Serving Noncustodial Parents:
A Descriptive Study of Welfare-to-Work Programs

[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION
   1. Issues Facing Low-Income Noncustodial Parents
   2. Overview of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program
   3. Research Methods
   4. Structure of the Report
2. PROGRAM DESIGN AND CHARACTERISTICS
   1. Sponsoring Agencies and Partnerships with Other Organizations
   2. Project Service Area
   3. Funding Sources
   4. Participation Levels and Target Groups Served
   5. Program Goals
3. GETTING NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS TO PARTICIPATE
   1. Recruitment and Outreach Strategies
   2. Incentives to Participate
4. PROGRAM SERVICES
   1. Intake and Assessment
   2. Case Management
   3. Employment and Postemployment Services
   4. Parenting and Relationship Services
   5. Other Types of Services
5. CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

ENDNOTES

I. INTRODUCTION

The role of noncustodial parents (NCPs) in the lives of low-income families has received increased attention from policymakers and program administrators in recent years. Increasing the level of child support that NCPs pay to children in low-income households is viewed as an important element in the range of policies designed to reduce the extent and depth of poverty and welfare dependency among children. However, research shows that about one-quarter of all NCPs do not pay child support because they are poor themselves and cannot afford to support their children without further impoverishing themselves or their families.⁽¹⁾ This has led to increased efforts to boost the employment and earnings of these parents by encouraging them to participate in employment and training programs, and thereby increase their ability to provide financial support for their children and play more active roles in their lives.

The Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants Program, authorized under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, is a primary vehicle for states and localities to provide employment, training, and other support services to NCPs, as well as hard-to-serve welfare recipients. WtW, with $3 billion in federal funds, was enacted to complement the major welfare reform provisions authorized in 1996 under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), particularly the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. The WtW grants complement TANF in that these funds are specifically designated for work-related activities and not for cash welfare payments. In addition, WtW funds target specific groups: the least employable welfare recipients and low-income noncustodial parents, including those with children on or eligible for welfare or other types of public assistance.⁽²⁾ While services to NCPs were included in the initial legislation, changes made in 1999 to the WtW eligibility criteria increased the emphasis on NCPs as a key population to be served under this program.

From initial passage of the WtW legislation, enthusiasm about the possibility of serving NCPs was very high, with many states indicating that some or all of their state WtW dollars would be targeted at NCPs and a number of the organizations applying for and receiving grants indicating that NCPs would be part of their target populations. But based on anecdotal reports and the low numbers of NCPs actually served,⁽³⁾ implementation of such programs seemed more difficult than first envisioned. These implementation difficulties appeared consistent with reports of slow start-up by non-WtW programs serving NCPs, such as the Office of Child Support Enforcement Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration projects.⁽⁴⁾

This study examines the strategies that 11 purposively selected WtW grantees used to design their programs and recruit participants, including some of the mid-course corrections needed to improve services and client intake. It also summarizes lessons that can be learned from these efforts--lessons that are applicable to the larger community of workforce development and social services agencies which would like to be more pro-active in serving low-income noncustodial parents. This study was undertaken to provide field-based information to WtW state and community-based grantees and other programs interested in serving low-income NCPs on how some WtW grantees had successfully managed to design and implement a program addressing the employment and other service needs of NCPs.

For this study, "success" is measured solely by programs' reported ability to recruit participants and deliver services. It is important that the reader recognize that this study is not an evaluation of WtW grantees' effectiveness in service delivery, employment placements, payment of child support, or improved father-child relationships. Information in the report is based on visits to the sites--no outcome information was gathered during this study and no analysis was conducted on program effectiveness. However, the findings from this study are important because there can be no improvement in outcomes for NCPs and their families unless programs can recruit participants and provide services.

A. Issues Facing Low-Income Noncustodial Parents

While it is important to recognize the diversity of this population, low-income noncustodial parents are disproportionately poorly educated minorities with limited job opportunities. Studies have shown that, while many low-income NCPs have some work experience, many work intermittently and for low wages.⁽⁵⁾ Lack of stable and well-paying employment among low-income NCPs is due to several factors, including lack of education and job skills, the decline in blue-collar jobs historically available to noncollege-educated men, discrimination, and a lack of social networks among this population.⁽⁶⁾ In addition, many low-income NCPs have criminal records and substantial legal problems that prevent them from securing employment.⁽⁷⁾

Lack of stable employment clearly limits the ability of NCPs to pay child support. One study estimates that 60 percent of NCPs who do not pay child support are limited by income, education, high rates of institutionalization, or intermittent employment history.⁽⁸⁾ These NCPs have become known within the child support community as "dead broke" rather than "dead beat."

The child support system itself also establishes some disincentives for noncustodial parents to find work and make child support payments.⁽⁹⁾ When a child receives TANF, under federal law, the custodial parent on welfare must assign her rights to child support to the state. This means that most formal child support payments reimburse state and federal welfare costs, rather than go to the family (unless child support payments exceed the size of the welfare grant).⁽¹⁰⁾

In addition, orders are generally not modified quickly when the noncustodial parent becomes unemployed, which makes it difficult for NCPs to meet payment obligations and results in rapid accumulation of child support debt (or arrearages).

Several studies have documented that low-income men living apart from their children are often outside the social service and workforce development systems in the United States.⁽¹¹⁾ Much of the social safety net has been structured around custodial parents and children, such as welfare assistance, including TANF (formerly the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program [AFDC]) and Medicaid. Adult-based sources of support for education and training, such as Pell Grants and the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program,⁽¹²⁾ serve low-income men and women, but often have not been able to enroll the hard-to-serve noncustodial fathers attached to poor custodial mothers. And even if served by these programs, there was no explicit connection made between the education and employment services being delivered and low-income men's responsibilities as fathers.⁽¹³⁾

Beginning with the passage of PRWORA, which increased the flexibility states have in spending federal and state welfare funds⁽¹⁴⁾ and provided funding through the Office of Child Support Enforcement to increase parenting opportunities for NCPs through access and visitation grants to states, there has been increased interest in providing services to low-income NCPs. This interest in helping low-income fathers meet their responsibilities and the recognition of the need for additional services targeted to this population led to the inclusion of noncustodial fathers as a target group under WtW in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the expansion of the eligibility criteria in the WtW amendments of 1999 (see discussion below).

B. Overview of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program

Under the WtW program, the federal government distributed $3 billion in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to help move hard-to-employ welfare recipients and noncustodial parents into jobs. Three-quarters of the funds were allocated to states based on a formula; one-quarter was distributed competitively based on applications submitted to the Department of Labor. Both formula and competitive grants target the same populations and can be used for the same types of activities. Some WtW funds may still be available to provide services to NCPs. As of July 2000 about $700 million in federal WtW funds have been expended, leaving an unexpended balance of approximately $2 billion. Grantees, under both the state formula and competitive programs have at least until February 2001 and potentially through September 2002, depending on the date of original award, to use their funds.

WtW Eligibility Requirements for NCPs.The WtW legislation originally specified that both the formula and competitive grants must be used to fund services for the hardest-to-employ welfare recipients and noncustodial parents, although recent amendments have substantially broadened targeting requirements (especially for NCPs). (See Appendix B for a summary of the WtW amendments.) As originally enacted, the law required that at least 70 percent of the funds be used for:

1. Long-term TANF recipients or recipients who are within one year of reaching the TANF time limit and who also have two of three legislatively specified barriers to employment: no high school diploma or GED and low reading or math skills, substance abuse problems, or "poor work history"⁽¹⁵⁾
2. Noncustodial parents who have two of the same three legislatively specified barriers to employment and have a child with a custodial parent or (in the case of a child-only case) a child who is a long-term TANF recipient or is within one year of reaching the TANF time limit
3. A person with two of the three barriers to employment (described above) but no longer receiving TANF, as a result of federal or state-imposed time limits

Under the original law, up to 30 percent of the funds could be used for TANF recipients or NCPs who have "characteristics associated with long-term welfare dependency," such as teenage parents, persons with poor work history, or high school dropouts. WtW funds could be used to serve the targeted groups of custodial parents on TANF, NCPs, or both the custodial and noncustodial parents together.

As the WtW grants program was implemented, evidence accumulated quickly that the eligibility criteria were slowing enrollment and limiting participation.⁽¹⁶⁾ These concerns led to enactment in 1999 of amendments to the WtW eligibility criteria, which made it easier for both TANF recipients and NCPs to qualify for services.⁽¹⁷⁾ The amendments left intact the requirement that 70 percent of WtW funds be spent on a defined category of participants, but allowed NCPs to qualify if they met the following three conditions: (1) they are unemployed or underemployed, or are having difficulty making child support payments; (2) their minor children are receiving or eligible for TANF, or received TANF in the past year, or are receiving or are eligible for assistance under the Food Stamp, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP); and (3) they enter into a personal responsibility contract under which they commit to cooperating in establishing paternity, paying child support, and participating in services to improve their prospects for employment and paying child support.⁽¹⁸⁾

WtW-Allowable Activities. WtW funds can be used for a range of activities designed to move eligible custodial parents and NCPs into employment, with an emphasis on jobs that have the potential for increasing future earnings. The funds can be used broadly for employment-related activities, including job readiness training/workshops; job placement assistance; on-the-job training; community service or work experience; job retention services and other postemployment services; and a range of support services. Grantees are allowed substantial flexibility in designing WtW strategies geared to the needs of each participant and local labor market conditions.

The amendments also allow WtW funds to be used for pre-employment vocational education and job training for up to six months (under the original law, WtW funds could not be utilized for stand-alone job training or education). These funds can also be used for training or education once a person has begun work, either as a postemployment service in conjunction with work or as a work-based activity. Finally, WtW funds can be used for community service or work experience jobs, which include subsidized employment in the public, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors, as well as traditional on-the-job training.

Data Access and Confidentiality. The original law contained no provisions on data access, and program operators encountered difficulties in obtaining the data they needed to determine eligibility of NCPs. This led to amendments that give state child support enforcement agencies the authority to share information with Private Industry Councils (PICs, or local workforce investment boards) for the purposes of identifying and contacting NCPs about participation in the WtW program. The amendments also require that procedures be established for safeguarding privacy.⁽¹⁹⁾

C. Research Methods

This study is designed to provide a current "snapshot" of programs serving noncustodial parents under the WtW program. Programs from eight states (including some in the same city) were purposively selected to illustrate a range of potential models and approaches to providing services for NCPs. Exhibit I-1 lists the programs selected for this study.⁽²⁰⁾ Though most WtW programs serving NCPs are new and typically serve small numbers of NCPs, in selecting sites we sought programs that were fully operational and that served 100 or more NCPs.⁽²¹⁾ In the types of projects selected, we sought variation according to the following dimensions: (1) geographic location (regions of the country, urban/rural), (2) subpopulations of NCPs served, (3) sponsoring agencies and types of collaborating partners, and (4) program models/approaches. The programs included in this study operated under both the original provisions and the amendments, although some programs were just beginning to implement the changes at the time of our site visit.

Information for the study was collected primarily through one- and two-day site visits conducted between May and July 2000.⁽²²⁾ We talked with managers and line staff from the key partners in the program, including (as appropriate) the lead organization, the workforce development organization, employment service providers, the child support enforcement agency, and the courts. The discussions covered such topics as program goals/objectives, implementation process and challenges, outreach and recruitment, intake and assessment, employment services, linkages with the child support agency, postemployment services, parenting skills instruction, and case management practices.

Two important limitations of this study should be noted. First, our observations are based on site visits in just eight communities. While some broader conclusions are warranted based on similar findings across several sites, the study results are not nationally representative. Second, this is a descriptive study that focuses on implementation experiences of selected sites. It is intended to provide information on program design and development and recruitment strategies. It is not possible from the information gathered during the site visits to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of particular programs or approaches in increasing employment, earnings, and child support payments or improving relationships with family members.

D. Structure of the Report

The sections that follow present key study findings from visits conducted to each program. Section II provides an overview of the basic design and structure of initiatives, including types of sponsoring agencies and partners, funding sources, project goals/objectives, participation levels, types of target populations served, and an overview of key implementation issues. The roles of the workforce development agencies and the child support enforcement agencies are highlighted in this section. Section III examines recruitment and basic incentives for participation -- what turned out to be critical elements in getting noncustodial parents into program services. Section IV assesses the wide variety of services available to participants at the NCP programs visited, including intake and assessment, case management, employment and postemployment services, parenting services, and other support services. Section V provides conclusions and implications of the study, including "lessons learned" from the project sites about assisting NCPs in securing employment, paying child support, and being a better parent. Short summaries of each program visited are attached in Appendix A and a summary of the WtW amendments is provided in Attachment B.

[Go To Contents]

II. PROGRAM DESIGN AND CHARACTERISTICS

The sites included in this study demonstrated that a variety of local agencies can work together to sponsor programs that assist noncustodial parents in enhancing their employability and their prospects for paying child support and being a better parent. The sections that follow provide an overview of the types of agencies that sponsor initiatives and of their partners, funding sources, project goals/objectives, participation levels, and types of populations served. Exhibit II-1 provides a cross-site comparison of key dimensions discussed in this chapter.

A. Sponsoring Agencies and Partnerships with Other Organizations

Different Types of Local Agencies Took the Lead in Sponsoring NCP Projects. Six of the 11 projects visited had as their lead agency a local workforce development organization. Because all projects received WtW funds and focused on employment, it is not surprising that local workforce development agencies took the lead in a number of sites. Projects led by local workforce development boards that also administered Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs were located in Houston (Houston Works), Los Angeles (the Los Angeles County PIC), Las Vegas (Nevada Business Services), Yakima (the Tri-County Workforce Development Council), Milwaukee (the PIC of Milwaukee County), and Kansas City (the Full Employment Council).

In the five other sites, all of which also have some level of involvement of local workforce development organizations, other types of local organizations played the lead role. For example, in Milwaukee (where we visited a total of three NCP programs), one initiative (Project NOW) was sponsored by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC), a second by the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization (IRFFR), a nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, DC. ⁽²³⁾ Nonprofit organizations have the lead in three other localities:

• Way-to-Grow, a community-based organization that provides social services to low-income mothers and children, sponsored the initiative in Minneapolis
• LA Vets, which specializes in services for homeless veterans, led the effort at one NCP project in Los Angeles
• The Dekalb Economic Opportunity Authority (EOA), a nonprofit community action agency in Atlanta, led the Fatherhood Connection program.

One lesson that emerges from this study is that, while workforce development organizations are perhaps a natural sponsor for NCP programs (especially with WtW formula funding being distributed through local workforce development boards), a variety of other public and nonprofit organizations can take the lead in serving NCPs. Each locality is different--there is no single model for development of initiatives for NCPs, and no particular agency that must lead such initiatives.

Programs Brought Together a Wide Range of Partners to Meet the Varied Needs of Low-Income NCPs. As shown in Exhibit II-1, the NCP projects we visited brought together a wide range of local partners. Nearly all projects involved partnerships with five or more organizations, and in several sites partnerships extended to ten or more organizations. Collaboration was a critical component in all the sites visited, because no single organization could bring to bear all the services required to meet the varied needs of low-income NCPs. In some instances, partners were brought to initiatives to strengthen and expand recruitment efforts, particularly in cases where lead organizations experienced difficulties with identifying and enrolling NCPs. Partners were also brought in to provide needed documentation for eligibility (for example, TANF agencies to assist with determining eligibility of NCPs under WtW rules). Other partners were brought into initiatives because of the direct client services they were able to provide, such as workforce development organizations (for job placement, skills upgrading, and retention assistance); courts and child support agencies (for information about child support arrearages and paternity establishment, as well as to modify payments and visitation); and a wide range of social service agencies (for transportation assistance, housing assistance, vocational rehabilitation, substance abuse and mental health treatment, and a range of other support services). Box II-A provides examples of the different types of partnerships in the programs we visited.

Among the Most Important Partnerships Were Those Between the Workforce Development and Child Support Enforcement Agencies. Given the focus on serving NCPs and making them employable, two of the most common partners were local workforce development agencies and child support enforcement entities. As shown on Exhibit II-2, seven of the projects featured partnerships with child support enforcement agencies--where the agency played some role in the program.

The role of the child support enforcement agency in the programs for NCPs varied among the sites. An important role in several of the programs was to provide direct referrals to the NCP program -- either from the agency or from the court. As discussed in more detail in Section III, the programs in Houston (see Box II-A) and Yakima obtain referrals from the courts, while referrals were made by the child support enforcement agency in Dekalb, Kansas City, and the Los Angeles County NCP-to-Work programs.

Another role played by the child support enforcement agency was to provide additional incentives for participation. This role is discussed more extensively in Section III. Some programs -- including those in Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Yakima -- offered flexible child support payment options for program participants including establishment of reduced payment agreements and reestablished default orders.

In several of the programs, the child support enforcement agency designated specific staff to work with the NCP program. The role of these staff varied, although as discussed in Section IV an important role for some of them was to assist the NCP in understanding the child support system and ensuring that child support payments were made -- but reportedly in a less adversarial way than the traditional child support enforcement agency staff. For example, in Dekalb, a liaison from the child support agency assisted the program's case managers in resolving any issues that may have prevented the NCP from finding or keeping a job and on ensuring that child support payments were made. In Minneapolis, designated case workers at the child support enforcement agency worked with participants on arranging child support modifications and (if necessary) establishing paternity and orders.

Staff in some child support enforcement program partners said that their agency's participation in the NCP program required or represented a paradigm shift in agency culture and values. Several child support enforcement staff we interviewed indicated that the concept of assisting NCPs delinquent in child support was not only new for them, but also ran counter to their traditional mission and procedures. These officials noted that child support enforcement agencies are usually judged by the amount of child support they collect and the size of annual increases. As one interviewee stated, "Our goal is compliance, not casework."

In some cases, motivation for trying a new "helping" approach was purely pragmatic: it was based on the realization that some NCPs simply could not pay child support, and that tactics traditionally used to deal with them, such as incarceration and suspension of driver's licenses, failed to address their lack of income and often worsened prospects for employment and payment of child support. Hence, at least as a first step, it made sense for child support enforcement agencies to refer unemployed or underemployed NCPs to a program that could improve chances for job placement, upgrading of wages, and job retention.

B. Project Service Area

Programs Mostly Served NCPs within Urban Areas. All the programs we visited served NCPs in urban areas. Three of the 11 programs served multi-county areas in and around an urban area that included surrounding suburban areas and adjoining rural areas. The Nevada Business Services program served a four-county area (coinciding with the agency's workforce development area) that was spread across the southern half of the state, although most participants came from Las Vegas. The other two programs with multi-county service areas were Yakima (which served a primarily rural three-county area that included Yakima) and Kansas City (which served a five-county area that included Kansas City). Generally, the study programs served a single county (six sites) or focused on a particular city (the Minneapolis site) or an inner-city area within an urban area (the Milwaukee IRFFR site).

C. Funding Sources

Funding Sources Significantly Affected Program Design and Partnerships. All the programs included in this study were funded either wholly or partly through the WtW grants program. Funding sources were important, because each program had to work within the constraints of overall funding, and each funding source had related program requirements. For example, WtW funding brought fairly specific targeting requirements with respect to eligibility and imposed restrictions on the types of allowable services (see Section I for details). The narrowness of the 70 percent targeting requirement under WtW initially constrained the pool of noncustodial parents who could qualify under the program, which reportedly hampered the recruitment efforts of many programs (see discussion below).

Most Sites Relied upon WtW Competitive Grant Funds. Nine of the 11 programs visited used WtW competitive grants to fund their projects (see Exhibit II-1). Four of the programs used WtW formula funds, and three programs (Houston Works, the Los Angeles County Noncustodial Parent-to-Work Program, and the Yakima SHARE Program) used both competitive and formula grant funds. One program, the Wisconsin DOC's NOW Program, used WtW 15 Percent Discretionary funding for the NCP initiative.

Sites Sometimes Blended WtW Funds with Other Funding. When programs focused on a particular population, they were sometimes able to leverage funding from other sources that also had an interest in serving that population. For example, the LA Vets Program and the Milwaukee DOC received additional funding from the Veterans Administration and the Wisconsin DOC, respectively. The Minneapolis Fatherhood Project, a site in a national demonstration project (under the Partners for Fragile Families initiative) sponsored by the Ford Foundation and the Department of Health and Human Services, was able to supplement its foundation resources with both a WtW competitive grant and federal child support matching funds.

One lesson that emerges from our visits is that WtW funds provided the seed money to bring partners together to design and implement NCP initiatives. The grant funds also helped leverage funds from other sources (e.g., foundations and federal, state, and local agencies). In addition, through collaboration with other agencies, NCP projects accessed additional services for NCPs at little or no cost, which helped to extend grant funds and expand the numbers of NCPs that could be served.

D. Participation Levels and Target Groups Served

Study Programs Served Relatively Small Numbers of Participants. Overall, the programs included in the study operated on a small scale.⁽²⁴⁾

From the time they first began receiving WtW funds (generally only in 1999) through the time of our site visits (in summer 2000), most programs had served between 100 and 200 participants. The Milwaukee PIC (460 noncustodial parents served through June 2000) and the Los Angeles County PIC (418 through June 2000) had served the largest number of NCPs; next in size were the IRFFR program in Wisconsin (estimated at about 300 served in 1999) and the Kansas City Concerned Parent Program (CPP, 267 participants). The smallest of the programs was LA Vets, which had enrolled and served 27 NCPs. As noted above, the smallest programs such as LA Vets focused on serving a specific, disadvantaged population of NCPs.

The scale of some of the programs was affected by a number of factors, particularly difficulties recruiting NCPs (discussed in detail in Section III), as well as constraints in the level of funding. However, the program size also reflects that many NCPs received services for an indefinite period of time. Under WtW rules, programs can continue to serve individuals indefinitely (as long as the program has funding). This enabled programs to continue to provide NCPs with postemployment services, help with finding a new job or upgrading to a higher-paying job, and assistance with support services. As discussed in Section IV, most sites had not established specific rules for when an individual was terminated from the program.

Because of Their Locations, Study Programs Served High Concentrations of Inner-City African Americans. Given their primary funding source, all the programs in this study targeted noncustodial fathers who met the WtW eligibility criteria, primarily low-income men with children receiving welfare or other means-tested benefits. The programs did not target particular racial or ethnic groups, but because they often operated in urban and inner-city areas, their caseloads included high proportions of minority clients: African Americans (in ten sites) and Hispanics (in two sites).

Several Programs Targeted Special Groups of NCPs, Including Offenders, Ex-Offenders, Veterans, and Homeless People. Within the WtW eligibility requirements, programs sometimes targeted a specific subgroup of noncustodial parents. For example, the LA Vets program targeted a particularly hard-to-serve population: NCPs who were both veterans and homeless. The programs in Milwaukee (Project NOW) and Nevada (Services Project 2000) focused on ex-offenders on parole and probation and those who were incarcerated (but soon to be released). After initially focusing broadly on NCPs who met the WtW eligibility criteria, the Minneapolis program, because of its participation in a Ford Foundation project, shifted to a focus on younger fathers (under age 25) who did not have paternity established (but who still met the WtW criteria).

NCPs Faced Many of the Same Barriers to Employment as Custodial Parents, but Had Fewer External Supports. Many NCPs had limited education and skill levels and lacked stable work experience. In this way, the employment barriers that NCPs faced were similar to those faced by custodial parents receiving cash assistance--a group that some program operators generally had more experience in serving. However, in several ways, NCPs presented challenges different from those that arise in serving TANF custodial parents. Because of pressures to pay child support and make ends meet, many NCPs came to programs Bly motivated to find jobs quickly and hold onto them. In fact, several program operators noted that if programs could not rapidly find jobs for participants, NCPs were likely to lose interest in participating in other services and drop out of programs. Staff also reported that while NCPs were somewhat more likely than TANF recipients to have some level of work experience and occupational skills, they often faced one or more serious barriers to employment. For example, program staff reported that NCPs were more likely than custodial parents receiving TANF to be ex-offenders and/or to have substance abuse problems. Both these factors often limited job opportunities, particularly chances to obtain higher-paid employment.

Noncustodial parents also lacked eligibility for programs such as TANF and Medicaid, which provided ongoing support for many low-income custodial parents. Program operators also reported that NCPs often had a limited understanding of the child support enforcement system, which tended to compound their difficulties with the system and contribute to rapid accumulation of child support arrearages. Use of enforcement tools within the child support system could result in additional barriers to employment. For example, the loss of a driver's license because of nonpayment of support could complicate the effort to secure and keep employment.

E. Program Goals

All Study Programs Had a Emphasis on Employment and Job Retention. Because WtW (with its emphasis on "work first" approaches) funded all the programs included in this study, job placement and retention were primary goals (see box for several illustrations of program goals and objectives).

Program operators indicated that noncustodial parents also had a preference for program services that would help them find a well-paying job quickly. This was because many NCPs came to programs unemployed, underemployed, or, even if fully employed, living from check to check. If they were unemployed, they often did not qualify for unemployment benefits or had exhausted existing benefits. Typically, NCPs had little if any savings and had often accumulated some, often substantial, child support arrearages. They also had little in the way of support systems or others (e.g., a working spouse or family member) they could count on during extended periods of unemployment or time spent acquiring new skills in training programs. Periods of unemployment or underemployment generally caused them to fall further behind with child support payments in a battle to keep up with housing, food, and transportation expenses. In addition, NCPs often faced pressures from courts or child support enforcement agencies to find and keep jobs so they could make child support payments. Hence, participants (like program funders) had a preference for services that would help them land a job quickly (e.g., short-term job readiness workshops and one-on-one placement assistance).

While program staff clearly viewed job placement as their primary mission, most also placed a emphasis on job retention. A common problem NCPs faced -- often one that leads to enrollment in the NCP program in the first place -- is job loss and inability to maintain stable employment over an extended period. As discussed in greater detail in Section IV of this report, programs sought to enhance chances of long-term employment by providing participants with postemployment services: ongoing case management, troubleshooting of problems as they arose in the workplace and at home, assistance with transportation, referral to education and training for upgrading basic and job-related skills, and guidance toward a range of other supportive services.

Payment of Child Support Was Also an Important Goal of Most Programs. In addition to helping NCPs secure employment, most programs also had the goal of increasing the child support payments made by the NCP. Because stable employment was necessary for the consistent payment of child support, this goal generally complemented the employment focus of the programs. The goal of increasing child support payments was particularly in programs that were closely linked with the child support enforcement system, such as the Houston Works and the Yakima SHARE projects.

Some Programs Had Goals of Improving Parenting. A few programs blended goals of improving employability with those of building parenting skills and reconnecting NCPs with their children. For example, programs in Minneapolis (the Minneapolis FATHER Project) and Wisconsin (the IRFFR program) viewed increasing the involvement of NCPs in the lives of their children and building parenting skills as project goals on an equal footing with improving employment outcomes. While most other programs sought a general improvement in family and parenting situations, these two sites assigned these objectives particular priority. As discussed later in the report, staff in some other sites indicated a desire to add parenting or responsible-fatherhood programs in the near future.

[Go To Contents]

III. GETTING NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS TO PARTICIPATE

Recruitment, enrollment, and retention are critical if programs are to serve noncustodial parents. The programs involved in this study all found these to be their most challenging tasks. This section discusses two key elements for eliciting participation among noncustodial parents: (1) recruitment strategies to identify and enroll potential program participants, and (2) incentives (both positive and negative) that programs used. Exhibit III-1 provides an overview of key features of the recruitment approaches and incentives used by individual sites.

A. Recruitment and Outreach Strategies

Recruitment Proved to Be a Critical Program Component at All Sites, With Many of the Sites Struggling to Recruit NCPs. A key aspect of all the programs visited involved the extent to which they developed recruitment strategies to identify and inform potentially interested and eligible noncustodial parents about available services. For most sites, the recruitment of NCPs proved to be difficult. Programs had to work hard to build up their base of participants, even though most programs were relatively small, serving fewer than 200 NCPs. Programs used a variety of outreach methods, particularly linking with other agencies to obtain referrals.

Effective outreach and recruitment strategies are vital features of NCP programs. If programs are unable to identify and enroll eligible NCPs, even the most comprehensive and effective service delivery systems cannot succeed. If recruitment activities are not carefully tailored to the target group and well executed by project staff, they can be inefficient and costly. Nearly all programs included in this study struggled with recruitment right from the start, and had to change and fine-tune their recruitment methods and program "messages." None of the programs indicated that they were "swamped" by NCPs or that they could not adequately serve those who were eligible. In fact, staff in most sites said they were constantly involved in recruitment and were looking for additional NCPs to serve.

Programs Faced Challenges in Recruiting NCPs and Interesting Them in Program Services. Staff gave a variety of reasons and factors that accounted for their difficulties with recruitment of NCPs (see Box III-A for several specific illustrations of the problems encountered by sites in this study).

First, unlike TANF recipients, NCPs have not traditionally been the focus of programs in the past, so many NCPs were simply not aware that programs existed for them. Many NCPs identified as potential candidates had never before been enrolled in social service or employment programs. Many potential recruits were difficult to reach and, when contacted, were either uninterested or even averse to participation. Site staff reported that some NCPs were distrustful of pr og ra ms or ag en cie s (p art ic ul arl y if pr og ra ms we re att ac he d to ch ild su pp ort ag en cies, the courts, or correctional systems). For example, some NCPs (especially those with large child support arrearages) were concerned that their involvement in programs might lead to garnishment of wages, loss of driver's licenses, or even imprisonment. Some NCPs feared that recruitment events might even be "sting" operations set up by local law enforcement agencies. In several sites, staff also reported that some NCPs were reluctant to open letters sent by welfare or child support agencies. Several administrators underscored the importance of building a track record and trust within the local community, because NCPs were not accustomed to accessing services and were often wary of programs linked or potentially linked to the welfare or child support enforcement system.

Second, because NCPs have not typically participated in other human services programs, it was often difficult for the program to find and link with other agencies that might be able to refer large numbers of individuals. Even those programs that were able to identify other agencies that served large numbers of NCPs (e.g., the IV-D court system, child support agencies, local initiatives aimed at youth, and the correctional system), found that some of these other agencies were not eager to partner or that the NCPs were not very interested in participating in another program.

Third, staff in most study programs reported that NCPs were interested primarily in securing a steady, well-paying job. In most locations the programs operated, economic conditions had been relatively good in recent years (with low unemployment and even labor shortages in some occupations). Depending upon an individual's job-specific skills and employer demand for a particular occupation, NCPs could secure relatively well-paying jobs quickly without outside assistance. Hence, favorable economic conditions ironically translated into less demand among NCPs for program services even though they might help improve their earnings in the long run.

Fourth, some NCPs had little or no desire to reconnect with the custodial parent or dependent children and so were not interested in pursuing services. Similarly, some custodial parents who might have information that could help recruit NCPs were uncooperative either because they did not want to be reconnected with the NCP or because they wanted to protect the NCP from being identified by child support enforcement agencies.

Fifth, at least initially (before Congress passed legislation simplifying the WtW eligibility criteria for NCPs), programs found it difficult to find NCPs that met the eligibility criteria (particularly the 70 percent criterion) or to obtain the necessary verification data. Fearing they might be audited in the future and have to pay back funds used for NCPs who did not meet the initial WtW eligibility criteria, programs were cautious in making sure they could document WtW eligibility before enrolling NCPs.

Finally, in addition to these constraints, some agencies either did not initially recognize the difficulties they might encounter in recruiting NCPs or failed to develop plans for conducting recruitment. Others did not allocate sufficient resources or staff, and some lacked experience conducting aggressive outreach efforts, particularly with regard to NCPs.

Program Design and Resources Affected Recruitment. The ways in which projects structured their outreach and recruitment depended upon a number of factors. Whether sites targeted specific NCP subpopulations (e.g., offenders, ex-offenders, or NCPs with arrearages) or sought to recruit all eligible NCPs often affected both the type and the scope of recruitment efforts. For example, programs such as those in Wisconsin (ex-offenders), Houston (NCPs involved with the IV-D system), and Nevada (soon-to-be-released female inmates) sought to establish referral arrangements with the courts and the correctional system. Other sites that more broadly targeted NCPs were more likely to conduct outreach activities in local neighborhoods and to use media advertisements and public service announcements (PSAs). Two programs, Kansas City and Dekalb, received referrals from state child support programs and also conducted their own outreach and recruitment activities.

Resources available and allocated to outreach efforts played a role in determining the structure and methods used. For example, some types of outreach were more expensive (e.g., media advertisement and sending staff into the local neighborhoods to conduct outreach) than others (e.g., making presentations to local agencies, relying on referrals from other agencies, and distribution of flyers/brochures). The extent to which programs were already established within their communities had some effect on the intensity of outreach needed and methods employed. Those agencies or programs that were the "new guys on the block" reportedly needed to work harder at recruitment. Finally, the willingness of other agencies to partner and success with regard to referring eligible NCPs affected the need for sites to conduct additional outreach. Those sites that could obtain a steady flow of referrals from other agencies had to conduct less outreach on their own.

Though Recruitment Strategies Emphasized Referrals from Other Agencies, Sites Employed a Variety of Other Strategies. Similar recruitment methods were used in most of the study programs, especially receiving referrals from other agencies and distributing flyers and program brochures. Exhibit III-1 provides a cross-site comparison of strategies employed including:

• Direct Referrals from Other Agencies. This was a particularly important method for many programs. Both mandatory and voluntary programs looked to those agencies that served large numbers of NCPs -- primarily the IV-D courts and correctional systems, but also substance abuse programs and homeless shelters -- and sought to set up referral arrangements that would result in a direct flow of NCPs from these agencies. Setting up such arrangements often proved more difficult than expected. The referral arrangements between agencies had to be carefully monitored and refined over time to ensure that administrators and line staff in other agencies actually referred NCPs and that the referred NCPs actually showed up. Several examples of innovative agency referral methods are highlighted in Box III-B. Links to child support enforcement agencies and courts (for example, as in Houston Works site), as well as the correctional system (as in the Wisconsin DOC's Project NOW), which could provide access to large pools of potential recruits for NCP programs. If well-structured, partnerships with the child support enforcement and correctional systems can provide NCP projects with a steady source of referrals.
• Distribution of Brochures/Flyers and Presentations at Other Local Human Services Agencies to Increase Public Awareness. Programs sought to reach NCPs either by making staff at other agencies knowledgeable about program offerings or by placing program literature where NCPs would see it. One important strategy that sites employed was to visit other agencies that served NCPs and to brief staff (individually or as a group) about available program services, eligibility, and how to refer NCPs to the program. Often program literature and brochures were left with other agency staff to be handed out to NCPs or displayed in other places that NCPs and their custodial parents were likely to frequent, such as: other social service programs, grocery stores, churches, local schools and training institutions, recreational facilities and playgrounds, public housing facilities, probation and parole agencies, and in IV-D courts. Some program staff made presentations at orientation sessions attended by NCPs or custodial parents (e.g., orientations held at prerelease centers for offenders, orientations for individuals served by one-stop career centers, orientations for TANF recipients, and workshops held by local fatherhood initiatives). In some sites, staff attended and/or set up booths at local job fairs and other community events, where they could distribute program literature and talk one-on-one with potential program recruits.
• Use of PSAs on Radio and Television, and Paid Advertisements in Local Media. Some programs sought out opportunities for free PSAs on local radio and television stations. Local site administrators and staff also gave interviews to local television, radio, and newspaper reporters, which provided an opportunity to inform a wider audience of NCPs and custodial parents about available services. Some sites also paid for advertisements on local radio stations and in local newspapers.
• Use of Mass Mailings Targeting NCPs and Custodial Parents. Some agencies (e.g., the Way-to-Grow project in Minneapolis and the Nevada Business Services in Las Vegas) mailed out letters about the program to carefully targeted groups of NCPs or custodial parents. However, several administrators noted that significant numbers of NCPs were reluctant to respond to mass mailing by public agencies (especially those closely linked to child support enforcement or welfare programs), which limited the success of mailings.
• Reliance on Word of Mouth. Programs also relied on word of mouth, particularly through former participants and community leaders. Because programs often targeted a specific community, this reportedly was one of the most effective ways of distributing information about the program and encouraging program participation. Hearing from a local church leader, friend, or relative that a program provided useful services (e.g., the program helped someone find a job or obtain improved visitation) was considered the most certain way to interest people.
• Neighborhood Recruiting. Several sites sent individual staff and case management teams into neighborhoods (the Dekalb Fatherhood Project and IRFFR) where potential recruits congregated, to distribute information about program services and conduct one-on-one recruitment. One program, the Concerned Parent Program (in Kansas City), sent two noncustodial fathers into neighborhoods as "street recruiters" to make informal contacts with potential recruits. These programs reported that the ability to interact one-on-one with fathers in their own neighborhoods and explain program services in some detail helped to begin to build trust and interest in participation.

Overall, program administrators and staff emphasized the importance of not underestimating the difficulties of attracting NCPs to programs. They noted that even if programs appeared to offer the range of services NCPs needed, staff must not assume that NCPs will be easy to find or that they will participate (even if pursued vigorously). Even programs in which recruits were threatened with incarceration if they failed to participate found it difficult to engage and keep NCPs in their programs. Difficulties sites experienced with recruitment stemmed from the problems discussed at the beginning of this section, particularly those related to getting the word out about program services to NCPs (who are not accustomed to being served by such initiatives) and building sufficient interest and trust in NCPs so they are willing to take the initial steps needed to access available services.

B. Incentives to Participate

Most Study Programs Relied upon Voluntary Participation by Some or All Noncustodial Parents. Programs varied in terms of whether participation was mandatory or voluntary, as well as in the types of incentives offered to participate. As shown in the cross-site comparison earlier in Exhibit III-1, among the 11 programs visited, six had voluntary program participation, four featured a combination of voluntary or mandatory participation (generally depending upon the source of the referral), and one only involved mandatory participation.

In our discussions, site administrators and staff indicated that encouraging participation and reducing attrition from programs were among the most challenging issues they face. A "carrot-and-stick" approach appeared to offer the greatest potential for getting NCPs into programs and keeping them engaged. Mandatory programs included the threat of some type of sanctioning if the individual did not participate in services or if he dropped out before completing the project. Sanctions, which usually took the form of incarceration or strict child support collections, were most likely to be imposed through the courts, child support enforcement agencies, or correctional systems. Program services and flexibility on child support payments for program participants (offered by a few sites) were the primary positive incentives used by the study sites to encourage participation. It is important to note that even mandatory programs also offered some positive inducements.

The one study site that featured mandatory participation for all NCPs was the Yakima SHARE Program, which was a collaborative effort of several agencies (including the local workforce development board, the local child support enforcement office, and the prosecuting attorney). With a primary goal of ensuring that NCPs became employed and paid their child support, this program relied for recruitment entirely upon the child support agency and the prosecuting attorney's office. These agencies referred NCPs who were unable to find work on their own to the SHARE program, under threat of incarceration if the person did not participate. Most NCPs choose to participate, and few were jailed. Administrators believed that the leverage of the court's involvement and the realistic threat of jail served as an important motivator to NCPs. However, this program also had what it viewed as important "carrots." For example, the child support agency, working with the courts, could provide a number of breaks on child support: (1) establishment of payment agreements for less than the current amount for a temporary period, (2) reestablishment of payment agreements for default orders that were originally incorrect (default orders or orders completed when the noncustodial parent was not present), and (3) the possibility of waiving arrearages.

Five sites we visited featured mandatory participation for some participants and voluntary participation for others, usually on the basis of the referral source of the NCP. The Houston Works and the Wisconsin DOC are two examples of projects that included both elements. In the case of the Houston Works site, the major source of referrals was the IV-D system. NCPs were ordered by IV-D judges to attend the program or face jail time. A compliance hearing was typically held 90 days after the court order was issued to determine if conditions were met. Failure to cooperate with Houston Works and to pay child support would likely result in jail time (for up to six months) for the NCP. However, subcontracted agencies to Houston Works under the initiative were also encouraged to conduct recruitment efforts on their own, and NCPs coming to the program through these subcontracted agencies did so voluntarily. In the case of the Wisconsin DOC program, NCPs on probation or parole were given the choice of enrolling in Project NOW. However, once the NCP decided to enroll, attendance in program activities became mandatory. Noncompliance could be a reason for revocation of probation or parole, though usually revocation would result for failure to participate in Project NOW along with some other infraction of the terms of probation or parole.

Finally, about half the sites featured voluntary enrollment on the part of all program participants. Several of these programs were operated by workforce development agencies (e.g., the Los Angeles PIC, Nevada Business Services, and the PIC of Milwaukee County) and tended to have outreach and recruitment activities that were either apart from the child support enforcement system or included substantial numbers of referrals that did not come through it. An example of a voluntary approach to participation was IRFFR (in Milwaukee). IRFFR, which embraces the view that a father has the inner capacity to solve his own problems, recruited NCPs who had a desire to make changes in their lives and reconnect with their children.

[Go To Contents]

IV. PROGRAM SERVICES

At the core of the programs for noncustodial parents are the services to assist participants in moving to employment and improving their relationships with their families. These programs use a range of approaches to help participants achieve these goals. This section describes how these programs performed intake and assessment, managed NCP cases, provided employment-related services, assisted with parenting and relationship matters, and delivered other types of support or ancillary services.

A.Intake and Assessment

The first step to enrolling a noncustodial parent in a program was to have eligibility determined, based on the WtW criteria. In some cases, a referral agency made this determination (particularly if the child support enforcement agency was responsible for the referral); in others, the lead agency determined eligibility (often in coordination with other agencies with necessary information on the NCP). If the NCP was determined to be eligible, an assessment was completed.

If a person was not eligible for the WtW program, most agencies made referrals to another program in the community or referred the person to a one-stop career center. Some staff stressed the importance of providing some kind of service to every NCP who came in the door, both because they were often very needy and because developing trust and support in the community was important to gain additional referrals, recruits, or walk-ins.

Assessments Generally Were Conducted through One-on-One Interviews. In all of the study programs, employment goals and prior work history were the focus of the assessment interview. A range of other issues, such as family circumstances, parenting education, transportation and housing, health and behavioral problems, and pending legal actions, were also discussed in greater or lesser detail depending on the goals of the program. Some programs administered the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) to gauge the reading and math skills of some or all applicants. Other formal assessment tools were used less often. One program (Services Project 2000, a subcontractor to Nevada Business Services in the Las Vegas site) used a formal screening instrument to assess drug and alcohol abuse, and a second program (LA Vets) required drug tests because all participants were former drug or alcohol abusers who had agreed to remain drug free during the program. The result of the assessment was generally an employment plan (in some sites referred to as an individual service strategy) outlining the steps the participant would take to find a job.

Study Programs Required Participants to Sign a Personal Responsibility Contract. In all the programs, participants were required to have personal responsibility contracts. Personal responsibility contracts outline the conditions and requirements of the program. By signing the contract, the participant agrees to accept these requirements. These contracts were required by the WtW amendments, although several of the programs we visited used contracts even before the amendments were in place. As specified in the WtW amendments, the contracts generally required NCPs to participate in employment services, establish paternity, and pay child support.

The personal responsibility contracts were generally completed as part of the upfront assessment, after the participant received a general orientation to the program, the participant's employment and family background were discussed, and an employment plan had been agreed to. Overall, program staff experienced little difficulty in implementing the personal responsibility contracts. In some instances, participants were nervous about signing these contracts, but in general, program staff found that participants were willing to agree to the requirements--even in sites serving a voluntary population. In many cases, the contract was part of a package of other forms the participant was required to sign, such waivers giving permission for agencies to provide information needed for eligibility or to share information with each other.

B. Case Management

Program staff, often referred to as case managers, use various strategies to monitor, direct, counsel, or assist participants in their efforts to obtain employment and address other issues. A case manager is generally responsible for ongoing contact with the participant, including conducting the assessment, providing employment and job referrals, coordinating supportive services, and documenting employment or related activities. In some programs, the case manager may be more of a coordinator than a counselor and may manage only certain activities or limited aspects of a client's case.

Programs Used Two Basic Approaches for Providing Case Management Services. Several of the programs included in the study--IRFFR, Nevada Business Services, and Yakima SHARE--provided all case management services through a single staff person. In these programs, one staff person was responsible for intake and assessment, the provision of job search services, and all follow-up and monitoring activities. This approach offered the advantage of having all the service needs of the noncustodial parent addressed through a single point of contact.

Other programs used a team approach with multiple staff--usually two but sometimes more--each of whom had responsibility and expertise in different areas. In some programs, such as those in Minneapolis and Houston, case management was provided by a team from multiple agencies, while the Dekalb and Kansas City programs assigned multiple staff from the same agency. As an example, responsibilities were sometimes divided between a staff member who focused on employment and another who focused on personal or family issues. While it required greater coordination, participants using this team approach were enthusiastic about it, because it brought staff members with different areas of expertise into the case. This enabled each team member to focus on a limited range of issues, but without neglecting other needs. Box IV-A provides examples of programs that used each of these approaches.

Program Staff Reported that NCPs Required Intensive Case Management Services.Program staff usually characterized the case management services provided to NCPs as "intensive" or "comprehensive," and staff devoted substantial time. Program administrators tried to minimize caseloads for staff and often split case management responsibilities among multiple staff or agencies, both before and after employment. In some programs, case managers were accessible to participants 24 hours a day through phones or pagers.

C. Employment and Postemployment Services

At the heart of the assistance each program offered were the services that enhanced the employability of NCPs. All programs helped noncustodial parents find jobs, and for the most part this was the focus of their programs. Exhibit IV-1 shows an overview of key features of the employment services that individual sites provided.

Programs Focused on Moving People into Jobs Quickly through Individualized Job Search and Job Readiness Services. Job search, in which NCPs looked for employment directly, and job readiness activities, which provided training in job preparation and soft skills, were the principal services in all the programs we studied. These services were provided primarily through individualized, one-on-one meetings with program staff and focused on finding immediate employment. The services included developing job readiness skills (interviewing techniques, resume development, communication skills), job counseling, planning and overseeing the job search process, providing of job leads, and helping with the job applications.

Because NCPs faced multiple barriers to employment, staff consistently reported working intensively with them during the job search period and meeting or speaking with them frequently until they found a job. Services were individualized, and only one program established work search requirements for the NCP. In the Los Angeles NCP-to-Work program, 30 hours per week of independent job search was required.

In about half of the study sites, community-based organizations that had experience serving disadvantaged individuals (though not necessarily NCPs) provided job readiness, job search, and job placement activities. Many of the sites used multiple providers. In the other half of the sites, the lead agency provided these services directly. Some programs used contracts with different service providers to provide job search services to NCPs with special needs. For example, Houston Works contracted with providers who specialized in serving homeless families, disabled people, and refugees. Yakima SHARE could make referrals to providers who specialized in providing employment services to youth or people with substance abuse problems.

Participation in group job readiness workshops prior to entering a direct job search was emphasized in some sites, including the programs in Nevada and Los Angeles County:

• In the Nevada Business Services program, for those who were job ready, the contractor provided a four-hour job readiness class. Those who were not job ready were enrolled in a two-week job readiness program that included sessions on goal setting, building self-esteem, managing conflict, and effective job search strategies. Another contractor for this program also provided structured job readiness services for soon-to-be-released female NCP offenders (see Box IV-B).
• The Los Angeles County NCP-to-Work program developed a Job Club exclusively for NCPs, which lasted 24 hours (spread over several days) and focused on developing job skills, preparing resumes, building communication skills, and learning interview techniques.

In other programs, group job readiness services were used less systematically, although NCPs were sometimes referred to existing workshops operated by community-based organizations or one-stop career centers on an as-needed basis.

Developing and Mainaining Relationships with Employers Was Viewed as Critical. Most programs had staff that worked to develop linkages with employers, usually as part of the individualized job search services that were provided. Staff focused on developing an in-depth understanding of the local labor market and contacting employers to identify specific job openings appropriate for their clientele. Some staff found that they increased employer interest by "selling" the program, that is, by directly explaining the mission of the program, which reportedly helped overcome negative views of some employers. Staff also emphasized to employers the availability of screening services, tax credits, and no-cost retention services (see below) to attract employers.

Education and Training Programs Were Not Used Extensively. Program staff reported that even when education and training services were made available, NCPs were reluctant to use them. This lack of interest in education and training to upgrade skills was usually the result of the NCPs' interest in seeking paid employment as quickly as possible. In many cases, NCPs had a pressing need to pay child support and support their families.

While NCPs did not use education and training services at high rates, several of the programs did make these services available. Some made referrals to existing programs in the community, while others had directly funded or had developed education and training programs for their participants. Some examples include:

• IRFFR assigned a staff member to provide basic training on the most frequently used computer software applications. Volunteers also provided on-site literacy instruction.
• Houston Works had subcontractors who offered short-term training for the following occupations: computer operator, truck driver, certified mechanic, certified nursing assistant, corrections officer, bank teller, customer service representative, and retail clerk, among others.
• The LA Vets program developed agreements with Toyota and Marriott to provide customized training (with the person receiving a wage during the training period), with a guarantee of employment upon completion of the program.

There was also little use of subsidized employment services such as on-the-job training and work experience. Because the economy was and because NCPs preferred unsubsidized employment, program operators preferred to place people directly into unsubsidized jobs. One exception was the Yakima SHARE program, which provided on-the-job training and work experience to NCPs as well as other WtW participants. In part, this was due to the community's history of providing subsidized-employment opportunities in a range of different programs.

Postemployment Services Were a Key Program Element. All the programs included in this study continued to provide assistance to NCPs after they started working. As shown on Exhibit IV-1, most of the programs focused on providing follow-up to improve job retention, although one program provided financial incentives as well (see Box IV-C). This follow-up assistance usually consisted of: (1) contacting NCPs on a monthly or biweekly basis to ensure that they were still working, and (2) troubleshooting to guard against job loss. Several of the programs also contacted employers directly for their perspective on the person's job performance. Staff also reported that employers considered the availability of follow-up services an important element in their decision to hire an NCP. Programs generally worked with NCPs for an indefinite period of time after they found a job--and did not have a specific point when services would end.

Support services were also an important postemployment service. Most programs continued to help with transportation and work-related expenses once the participant found a job. For example, the Kansas City CPP spent a large portion of its WtW grant on providing transportation resources to people who had returned to work. Monthly bus passes were available to help employed individuals get to and from work, and one-time payments were made to help with automobile repair, insurance, and fees for special driver's licenses if they were required for a job (e.g., a commercial driver's license). The Full Employment Council (FEC) also received a grant that provides "door to job" transportation for the CPP program--to help participants who live in rural areas with no bus service or who need off-hours transportation for second- and third-shift jobs. These funds can pay for taxi rides, vans, or other transportation alternatives to assist the participant in maintaining employment.

Issues related to career advancement, such as combining work and school or moving to a better job, generally did not receive high priority. While several of the programs recognized this as important, it was handled primarily on a case-by-case basis, with staff helping participants pursue these options when they could. One exception was the Dekalb Fatherhood Connection, which made a systematic effort (and reported some success) in enrolling program participants in some type of education or training once they were working.

D. PARENTING AND RELATIONSHIP SERVICES

Most programs visited as part of this study focused on enhancing employment outcomes and improving timely payment of child support, but some addressed parenting and relationship issues as well, including developing parenting skills, improving access and visitation to the noncustodial parent's children, building relationships with the child's other parent (including mediation services), and assisting with child support issues. Exhibit IV-2 provides an overview of key features of these parenting and relationship services in the individual sites.