welfare Reform
On Thursday, July 30, 1998, the United States House of
Representatives Subcommittee on Human Resources will hold
hearings regarding the role of fatherhood in the welfare reform
effort. IT IS ABOUT TIME THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ADDRESS THE
``ABSENT PARENT'' COMPONENT OF WELFARE REFORM IN A FUNDAMENTAL
AND MEANINGFUL WAY.
As a single-parent of five and public assistance recipient,
I participated in two sets of welfare reform hearings; (one in
July of 1994 and one in February of 1995). During my testimony,
I emphasized the importance of parental accountability for both
parents involved as Congress pursued a ``work first'' approach
to welfare reform. Today, I can offer a unique and different
perspective on this issue.
After seven years of separation and the receipt of various
types of public assistance, my family was reunited in February
of 1997. My husband and I have five children. In today's
economy, the adequate provision for and care of children
generally requires the combined effort of both mothers and
fathers. Of course there are exceptions. However, the majority
of typical American citizens living as single-parents have
difficulty in meeting the needs, both financial and emotional,
of their children. This is not an unkind remark. It is simply a
fact. I know. I've been there.
After a lot of hard work, discussion, and compromise, my
husband returned to our family. It has not been easy to rebuild
our broken home. He has participated in forums I hold to inform
others about child support availability and enforcement. He has
freely acknowledged the error of what he did in financially
abandoning us and has been diligent in progressing forward at
his current employment.
We, together, can share the experience we have had as the
only realistic answer to the welfare dilemma. It takes two
parents to make a child. It takes two parents to appropriately
support that child. This message is important and needs to be
shared with any legislator who truly desires to make a
difference in this frustrating area of American social policy.
HOPEFULLY, THESE HEARINGS WILL PROVIDE THE FIRST STEP
TOWARD AFFIRMATIVELY INCLUDING BOTH PARENTS IN THE WELFARE
REFORM PROCESS. TRUE FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY CAN ONLY BE
ACHIEVED WHEN BOTH PARENTS CONTRIBUTE TO THE BEST OF THEIR
INDIVIDUAL ABILITY.
Connecticut Commission on Children
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
July 30, 1998
RE: The Fathers Count Act, 1998, H.B. 3314
Honorable E. Clay Shaw Jr.
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources
Good day, Congressman Shaw and honorable members of Congress. The
Connecticut Commission on Children is pleased to have this opportunity
to submit testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee, Sub
Committee on Human Resources regarding House Bill 3314, ``The Father
Counts Act of 1998.'' We submit this testimony to you in the spirit of
our statutory charge by the Connecticut General Assembly to ``promote
public policies that enhance the interest and well being of children
and make recommendations for children annually to the Legislature and
to the Governor.'' To that end, we support the efforts of this
Committee to fund programs that promote and enhance positive father
involvement with their children.
Background
Unfortunately, in the past three decades, there has been a
dramatic rise in the number of children living in households
without fathers. In a 1997 report published by the Connecticut
Association for Human Services, 149,702 families in Connecticut
were single-parent families--that translates into 20% of all
families in Connecticut. Research on promoting positive father
involvement suggests that encouraging fathers to provide for
their children economically and to be regularly and positively
connected to them, whether or not the father lives in the home,
helps children to do better emotionally and academically and
lessens the incidence of behavioral problems, whether or not
the father lives in the home. Thus, encouraging positive father
involvement is central to an agenda for children in order to
ensure economic security, emotional well being and opportunity
to achieve educational success.
In recent decades, fathers have become increasingly
involved in their children's lives. But fathers are still much
less involved than mothers. It has been estimated that fathers
engage their children only two-fifths as much as mothers do and
are only two-thirds as accessible to their children as are
mothers. In 1994, 24% of American children lived in a single
mother household, up from 8% in 1960. Most single-mother
households are the result of the high divorce rate in this
country, but a growing number are due to never-married child
rearing. In 1993, almost 10% of children in the United States
were living with never-married mothers, up from less than half
of a percent in 1960.
This rise in father absence has attracted public concern
across the political spectrum. For example, according to a
recent Gallup poll conducted for the National Center on
Fathering, 79% of Americans either agree or strongly agree that
``the most significant family or social problem facing America
is the physical absence of the father from the home.''
In reaction to the growing focus on the importance of
fathers, we at the Connecticut Commission on Children have
researched the effects of father involvement and the types of
programs being implemented to promote positive father
involvement.
Research
In recent years, research on fathers has burgeoned. Two
general fields of research have emerged. The first field
investigates the benefits of father involvement in married-
parent families. University of Illinois professor of human
development Joseph Pleck has differentiated three levels of
father involvement: amount of fathers' engagement with their
children, fathers' accessibility, and fathers' share of
responsibility in taking care of their children. To be
beneficial, this involvement must be positive. The second field
looks at differences between children growing up in married-
parent families and single-parent families. These two fields of
research indicate that positive father involvement benefits
children and parents, while father absence is detrimental to
children and parents.
According to the research, positive father involvement
contributes to the cognitive, social-emotional, and moral
development of children from infancy through early adulthood.
In young children, positive father involvement is positively
related to cognitive performance, empathy, self-control,
appropriate sex-role behavior, and security of parental
attachment. In school-aged children and adolescents, positive
father involvement is positively related to academic
performance, social competence and self-esteem, and is
negatively related to behavior problems.
For example, a recent report by the U.S. Department of
Education indicates that children fare better in school if
their fathers, in addition to their mothers, are involved in
their education.
In a study of fathers and their children spanning four
generations, Harvard psychologist John Snarey found that
fathers' involvement was predictive of the educational, social,
and occupational success of their children in young adulthood
as well. Furthermore, he found that the best predictor of men's
involvement with their children is the involvement of their
fathers when they were growing up.
Positive father involvement benefits parents in addition to
children. Snarey found that father involvement not only does
not impede occupational success, but it is modestly related to
greater occupational success. Other studies also indicate that
involvement with one's children serves as a buffer for work-
related stress and can increase productivity. Furthermore,
Snarey found that marital success is predicted by men's
involvement with their children.
Unfortunately, fathers who are divorced or never married
often have limited contact with their children. Furthermore,
even when non-residential fathers remain involved in their
children's lives, the benefits of this involvement are
questionable, particularly if a father does not have a good
relationship with his children's mother.
Not surprisingly, father absence has been found to be
detrimental to children. For example, in a study utilizing four
national data sets, Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur at the
University of Wisconsin have found that children of single-
mother families are at modestly greater risk, compared to
children whose parents are married, for dropping out of school,
becoming teen parents, and being detached from the workforce as
young adults. Children of never-married mothers are slightly
more at risk than children of divorce. Additionally, McLanahan
and Sandefur found that the risks experienced by children of
single-mothers are not significantly reduced by the presence of
stepfathers.
A good deal of the increased risk experienced by children
of single-mothers is due to the loss of their fathers as
economic providers. Furthermore, single-mother families move
more frequently and have less community support resources than
do married parents. These factors affect mothers as well as
children. Because of their low-income level and isolation from
community support resources, single-mothers experience greater
amounts of stress than do married mothers.
Fathers also suffer from being separated from their
children. In fact, fathers may suffer more depression and
psychological problems as a result of divorce than do their
spouses. Evidence shows that fathers who have never been
connected with their children also suffer adverse psychological
consequences such as depression and low self-esteem.
Additionally, Rutgers University sociologist David Popeno
argues that responsible fatherhood helps to socialize men as
responsible members of society. When men forfeit the
responsibility of fatherhood, they run the risk of becoming
marginalized from society.
On a broader scale, father absence is associated with a
number of social problems. A number of theorists and policy
makers argue that father absence is a leading cause of a number
of this country's social ills. Research does indicate that
communities with high levels of father absence tend to also
have high rates of poverty, crime, and young men in prison.
From these findings it is tempting to conclude that father
absence contributes to the social ills. However, one must be
cautious in interpreting these findings because they are
correlational and do not imply father absence causes the other
problems with which it is associated.
Programs
Our research has revealed that there are a large number of
growing efforts throughout the country designed to promote
positive father involvement. Efforts to promote positive father
involvement generally have one or more of three aims.
First, efforts can aim to increase positive
paternal involvement in families where the father lives with
his children.
Second, efforts can aim to facilitate and support
positive connections between non-residential fathers and their
children.
Third, efforts can aim to prevent father absence.
These aims are not mutually exclusive, and successful
efforts should incorporate all three of them.
In order to effectively promote positive father
involvement, it is important to understand the factors
underlying father involvement and the barriers that fathers
encounter when they try to increase their involvement.
Developmental psychologist Michael Lamb and his colleagues have
identified a widely adopted hierarchy of four factors
influencing paternal behavior, all of which must be met in
order to successfully enhance men's involvement with their
children. These factors include: motivation, skills and self-
confidence, support, and institutional practices. A father's
motivation is influenced by his personality characteristics,
his family history (including growing up with his own father),
his beliefs, and the beliefs of the community to which he
belongs. Once motivated, a father must have confidence in his
skills and ability as an individual and as a man to
successfully raise his children. To be successfully involved
with his children, a father must also be supported by his
family and community. Furthermore, it is imperative that
institutions, such as a father's workplace and the childcare
and educational institutions which his children attend, do not
impede (and hopefully encourage) his involvement with his
children. On a broader institutional scale, society must
provide social and economic support for fathers' involvement.
To effectively promote positive father involvement, a
repertoire of programs and legislation should be designed to
impact all four of the factors.
A variety of programs exist that have at least one of the
three aims mentioned above and are designed to impact multiple
factors influencing father involvement. These programs can be
further divided into four general categories.
The first category consists of programs designed
to prevent males from fathering children until they are
prepared to be good parents.
The second category consists of programs designed
to connect fathers with their children either at birth or after
a period of absence.
The third category consists of programs designed
to support fathers' continued involvement with their children.
The fourth category consists of programs designed
to help fathers to be better economic providers.
Prevent. Programs designed to prevent males from fathering
children until they are prepared to be good parents are usually
aimed at adolescents and preadolescents. These programs are
offered by a variety of institutions, including schools,
community centers, and religious groups. Most prevention
efforts, however, take the form of curriculum-based programs
offered in schools or community centers. These prevention
curricula have typically focused on females, and research
indicates that teen pregnancy prevention efforts may be less
effective for males. Recently, Planned Parenthood, in
conjunction with the Children's Aid Society and Philliber
Research, outlined a conceptual framework for successful male
focused teen-pregnancy prevention programs. The authors
conclude that successful programs should be long-term and
intensive, provide close relationships with caring adults,
elicit the support of peers and parents, and focus on skills
building and activity-based lessons.
Connect. Programs to promote fathers' positive involvement
with their children must first address the most basic
connection between father and child. The man's acknowledgment
that he is the child's father. This establishment of paternity
has clear financial benefits for children. When paternity is
established, children are eligible for social security and
health care benefits (if their fathers are insured), and
fathers are also legally responsible to contribute financial
support to their children. But paternity establishment has
psychological benefits as well. It encourages fathers to
develop a sense of responsibility towards their children, and
even if fathers do not get involved in their children's
upbringing, the children still grow up with a better sense of
their heritage and identity.
The best time to establish paternity is at birth. Programs
based upon this premise have significantly increased the rates
of paternity establishment by encouraging unwed fathers to
establish paternity while in hospitals' maternity wards. Even
if fathers do not establish paternity at birth, programs can
encourage them to do so at a later date.
Support. After a father forms a connection with his child,
he must feel supported by his family and his community in order
to remained involved. A number of resource centers and support
groups have been established to help provide such support to
residential and non-residential fathers. These services
typically offer services such as legal aid and advocacy for
fathers, parenting classes, counseling for couples, and job
training.
Job Training. Since father's absence is most prevalent in
impoverished families; most of these programs focus on helping
low income fathers develop employment skills and help him stay
psychologically involved with his child. A key component of
promoting the involvement of low-income fathers is to overcome
economic barriers to positive father involvement by helping
them find employment. In addition, states should evaluate
welfare reform policies to make sure that they promote a
positive fatherhood agenda.
In summary, effective efforts to promote positive father
involvement intervene on multiple levels to break down the
personal, cultural, political and societal barriers that many
men encounter as they try to increase their involvement in
their children's lives. In Connecticut, and throughout the
country, a growing number of programs are helping to prevent
unprepared young men from becoming fathers, connect absent
fathers with their families, support fathers' continued
positive involvement with their children and become better
economic providers.
The Commission on Children strongly supports H.R. 3314
because, by providing these programs with much needed support,
the Fathers Count Act will help Connecticut parents who are
struggling to balance the responsibilities of work and family,
and it will help bolster their children's success in school and
as future parents.
The Commission also supports federal policies (the Personal
Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRA) and
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997(BBA)) that have given states
the opportunity to promote responsible fatherhood in several
ways. Under the new welfare law, states can increase family
income by: 1) providing employment and training to fathers; 2)
increase child support collections; and 3) increase the
distribution of child support collected on behalf of families
receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy families (TANF). Funds
allocated to the States from H.B. 3314 should be linked to and
coordinated with State welfare reform initiatives to ensure
maximization of funds and to eliminate duplicative programs.
The Commission on Children has made available to you copies
of our recent study on ``The Importance of Fatherhood:
Promising Efforts to Promote Positive Father Involvement''
written by Christopher C. Henrich, M.S. Psychology, Yale
University. Thank you for your consideration of this testimony.
-