[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]
In recent years, policymakers and program administrators have increasingly focused on the role of noncustodial parents (NCPs) in the lives of low-income families. Increasing the payment of child support for children in these families is now commonly acknowledged as an important element of efforts to reduce poverty and welfare dependency, as well as to promote personal responsibility. Although the failure of some NCPs to pay support may stem from a lack of commitment to their children, research shows that about one-quarter of all NCPs fail to pay support because they are poor and cannot afford to make payments, rather than because they do not want to (Sorensen and Zibman 2001). This finding has led states and localities to implement strategies to help economically disadvantaged NCPs increase their employment and earnings, and thus their ability to meet their child support obligations. Although the national Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grants program primarily targets recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), it has been an important vehicle for states and localities to provide employment, training, and support services to NCPs.
This report examines a special initiative, called Support Has A Rewarding Effects (SHARE), that operated with WtW grant support and targeted NCPs in three counties in the state of Washington.SHARE offered three options to NCPs whose children were receiving TANF and who were in arrears on their support obligations: (1) start paying support, (2) enroll in a WtW program, or (3) face possible incarceration. The main objective of this study was to examine the employment, earnings, and child support outcomes from this innovative collaboration involving the welfare system, child support enforcement agencies, the workforce investment system, and employment and training providers. Table I.1 summarizes our main findings.
|
[Go To Contents]
The WtW grants program is one of several major, federally funded initiatives aimed at helping welfare recipients and other low-income parents to move into employment. In 1997, the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) authorized the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to award $3 billion in grants to states and local organizations. The grants were intended to help the hardest-to-employ recipients of TANF and noncustodial parents of children on TANF to prepare for employment, find jobs, stay employed, and advance in the job market. The WtW grants program built on the earlier enactment, in 1996, of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which created the work-focused, time-limited TANF program. TANF was designed to move people off the welfare rolls and into employment quickly, whereas WtW grants provided resources targeted to state and local efforts to help particularly disadvantaged individuals who were likely to have great difficulty making that transition.
DOL distributed the $3 billion in funding that Congress provided for the WtW grants program in stages during 1998 and 1999. Three-quarters of the funds were allocated to states based on a formula that considered the states' shares of the national poverty population and TANF caseload. One-quarter was distributed competitively on the basis of applications that states, local agencies, and nonprofit organizations submitted to DOL. Competitive grants were awarded in three rounds, which were announced in May 1998, November 1998, and October 1999. Formula and competitive funds may be used for a range of activities designed to move WtW participants into employment, and grantees have substantial flexibility in designing WtW services.
WtW Eligibility Requirements for NCPs. The BBA required WtW grantees to spend at least 70 percent of their funds on specific target groups, one of which was NCPs. In order to qualify for WtW under the 70 percent criteria, however, NCPs had to meet two requirements. First, they had to have two of the following three legislatively specified barriers to employment: (1) no high school diploma or GED and low reading or math skills, (2) substance abuse problems, and (3) poor work history.(2) Second, they had to have a child with a custodial parent who was a long-term TANF recipient or within one year of reaching the TANF time limit (or have a child in a child-only TANF case who met the same criterion). WtW grantees also could spend up to 30 percent of their funds on TANF recipients or other NCPs with "characteristics associated with long-term welfare dependency," such as being a teenage parent, having a poor work history, or being a high-school dropout.
As the WtW programs were implemented, it became clear that the congressionally defined eligibility criteria were slowing enrollment and limiting participation (Perez-Johnson et al. 2000). The WtW eligibility rules were therefore amended in November 1999. The amendments left intact the requirement that 70 percent of WtW funds be spent on a specific category of participants, but they broadened this category to make it easier for both TANF recipients and NCPs to qualify for WtW services. To qualify for WtW after the amendments, NCPs had to (1) be unemployed, underemployed, or having difficulty making child support payments; (2) have minor children who were receiving or were eligible for TANF, had received TANF during the past year, or were receiving or were eligible for assistance under the Food Stamp, Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid, or State Children's Health Insurance Program; and (3) enter into a personal responsibility contract under which they committed to cooperating in establishing paternity, paying child support, and participating in services to improve their prospects for employment and paying child support.
End of the WtW Program. Congress did not intend to provide ongoing support for WtW interventions. WtW grantees originally were given three years from the date they received their awards (both formula and competitive) to spend their grants. Grantees, in turn, often passed these requirements on to the providers with whom they subcontracted for WtW services. Ultimately, Congress extended the period over which WtW funds may be used to a total of five years — that is, through 2004.(3) However, no additional appropriations for WtW have been made or are planned.
[Go To Contents]
The Tri-County Workforce Development Council (WDC),(4) in the state of Washington, was one of the WtW grantees that targeted services to NCPs. As the administrative entity for Workforce Investment Act (WIA) services in Yakima, Kittitas, and Klickitat counties, Tri-County WDC was responsible for the administration of WtW formula funds ($3.4 million received in 1998 and $2.4 million received in 1999) and for delivery of WtW services in the three counties.
SHARE involved strong collaboration among Tri-County WDC, the Division of Child Support (DCS) of the state's Department of Social and Health Services, and the office of the Yakima County Prosecuting Attorney (YCPA). The program targeted NCPs who had current orders of child support and were delinquent in their payments. (NCPs who owed only arrears were not considered eligible for SHARE.) DCS identified parents who had not paid child support during the past 60 days or longer, and who seemed eligible for WtW services (that is, had a child receiving TANF) and then referred them to YCPA for initiation of contempt proceedings. After receiving a referral, YCPA set a hearing date and had a process server attempt to contact the NCP to notify him that he must appear in court.(5) If he failed to appear, the NCP was considered in contempt of court and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. If the NCP could not be located and served, the hearing date was cancelled.
When an NCP appeared in court, YCPA staff asked for a finding of contempt. YCPA staff then asked the NCP whether he understood why he had been called to court and whether he was working; they then explained the SHARE program to the NCP. The NCP had to meet the terms of his support order (or orders) — by paying child support — in order to avoid sanctions from the court, including possibly jail. NCPs who were unemployed or who believed that they might have difficulty meeting their child support obligations were given the opportunity to purge the contempt finding and avoid jail by participating in WtW services. The NCPs who agreed to participate in WtW services were referred to one of Tri-County WDC's WtW service providers, with a requirement to contact the provider within 10 days.(6)
SHARE operated as a special initiative under Tri-County WDC's Welfare-to-Work program. Hence, once at a WtW provider, the referred NCPs had access to the same services and followed the same client-flow process as other WtW-eligible clients. Participants first met with a case manager for an assessment that was conducted as a one-on-one meeting and covered a wide range of issues, including education and work history, employment goals, family history, and potential employment barriers. At the assessment meeting, NCPs were asked to sign a personal responsibility contract detailing their responsibilities in the program.
The services WtW providers offered consistently focused on helping the NCPs secure unsubsidized employment, but they also were structured to meet individual needs. Thus, although activities such as job search workshops and referrals for job openings were the principal service offered, NCPs could be placed in on-the-job training, work experience, or subsidized jobs as an intermediate step before unsubsidized employment. After the NCP had secured an unsubsidized job, WtW case management continued for at least 90 days, with a focus on ensuring that the NCP kept his job and advanced to better opportunities, if appropriate. WtW funds were available to help with transportation, uniforms, work supplies, and other short-term emergency needs. NCPs also could be referred to outside organizations for a range of services, as necessary, including anger management, conflict mediation, and substance abuse counseling.
After the NCP was referred to WtW, YCPA staff continued to obtain progress reports from the providers and to monitor child support payments. YCPA review hearings initially were scheduled to check the NCP's progress every 30 to 45 days. Prior to each review hearing, YCPA staff solicited progress reports from the WtW providers, to be used to update the court. If the NCP was making progress toward obtaining and maintaining employment, and if he was making child support payments (even if minimal until the start of employment), review hearings could be set for every other month or, in some cases, less frequently.
Although SHARE’s main goal was to work with NCPs to help them meet their child support obligations, it also strove to limit the burden of the obligations on the NCPs so these did not become a disincentive to work. When an NCP began to work, YCPA staff worked with the parent to modify the existing child support order (or orders) to ensure that payment requirements were reasonable.(7) In particular, DCS allowed for (1) establishment of payment agreements for less than the current amount for a temporary period;(8) (2) reestablishment of payment agreements for default orders that originally were incorrect (for example, for orders completed when the NCP was not present in court); and (3) the possibility of waiving arrears. Support orders could be modified further based on WtW provider reports and review hearings.
The SHARE program began in July 1998 and continued operating in the manner described above through September 2001. Tri-County WDC suspended enrollments into WtW at that time to ensure that sufficient funds would be available to complete services to individuals already enrolled in the program. The collaboration among Tri-County WDC, DCS, and the YCPA for SHARE has been maintained, however. At this time, instead of referring to WtW providers, NCPs who are not meeting their child support obligations because of employment difficulties are referred to Tri-County WDC's one-stop career center, Worksource-Yakima. There, they may access a broad range of WIA-funded employment and training services.
[Go To Contents]
The SHARE outcomes study is part of a comprehensive, congressionally mandated evaluation of the WtW grants program, which Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR), the Urban Institute, and Support Services International, Inc. are conducting under a contract from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The national evaluation has three major components:
In addition, a special process and implementation study focuses on documenting welfare and employment systems operated by American Indian and Alaska Native grantees, the supportive services they provide, and the way these tribal grantees integrate funds from various sources to help their members to move from welfare to work.(11)
Tri-County WDC is one of the in-depth study sites for the national evaluation. As such, it has been included in both the process study and the analysis of WtW outcomes. However, the outcomes analysis for the national evaluation includes, among WtW participants, only those NCPs whose eligibility for WtW services was confirmed and who were referred to a WtW contractor for services. Among NCPs targeted for participation in SHARE, the national evaluation will not capture outcomes for NCPs who (1) were delinquent in their child support payments but found ineligible for WtW services, (2) failed to appear for their contempt hearings, or (3) chose to pay support rather than participate in WtW services. Although SHARE may have affected the employment and child support payments of these NCPs, the national evaluation cannot capture their outcomes. To better understand the paths that SHARE participants followed, and to further document emerging strategies for serving NCPs in general, DHHS contracted with MPR to conduct a small study documenting the outcomes forall NCPs targeted for participation in the SHARE program.
The broad purpose of this study was to document more fully the operation and outcomes of a program for NCPs that uses "carrots" and "sticks" — both positive incentives and compliance enforcement — to encourage participation. Specifically, the SHARE outcomes study was designed to address questions in two key areas:
The sample members for this study are NCPs with outstanding current child support orders who were referred by DCS to YCPA for initiation of contempt proceedings between July 1, 1998, and September 30, 2001. NCPs were considered to have outstanding orders if they currently owed child support and had not paid child support for the previous 60 days or longer. There were 574 such referred noncustodial parents in our sample.
MPR collected data on the SHARE participation and outcomes of each sample member. YCPA provided participation data on the 574 referred NCPs from a database it maintained on SHARE participants and on the participants' activities. These data are the basis for our analysis of program participation. We also collected administrative data from the state for all 574 NCPs on employer-reported earnings, child support payments, and receipt of TANF and food stamp benefits.
We used the administrative data to construct variables describing the employment, earnings, and child support payments for NCPs over the four calendar quarters preceding the quarter of referral to SHARE through as many as 15 quarters after the quarter of referral. Because sample members were referred toSHARE over time, the number of quarters of data available varies by individual; data for later quarters are available for fewer sample members. In this report, we present analyses only for the quarters in which data were available for the majority of sample members. We present data on employment and earnings through the sixth quarter after referral to SHARE, and on child support payments through the ninth quarter after referral.
To address questions about program participation, we analyzed information on the flow of NCPs from DCS to YCPA, and from YCPA to WtW, and information on the resolution of referred child support cases. Chapter II presents the results of this analysis. However, no data on actual participation in WtW activities was examined for this report, so we cannot comment on either the extent of participation or the intensity of service receipt among NCPs referred for WtW services.
To address questions on program outcomes, we compared data on employment, earnings, and child support payment for the quarters preceding referral to SHARE with data on the same outcomes for the quarter of referral to SHARE and for the quarters after referral. We examined these pre-post trends for sample members as a whole, but also for subgroups. In particular, we analyzed data from before and after referral for sample members who appeared at their contempt hearing and for those who did not appear for the hearing. Among those who appeared at their hearing, we further examined pre-post data separately for those who were referred to WtW services and for those who were not referred. In addition to making pre-post hearing comparisons, we compared these subgroups with each other to explore differences in the patterns of outcomes for NCPs who followed different paths through the initiative. These comparisons provide useful profiles of the extent to which NCPs' "trajectory" of outcomes follows the course intended by the SHARE program.
[Go To Contents]
2. The WtW regulations defined "poor work history" as having worked no more than 13 consecutive weeks full-time in unsubsidized employment during the prior 12 months.
3. This extension was granted largely in response to the difficulties that most grantees encountered enrolling participants under the BBA's original eligibility criteria, which lasted for most of the grants' original implementation period. These implementation issues are discussed in more detail in Fender et al. (2000) and in other reports from the national WtW evaluation.
4. Formerly, the Tri-Valley Private Industry Council.
5. We refer to a noncustodial parent as "he" or "him" because 88 percent of the referred cases were men.
6. Tri-County WDC contracted with three organizations to provide the majority of WtW services: (1) People for People, (2) the Yakima Valley Opportunities Industrialization Center, and (3) the Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic.
7. YCPA staff also could modify existing child support orders for NCPs who, at their hearing, preferred to find employment and/or resume paying child support on their own.
8. According to YCPA staff, the child support orders of SHARE participants (that is, those NCPs who appeared at their court hearings and agreed to cooperate with SHARE) were routinely modified to limit initially the state's collection against the NCP's wages to no more than 50 percent of the net amount the state could collect under current statutes. YCPA staff reviewed these modified orders on a regular basis and increased the amount of child support collected as the NCPs' employment and income increased.
9. For results of the two surveys, see Perez-Johnson and Hershey (1999) and Perez-Johnson et al. (2000). Findings from the exploratory site visits are discussed in Nightingale et al. (2000).
10. Findings from the process visits are discussed in Nightingale (2001) and Nightingale et al. (2002). Topical briefs on recruitment challenges and strategies (Fender et al. 2000) and on the approaches used by programs serving NCPs (Martinson et al. 2000) also are available.
11. Reports by Hillabrant and Rhoades (2000), Hillabrant et al. (2001), and Hillabrant and Pindus (2003) document findings to date from the tribal study.
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
Home Pages:
National Evaluation
of the WtW Grants Program
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)