The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse hosted a webinar titled "Working with Child Support: Effective Strategies from Model State and Local Partnerships." This webinar provided ideas and resources to help responsible fatherhood practitioners understand and meet the needs of non-custodial fathers and their families. It featured an overview of Federal, State and local policies, partnerships and initiatives; explained how fatherhood practitioners can partner with local child support offices; and generally explored strategies to help non-custodial fathers and their families.

About 6 percent of the national child support caseload involves a veteran or an active military member.

Through secondary analysis, this study examines which benefits and financial supports low-income families access, with a particular focus on child support. The aim is to explore how families create their own economic safety net package from among the existing benefit programs. It was found that higher levels of child support receipt corresponded with higher levels of work, however that child support did not replace any type of welfare benefit but rather, complements it.

Child support has steadily evolved over the decades from a welfare cost-recovery model to a major family support program in a technologically savvy environment.

In 2002, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) instituted the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative (CHMI) evaluation to document operational lessons and assess the effectiveness of community-based approaches to support healthy relationships, marriages, and child well-being. The evaluation is being conducted by RTI International and The Urban Institute. A component of the CHMI study involved an implementation study on initiatives approved by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) under authority of Section 1115 of the Social Security Act.1 The goals of the initiatives were to improve the child support systems through community engagement and healthy marriage and relationship education programs. Operationally, these goals included direct improvements to the child support program, like increasing the number of child support orders established, increasing paternity establishment, and increasing payment toward support obligations. The broader context for these operational goals was improving child well-being and increasing parental responsibility.

This is the final in a series of reports being produced on the implementation of demonstrations in 14 sites receiving grants under the 1115 waivers. Earlier reports covered the implementation of initiatives in Atlanta, Georgia; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Denver, Colorado; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Jacksonville, Florida; Lexington, Kentucky; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Nampa, Idaho; and New Orleans, Louisiana. This report focuses on the initiatives in Marion County, Indiana; Clark County, Ohio; Lakewood, Washington; and Yakima, Washington. The goal of the implementation studies was to describe the nature of the community initiatives, including recruitment and outreach strategies, targeting efforts, and innovative approaches for linking child support with healthy relationship and marriage support activities. This report examines key aspects of the initiatives’ community partnerships, design and implementation of service delivery, and links with child support. It does not present estimates of program impacts or effectiveness. The report is based on site visits conducted in 2010, 3 to 5 years after the initiatives were initially approved as well as information provided over the course of operations by grantees. Because these visits took place when the initiatives were ongoing, this report is not a complete accounting of what the initiatives accomplished or how many people they served over the course of their waivers. (author abstract)

TANF potentially serves as a portal for a wide array of programs that provide cash income support, in-kind nutrition and housing assistance, tax credits, and other services to families with low-incomes. This research brief summarizes what we know about the connections between TANF and other important safety net programs. It reviews the size and scope of the various programs, the receipt of other safety net benefits by TANF families, and the implications for policy and research. (author abstract)

In 1995, the Texas Legislature enacted H. B. 1863, which formed the basis for Texas’ waiver from existing Federal laws governing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The Texas waiver, officially known as the Achieving Change for Texans (ACT) demonstration, aimed to assist participants to achieve independence from welfare through an increased emphasis on employment, training, temporary assistance and support services. It included three primary components: time-limited benefits, a personal responsibility agreement and one-time payments in lieu of welfare payments. The evaluation of the ACT demonstration consisted of three approaches: a process evaluation, a random-assignment impact analysis, and follow-up interviews with persons who reached their time limits or who elected to receive one-time payments instead of cash welfare assistance. This report summarizes findings from all facets of the evaluation and draws conclusions and policy implications for welfare policy development in the post-waiver time period. (author abstract)

From Lawrence Mead and Ron Haskins, through the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution, this article analyzes why low-skilled men typically work in lower level positions and provide little support for their children. Authors argue for a program to tie child support with work requirements, which is an initiative that has previously been shown to increase employment. In particular, authors highlight the Noncustodial Parents Choices (NCP Choices) program in Texas as an example to build work enforcement into the child support system.

The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) recently launched a Fact Sheet Series. The child support program serves a quarter of all children and half of all poor children. Created primarily to recover welfare costs, Congress has steadily embraced a broader mission for the child support program through legislative change, resulting in a gradual shift to a program that promotes child well-being and family self-sufficiency by making child support a reliable source of income.

While working well for most families, the program has faced a greater challenge serving low-income parents. To improve child support outcomes for all, State child support agencies are now using a wide range of family-centered innovations to increase the ability of parents to support their children, in recognition that collection of support depends on the noncustodial parent’s employment, cooperation between parents, and parents’ emotional connection with their children.

Often, the most effective way to make sure that children can count on regular child support payments is to address the underlying reasons parents are not paying their obligations, whether they are unemployment, parental conflict, or disengagement. State child support agencies are partnering with fatherhood, workforce, and reentry programs in outreach, referral, case management and other strategies that are often organized into six areas:

1. Preventing the need for child support enforcement,

2. Engaging fathers from the birth of their first child,

3. Promoting family economic stability,

4. Helping build healthy family relationships,

5. Ensuring that families have meaningful health care coverage, and

6. Preventing and reducing family violence.

To celebrate Father’s Day, OCSE released a series of fact sheets highlighting how child support innovations in each of these areas can improve child support and child well-being. The fact sheets provide examples of promising practices from across the country.

In honor of Father’s Day, the Child Support Report for June 2011 features three personal essays from leaders in the field, along with several perspectives on the child support program from State child support directors and researchers.