The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration:
Matching Opportunities to Obligations

Chapter 3:
The Noncustodial Parents

[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]

Contents

1. Issues Involved in an Examination of the PFS Target Group
   1. Data Sources Used in This Analysis
   2. The Representativeness of the PFS Sample
   3. Existing Knowledge About Noncustodial Parents
2. Demographic Characteristics of the PFS Noncustodial Parents
   1. Basic Demographics
   2. Employment and Education Histories
   3. Living Situations and Income Sources
   4. CSE Status
3. Relationships and Attitudes
   1. Relationships with Children and Custodial Parents
   2. Attitudes About Child Support
   3. Values and Aspirations
   4. Initial Impressions of PFS
4. Conclusions

Endnotes

This chapter uses a variety of data sources to characterize the backgrounds, attitudes, and life circumstances of the noncustodial parents who were referred to PFS during the pilot phase. The first section describes the data that were used in the analysis, briefly reviews some of the findings from previous research about noncustodial parents, and offers some cautionary notes about the generalizability of the information presented in this chapter. The following sections focus on the demographics and economic status of the PFS noncustodial parents and on their relationships and attitudes.

In general, much less is known about the noncustodial parents of children on welfare than about the custodial parents. This is in part because custodial parents are, by definition, part of a mainstream social services delivery system, while noncustodial parents may not be part of such a system and may not work steadily in the mainstream economy. Moreover, many of the noncustodial parents of AFDC children have not (by legal standards) been identified. These factors make it difficult to study them using traditional data collection methods such as surveys which require reliable information on students' whereabouts and administrative records of reported employment and earnings maintained by government agencies. Thus, while PFS pilot programs primarily touched only a subset of the noncustodial parent population those with child support orders in place for at least one of their children the project has provided an unusual opportunity to study and learn about this important group.

The pilot phase data show that the PFS noncustodial parents were a diverse group; however, many appeared to be living in poverty and facing substantial barriers to employment. Most reported very little recent employment and said that their previous employment patterns had been unstable at best; many said they had trouble meeting their basic needs. These data appear to confirm the key premise behind PFS: that lack of income presents a serious obstacle to payment of child support for many noncustodial parents of AFDC children.

Most of the PFS noncustodial parents said that they cared deeply about their children, had regular contact with them, and thought it is important to provide support. However, their views of fatherhood were often narrow, and their actual child support payment patterns were clearly sporadic. Moreover, it is clear that these parents' definitions of "support" were often inconsistent with those of the CSE system. For a variety of reasons, the parents Bly preferred informal, direct payments, which are seldom recognized by the system. Finally, it seems clear that many of the parents were angry and frustrated when they entered PFS. They were disconnected from the mainstream economy and society, and deeply skeptical of the program's motives and its ability to help them.

I. Issues Involved in an Examination of the PFS Target Group

Before discussing the PFS noncustodial parents in detail, it is important to provide some contextual information. This section describes the data sources used to study the PFS population, explains how this group fits into the broader population of noncustodial parents, and reviews some relevant findings from previous research on noncustodial parents.

A. Data Sources Used in This Analysis

This chapter uses three types of information to paint a picture of the PFS population at the point the noncustodial parents entered PFS. These data sources, described in more detail in Chapter 1, are: (1) the Background Information Form (BIF) and the Enrollment Form, which were completed by PFS staff during brief interviews with noncustodial parents at the point they entered PFS; (2) lengthier interviews conducted by MDRC staff with peer support facilitators and other program staff in several of the pilot sites and analysis of the peer support feedback forms described in Chapter 1; and (3) 30- to 60-minute interviews with 19 PFS participants who had completed (or nearly completed) the peer support component in New Jersey, Montgomery, and Tennessee County, Ohio. ⁽¹⁾ Each of these data sources has strengths and weaknesses. The BIF and Enrollment Form data provide a broad view of the demographic characteristics and attitudes of the noncustodial parents who were referred to PFS. However, the information on the forms is necessarily limited. Moreover, because the BIF was usually completed in court, just after a hearing concerning nonpayment of child support, noncustodial parents may have had B incentives to report some items inaccurately, particularly those involving current and recent employment and living arrangements. It is likely that many of the parents perceived that the staff who collected these data were part of the CSE system and, consequently, that their responses would affect the handling of their cases. The same issue may affect the Enrollment Form data to some extent, although this form was often completed at the PFS program office rather than in court.

Confidential staff and participant interviews provided an opportunity to examine some important questions in greater depth in a more relaxed environment. This probably resulted in more complete and accurate information. However, such interviews necessarily overrepresented the experiences of noncustodial parents who participated extensively in PFS activities. These parents were both more familiar to staff and more likely to have made themselves available for interviews. ⁽²⁾

B. The Representativeness of the PFS Sample

In assessing the data presented in this chapter, it is critical to remember that PFS targets a small, potentially unrepresentative subset of all noncustodial parents. In fact, this group is probably atypical in some ways of noncustodial parents with children on welfare. Thus, great care should be taken in generalizing these data beyond the group to which they refer.

Figure 3.1 illustrates where the group of potential PFS participants fits into the broader population of noncustodial parents. First, for statutory reasons, the program is only open to noncustodial parents with children currently receiving AFDC. Clearly, children on welfare represent a distinct subset of all children living apart from one of their parents. Second, for programmatic reasons discussed in Chapter 2, PFS primarily targets noncustodial parents who have a child support order in place but are not paying. National data show that fewer than half of all poor mothers living with a child whose father is absent were awarded support payments in 1989; ⁽³⁾ the figure for AFDC recipients may be even lower than this in many states. Moreover, AFDC noncustodial parents who have support orders probably differ systematically from those who do not have orders. ⁽⁴⁾ Similarly, those who have orders and pay regularly probably differ from those who do not. The nature and size of these subgroups relative to the full universe of AFDC noncustodial parents in a particular jurisdiction depends heavily on the efforts of the local CSE agency to establish and enforce support orders for AFDC children.

Figure 3.2 illustrates how the group of potential PFS participants was further shaped by the program intake process. Because there was attrition at each stage in this process, only a fraction of all potentially eligible parents were actually referred to PFS. Some nonpaying noncustodial parents were never contacted by CSE agencies (for example, because the system had no recent address for them). Some of those who were contacted failed to show up for scheduled hearings or appointments, or admitted they were working and agreed to pay support without being referred to PFS. ⁽⁵⁾ Once again, it is quite likely that the noncustodial parents who ultimately arrived at the point where the BIF was completed differed in important ways from the broader group of nonpaying parents with orders from which they were drawn.

Ultimately, during the pilot phase, the BIF was completed only for individuals who were referred to PFS, a subgroup that could be defined as nonpaying noncustodial parents of AFDC children whose whereabouts were known to the system and who showed up for a hearing or interview claiming to be unemployed. It is clear why this group should not be assumed to have represented all noncustodial parents, or even all noncustodial parents of children receiving AFDC. However, this group probably did represent the population that will be served during Phase II of the PFS project and in other future programs of this type.

C. Existing Knowledge About Noncustodial Parents

Although the PFS target group obviously represents a narrow slice of all noncustodial parents, it is nonetheless useful to briefly review the findings from a few previous studies that examined noncustodial parents in general or subsets of this population that may resemble the PFS group.

1. General Findings. It is difficult for researchers to provide general information about the behavior and characteristics of noncustodial parents because there are few national data sets that reliably identify all parents who live apart from one or more of their children. ⁽⁶⁾ In the absence of such data, several studies have used information reported by custodial parents to describe the characteristics and behavior of noncustodial parents.

For example, one study ⁽⁷⁾ examined three components of noncustodial fathers' ⁽⁸⁾ roles in their childrens' lives visitation, child support, and participation in childrearing decisions using responses given by custodial mothers in the large-scale National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH). These data are potentially relevant to PFS because certain issues concerning the relationships between noncustodial fathers and their children cut across socioeconomic groups.

Overall, the study found low levels of contact between noncustodial fathers and their children: About 40 percent of the children had visited with their noncustodial father only once or not at all in the past year; among those who did visit, less than a third spent any extended time with their fathers. ⁽⁹⁾ Moreover, according to the custodial parents' reports, more than half of noncustodial parents had no influence over key childrearing decisions, and only 47 percent paid any child support.

The study also found that the three components contact, child support, and involvement in childrearing were closely related: noncustodial fathers who were active in one way were likely to be active in the others as well. All three activities were more prevalent when the parents had been married and were also positively associated with the father's socioeconomic status. ⁽¹⁰⁾ All three also tended to decline over time. In addition, African-American noncustodial parents were somewhat more likely than whites to be in contact with their children.

Another study ⁽¹¹⁾ used results from the same survey to examine conflict between custodial mothers and noncustodial fathers over a range of issues including where the child lives, how the child is raised, visitation, child support, and how both parents spend money on the child. In general, serious conflict was rare: 80 to 90 percent of mothers reported no conflict over most issues. The incidence of conflict over child support was somewhat higher: About 30 percent reported at least some conflict over this issue. The general lack of contact between fathers and children may help to explain the low levels of conflict. As will be discussed later in this chapter, PFS noncustodial parents reported both more contact and more conflict than did NSFH mothers.

2. Studies of Subgroups of Noncustodial Parents. Other studies have focused on subgroups of low-income noncustodial parents that are more similar to the PFS target group. These studies are especially important because, in the absence of reliable data, the popular portrait of these parents is fueled mainly by stereotypes and anecdotes about "deadbeat dads."

One set of studies triggered by efforts to improve the CSE system has attempted to estimate the incomes of noncustodial parents of AFDC children. The results have varied, but these studies provide some evidence about what fraction of AFDC noncustodial parents lack income to pay child support (and thus, what fraction might be appropriate for a PFS-like intervention). For example, one study ⁽¹²⁾ used tax records to estimate the annual income of AFDC noncustodial parents in Wisconsin in 1980, reaching a figure of $11,182. Another ⁽¹³⁾ surveyed noncustodial parents in the North Carolina AFDC IV-D caseload, finding an average income of only $6,653 during 1983; moreover, a third of these fathers had no earnings reported in the state Employment Security records for at least half the year. A third study ⁽¹⁴⁾ looked at the incomes over time of fathers children born outside marriage in Wisconsin who had established paternity in Family Court. It found that incomes were quite low initially 66 percent of fathers in their early twenties either had no income or earned less than $10,000 (in 1988 dollars) at the time of the paternity petition but grew substantially over time. A fourth study ⁽¹⁵⁾ examined more than 4,000 "hard-core" AFDC CSE cases in several states, in which the IV-D agency knew the noncustodial parent's Social Security number but there was either no child support order, an order for $50 a month or less, or an arrearage (this included cases in which paternity had not been established). The study found that 73 percent of the noncustodial parents had earnings below $10,000 in 1985; this figure had decreased to 69 percent by 1987. One difficulty that confronts all of these efforts is that many of the noncustodial parents of children on welfare are not legally identified. This makes it impossible to examine the full population. ⁽¹⁶⁾

Other studies have produced a broader set of descriptive information about subgroups of noncustodial parents. For example, one small survey, the Survey of Absent Parents (SOAP), contacted matched pairs of custodial and noncustodial parents in Ohio and Florida. One group of sample members was drawn from the CSE caseload. ⁽¹⁷⁾ Among this group, nearly half of noncustodial parents reported that their relationship with the custodial parent just after their separation was friendly. More than half reported weekly contact with their children, and a large majority reported paying some child support. Custodial parents reported less frequent visitation by noncustodial parents and lower levels of payment by them than the noncustodial parents reported. ⁽¹⁸⁾ In terms of their economic status, the CSE noncustodial parents reported average incomes of $8,000 to $10,000 and poverty rates ranging from 38 to 49 percent in 1985. ⁽¹⁹⁾

One extensive study of young unwed fathers was made using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). This study covered a wide variety of issues and found, for example, that more than half of the young unwed fathers said they lived with one or both of their parents. In contrast to popular stereotypes, most of the fathers reported having only one child. As in the SOAP, visitation levels reported by the NLS fathers were higher than those reported by custodial parents in the NSFH: Nearly half of the young unwed fathers reported visiting their youngest child at least once a week. However, the frequency of visitation declined sharply over time as the children got older. Moreover, only a little more than a third of the young fathers reported paying any child support. As in the NSFH, visitation and child support were closely associated, and African-American fathers were more likely than whites to report living near their children and seeing them frequently. ⁽²⁰⁾

Finally, several ethnographic or qualitative studies have examined small groups of noncustodial parents in much greater depth. One such study focused on 24 teen fathers in two inner-city communities in New York City. Most of the young fathers in a predominantly African-American neighborhood had acknowledged paternity within their communities and were attempting to provide some support and/or care for their children. Most condemned the behavior of young men who neglected their parental responsibilities (while admitting that they knew many young men who did so). However, both paternity and support tended to be handled informally. While the community recognized the young mens' efforts in both areas, there was B resistance to involving the courts or public agencies. Thus, from the perspective of the CSE system, few of these young fathers were providing any support. The study also found that patterns of support were dynamic, shifting frequently as the young fathers moved in and out of work, school, and underground or criminal activity. Children tended to be supported by a shifting mixture of public assistance, child support, and earned income, with responsibilities shared across networks of extended families. ⁽²¹⁾

Another ethnographic study of inner-city African-American teenage boys and young men described somewhat different patterns of support. This study found that the lack of access to jobs and peer pressure make many young African-American men unable or unwilling to assume the responsibilities of fatherhood. Although there is B pressure to have sex and become a father, these young men had little interest in stable family situations; the author speculated that their lack of economic prospects decreased their ability to control these households and reduced their freedom. ⁽²²⁾

[Go To Contents]

II. Demographic Characteristics of the PFS Noncustodial Parents

Table 3.1 presents some key demographic characteristics of the 2,404 noncustodial parents who were referred to PFS by February 28, 1993. The data, drawn from the Background Information Form, are reported by site and for all sites combined.

TABLE 3.1

A. Basic Demographics

As expected, the vast majority of noncustodial parents are male. Nearly half of the parents were over 30 years old, and 37 percent were 25 years old or younger. Nearly 60 percent had never been married. ⁽²³⁾

Overall, the population was about two-thirds African-American and one-third white; 6 percent were Hispanic. However, in five of the nine sites Alabama, Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, and Tennessee the population was overwhelmingly African-American. The white parents were concentrated in the remaining four sites; most of the Hispanic participants were in Massachusetts. Some participants and observers see the composition of the PFS population as evidence of racial bias in the criminal justice and CSE systems. They contend that the PFS population includes a disproportionate number of African-American noncustodial parents because these individuals are more likely to be "caught" when they do not pay child support. ⁽²⁴⁾ Although data are not available in all sites, it seems clear that the proportion of African-American noncustodial parents in the PFS sample was considerably higher than the proportion of African-American custodial parents in some of the county AFDC populations. For example, while about half of the AFDC recipients entering the research sample for a federally funded evaluation of Kent County, Michigan's, JOBS program are white, ⁽²⁵⁾ the PFS population in the county is only about 30 percent white. However these figures, by themselves, do not provide evidence of racial bias. As described earlier, the nature of the PFS population is shaped by the long, complex "pipeline" leading to the PFS referral. For example, there may be racial differences in the proportion of children who had paternity and support orders established. Similarly, it may be that white noncustodial parents are more likely to be employed and thus better able to pay child support (or to find a job quickly to avoid a PFS referral). Further study is needed to better understand the nature of the "pipeline" leading to PFS.

The majority of noncustodial parents reported having either one or two children at the point of referral; about one in five had four or more children. The vast majority (86 percent) reported having had children with either one or two partners. Like the NLSY information presented earlier, these data do not support the popular stereotype of AFDC noncustodial parents as men who have fathered large numbers of children with many partners. However, it is important to note that, given the time and place where the BIF was usually completed (in court, just after a hearing), noncustodial parents may have had an incentive to underreport the number of children they had fathered if paternity had not been established). In addition, as discussed earlier, the PFS population represents only a subset of AFDC noncustodial parents.

B. Employment and Education Histories

Although virtually all of the PFS noncustodial parents had some work experience, most reported very little recent employment. Nearly two-thirds said they had worked full time for three months or less in the past year, and one in seven said they had been unemployed for more than two years. About 70 percent reported that their most recent hourly wage was less than $7 per hour.

On the other hand, there appears to be a group of noncustodial parents with somewhat more extensive work histories. About one-third said they were either employed at the point of the interview ⁽²⁶⁾ or had been out of work less than three months. About one-fourth said that their current or most recent job had lasted at least one year, and about one-fourth said that their current or most recent job paid $7 or more per hour.

In assessing these data, it is critical to note that, in most sites, noncustodial parents had a B incentive to underreport their recent work experience at the point when the BIF was completed, since most had been called in to court to explain why they had not been paying child support. If a noncustodial parent fails to pay support when he has income available, he can be found in contempt of court and jailed. Nevertheless, peer support facilitators reported that the vast majority of participants they encountered particularly those who were less than 30 years old had very limited work histories. ⁽²⁷⁾

In any case, many of the noncustodial parents faced educational deficits that probably created barriers to employment; only a little more than half had earned a high school diploma or GED. This figure ranged from a low of 40 percent in New Jersey to a high of 66 percent in Dakota County, Minnesota. ⁽²⁸⁾ About 30 percent of the parents reported that their highest grade completed in school was grade 10 or below. Moreover, data reported by sites suggest that many noncustodial parents were functioning below their reported grade level. For example, the Alabama site found that 50 of 80 recent enrollees read below the fifth grade level. Similarly, in Montgomery County, Ohio, nearly 60 percent of the first 220 PFS enrollees scored at the ninth grade level or below on a standardized vocabulary test, and nearly two-thirds scored at or below the sixth grade level in math. Another important barrier to employment, discussed further below, is previous involvement with the criminal justice system; large proportions of the noncustodial parents reported previous arrests and/or convictions. Finally, fewer than 10 percent of the parents had been enrolled in a training program within the prior year.

There were important racial differences in many of the characteristics just described. Overall, the African-American noncustodial parents were younger and reported less recent work experience, although they were also more likely to have a high school diploma. This group was also less likely to have been married and had, on average, more children with more partners.

C. Living Situations and Income Sources

Table 3.2 shows the responses to some key items from the Enrollment Form, which was completed by a subset of the noncustodial parents who completed the BIF (in most sites, those who showed up for a PFS orientation). ⁽²⁹⁾ As the table shows, less than 5 percent of PFS enrollees reported that they were living alone when they completed the form; this is not surprising given their current economic situations. Like the NLSY fathers described earlier, the largest fraction of PFS noncustodial parents, more than 40 percent, reported living with their mothers. Sizable percentages also reported living with their siblings (32 percent), spouses or partners (21 percent), or fathers (16 percent). Only about 15 percent reported living with any of their own children.

TABLE 3.2

However, these figures mask a set of extremely complex and dynamic living arrangements, often involving a variety of extended family members and spanning several generations. Less than half of the noncustodial parents reported living in "traditional" households such as those including their parents and siblings only or their spouse/partner and children only. These patterns appear to be consistent with the ethnographic research described earlier.

In interviews with staff and participants, it also became clear that many of the noncustodial parents did not have (or were reluctant to report) a consistent address. One peer support facilitator noted that participants often list their mother's house as their mailing address, but later admitted in peer support sessions that they in fact usually stayed with a girlfriend who was receiving AFDC; ⁽³⁰⁾ this was true for several of the interviewees. About 4 percent of the enrollees reported that they had slept in a shelter, in the street, or in a public place (such as a bus station) within the prior 30 days.

As noted earlier, the vast majority of noncustodial parents reported being unemployed at the point they were referred to PFS. When asked, in interviews, how they supported themselves, many of the noncustodial parents described combining income from a variety of sources. Many were supported, at least in part, by their mothers, other relatives, girlfriends, or wives. Other income sources that were mentioned included "odd jobs," usually performed for cash (for example, yardwork, car repairs, or painting); part-time jobs (which the men sometimes did not view as "real" work); Unemployment Insurance payments; and welfare payments (paid to the noncustodial parents directly or to the women with whom they frequently stayed). None of those interviewed said that they had recently engaged in illegal activities such as selling drugs, although many said that some other members of their peer support group did so, or implied they had done so themselves at some point in the past. Several referred to activities such as "hustling" or "wheeling and dealing" that might or might not have been illegal. On the Enrollment Form, three-fourths of the noncustodial parents reported that they had been arrested at least once since their sixteenth birthday; 46 percent said they had been convicted. ⁽³¹⁾

Whatever their income sources, many of the noncustodial parents said they were having trouble meeting their basic needs. Nearly 40 percent said there had been a time during the prior three months when they needed food but could not afford to get it. Nearly one-third said they had been unable to pay the rent at some point during that period.

D. CSE Status

As expected, data from the CSE system indicate that few noncustodial parents paid child support in the months immediately preceding their referral to PFS. In fact, only about 23 percent of the noncustodial parents themselves reported paying any formal support in the preceding 90 days. Given their reports about their recent income, it is perhaps not surprising that nearly half of the noncustodial parents had accumulated child support arrearages of $2,500 or more at the point they were referred to PFS. This information is discussed further in Chapter 6.

[Go To Contents]

III. Relationships and Attitudes

Tables 3.3 and 3.4 include information about the noncustodial parents' relationships with their children and ex-partners and their attitudes toward work and child support, as reported on the Enrollment Form.

A. Relationships with Children and Custodial Parents

In order to characterize the noncustodial parents' relationships with their children and ex-partners at the point of PFS enrollment, the Enrollment Form asked each parent to identify the youngest child for whom he was behind on support payments. A series of questions was then asked to describe the noncustodial parent's relationship with this "target" child and the child's other parent. ⁽³²⁾ The responses are summarized in Table 3.3.

1. Relationships with Custodial Parents. Less than half of the enrollees reported that they were living with the target child's other parent when the child was conceived (only 15 percent were married and living together). The others reported that they and the custodial parent were unmarried and living apart at that point. However, of this latter group, most said they were in a steady relationship with the other parent. Thus, overall, about 17 percent of the noncustodial parents said that at the time the target child was conceived, they were unmarried, living apart from the target child's other parent, and had no steady relationship with that parent (this figure is 24 percent among noncustodial parents 18 to 21 years old). Although certainly not insignificant, this figure appears to conflict with a popular stereotype that suggests that a large proportion of AFDC children are conceived through casual, short-term relationships though, once again, the PFS population may be atypical.

More than half of those who completed the Enrollment Form described their recent relationship with the target child's custodial parent as "very friendly" or "somewhat friendly." Another 21 percent said the relationship was "neutral," and about 14 percent said they had had no relationship. Only about 13 percent characterized the relationship as "somewhat hostile" or "very hostile." Interestingly, the proportion describing the current relationship as friendly was higher among those who had lived apart but had had a steady relationship at conception than among those who had lived together. As might be expected, the proportion with no relationship was highest (about 28 percent) among those who had been living apart from the custodial parent and had had no steady relationship at conception.

Although relatively few noncustodial parents described their overall relationship as hostile, many reported conflict with the custodial parent around specific subjects. The most common areas of conflict were "how the child is raised" (33 percent reported some or a great deal of conflict), "how often the noncustodial parent visits the child" (27 percent), and "how the noncustodial parent spends money on the child" (25 percent). ⁽³³⁾ Somewhat less conflict was reported over custody, where the child lived, who else lived with the child, how child support was spent, and what the noncustodial parent did during his visits with the child. Nearly 30 percent of enrollees reported that they were somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their contact with the target child or where the child lived. Half said they were not satisfied with their contribution to the child's support, although it wasn't clear whether they thought they were paying too much or too little. These reports suggest that conflict may be more prevalent among this population than among the broader NSFH sample described earlier. This may be related to the fact that the PFS fathers appear to have had more frequent contact with their children (discussed below). ⁽³⁴⁾

Discussions with peer support facilitators (and analysis of their feedback forms) suggest hat levels of conflict and dissatisfaction were even higher than those reported on the Enrollment Form. ⁽³⁵⁾ Facilitators reported that a substantial fraction of peer support participants felt they were denied access to their children, and that many claimed that custodial parents were doing a poor job of raising the children. Many were also unhappy that the custodial parent had a new partner who were playing an important role in the children's lives. Participants often expressed extremely negative views of the mothers of their children (and, by extension, of women in general) during early peer support sessions. Several of the noncustodial parents who were interviewed expressed intense bitterness or hostility about the custodial parent's treatment of them or the children. Typical of this group was one Ohio interviewee, who said:

I have not had visitation rights. I have seen the child on a regular basis but not the formal visitation that I'm supposed to be allotted for the better part of nine years now. And, in the meantime, the boyfriend or husband of the week [lived with the child and] the mother continuously told the child: This is your father now. You don't call him [the interviewee] dad." I'm not referred to by my own son as dad . . . and that does hurt. [The custodial parent said] "You don't have anything to do with that man [the interviewee]. He may be your father biologically, but he is not your father."

Of course, there are two sides to every issue, and this study did not speak to custodial parents. ⁽³⁶⁾ Moreover, as one interviewee pointed out, the roots of this kind of conflict and intense anger may be traced to the noncustodial parent's pain and frustration over a failed relationship, especially if the custodial parent now had a new partner. As he put it:

A lot of us didn't want to admit it, but the separation of the man and the baby's mother, and another man taking care of the father's child, I know that hurt.

Emotions such as these are certainly understandable and do not seem to be unique to low-income or AFDC noncustodial parents.

TABLE 3.3

2. Parenting Activities. Most of the PFS noncustodial parents reported having had fairly regular contact with the target child. Overall, about three-fourths reported that they had seen the child at least one to three times a month during the previous year, and more than 40 percent said they had seen the child several times a week. Only about 7 percent said they had not seen the child at all in the past year. The noncustodial parents also reported substantial involvement in childrearing: 55 percent reported on the Enrollment Form that they had some or a great deal of influence over key decisions regarding their child's upbringing, such as his or her education, religion, and health care. Peer group facilitators and other staff report that some noncustodial parents actually became custodial parents, either temporarily or permanently assuming responsibility for some or all of their children. In some cases, these responsibilities were shared with the custodial parent, while in others the noncustodial parent was forced to handle them alone because the custodial parent was incapable or unwilling to do so. Some of these arrangements may have been informal, and may not have been reported to CSE or welfare agency.

If accurate, these data suggest that PFS participants tended to see their children much more frequently than do typical noncustodial parents. As noted earlier, the NSFH found that only 15 percent of children visited several times a week with their noncustodial father. Of course, direct comparisons may be problematic for several reasons. For example, the PFS figures are reported by noncustodial parents, whereas the NSFH figures are reported by custodial parents. ⁽³⁷⁾ In addition, the PFS data refer only to one child, who is often the noncustodial parent's youngest child.

Finally, although many of the noncustodial parents reported frequent contact with their children, peer group facilitators suggested that many do not fully appreciate or understand a father's role. For example, staff reported that the time noncustodial parents spent with their children during visits was often not "productive" or "quality" time. They noted that participants often left their children in the care of a female relative or girlfriend while they went out with friends, or that the noncustodial parents tended to spend time with the child and other people, rather than with the child alone.

In early peer support sessions, many noncustodial parents expressed narrow views of fatherhood, defining it primarily as giving gifts or cash payments to the children or the custodial parent. Some peer support facilitators attributed this to the fact that most participants lacked positive, male parental role models. As noted in Table 3.1, more than half of those who completed the BIF (59 percent in the case of African-Americans) reported that they had not lived with their own father at age 14. ⁽³⁸⁾ In peer support sessions, many participants who had lived with their fathers said they rarely saw them because their fathers worked long hours or were frequently not present for other reasons. Two facilitators in Ohio each estimated that over half of all participants felt "hatred or anger" toward their own fathers. They suggested that this leaves many embittered and confused about fatherhood, but also motivated them to want to do a better job with their own children. As discussed in Chapter 5, this topic often generated intense and emotional discussions during peer support sessions.

In any case, the PFS data appear to be consistent with several of the findings from other research that were reported on earlier. For example, it seems clear that visitation patterns were closely linked to the age of the target child: Almost 66 percent of noncustodial parents with a target child under one year old reported visiting several times per week, compared to only 26 percent of those with a target child over 7 years old. Visitation rates were substantially higher among African-American noncustodial parents than among non-Hispanic whites, and were also higher among younger parents than among those over 30 years old (noncustodial parent age was probably closely linked to the age of the target child). As might be expected, visitation rates were lower in situations where the custodial and noncustodial parent had been living apart and had no steady relationship at the point of conception. Interestingly, among those with steady relationships at conception, frequent visitation was more common when the parents had been living apart than when they had been living together (either married or cohabitating).

The data also appear to confirm the link between the various components of fatherhood: 45 percent of those who visited several times a week reported having a great deal of influence over key childrearing decisions. This figure was 8 percent among noncustodial parents who visited only several times a year. Although few paid child support, 79 percent of those who visited several times per week reported having bought a gift for their child within the previous 90 days, compared to 40 percent of those who visited several times a year.

B. Attitudes About Child Support

Table 3.4 reports the enrollees' views, expressed on the Enrollment Form, about whether a series of commonly voiced factors were "good reasons" for not paying child support. The table shows that the vast majority of noncustodial parents saw unemployment as a good reason for not paying support. No other reason was considered "good" by a majority of the fathers. Few noncustodial parents saw "other parent doesn't need the money" "other parent has a new partner" or "don't accept responsibility for the children" as good reasons. Noncustodial parents who had been living apart from the custodial parent at the time of conception and had no steady relationship were somewhat more likely to characterize the stated explanations as good reasons for not paying.

TABLE 3.4

These figures suggest that most noncustodial parents did not deny their financial responsibility for their children. However, both CSE records and the reports of participants and staff suggest that these feelings did not necessarily translate into formal child support payments. Several factors appear to explain this discrepancy. ⁽³⁹⁾

First, many noncustodial parents said they lacked the income to pay support regularly. The data on their employment histories and living conditions appear to confirm this, although, as noted earlier, there are reasons to question the accuracy of some of those reports. Other parents claimed to agree with the notion of support in theory, but admitted that their actual payment patterns were affected by their relationship with the custodial parent. Particularly when this relationship was strained, noncustodial parents may have had difficulty connecting the notion of child support with their children's well-being; they focused instead on their own conflicts with the custodial parent. Some reacted by refusing to pay support at all, for example, because there was a dispute with the custodial parent over visitation. "I won't pay because she won't let me visit" was a common refrain. Second, even when the noncustodial parents did provide support, discussions with both participants and staff revealed the same dichotomy between formal and informal support described in other studies. It is clear that for many of the PFS parents, the notion of assuming responsibility for one's children was not necessarily consistent with paying child support through the formal system. In fact, in some cases the two have been in direct conflict. On the Enrollment Form, nearly 60 percent of noncustodial parents said they had bought presents, clothing, or other items for the target child within the past 90 days. Half said they had given money directly to the child or his or her other parent. However, only 23 percent reported paying any child support to a court or government agency. Presumably, little if any of the informal child support was counted by the CSE agency. (Of course, it is difficult to determine how regularly these noncustodial parents provided such informal support, or whether custodial parents would have agreed with their reports.)

One factor that led many PFS noncustodial parents to prefer informal payments was their mistrust of custodial parents and their desire to control the use of child support payments (such feelings are probably not unique to this group of noncustodial parents). Some were willing to provide support, at least sporadically, but insisted on directly purchasing items such as shoes, clothing, or toys, rather than providing cash, because this made them feel certain that the support was going directly to the child. These parents resented their lack of control over how resources were spent and questioned whether they were used to benefit the child. They often had trouble seeing or accepting that the child was part of a household budget that also supported the mother, and were frustrated because the CSE agency would not credit them for their direct or in-kind contributions. One of the interviewees, a 45-year-old noncustodial parent, described the views of many of his younger companions in peer support:

[The younger fathers] were griping that they pay child support and the mother is taking the money and buying this and buying that and not using it for the child. Well, I went through that with my 23-year-old when he was about six or seven after I got a divorce. And I said the same thing. Back then, the court system told me that the mother has been taking care of that child seven days a week and the money I was paying her for support was like a reimbursement for what she had already spent and it made sense. So I quit fighting the system as far as child support because that was a responsibility that I had and that's the same thing that I try to show fathers that I talk to now that's griping about them having to pay child support.

For other parents, hostility to the CSE system itself led to B resistance. Complaints about the system were numerous and varied. Perhaps the most common charge was that the system is "one-sided" or "slanted toward women," in large part because it does not force custodial parents to work or account for how child support money is spent. Another common perception was that the system is unfair, particularly to low-income noncustodial parents, because it does not sufficiently consider the absent parent's economic circumstances in setting and enforcing support obligations. These statements by interviewees effectively capture some of these sentiments:

If it's going to be pretty much: Bring the fathers in [to court], then they [the court] should listen to what the fathers say and understand the father's situation. And also you run into the problem of the mothers . . . where the fathers aren't paying because of difficulties with the mothers, but the mothers can do what they want to . . . Like in my situation, my children's mother, she was a crack addict, but yet the court didn't want to hear that . . . The only thing the court wanted to hear was: Was I paying my money? . . . Its a two-way street . . . [They] should have a surprise visit on the mothers to see how the money is being spent.

They ordered me to pay x amount of dollars a month and I never paid anything because, you know, a minimum wage job, you got rent, you got utilities, you got food, you got other expenses like gas and clothing, and trying to take care of this other child. You know, it was like: What comes first? I can't cut any more . . . I can't afford that.

Several of the interviewees claimed they had never been informed they could request a modification of their support order and said they had accumulated large arrearages during periods when they were unemployed.

For a few of the interviewees, the CSE system's unfairness was directly related to the state's efforts to collect reimbursement for welfare expenditures. These parents either did not see or did not accept the link between their lack of support payments and their children's welfare receipt (or did not find it objectionable that their children were receiving public assistance). They felt that they and the custodial parents had worked out acceptable child support arrangements typically involving direct cash payments that were disrupted by what they perceived to be pointless interference by the government that actually reduced the resources available to their children. As one Ohio noncustodial parent put it:

Welfare really makes a big difference . . . My children's mothers that were working never went to court about child support . . . But my children's mothers that's on public assistance, then we're in court all the time . . . It's all about politics . . . if the government feels like they're taking care of your family, then they feel like they should get their money back one way or another. Whereas if you are self-supporting . . . they don't care what you do. That's why these lawyers and doctors get off . . . Those are the true `deadbeat dads.' If you're making $100,000 a year, you can't tell me that if you're not paying child support, you're not a deadbeat. These fathers that are unemployed, going to work, or have drug problems or have no place to stay and they're still trying to do the best they can to take care of their children even though they can't . . . they're not deadbeats because they're at least trying.

It is also clear that many of the noncustodial parents were confused about the workings of the CSE system. Many made inaccurate statements about the system during interviews or said they did not understand why certain events had occurred. One frustrated noncustodial parent said: "There is no one person on the face of the earth that can explain the whole child support system."

Overall, these data demonstrate that a variety of factors in addition to lack of income affected child support payment patterns. This suggests that many PFS noncustodial parents would not have made regular formal support payments even if they had been employed and confirms the rationale for the peer support component, which was designed in part to build the parents' commitment to normal child support.

C. Values and Aspirations

Most of the noncustodial parents who were referred to PFS professed to hold mainstream values. As noted earlier, the majority of these parents did not accept the validity of several possible reasons for failing to pay child support. In addition, on the Enrollment Form, large majorities said they agreed with general statements such as "hard work makes you a better person" (see Table 3.4). Similarly, data from an early peer support exercise that asked the parents to assess what they cared about most showed that the highest-rated items were: "doing a good job raising my children," "making money," "staying out of trouble," and "getting a job I enjoy." Goals such as "being popular," "having a nice car," and "having more children" were rated much lower. On the Enrollment Form, a large majority also said they could get a good job with help or training; a smaller fraction, but still a majority, thought basic education would help them find a good job. Interestingly, only 26 percent of the noncustodial parents said they had trouble holding down a steady job.

At the same time, facilitators reported that a large proportion of noncustodial parents were depressed, angry, or despondent when they entered PFS. Many had experienced painful separations from ex-wives or girlfriends, and said they were unable to see their children regularly. As noted earlier, the vast majority reported being unemployed or at least said they had no steady job and many faced legal problems and crushing debts, either for child support or for other items such as utilities, fines, or health care expenses. Given their typically narrow views of fatherhood, many felt that their lack of income and resulting inability to buy things for their children made them failures as parents.

Many of the noncustodial parents felt powerless to affect their circumstances. As noted earlier, most were convinced that the CSE system is stacked against noncustodial parents. Many of the African-American participants felt that this basic unfairness is compounded by racism that, in their view, pervades the CSE system and the labor market, creating an insurmountable barrier to economic success. This resulted in profound cynicism and a desire to remain outside the "system." One facilitator suggested that many participants had become "comfortable" with their current lifestyles despite living in poverty and saw few reasons to change.

Other participants felt intense frustration over their situations and tended to be aggressive and quick to anger. One facilitator said he was "amazed" at the level of domestic violence that was discussed during peer support sessions. More than one of the interviewees said he had considered or attempted suicide in the recent past. Some facilitators contended that a substantial proportion of the participants abuse alcohol or drugs, although they differed on the extent of this problem.

D. Initial Impressions of PFS

In Montgomery County, Ohio, and Shelby County, Tennessee, where participants were generally ordered into PFS during court hearings, many of the participants who were interviewed said they were initially angry and resentful about being ordered to participate in PFS and skeptical about the program's ability to help them. For some, PFS seemed to be an extension of a CSE system that they perceived to be totally unfair. Facilitators reported that many new participants thought that their ex-wife or partner was responsible for having them sent to PFS (in fact, AFDC recipients assign their rights to child support to the state, which pursues payment with or without their cooperation), and many ask, in effect: "I have to go to this program. What does she have to do?" One Tennessee participant said that early sessions of his peer support group focused on the question of why there were so few white noncustodial parents in PFS; he felt that African-American noncustodial parents were being singled out for enforcement action. Others simply resented being told what to do. One Ohio participant responded in a positive way: "I felt I was being pushed, just thrown into this program and whatever it takes, I gotta get through it, so I just bit the bullet and said, `Well, I'm going to go through it.'"

Another participant was more negative, saying:

I thought it was a waste of time at first. The people at the human services department or the courts . . . they give you the impression that you're a bad parent . . . because they said, "You're going to have to go through this program to become a better father." And I said, "Well, what makes you think I'm not a good father now? You people don't even know me, you just pulled my name out of the computer."

These negative perceptions appeared to be especially prevalent when participants said they had received only a cursory description of PFS in court and knew almost nothing about what to expect. Several said they had simply been given a time and place in court and told to show up or face a jail sentence.

In Tennessee, most of the noncustodial parents said they had heard a presentation about PFS in court, and were given a "choice" among three options: paying child support immediately, going to PFS, or going to jail. Some of the participants commented that this choice was highly constrained (since they were not capable of paying support), but others seemed to appreciate the fact that they had been allowed some discretion.

As will be discussed in Chapter 5, most of these noncustodial parents said that their attitudes about PFS quickly changed when they became involved with peer support.

[Go To Contents]

IV. Conclusions

On the one hand, the PFS population can be seen as a group of fathers who lived apart from their children, experiencing many of the same frustrations, conflicts, and uncertainties that commonly accompany that situation regardless of socioeconomic status. If anything, the PFS participants appeared to have closer relationships with their children, on average, than do typical noncustodial parents, although a substantial minority did not see their children regularly.

On the other hand, it is clear that PFS reached a group of men who were only marginally connected to the mainstream society. Although some of the parents particularly the older ones had worked steadily in the past, most had not. They lived highly unstable lives, working sporadically for cash and living with a shifting set of relatives, friends, and female partners. These men faced daunting obstacles to obtaining steady work, including poor basic skills, legal problems, and racial discrimination; many were profoundly cynical and had little desire to enter the mainstream.

Moreover, while many of the parents cared deeply about their children and saw them often, even these parents saw few reasons to pay child support through the formal CSE system; they claimed they did provide support informally when they could afford to. Their views of fatherhood were narrow, in part because most did not grow up with their own fathers, but they very much wanted to be good fathers.

If this portrait is accurate, PFS presents a rare opportunity to engage a group of men who are rarely served by social service and job training programs. The program's challenge is build on their B paternal feelings to persuade them to take the steps necessary to enter and remain in the economic mainstream.

Endnotes

1. Although obviously not representative of the full PFS population (since all had completed or almost completed the peer support curriculum), the interviewees were diverse, and their characteristics were similar to those of the group that completed the BIF (discussed below). They were between 23 and 45 years old; most were in their late twenties and early thirties. Thirteen were African-American, five were white, and one was Hispanic. Most of the interviewees had from one to three children, with either one or two women. One had 12 children with eight different mothers. One way in which their characteristics differed from those of the full group that completed the BIF was that a much larger proportion of the interviewees (seven of 19) said they lived with at least some of their children full-time; others seemed to live with some of their children part of the time. It is not clear whether this was an aberration or a sign of inaccurate reporting on the BIF and Enrollment Form .[Back To Text]

2. During Phase II of the demonstration, MDRC plans to undertake more extensive qualitative or ethnographic research that will not be restricted to participants. [Back To Text]

3. House Ways and Means Committee, 1993. [Back To Text]

4. One study noted that ability to pay is probably greater among noncustodial parents who currently have support orders than among those who do not have orders (Garfinkel and McLanahan, 1990). [Back To Text]

5. As noted elsewhere, some of this "smokeout" effect was directly attributable to PFS (that is, noncustodial parents found or admitted to employment in order to avoid the PFS mandate). This means that the BIF sample did not include all noncustodial parents who were affected by PFS during the pilot phase. [Back To Text]

6. Many surveys identify divorced or separated men. However, this is not equivalent to noncustodial parents because some divorced or separated men are not parents, and some noncustodial parents are not divorced or separated (some are currently married and some were never married). [Back To Text]

7. Seltzer, 1991. [Back To Text]

8. As noted in Chapter 1, not all noncustodial parents are fathers.[Back To Text]

9. Extended contact is defined as spending more than a weekend together. [Back To Text]

10. The study did not include information on the fathers' socioeconomic status. However, the authors concluded that the mother's education level could was positively associated with the father's involvement could probably serve as a proxy for the father's socioeconomic status. [Back To Text]

11. Need to cite Tom Hanson. [Back To Text]

12. McDonald, Moran, and Garfinkel, 1990. [Back To Text]

13. Haskins, 1985.[Back To Text]

14. Meyer, 1992. [Back To Text]

15. Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1991. [Back To Text]

16. This suggests that these estimates may be overstated if noncustodial parents who are identified have higher incomes than those who are not. [Back To Text]

17. This included both AFDC and non-AFDC cases. [Back To Text]

18. For example, among the CSE cases in Florida, 28 percent of custodial parents and 51 percent of noncustodial parents reported weekly visits in the prior 12 months. The corresponding figures in Ohio were 31 percent for custodial parents and 43 percent for noncustodial parents. [Back To Text]

19. Sonenstein and Calhoun, 1988. [Back To Text]

20. Lerman, 1986. [Back To Text]

21. Sullivan, in Lerman and Ooms, 1993. [Back To Text]

22. Anderson in Ibid., 1993. [Back To Text]

23. Nationally, more than half of AFDC custodial parents have never been married. [Back To Text]

24. Some observers have suggested that many of the noncustodial parents who are brought to court for failure to pay child support have been arrested for some other offense; the police rarely arrest someone solely for child-support-related reasons. They maintain that members of minority groups are more likely to be picked up in this way. [Back To Text]

25. Unpublished MDRC data. [Back To Text]

26. The PFS eligibility criteria allowed sites to enroll noncustodial parents who were unemployed or underemployed. [Back To Text]

27. Peer support facilitators, however, met only a subset of the PFS population; those with Ber employment backgrounds may have been more likely to find jobs on their own and fail to show up for program activities. [Back To Text]

28. There was also considerable variation across sites in the breakdown of high school diplomas versus GEDs. The proportion with a high school diploma ranged from 30 percent in Massachusetts to more than 50 percent in Florida, while the proportion with a GED ranged from 5 percent in Alabama and Tennessee to more than 20 percent in Minnesota. [Back To Text]

29. These figures include the 2,205 noncustodial parents who completed the BIF by February 28, 1993, and also completed an Enrollment Form at any point; this is about 92 percent of the individuals whose BIF characteristics were reported in Table 3.1. The BIF and Enrollment Form samples were nearly identical in sites such as Alabama and Michigan, where the forms were completed at the same point. The largest discrepancies were in Ohio and Tennessee, where the forms were completed at different points and substantial numbers of noncustodial parents who were referred to PFS never showed up for orientation. [Back To Text]

30. In many cases, these living arrangements were not openly discussed because the noncustodial parent's girlfriend was receiving AFDC and his presence in her household had not been reported to the welfare agency. This may help to explain why the fraction of interviewees who reported living with one or more of their children was higher than the corresponding figure for all BIF respondents; noncustodial parents may have been more willing to discuss these arrangements openly in a confidential interview. [Back To Text]

31. It is not clear what proportion of these arrests were related to child support. [Back To Text]

32. It was not practical to ask the noncustodial parents to describe their relationship with each of their children. Thus, a decision was made to identify and focus on one "target