In demonstration study: 5,611 Low-income individuals (non-custodial parents- mostly males) randomly assigned to program and control groups. 2,819 program and 2,792 control group members.

Employment activities: Sites are encouraged to offer a variety of services, including job search assistance and opportunities for education and skills training. In addition, sites are encouraged to offer opportunities for on-the-job training, paid work experience, and other activities that mix skills training or education with part-time employment.

Financial Incentives: Child support orders to be reduced while non-custodial parents participate in PFS.

Social/Support Services: The demonstration programs provide regular support groups for participants. This component is built around a curriculum known as Responsible Fatherhood that was supplied by MDRC. Additionally, demonstration programs must provide opportunities for parents to mediate their differences using services modeled on those provided through many family courts and divorce cases.

To "preview" the interaction between the CSE system and a PFS-like intervention.

To learn valuable lessons that would later influence the research and data collection strategies for the larger PFS demonstration by obtaining and analyzing computerized and manual data from a CSE program.

To learn more about the non-custodial parents.

To assess whether the PFS approach appeared promising.

To understand why NCPs in PFS participated in PFS, their views on the child support system, and possible reasons behind the implementation and impact findings.

"The economic circumstances and lifestyles of non-custodial parents hamper CSE efforts"(2).

"There are few incentives for either parent to cooperate"(3).

The report first uses administrative records and survey data to describe the characteristics and circumstances of low-income fathers eligible for PFS and to examine the program’s impact on employment and earnings. The results indicate that these men are disadvantaged in many ways. Many of the respondents had unstable living arrangements, half did not complete high school, and the majority had been arrested. Not surprisingly, a sizable fraction of the men did not work in the year during which we observed them, and those that did work had fairly low earnings. Low education and limited work experience, in particular, seem to be important barriers to finding and keeping jobs. For the sample as a whole, the program did not significantly increase employment or earnings during the two years after they entered the program. However, it did increase earnings among men who might be characterized as "less employable," those without a high school diploma and those with little recent work experience. For these men, particularly those who entered the program later in the evaluation, PFS increased the amount they worked during the year and helped them get better quality jobs—those that paid relatively high wages and offered some benefits. For more employable men, the program had little effect on average earnings and somewhat reduced employment among those who would have worked in part-time, lower wage jobs, perhaps by encouraging them to hold out for better jobs. The results differ from those shown in the interim report in part because the analysis for this report is based not only on Unemployment Insurance (UI) data but also on a survey that asked the men about earnings from all jobs. Many low-income men may work in jobs that are not fully reported to the UI system (either because they work intermittently or for cash, for example), so that the UI data are likely to miss some fraction of their earnings. The results are encouraging in that the program increased earnings among some fathers. However, they also point to the challenges of increasing employment among a group of low-income men that on average has low levels of education and is only loosely connected to the labor market.

"The PFDS experience has proved again the complexity of designing government policy involving personal relation within a family context"(9).

"PFS is a useful tool for child support agencies and the courts in "sorting" the unable-to-pay from the unwilling-to-pay"(9).

"The existence of PFS had broader effects than those directly linked to the services provided program participants"(9).

"Many of the men in PFS were very poor and disadvantaged"(9).

"Child support is just one of the many problems many of these men face on a daily basis"(10).

"Many of the men see the child support system as ‘stacked against them’"(10).

"Peer support has emerged as a hallmark service of PFS and arranging a full menu of employment services has proven difficult"(10).

"Community-based organizations have emerged over time as central actors in PFS sites"(10).

“Efforts to improve CSE (child support enforcement) have largely focused on non-custodial parents (NCPs) with income and assets. Location and enforcement techniques, such as matches of administrative records and automated enhanced enforcement actions, work best with the NCPs whose residence employment, and financial records are stable. PFS research suggests that a significant portion of NCPs whose children receive welfare do not fit this profile. They continue to pose enforcement challenges precisely because it is often difficult to determine their residence and employment. The information available to CSE staff suggests that they have few financial resources and are unlikely to pay much in support. Hence, in many jurisdictions these cases remain a frustration to CSE agencies, causing them to turn their attention to other cases. For many site, therefore, the effort to refer unemployed, low-income NCPs to PFS represented a shift in policy. In the process of making this change, the sites encountered a series of administrative and policy changes that are not unique to PFS. The ways in which they sought to address them provide lessons for other CSE agencies” (4).

“In PFS, local CSE staff were asked to review their caseload of NCPs with established support orders (and, in some sites. Cases in which paternity was newly established) to identify NCPs who fit the PFS profile: linked to a custodial parent who is receiving or has received welfare, behind in child support payments, and without evidence of employment. The results of this review reveal the diversity of NCPs and illustrate the complexity of the CSE problem”(5).

“Some NCPs could not be served legal notice of the review or did not appear at the review, suggesting that the first key step in these cases may need to be an intensive location effort. The experience of these sites shows why local staff may have difficulty compelling NCPs to attend hearings and how an enhanced location effort might be effected. Normally, CSE staff do not have an in-the-community presence. Typically, they use the mail, phones, administrative records, and so on, to locate NCPs. As explained above, there are limits to the usefulness of this approach for NCPs who are poor or unemployed” (5).

“Many NCPs, however, did appear at their status reviews and CSE staff were able to sort cases and respond appropriately. For a substantial proportion of the NCPs who appeared at the reviews (probably between one-forth and one-third), the review produced an enforcement success; the NCPs reported employment previously unknown to the CSE staff and actions were taken to put in place a wage-withholding order. In other cases CSE staff collected information about NCPs that they had not uncovered in normal practices- for example, that they were disabled or incarcerated, living with their child, or even deceased. For these cases, the added effort allowed local CSE staff to update their records and see that a current support obligation was inappropriate (though past arrears could still be owed). For the remaining cases, between one-fourth and one-third of those who were tracked during a period of PFS intake, the NCPs were appropriate doe PFS and were considered for referral to the program” (6).

“These findings suggest that agencies could put in place a PFS-style program as a standard response to cases that appear to fit their eligibility rules (based on what is known through standard CSE practices) and not be overwhelmed with the cost of providing services” (6).

“A second implication of this drop-off is that those NCPs who turn out to be appropriate for PFS often face substantial barriers to employment. Many lack education credentials, have weak basic skills and a work history with substantial gaps and periods of unemployment, have a criminal record and have been involved in underground of even illegal activities, and suffer from great instability in housing and limited support networks. Further, few are receiving any form of cash assistance, leaving a sizable proportion strapped for money. For these NCPs, the standard CSE measures such as seek-work orders, purge payments, or the threat of incarceration may be inadequate if the long-term goal is to get them in a position where they could pay child support” (6).

“Implementing PFS presented management challenges that went far beyond identifying agencies with experience in providing the program’s services and seeking funding to support this effort. At a minimum, the local partnership needed to include the CSE agency and the courts, employment and training service providers, and organizations with the capacity to provide peer support and mediation. At the core of the challenge, the intended partners began with different organizational missions and assumptions about their "clients," funding sources, administrative procedures, standards for rating their performance, and experience dealing with those facing a legal mandate to participate (as opposed to volunteers).”

“Some PFS services were easier to put in place than others. In general, peer support, job club, extra case review at CSE offices to identify parents for PFS intake, and the offer of voluntary mediation were implemented across most sites. Implementation of "skill-building" education and training options and a quick follow-up when parents found employment or failed to comply with program requirements were more difficult to sustain over time. Further, because of difficulties in identifying potential PFS referrals from the child support caseload and getting them to appear for review hearings, five of the seven sites did not meet their enrollment targets, and, at times, program operations were hampered by this shortfall.”

“The majority of the noncustodial parents referred to PFS were living in poverty, or on the edge of poverty, with a recent history of moving from one low-wage job to another. Thus, the challenge was to help these fathers find better jobs than they would otherwise have found or to secure more stable employment. This report is primarily based on a sample of 2,641 parents who were found to be eligible and appropriate for referral to PFS. Many faced substantial barriers to moving into better jobs in the mainstream labor market: nearly 50 percent lacked a high school diploma, and about 70 percent had been arrested for an offense unrelated to child support.”

“Slightly more than two-thirds of the noncustodial parents referred to PFS participated in at least one PFS activity. The average participant was active for five months, with about one-half participating for one to three months and about one-quarter continuing to participate for four to six months. Participation was greatest in peer support and job search workshops. Virtually all those who failed to participate and did not have a long-term "excuse" recognized by the program were referred back to the child support agency for further enforcement.”

Interim Impact Findings:

“Parents subject to the extra outreach and case review involved in PFS intake, prior to any referral to the PFS program, made more payments to the child support agency than those subject to traditional child support enforcement. Among other effects, the extra outreach and case review uncovered previously unreported employment, allowing the child support agency to institute wage withholding. In three sites where a special study of the extra review was conducted, the increase in the proportion of parents paying any child support ranged from 6 to 15 percentage points, and average total child support payments per parent subject to the extra review increased by $160 to $200 over the six quarters of follow-up.”

“Separate from the effects of this extra outreach effort, a larger number of parents referred to the PFS services and mandates paid child support than would have paid in the absence of access to the program. Across all seven sites combined, the number of parents who paid support during the follow-up quarters increased by about 4.5 to 7.5 percentage points. However, these impacts on child support were mainly the results of substantial impacts in three of the seven sites. In two of these three sites, the average amount of child support paid per parent over the 18 months of follow-up also increased by a statistically significant amount.” “Unfortunately, these increases in child support came without a corresponding increase in fathers’ employment and earnings. No site produced increases in employment and earnings that were consistent and statistically significant during the 18 months of follow-up for this report.”

“In sum, PFS did lead to an increase in child support for a group sometimes viewed as unlikely to respond to enforcement efforts, but the search for effective means of increasing employment and earnings of low-income men continues. The final section of this summary offers suggestions for program designers and operators based on these PFS findings.”

The low-income noncustodial parents targeted by the Parents’ Fair Share program had widely varying levels of involvement with their children even in the absence of the program.

Noncustodial parents in the PFS program group were more likely to provide formal child support (support paid through the CSE system) than members of the control group during the six-month follow-up period for this report.

PFS did not change the likelihood that noncustodial parents would provide any support (support provided directly to custodial parents). However, the program did lead to a small reduction in the average value of informal support given during the follow-up period.

An analysis of PFS impacts by subgroup suggests that future programs can reduce the likelihood that noncustodial parents will cut back on their informal contributions by taking two steps: increasing the earnings capacity of the most disadvantaged noncustodial parents and developing innovative ways to encourage fathers to maintain informal support if they are already providing it at a high level.

PFS did not, on average, lead to increases in the amount of contact that fathers had with their children. However, site-by-site analyses indicate that PFS was effective at increasing the occurrence of regular visits when it served families who were in a position to respond — those with relatively low visitation rates.

PFS did seem to increase fathers’ efforts to engage in active parenting, as evidenced by a small increase in mothers’ reports of frequent disagreements between the parents. Although disagreements increased, the program did not lead to increases in levels of “aggressive conflict” between the parents.

PFS showed some promising effects by increasing the frequency of discussions about the child among parents with the youngest children and by increasing the likelihood of visits for noncustodial parents who had no high school credentials. However, the results for these two subgroups also raise the possibility that, for some families, increased engagement in parenting buy the noncustodial parent can increase the occurrence of aggressive conflict between the parents.

Informal support and nonfinancial involvement must be understood as exchanges that are distinct from the provision of formal child support.

As a group, the fathers were very disadvantaged, although some were able to find low-wage work fairly easily. PFS increased employment and earnings for the least-employable men but not for the men who were more able to find work on their own. Most participated in job club services, but fewer than expected took part in skill-building activities. PFS encouraged some fathers, particularly those who were least involved initially, to take a more active parenting role. Many of the fathers visited their children regularly, although few had legal visitation agreements. There were modest increases in parental conflict over child-rearing decisions, and some mothers restricted the fathers’ access to their children. Men referred to the PFS program paid more child support than men in the control group. The process of assessing eligibility uncovered a fair amount of employment, which disqualified some fathers from participation but which led, nonetheless, to increased child support payments.

• How to increase employment and earnings:
• Structure the program to encourage longer-term participation and to include job-retention services.
• Provide the fathers who cannot find private sector employment with community service jobs or stipends, or combine part-time work with training.
• Use providers who have experience working with very disadvantaged clients.
• Earmark adequate funding for employment services.

• How to increase parental involvement:
• Increase fathers’ access to their children by involving custodial mothers in the programs and providing the fathers with legal services to gain visitation rights.
• Be aware of the potential for increased parental conflict.

• How to increase child support payments:
• Mandate fathers’ participation in employment-related activities to increase payments among low-income caseloads.
• Encourage active partnership of fatherhood programs with the child support system.