Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Chapter 3: Initial Operations of the HFN Community Healthy Marriage Initiative
The ultimate purpose of all the planning and early development of HFN described in Chapter 2 is to help individuals and couples build healthy marriages and improve family functioning and to increase compliance with child support provisions while reducing the need for formal child support by increasing the share of children growing up with both parents. Although this study cannot determine HFN’s impact on these goals, this report can offer an initial look at the actual provision and utilization of services. The focus of this chapter is on classes, counseling, and related services to individuals and couples provided directly through the HFN coalition, both in faith-based and secular organizations. Before presenting the specifics of the services offered, we begin with the strategy for recruiting people to the provider organizations.
3.1 Participant Recruitment
An important step for most voluntary social programs is effective recruiting of participants. Frequently in social programs, individuals and families who are eligible for a payment or service often end up not applying for or claiming benefits, even cash benefits (Currie, 2004). As a result, reaching out and recruiting potential participants is often an important program component. In the case of HFN, the primary recruitment sources to classes and other services are IDHW’s child support (IV-D) and TANF (IV-A) programs. Other sources of recruitment include private organizations such as churches and the Title IV-E child welfare program. In some cases, individuals come on their own after hearing about the programs from friends or media. While the focus of HFN is the entire community of Nampa, because IDHW is the principal source of MIS referrals, HFN is able to serve Nampa’s low-income population, a group that had limited access to marriage and parenting programs. Participants recruited through IDHW programs include people receiving not only TANF or child support services but also some receiving only food stamps, Medicaid (largely pregnant mothers), or foster care (IV-E) services. Figure 3-1 shows the participant flow between different elements of HFN.
The first referrals to HFN were made through the child support program in January 2004 and later expanded to include TANF clients in April 2004. More recently, the majority of HFN referrals are coming through the TANF program. HFN implemented the referrals process in a staggered fashion to allow for any necessary adjustments.
IDHW case managers working with TANF and child support clients have been trained to present information about HFN services to all potential participants. Clients are eligible for voluntary participation in classes or counseling if they (or their partner or family member) are a Nampa resident.An HFN information sheet is attached to each program application so that clients can note interest and refer themselves to the program if they choose. Case managers may also initiate a discussion about the availability of HFN services if they sense that clients could benefit from them.
[D]
|
After referrals are relayed to the IDHW HFN referral liaison, this dedicated case manager screens potential participants, notes clients’ choice of faith-based or secular services, and assesses the nature of the services they are requesting. All referrals are screened for domestic violence and substance abuse. If a problem is detected through the screening process, clients are referred to one of three domestic violence service providers or to substance abuse treatment and do not continue through the HFN referral process at that time. If no domestic violence issue arises, the referral liaison then makes appropriate referrals to service providers based on the participants’ preferences, individual and family needs, and the availability of program space. All client-level information for the referrals that IDHW makes is entered into a Web-based MIS created for HFN.
Other area agencies and service providers may also refer potential participants to the HFN referral liaison. For example, referrals from the court system are to the IDHW referral liaison, who enters that information into the MIS. In addition, some people learn about the program though community outreach efforts such as public service announcements and articles in the newspaper and inquire to HFN directly. Some of these independent inquiries come to the HFN executive director, who passes them on to the HFN referral liaison for processing. HFN expected referrals through the paternity acknowledgement initiative at Mercy Medical Center, but as of September 2005, few participants have entered through such referrals. HFN is currently working on improving the in hospital paternity initiative, including making efforts to make the purpose of the referral form clearer, and by hiring a Spanish-speaking liaison to call parents who filled out the referral form to follow-up. HFN continues to pursue additional avenues for recruitment, including through partnerships with Head Start, WIC, and other organizations.
During the HFN’s first year of operation, about two-thirds of the 365 referrals came from just two sources—the IDHW IV-A and IV-D programs (see Table 3-1). Churches and courts referred only two each. Still, a large but minority share of referrals came from other sources outside IDHW. These individuals might have heard about the program from the media, friends, or other programs or organizations.
| Referring Agency | Number of People Referred | Percent of People Referred |
|---|---|---|
| Benefits (IV-A) | 155 | 42.5 |
| Child Support (IV-D) | 86 | 23.6 |
| Churches | 2 | 0.6 |
| FACS (IV-E) | 12 | 3.3 |
| Justice | 2 | 0.6 |
| Military | 1 | 0.3 |
| Other Outside DHW | 106 | 29.0 |
| Total | 365 | 100.0 |
Over half of these referrals were to secular programs, leaving 42 percent for referral to faith-based organizations. Before presenting the destinations of these referrals in detail, it is useful to examine the main organizations providing services.
3.2 HFN Classes, Counseling, and Mentoring Activities
HFN’s primary services co ver four core areas:
- premarital education and counseling;
- marriage education, counseling, and enrichment;
- parenting education and counseling; and
- fatherhood education and mentoring.
Services in each area are available to participants through faith-based or secular providers, some through one-on-one counseling and others in group classroom settings. As of September 2005, about 15 faith-based and three secular providers were providing counseling and/or classes to HFN families, couples, and parents. In addition, some of this service provision involves teaching relationship skills through the Family Wellness curriculum. Various services address family relationships broadly but also emphasize issues related to marriage. HFN is trying to extend these services models to develop complementary programs for ex-offenders and through fatherhood initiatives.
3.2.1 Services Provided by Faith-Based Providers
Members of the clergy in the Nampa area offer premarital counseling and education; marriage counseling, enrichment, and mentoring; parenting classes and education; and/or fatherhood education and counseling in a variety of formats for those HFN participants who choose faith-based services. Although the list of pastors and ministers who provide services has changed and continues to change over time, those participating represent a cross-section of Nampa’s religious community. They include, for example, leaders from the Church of the Nazarene, the Presbyterian Church, the Church of the Latter Day Saints, the Episcopal Church, and the Church of the Brethren. As part of the coalition’s ongoing effort to engage and serve the area’s growing Hispanic population, several churches with predominantly Latino congregations have also been recruited into the program.
Since its inception, the HFN coalition has provided a number of training sessions for members of the clergy, lay ministers and other counselors on the Prepare/Enrich curricula and methodology.11 Prepare/Enrich is a premarital education and counseling inventory tool that explores relationship issues for both premarital and married couples, and it is generally conducted in one-on-one sessions. A trained counselor or lay minister administers the inventories with couples and follows this session with four to six individual discussion sessions.
While some of the participating pastors and ministers use Prepare/Enrich for their counseling and education services, they also use a variety of other tools and methods, some as required by their particular faith. Key coalition members reported that they reviewed the strategies and curricula these providers employ to determine that they contained “the core elements” (such as communication and conflict resolution) and to ensure that they are consistent with HFN’s goals. The duration and number of sessions or classes faith-based providers offer varies by provider, although these sessions tend to be conducted on a one-on-one basis rather than in groups. In some cases, counseling sessions continue for an indefinite period if the needs of the couple or family indicate this.
Faith-based providers do not receive payment for the services they provide to individuals referred through HFN. Rather, they see provision of these services as part of their mission as church leaders. They deliver these services in addition to those they offer to members of their own congregation or to people referred from other community sources. For many church leaders, the HFN participants—who are often economically disadvantaged—expose them to community members with somewhat different experiences and service needs than the higher income people they typically serve.
3.2.2 Services Provided by Secular Providers
As of January 2005, HFN had also established relationships with three secular providers and has since then begun using a fourth secular partner. Two of the original group—Families ETC (Education, Training and Counseling) and Montgomery Counseling—operate under contract with HFN and are compensated from waiver funds for the services they provide. A third, the Parent Education Center of the Nampa School District, is funded through a U.S. Department of Education grant and makes its services available at no cost to HFN. The most recent provider, Catholic Charities, is operating without funds. The providers and the services they provide are described below.
-
Families ETC (Education, Training and Counseling) is a community-based, not-for-profit marriage and family counseling center affiliated with Northwest Nazarene University (NNU). It was established in February 2004 with the goal of meeting the needs of Nampa’s underserved individuals and families. Counseling services are provided by graduate student interns who are enrolled in NNU’s masters-level counseling program and practice under the clinical supervision of licensed counselors. Although its menu of services is still evolving, Families ETC staff collaborated with HFN and other community partners during the initiative’s early implementation period to create specific programs for Nampa’s underserved residents.
Families ETC offers premarital, marriage enrichment, parenting, individual, couples, and family counseling, as well as education support groups, in both one-on-one and classroom settings. During the first year of HFN program operations, participants were most likely to be referred for individual or couples counseling, or for participation in an 8-week “life skills” group session. The life skills program used a curriculum developed by a local nonprofit organization (Love, Inc.) that was modified by threading parenting, marriage, and family themes throughout the topics. Families ETC sponsors a “Family Talk” speakers bureau that draws on the graduate students on staff to provide informational sessions at sites throughout the community on various relationship topics (specific examples include, “Loving the Mother of Your Child” and “Renewing the Love for Couples and Singles”). These presentations are important for HFN because they may draw new participants to one of the HFN programs. The life skills curriculum is eight sessions of 1.5 hours each and individual counseling sessions last 50 minutes with the number of sessions depending on the individual's or family's needs.
-
Montgomery Counseling is a private counseling group that provides premarital, marriage, and parenting counseling and classes to individuals and couples referred through a variety of community sources, including HFN and the court system. During the first year, some HFN referrals to Montgomery Counseling participated in Prepare/Enrich premarital and marriage counseling sessions. Other HFN participants enrolled in a once-a-week parenting and family education class called “Love and Logic,” a six-session program that provides instruction in techniques to help adults develop and maintain healthy relationships with their children. The Love and Logic sessions are approximately 1.5 hours per week. The center's contract for individual or family counseling calls for six sessions but it may vary.
-
Parent Education Center of the Nampa School District offers a parenting class using the “Parents Who Care” curriculum. It is facilitated by a licensed social worker who is an employee of the Nampa School District and who also provides parenting, drug and alcohol, and marriage and family counseling services though a variety of community partnerships. The “Parents Who Care” class, which can be conducted on a one-on-one basis or in a group setting, consists of a series of 1- to 1.5-hour video- and workshop-based modules designed to help parents and teens work together to enhance communication, decrease conflict, and improve family relations. It is available to HFN participants in both English and Spanish. It typically takes 4 to 6 weeks for families to complete the curriculum (the number of modules completed per session may vary). The center also conducts Family Wellness classes.
-
Catholic Charities of Idaho is a faith based organization that provides social services to build communities, strengthen family life, and assist people in need. Catholic Charities offers a number of services to the community including assistance with immigration and naturalization , religious and other educational services, a young mothers program that includes both pregnancy and parenting support, a Latino youth program, and various counseling services which include several services to strengthen the family and marriage.
During its first year providing and sponsoring services, coalition members came to recognize that HFN’s ability to expand capacity required a shift in the service delivery approach toward less costly approaches and continued forging of new community partnerships, including the involvement of additional organizations that can provide services. Because one-on-one counseling is more labor and time intensive, and therefore more costly, the coalition has moved to shift more services to group or classroom settings and thereby achieve “more bang for the buck.”
3.2.3 Stimulating the Delivery of Family Wellness Classes
To supplement the education and counseling services already provided by existing community organizations, HFN undertook a lengthy search to select the core curriculum for the initiative. After exploring several curricula used by other marriage initiatives across the country, HFN selected Family Wellness , codeveloped by George Doub. Key coalition members were drawn to this curriculum because it was designed to work well with a range of populations and ethnic groups and because its lessons can be easily applied to day-to-day living. In the words of one coalition member, the Family Wellness curriculum could provide an “easy introduction into … [the idea of] … marriage being the best environment for … [raising] … a child.”
Coalition partner WICAP Head Start received a Federal Head Start Early Learning grant that paid for slots for up to 30 individuals to be trained in the delivery of the Family Wellness curriculum; the Head Start program made 12 of these slots available to HFN coalition members. George Doub led this train-the-trainer session, which took place in December 2004. The first Family Wellness class session for couples and individual participants followed soon after this training, in January 2005. The HFN Program Manager and the Coalition Chair facilitated this session. The class was held at a local church and attracted 18 participants.
The coalition aims to stimulate the delivery of Family Wellness on an ongoing basis throughout the community by training instructors from coalition-member organizations that, in turn, provide Family Wellness sessions themselves. Two other Family Wellness sessions took place spring 2005, including one for Spanish-language speakers led by staff from Catholic Charities and the Idaho Migrant Council. The Parent Education Center of the Nampa School District was scheduled to conduct a subsequent session. HFN plans to have a new series of Family Wellness classes offered in the community every 6 weeks. It is developing a master schedule of all Family Wellness classes being offered by the range of organizations, thus facilitating referrals for community residents who would like to participate.
In May 2005, HFN sponsored a training retreat focused on Family Wellness, Prepare/Enrich, and new Prepare/Enrich components that permit instruction in group settings. A total of 15 representatives from community service providers received training in Prepare/Enrich, and 35 received training in Family Wellness. Participants included staff from WICAP Head Start, Lifeline (a pregnancy crisis counseling center), domestic violence service providers, and local school districts, as well as seven bilingual and bicultural facilitators.Participants in these train-the-trainer sessions were asked to conduct a session in their organizations within 3 to 6 months of participating.
While this diffusion strategy helps generate provision of the Family Wellness curriculum (as well as other services) throughout the community, HFN staff noted that it also makes it difficult to track the number of participants who take the class or receive other HFN-facilitated services and to gauge accurately the extent of this activity. Active coalition partners who conduct the sessions are more likely to fill out paperwork that can be entered into the database, but those who are not active members of HFN provide only aggregate data.
HFN leaders and providers said they have deliberately sought classes and other approaches that emphasize positive elements of family relationships, given their view that people generally do not like to admit to problems in their lives. HFN leaders suggested they like the Family Wellness curriculum in particular because it focuses on the strengths of families instead of starting from the premise that participating families have major problems. By emphasizing strengths, the classes meet HFN’s goal of enhancing relationship with couples in all types of relationships, including married couples who already have positive qualities.
3.2.4 Relative Emphasis on Marriage in Education and Skills-Building Activities
While HFN’s focus is on children, healthy families, and healthy marriages, several HFN leaders said that they understand that not everyone is interested in marriage nor necessarily should be. Many of the referrals from the child support and TANF programs may be emerging from a difficult divorce, may have a history with domestic violence, or may not be interested in marriage education for some other reason. HFN “makes every effort to meet people where they are,” according to one key respondent. Where participants are clearly not interested in marriage, the focus is on building a healthy and effective relationship with the other parent for the benefit of their children.
Still, some people who are reluctant or uninterested in marriage education may eventually be open to a discussion of marriage in another context. Several respondents said that HFN sometimes attracts participants through parenting classes initially, and provides marriage education services later. This can mean first referring potential participants to parenting classes, and later bringing them into discussions of relationships and marriage issues. “When we’ve got them in there for Family Wellness or parenting, we can introduce marriage education,” noted one HFN leader. Of course, some participants are clearly interested in marriage preparation and enhancement from their first contact with HFN. For this group, both church-related and secular providers offer services focused explicitly on marriage relationships. Finally, Family Wellness also includes a discussion of marriage in the third session, “Adult Relationships: Couples in Healthy Families.”
3.3 Participation and Referral Activity in the First Year of Implementation
A major question for any pilot CHMI site is the degree to which sponsored community activities reach individuals and couples in the community, especially the primary target groups. Although some activities involve services, classes, or counseling for participants, others will reach people through media messages, celebration days, sermons by pastors who are partnering with the coalition, or staff at local agencies in a local coalition. Only a broad-based community survey would be able to identify all those touched by the program. In the case of HFN, data are available on individuals through several coalition partners, including those referring and delivering services. However, some participation in HFN-induced classes can be difficult to identify because some of the HFN-trained instructors may be giving classes in churches, other institutions, or on their own and not reporting to HFN.
This section draws on the available data to describe the first year’s HNF referral participation activity that was captured through the HFN MIS. It offers a picture of those referred and participating who are in the official records. Before examining the characteristics of recorded referrals and participants, we describe the MIS data.
3.3.1 The Management Information System (MIS) and Child Support Matching
HFN coalition members worked closely with IDHW technical staff during the early implementation period to develop a relatively simple Web-based MIS. It collects basic demographic information on participants, as well as information on the nature of their referrals and service use completion. In a case notes field, service providers can include follow-up information describing whether contact was made and what services the participant received. Both IDHW staff and service providers received training on the use of the MIS Web site and a detailed handbook. Overall, service providers using the MIS Web site did not report difficulties in understanding and navigating it; most described it as straightforward and intuitive.
The MIS currently collects information only on HFN participants who are referred through the IDHW HFN referral liaison. The result is to exclude a significant number of individuals and couples receiving marriage and family education and counseling services through churches and other organizations linked to HFN. HFN is trying to encourage partner churches and other organizations serving people who may be eligible for HFN to “refer back” information on their participants to the IDHW referral liaison so they can be included in HFN data. Montgomery Counseling, for example, has referred back to HFN those clients the organization has encountered through court system referrals. In addition, as noted above, HFN recently implemented a new procedure requesting that faith and community providers fill out a survey tallying the services they have provided over a certain period, in hope of providing aggregate data to the coalition.
Another major challenge to accurate participant tracking is that many of the service providers, particularly the faith-based providers, do not consistently update the Web site information on the participants they serve that are in the MIS. Consequently, information about participants served by faith-based providers through HFN is rarely captured in the MIS. Reluctance to use and/or update the Web site was attributed to several factors. Some coalition members felt it was simply a matter of busy providers with too little time, while others suggested that members of the clergy were reluctant to share information about members of “their” congregations.12 Others attributed it to discomfort with using new technology.
The evaluation mounted an effort to determine the involvement of referred and participating individuals in the child support system. To assist the evaluation in this objective, Idaho’s IV-D agency matched records in the MIS with information on eligibility for and receipt of child support. Using these data, we can examine the characteristics of referrals and participants with respect to four measures of child support: (1) the percent of cases where paternity has been established, (2) the percent with child support orders, (3) the percent with any child support payment, and (4) the percent with payments in full compliance with the support order.
3.3.2 Individuals Referred to and Participating in HFN-Sponsored Activities
The MIS records individuals referred to HFN activities from several sources. Of those referred, only some who actually attend a class or a counseling session are recorded in the MIS. Because some providers do not forward individual information on participants, those referred but not recorded as participants may or may not have taken advantage of an HFN-sponsored service. This section counts as participants only those who are listed in the MIS as having attended at least one class or counseling session.
The tabulations in Table 3-2 show the diverse characteristics of the 365 people referred to an HFN service and the 117 known to have participated in an HFN service as of July 2005. The ages of individuals referred to HFN vary widely, with about 20 percent under age 25, and 20 percent over age 40. Referred and participating individuals have varying education levels, ethnicity, marital status, employment status, and numbers of children. The majority is parents and white; 37 percent are Hispanic. Married individuals make up nearly half of referrals and nearly 60 percent of participants, while men account for over one-third of referrals and 40 percent of participants.
Additional tabulations reveal that both men and women participants were equally likely to be married or unmarried. One might have expected that the men in HFN would have a higher likelihood of being married, given reports that men are more likely to be brought to HFN programs by their wives. Most Hispanics referred to HFN (58 percent) were not married, but two of three Hispanic participants were married.
Slightly more than half of HFN’s referrals requested secular programs as opposed to faith-based services (57 percent versus 42 percent). More participants received referrals for parenting education than marriage education (67 percent versus 32 percent). However, HFN coalition members suggested that neither type of class is “pure”; important elements of marriage education are woven throughout the parenting classes, and marriage education classes by necessity address parenting issues. To some extent, the program also uses parenting classes to bring participants in who might later be open to marriage education.
| Referred to Services | Received Services | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | ||
| Age | Under 15 years | 8 | 2.2 | 2 | 1.7 |
| 15 to 19 years | 20 | 5.5 | 3 | 2.6 | |
| 20 to 24 years | 71 | 19.5 | 17 | 14.5 | |
| 25 to 29 years | 74 | 20.3 | 24 | 20.5 | |
| 30 to 34 years | 66 | 18.1 | 19 | 16.2 | |
| 35 to 39 years | 53 | 14.5 | 21 | 18.0 | |
| 40 to 44 years | 36 | 9.9 | 21 | 18.0 | |
| 45 years or more | 37 | 10.1 | 10 | 8.6 | |
| Total | 365 | 100.0 | 117 | 100.0 | |
| Average Age | 31.3 | 33.3 | |||
| Sex | Male | 124 | 34.0 | 47 | 40.2 |
| Female | 241 | 66.0 | 70 | 59.8 | |
| Race | White | 281 | 94.6 | 70 | 95.9 |
| Black | 4 | 1.4 | 1 | 1.4 | |
| American Indian/Alaska Native | 8 | 2.7 | 2 | 2.7 | |
| Asian | 4 | 1.4 | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Ethnicity | Missing=68 | Missing= 44 | |||
| Not Hispanic/Latino | 279 | 76.4 | 74 | 63.3 | |
| Hispanic or Latino | 86 | 23.6 | 43 | 36.8 | |
| Marital Status | Married | 156 | 45.8 | 62 | 59.1 |
| Divorced | 48 | 14.1 | 11 | 10.5 | |
| Separated | 39 | 11.4 | 8 | 7.6 | |
| Single | 52 | 15.3 | 13 | 12.4 | |
| Cohabitating | 46 | 13.5 | 11 | 10.5 | |
| Average Number of Years Married | 8.4 | 9.1 | |||
| Education | Missing=24 | Missing=12 | |||
| Junior high school | 57 | 19.1 | 13 | 14.9 | |
| High school | 165 | 55.2 | 43 | 49.4 | |
| Vocational school | 29 | 9.7 | 11 | 12.6 | |
| College | 48 | 16.1 | 20 | 23.0 | |
| Missing= 66 | Missing= 30 | ||||
| Employment Status | Employed, full-time | 125 | 37.1 | 44 | 42.7 |
| Employed, part time | 38 | 11.3 | 13 | 12.6 | |
| Seasonally employed | 2 | 0.6 | 2 | 1.9 | |
| Not employed | 172 | 51.0 | 44 | 42.7 | |
| Missing=28 | Missing=14 | ||||
| Number of Children | No children | 28 | 7.7 | 10 | 8.6 |
| 1 or 2 | 203 | 55.6 | 48 | 41.0 | |
| 3 to 5 | 125 | 34.2 | 57 | 48.7 | |
| 6 or more | 9 | 2.5 | 2 | 1.7 | |
| Average Number of Children | 2.1 | 2.3 | |||
|
Source: Tabulations from the Nampa MIS. Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding
|
The patterns of participation among those referred are of considerable interest. As noted above, the figures in the MIS are likely to understate participation substantially, especially among those who use faith-based and/or church-related services. Only two individuals were referred from the church community. Since there are over 20 faith-based providers involved in the HFN coalition, the two church referrals in the MIS are very unlikely to reflect the actual number individuals who come to and utilize services through an HFN member of the faith-based community. According to separate HFN coalition estimates not part of the MIS, coalition members have provided services to well over 1,000 individuals since the program began; however, the MIS data show only 117 participating in a HFN service and 365 total referrals. Thus, if the estimate from a separate survey of HFN coalition members is accurate, the MIS includes at most 36 percent of those involved in HFN.
The MIS data still offer some revealing outcomes. As Table 3-3 shows, only 8 percent of those referred from the child support agency are recorded as having used a service; the participation rate among those referred from TANF is more than double this rate, but still a low 19 percent. On the other hand, of those who were referred from nongovernmental organizations or were self-referrals after hearing publicity about HFN appear to be more motivated to participate as almost two-thirds used an HFN service. These results suggest one of two possibilities. The first is that IV-D offices and to a lesser extent IV-A offices are referring a large number of people to services they choose not to use. A second possibility is that some referrals from these two agencies attend a session at faith-based organizations but are not recorded as having done so. While about half of the IV-A referrals and 38 percent of IV-D referrals were to faith-based organizations, participation rates were about as low, whether the IV-A and IV-D referrals were to secular or faith-based organizations.
| Referring Agency | Number of Referrals | Percent of Referrals Who Participated |
|---|---|---|
| Benefits (IV-A) | 155 | 19.3 |
| Child Support (IV-D) | 86 | 8.0 |
| FACS (IV-E) | 12 | 66.7 |
| Health, Criminal Justice, Military | 4 | 50.0 |
| Churches | 2 | 100.0 |
| Other | 106 | 63.2 |
| Total | 365 | 32.4 |
|
Source: Tabulations from the NAMPA MIS.
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. |
Another perspective on referral and participation patterns comes from grouping people by the type of service to which the individual was referred. As Table 3-4 shows, most referrals were to secular parenting classes (43 percent) or faith-based parenting classes (26 percent). Referral to a parenting class led to higher participation rates than referral to a marriage class (38 percent vs. 22 percent). About 60 percent of referrals went to secular organizations, with the remaining 40 percent going to faith-based organizations. Secular referrals involved a higher participation rate than did faith-based referrals (37 percent vs. 22 percent).
3.3.3 Involvement of Referrals and Participants in Child Support System
In addition to supporting families, increasing healthy marriages, and promoting responsible fatherhood, another important goal of HFN is to improve child support outcomes.
Since the IV-D system is an important source of referrals, one would expect a considerable overlap between HFN referrals, HFN participants, and those with some involvement in child support. However, the evidence from the participation rate analysis indicated that only a small percentage of referrals from the IV-D agency actually participated in an HFN activity.
| Service | Referred to Services | Participated in HFN Service | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | |
| Domestic violence | 1 | 0.3 | 0 | - |
| Faith-based fatherhood | 3 | 0.8 | 0 | - |
| Faith-based marriage maintenance | 31 | 8.5 | 7 | 6.0 |
| Faith-based marriage mentoring | 2 | 0.6 | 0 | - |
| Faith-based parenting | 94 | 25.8 | 30 | 25.6 |
| Faith-based premarital | 12 | 3.3 | 0 | - |
| Secular fatherhood | 1 | 0.3 | 0 | - |
| Secular marriage maintenance | 48 | 13.2 | 15 | 12.8 |
| Secular marriage mentoring | 2 | 0.6 | 0 | - |
| Secular parenting | 157 | 43.0 | 63 | 53.8 |
| Secular premarital | 14 | 3.8 | 2 | 1.7 |
| Total | 365 | 117 | ||
| All Referrals to Faith-based Services | 142 | 38.9 | 37 | 31.6 |
| All Referrals to Secular Services | 222 | 60.8 | 80 | 68.4 |
| Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. |
Tabulations from the matched MIS and child support data help to illustrate the relationship between HFN and IV-D. Of all individuals in the Nampa MIS (referrals), 56 percent, or 206 people, have cases in the IV-D system (see Table 3-5). Of those with cases, only one-fourth attended the service to which they were referred. The participants with child support cases mostly attended secular parenting classes. Of the 53 IV-D cases referred to faith-base parenting classes, only seven are reported to have received a service.
One key child support outcome is HFN’s ability to encourage parents to establish paternity. As of July 2005, about 25 percent of individuals in the MIS reported having established paternity, whether the individual participated in an HFN service or not. This percentage is low because it includes individuals who may have been married and thus did not need to establish paternity. Restricting the sample to the proportion of HFN cases in which the youngest child was born out of wedlock, 81 percent involved in HFN services had paternity established.
HFN might play a role in establishing child support cases among individuals referred to HFN. Although the data cannot provide evidence on causation, it does provide information on the timing of the opening of IV-D and HFN cases. The results show that, of the 206 HFN cases with a IV-D case, 16.1 were opened after they became an HFN case.
| Statistic | System total | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of participants with child support record | 206 | |
| Percentage of total participants matched in IVD (206/365) | 56% | |
| Established paternity – out of wedlock births only (n=102) | No | 18.6% |
| Yes | 81.4% | |
| Support order for the child (n=206)13 | No | 42.2% |
| Yes | 57.8% | |
| Paying child support (n=206)14 | No | 61.2% |
| Yes | 38.8% | |
| Average Amount of the order15 (n=119) | $301.72 | |
| Consistently paying full child support order amount in each of past 6 months (n=206) | 6.3% | |
| Paid full child support order amount in one of past six months (n=206) | 27.2% | |
|
Source: Tabulated data from HFN MFIS, Nampa, ID Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
|
Another important indicator is the extent to which HFN cases pay child support. One outcome measures the percent of youngest children for whom any amount of support was paid or received in the last 6 months. The results show that 39 percent of cases referred to classes by HFN received some child support during the 6-month reporting period. Among those participating in HFN, the share paying or receiving child support was just over one-third. These payments are not consistent, however. In any given month, only about one-fourth of the IV-D cases received any child support.
The extent to which noncustodial parents fully comply with the child support order captures how well IV-D agencies are able to collect legal obligations. Again, focusing on the youngest child in an HFN family also linked to a IV-D case, we examined the share of cases in which the full amount of the child support order was paid in the past 6 months. Records in which the child support order was $0 were excluded. Although 15 to 17 percent of the cases were paid in full in a typical month, the fully paid cases amount to only 6.3 percent of all relevant cases referred to classes by HFN. Thus, there is considerable room for improvement in the collection of child support for HFN cases.
3.3.4 Perspectives of Participants on HFN
To gain further perspective on HFN, the RTI/Urban Institute staff spoke with participants about their views of HFN activities during a focus group with seven HFN participants held in January 200416. The discussion covered how they became connected to services, what they thought was most effective, and what they would change if given the opportunity. Family Wellness classes had not yet started at the time the focus group was convened. Therefore, the responses of participants in this group were based on their experiences in other classes and/or counseling sessions.
Several themes emerged. First, participants said they learned about the program from a variety of sources and participated for a variety of reasons. Some said they were seeking parenting information or classes that were referred by HFN, while others said they saw fliers about HFN and its services at the WIC center or at other human services offices. Still others said they had been seeking individual counseling and were referred to HFN.
Overall, participants were quite positive about the programs in which they participated. They indicated that the sessions on improving communication were most helpful. One participant noted that prior to attending, “I was a drill sergeant to my kids. They [the class] taught me to be a consulting parent. They taught me not to yell at my kids.” Another said, “They taught me to word things differently with my significant other. They taught me that responding in an emotional manner like a child only works in the short term.” Participants praised the manner in which the services were delivered. The class sessions and counseling were described as interactive, led by facilitators who engaged participants and also shared in a helpful way from their own struggles with family life. “She made it fun,” one participant said of the facilitator, “if it isn’t fun, you aren’t going to remember things.” Another said, “It helped that the counselor was a parent. She was going through a divorce … she shared some personal stuff … she was not just lecturing us on how to do everything. I learned much more this way.”
Participants did suggest a number of ways to improve the services. Several said they would have liked more class time, indicating that 8 to 10 sessions would have been preferable. Several indicated they would like the classes to be scheduled more closely together, perhaps two sessions each week over 4 weeks rather than six weekly classes. A number of participants indicated that information on HFN’s classes and resources was not as accessible as it could be. Several said that offering babysitting on site during classes and other activities would be helpful. While they were instructed not to bring their children to sessions, many people did. They also suggested that they would like marriage counseling services to be more frequently available and more affordable. Finally, several said they would like information on counselors and facilitators that accepted Medicaid and served low-income participants.
The participants appeared to be committed to the services. Most said they only missed one class. The reasons included lack of transportation or gas, work conflicts, conflicts with other appointments such as those with court or probation officers, and forgetting the class or starting after the first class had been held.
Finally, all participants said that they had shared information with others about the ideas and issues HFN’s programs addressed. One participant, a day-care provider, said she discussed the program she participated in with the parents of the children in her care. Another suggested to her family members that they attend the program. In the words of one participant, “I guess I basically found out how much I was doing wrong. I knew there was another way, but just didn’t know how until now, [and] I’ve shared this with lots of people.”
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |