Parents’ Fair Share (PFS)

PFS provided integrated services aimed at increasing employment and earnings, child support payment, and positive parenting behaviors of noncustodial fathers. PFS staff completed the intake process for participants at court hearings. Program orientation occurred at the PFS sites, where participants met CSE staff and learned about the PFS program, mediation services, and child support.

Details of the program’s services differed somewhat by site, but the PFS model included case management and the four core components as a package.

• Case management. All participants received case management services. Case managers helped participants create service plans to identify employment goals and address barriers to program participation and employment. Participants also received support navigating resources and supportive services, such as transportation, that were offered through PFS and in the community.

• Peer support. After orientation, parents in PFS participated in peer support groups built around the Responsible Fatherhood curriculum. The curriculum consisted of a variety of topics, such as obligations as noncustodial parents, navigating relationships, resolving disputes, time management, and anger management. Optional workshop sessions included alcohol and drug abuse, food and nutrition, and cooking. The peer support groups held recreational activities with PFS graduates for added mentoring or planned parent–child activities. Peer support was a mandatory activity for participants.

• Employment and training services. Eligible participants could receive job search assistance or job club, work readiness activities, occupational skills training, post-employment retention services for six months, on-the-job training, and classroom-based education. Participants in Grand Rapids could receive subsidized employment. Employment and training services was a mandatory component for participants if included in their service plan.

• Enhanced CSE. While fathers participated in PFS, their child support orders were temporarily reduced. CSE staff restored the orders to their original levels once fathers gained employment or if fathers did not fulfill PFS program requirements.

• Mediation. PFS offered voluntary mediation services to participants and their co-parents to resolve their differences (although in practice most sites did not provide formal mediation services).

The PFS services in most sites were not sequential. Five sites delivered peer support services concurrently with other program activities, such as employment and training services, to increase engagement in the program. In Jacksonville and Trenton, participants had to first attend peer support before other program components.
Study authors noted that strong coordination between partner organizations was necessary to integrate PFS services. PFS staff monitored the status and participation rate of fathers in the program, and reported to the courts and CSE agencies when participants were employed. PFS case managers referred noncompliant participants back to the court or CSE agency.

Some sites changed their service delivery or practices to increase participation rates and improve outcomes. At least one PFS site changed its vetting procedures to address false reporting by fathers on employment status (for example, underreporting to avoid paying higher child support or falsely reporting employment to avoid mandated participation in PFS); staff put fathers “on hold” while they verified the prospective participant’s work with the reported employer. The Trenton PFS site changed its program sequence in late 1995 to increase the engagement of participants in employment and training activities by allowing job search and peer support activities to take place concurrently rather than sequentially.

Challenges. PFS sites experienced several challenges. Generally, PFS sites implemented the core components of the model; however, certain services were more limited than anticipated. Most PFS sites did not implement on-the-job training and mediation services. Only Grand Rapids and Springfield offered on-the-job training through a partner organization, and only Grand Rapids offered mediation.

PFS sites continuously struggled with enrolling noncustodial fathers because of the fluctuating appearance rates of prospective fathers at the hearings where most participants enrolled in the program. Low enrollment numbers led to decreased funding for PFS programs because of their performance-based contracts. Funding reductions prevented programs from paying for the salaries of PFS staff and led some agencies to eventually withdraw from PFS services, cut staff, or overhaul service delivery.

Moreover, program staff across the agencies had different goals for the PFS program, which prevented them from fully collaborating with CSE staff. Non-CSE staff in the PFS program considered themselves advocates for the noncustodial parent, whereas CSE staff were motivated to enforce child support laws. Non-CSE staff detached themselves from CSE staff to gain participants’ trust and delayed reporting to CSE when a participant obtained employment to stall the reinstatement of child support payments.