Doing What They Can? Low-Income Fathers Providing Informal Support to Their Nonresident Children

Background/Purpose: Some charge that the child support system is not working, with about three-fourths of cases behind in payments. Many fathers who are behind seem unlikely to catch up, given their low current earnings, barriers to employment and obligations to children across multiple families. Yet, some of these fathers are actually quite involved with their children and provide support outside the child support system, which may be particularly important for economically vulnerable children’s well-being. In order to learn more about fathers who are behind in their formal child support obligations, the levels of informal support they provide, and their connections with other service systems that may be able to encourage involvement and support, we focus on 3 questions: (1) What are the characteristics of fathers behind in their payments? Here we have a special focus on characteristics that may bring them into connection with other service systems (criminal justice, mental health, housing, and public benefits). (2) How much informal support do they provide to their children? (3) What factors are associated with this provision?

Data/Methods: This paper uses new data from the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration program, a federally funded eight-state intervention for noncustodial parents who are behind in their child support payments and having employment difficulties. We use data from baseline surveys of nearly 9,000 noncustodial fathers (NCFs) who enrolled in the demonstration between 2013 and 2016, making this the largest sample available of an understudied group. Our primary dependent variables are fathers’ reports of the total amount of informal support provided to their nonresident children in the last month, examining cash and noncash support separately, and separately examining whether any support is provided and its amount. We examine the extent to which these supports are related to an NCF’s demographic characteristics, potential connection to several service systems (incarceration history, depression, housing instability, and benefit use), using standard linear and logit regressions.

Results: We find: (1) About two-thirds of NCFs in our sample had been incarcerated, and about one-fourth had major depression (classified using the PHQ-8 scale). About one-fifth reported that not having a steady place to live made it very or extremely difficult to find or keep a job, and more than one-third received SNAP benefits in the last month. (2) More than two-thirds provided informal support to at least one nonresident child, and, when this type of support was given, the amount was considerable, about $100/month/child in informal cash support and non-cash support valued at $100/month/child. (3) In preliminary multivariate models, previous incarceration, depression, housing instability, and SNAP use are all generally associated with providing less informal support to their children.

Conclusions/Implications: Results demonstrate the significant informal contributions that many NCFs in difficult circumstances report making to their children. Potential policy implications could include the child support systemrecognizing some aspects of informal support (with the mothers’ permission), using other service systems to reach NCFs and encourage involvement, and considering co-locating a variety of other services with child support.