• Icon_print
  • Mail-icon
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Newsvine
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Twitter
  • Icon_join
Published October 1, 2001 by Feminista

U. S. Fatherhood Initiatives

by Trish Wilson

Control of Women and Children Under the
Guise of "Responsible Married Fatherhood"

U. S. state and federal governments have taken special interest over the past decade in the ostensibly sorry state of American fatherhood. Single mother homes have been cited as directly contributing to high crime rates, teen pregnancy, juvenile crime, juvenile delinquency, poor academic performance, and juvenile substance abuse1 despite evidence that crime2, delinquency3, and teen pregnancy4 rates have been steadily dropping for over a decade.5 Most out-of-wedlock pregnancies were to women in their twenties and thirties.6 Teen pregnancies account for only one third of all out-of-wedlock births.7 1999-2000 SAT math scores are the highest they've been since 1969.8 The highest rates of juvenile substance abuse are found in families where children are being raised by a lone biological father or a biological father and a step-mother, not in single mother homes with or without a stepfather.9

In 1996, The Department of Health and Human Services created strict welfare-to-work initiatives in order to remove poor mothers and children from the dole, all the while claiming to promote independence. Not coincidentally, political interest and promotion of the father's role, especially in poor families, emerged at the time mothers receiving public assistance were being demonized by draconian welfare reform. Also not coincidentally, most of the people affected by this trend are black and Hispanic.

Fatherhood ideologues David Blankenhorn and Wade Horn have bemoaned the what they refer to as the crisis of "fatherlessness." The National Fatherhood Initiative in particular has been instrumental in disseminating doomsday platitudes about the current state of fatherhood in this country. Blankenhorn has specifically cited the two-parent, married home with the visible and active presence of the father has head of household as the remedy for poverty, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence.10

On June 16, 1995, the same period of time during which welfare reform became implemented, President Clinton wrote a Memorandum entitled "Supporting the Role of Fathers in Families." 11 He directed "all executive departments and agencies to review every program, policy, and initiative... that pertains to families" to:

  • ensure, where appropriate, and consistent with program objectives, that they seek to engage and meaningfully include fathers;
  • proactively modify those programs that were designed to serve primarily mothers and children, where appropriate and consistent with program objectives, to explicitly include fathers and strengthen their involvement with their children;
  • include evidence of father involvement and participation, where appropriate, in measuring the success of the programs; and
  • incorporate fathers, where appropriate, in government initiated research regarding children and their families.12
The information gathered from this review was to be compiled in Vice President Al Gore's "Father To Father" Initiative and other father involvement programs.

In response to this memorandum as well as growing political exaltation of the role of father (as well as the simultaneous vilification of motherhood), the Department of Health and Human Services introduced a set of federal initiatives entitled the Responsible Fatherhood Project .13. These initiatives were created as a part of welfare reform. They operated out of the governor's offices and the Health and Human Services departments of selected states. The Benton Foundation's program KidsCampaigns sponsored these initiatives.14

The description of the purpose of these initiatives was included in the 1996 final report prepared for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. This report, entitled "Responsible Fathering: An Overview and Conceptual Framework,"15 defined "responsible fathering" as "establishing paternity, being present in the child's life (even if divorced or unmarried), sharing economic support, and being personally involved in the child's life in collaboration with the mother." 16

These programs have received bipartisan support from both the Clinton and Bush administrations. However, a closer look at the recommendations reveal that fatherhood programs have dealt insufficiently with parenting, poverty, employment, and economic issues. Proper attention is not given to the fathers' personal histories, including addictions, history of incarceration for serious crimes, character defects, domestic violence and child abuse. These programs discriminate against mothers, especially poor mothers. They denigrate family forms outside that of the traditional, two-parent married household. In particular, single and divorced mother homes are debased by the dissemination of specious "fatherlessness" statistics. These programs ignore the contributions custodial mothers have made to their families. Over and above all, they validate patriarchal mores that demean the mother's role and usurp her authority as primary caregiver by introducing a man into the family circle solely because he is the children's biological father -- and then installing that man as the head of the household.

The fathers' rights groups that were initially considered a part of this campaign were listed on the Benton Foundation's KidsCampaigns web site under the heading "Mad Dads."17 The groups cited included some of the worst examples of the fatherhood movement. One of the groups, Dads Against Discrimination, has recently been slapped by the Oregon State Bar "with a $2,000 judgment for illegally practicing law without a license and obtained a permanent injunction against the group." This is D.A.D.'s third infraction in this regard, and it may be heading for a fourth. Bill Prout, the Secretary-Treasurer of the group, claims that the group continues to practice law without a license.18

Leadership and members of several grassroots groups cited by KidsCampaigns have endorsed Father's Manifesto19, an anti-semitic, racist, homophobic, and misogynistic umbrella group for men's and fathers' rights groups. These groups include some of the KidsCampaigns "Mad Dad" groups like Fathers Rights and Equality Exchange, Coalition of Parent Support, My Child Says Daddy, Dads Against Discrimination, American Fathers Alliance (a. k. a. American Fathers Coalition and American Coalition of Fathers and Children), the Children's Rights Council, United Fathers of America, the Joint Custody Association, and the Family Guardian Network.20

These groups focused on alleged bias against men in divorce, child custody, child support, and visitation. They did not seek to promote marriage, nor did they concentrate extensively on welfare reform, as did the Fatherhood Project. Leaders of some of these groups have bemoaned Fatherhood Project focus on the collection of child support and the lack of attention paid to divorced dads.21 By the year 2001, a handful of groups from that list remained active and influential participants in the Fatherhood Projects. The two most active are the National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) and the Institute for American Values (IAV).

National Fatherhood Initiative

The National Fatherhood Initiative, originally named The National Organization of Fathers, was founded by Don Eberly in 1994. Between 1998 and 2001, conservative family foundations, primarily the Bradley and Scaife Family Foundations, provided $1,995,000 to NFI 22. Bradley and Scaife provided $240,000 to establish the group.23 The Scaife Family Foundation is behind funding the excessive public attacks on former President Bill Clinton and for promoting the over-representation of ultra-conservative views in the national media.

Both foundations showered the group with funding for a wide variety of functions, including a "National Fatherhood Tour and Ad Council Campaign" in 1995 and 1996.24 In 1998, the conservative Earhart Foundation provided $10,000 "to provided support for the preparation of a book, "The Faith Factor in Fatherhood," edited by NFI founder Don Eberly.25 Eberly has been appointed Deputy Director of the troubled White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which has been fraught with church/state conflicts.26 This office has yet to get off the ground.

Institute for American Values

David Blankenhorn, former board member of the National Fatherhood Initiative27, is the president of the Institute for American Values.28 Between 1991 and 2000, several foundations, primarily Scaife and Bradley, provided $1,360,811 to support various research projects on modern American families, including the "implications of government intervention in family policy issues."29 Reasons for funding included $40,000 on January 1, 1998 in "general support of research, publications, and public education in the areas of marriage, fatherhood, and the revitalization of civil society" (Castle Rock Foundation) and $3,000 on January 1, 1998 for "the publication and dissemination of the Institute's policy statement, "A Call for Family-Supportive Tax Reform" (Olin Foundation).30

"Fatherless America" and the House Resolution Regarding "Responsible Fatherhood"

Blankenhorn is best known for his 1995 book "Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem."31 This book has been cited in the 2000 Resolution "Sense of the House Regarding Responsible Fatherhood," created during the hearings of bills such as the Fathers Count Act, the Child Support Distribution Act, and the Responsible Fatherhood Act.32 The resolution expressed support for the "National Fatherhood Initiative, its work to inspire and equip fathers to be positively involved in raising and developing their children."33 "Fatherless America" was cited by a member of the House as "a foundation for the fatherhood movement that has surged over the last 5 years, and I am so happy that we are now about to do the business about giving some vital and needed attention to this whole question of fatherhood and what fatherhood is and what it is not in terms of our children across the country."34 In a passage that renders invalid all family forms outside that of the two-parent, heterosexual married family, the resolution stated that "as goes the American family, so goes America. The most important thing we can do is to make sure the American family is on a strong footing, and that means restoring American fatherhood."35

The irony behind this resolution was that the House members who waxed poetic about fatherhood admitted that because of their jobs, they did not spend much of their own time with their children.36 One member admitted to "weekly separations" from his two children, ages three years and nine months, respectively. He complained of always being short on time spent with his children.37 Another member revealed that " if we are going to pass resolutions like this, we have to get our own house in order first and be an example, because the people who watch us in our home towns and the people who watch us around the country say, `Well, look at them. They will pass a resolution in Congress, but what are they doing with their own families?'"38 He had confessed to spending "three days a week in the State Capitol" away from his children, but every night he would "get them on the phone and talk to each one of them on the phone."39 He would "send them a letter every month" and "schedule breakfast every quarter, every third month with each of them individually out in a restaurant with them."40 These Congressional dads who commend themselves for dealing with the Nation's business of ensuring that poor fathers are introduced into the lives of their children spend a great deal of time away from their own children, sometimes to the point of finding it necessary to schedule meals with their children into their packed business calendars.

Recommendations cited in "Fatherless America" have been implemented in fatherhood initiatives across the country since the book was written. Rather than inspire and equip fathers to become positively involved in the raising of their children, as the Resolution sought, these initiatives have fallen far short of expectations. They focus primarily on collecting child support, since the states seek reimbursement for welfare monies it distributes. The amount of child support they collect do not warrant the cost of implementation. Despite media touting of individual stories, these programs have not resulted in fathers becoming meaningfully involved with their children, nor do they enrich the lives of the mothers. The problems lie in the lack of adequate research into fatherhood, as in overlooking the realities behind family formation. Most important, the established caregiving of the mother and the needs of the children are ignored in favor of promoting vague feel-goodisms about the culture of fatherhood itself.

Feel-Goodisms and the Culture of Fatherhood

Little research on fathering has been done over the past thirty years.41 Most of what we know about fatherhood today has been derived from small, select samples involving the self-reporting of white, middle-class European American men and statements about male parenting from mothers. Little remains known about low-income men, especially minority men.42 The lack of knowledge about low-income minority men is problematic, because fatherhood programs overwhelmingly affect low-income black and Hispanic men.

Whether or not fathers are valid reporters of their own involvement remains in question. A major hurdle lies in defining what it means to be an "involved father."43 Opinions of what constitutes involved fathering differ from person to person. Hence, the lack of consistency when discussing involved fatherhood has lead to inconsistent interpretations of exactly what it is that fathers do.

Lamb et al. described three different aspects of paternal involvement: availability (the lowest level of involvement), interaction, and responsibility (the highest level of involvement).44 Despite the stereotype that today's fathers are "equal parents," 45 Lamb reveals that "paternal involvement in childrearing has remained dismally low (Lye, 1991). Fathers are available only a few hours a day, and certainly much less (roughly one-third to one-half as long) than are mothers; fathers rarely assume responsibility; and, fathers spend very little time interacting with their children, especially if they are girls."46 Tanfer and Mott supported this assertion when they found that "[t]here seems to be compelling evidence of a change in the contemporary meaning of fatherhood for men, but not so much that men have become equal partners in parenthood."47

Time spent with children is often determined through the use of the respondents personal assessments rather than on detailed dairies. Diaries, which would provide much more accuracy and insight, are laborious to maintain.48 Forsyth, Lesser, and Hubbard found that the error rate of the cognitive evaluation of survey questions is considerable.49

Political Promotion of Marriage, or Married Fatherhood?

Proposed bills such as the Fathers Count Act have sought to make grants available to public and private organizations designed to promote marriage.50 A Resolution was introduced in the House on June 12, 2000 that sought to recognize "the importance of strong marriages and the contributions that community marriage policies have made to the strength of marriages throughout the United States, as amended."51

These bills, resolutions, and literature about fatherhood written by Blankenhorn and Horn do not promote marriage per se. Married fatherhood is the desired goal. Support for marriage means installing the father as head of the household, regardless of whether or not he is the most appropriate person to hold that position. "Marriage" translates to "father's rights." David Blankenhorn frowns upon mothers who marry men other than the father of their children, citing the risk of child abuse committed by stepfathers52 and the appearance of attempting to replace the biological father with another male as reasons .53

No one questions the benefits of a happy, healthy marriage. However, the government should not be in the business of promoting something that should remain a personal choice of the individuals involved. Not only that, the government should not be in the position of choosing which man a mother will marry, which is exactly what these bills, initiatives, and resolutions propose to do. These women are encouraged to marry the fathers of their children over and above any other men who may be more appropriate and suitable for them. Not only that, fathers, by virtue of being poor, are encouraged to marry a woman because she bore his child, not because she is the most appropriate spouse for him. In fact, many men and women have married persons other than the biological parents of their children. Since these people are not likely to receive public assistance, concern for the welfare of these children living in "fatherless" homes are overlooked by ideologues like Blankenhorn and Horn.

Wade Horn on Married Fatherhood and
Public Policy Initiatives that Promote Fatherhood

Wade Horn has recently been appointed by President Bush as the new assistant secretary for children and families at the Dept. of Health and Human Services.54 He has served as Director of the National Fatherhood Initiative as well as former commissioner for Children, Youth, and Families under former President George Bush.55 This man is "responsible for welfare, Head Start, child care, child abuse, foster care and adoption."56 Horn is unhappy that "public policy has done nothing to either encourage marriage or increase marital stability."57 Notwithstanding that he refers to married fatherhood as opposed to marriage per se, available research does not show that marriage lifts the poor out of poverty.58 Neither does available research show that promoting marriage results in a reduction of the number of children growing up in (using Horn's words) "broken homes" -- including research from groups that support married fatherhood and father involvement such as the National Center on Fathers and Families.59 The unspoken insinuation is that any home other than an intact, married one is "broken." There are no reputable resources that describe programs that promote marriage that have worked.60 In fact, the marriage of unwed teens "increases the chances that additional pregnancies will occur; as a result, educational attainment and employment earnings suffer, and marital conflict and dissatisfaction are probable."61

Horn himself has admitted that his writings about welfare and marriage are his opinion. He wrote: "Our knowledge of how to encourage marriage is pretty thin."62 He believes that "if you don't do anything to encourage marriage, you don't get an increase in marriage,"63 despite the fact that no available research supports the contention that "doing something" to encourage marriage results in an increase in marriage rates.64 Although he has recommended removing tax code marriage penalties and the Earned Income Tax Credit, funding premarital education services for the poor, or the creation of "a public awareness campaign extolling the virtues of marriage," he has admitted that "there is no evidence that any of this will work."65 In fact, there is no difference in marital outcomes between couples who engaged in premarital counseling and couples who did not.66 However, he doesn't believe that lack of valid resources should prevent the government from creating public policy initiatives that support what amounts to his personal opinion of what constitutes a family. Now that he has been appointed to the DHHS, he is in a position to request federal funding to promote his personal agenda. He suggests that the American people provide tax dollars to fund his recommendations because "we'll never really know, however, unless we try."67 Wade Horn wants the American people to pay for a social experiment that he just happens to support, even though there is no evidence that his suggestions will result in anything fruitful.

David Blankenhorn and "Fatherless America"
Turning Propaganda into Public Policy

Blankenhorn's "Fatherless America" -- the book cited as the backbone for fatherhood initiatives -- supports marriage promotion as a remedy for domestic violence, child sexual abuse, and poverty.68 Once again, "marriage" refers to married fatherhood, not marriage itself. This section directly counters claims he has made about single mother homes and child sexual abuse, domestic violence, and poverty in "Fatherless America."

Married Fatherhood as the Remedy for
Child Sexual Abuse

Blankenhorn's first misrepresentation is his statement that "with each passing year, the horrifying crime of child sexual abuse is reported more often, and, apparently, is happening more often in our society." Contrary to his assessment, child abuse rates, including that of child sexual abuse, have steadily declined, primarily as a result of increased education and awareness of abuse.71 In 1998, child abuse rates were at their lowest in ten years.72 Blankenhorn misrepresents current research on child sexual abuse and jumps to the conclusion that "the spreading risk of childhood sexual abuse is directly linked to the decline of married fatherhood."73 While Blankenhorn is correct in stating that children are most at risk from "the growing presence of stepfathers, boyfriends, and other unrelated or transient males,"74 he is mistaken in his conclusion that married fatherhood would stem that tide.

There are several inconsistencies and incongruities with his married-father hypothesis that he avoids discussing. He does state that "of course, most stepfathers do not molest their stepchildren," but the statement is buried so deeply in his section about child sexual abuse that it is easily overlooked.69 "Children At Risk, the Sexual Exploitation of Female Children After Divorce," by Robin Fretwell Wilson for the Cornell Law Review, provides a great deal of valuable information that debunks Blankenhorn's propaganda. Stepparents have positive effects on children's well being. They not only provide emotional support, they also provide additional financial support. Remarriages are so common now that "nearly one-third of all currently-married people have been married at least once before."70

He makes the unfounded assumption that fathers are overwhelmingly portrayed in the media as being the person most likely to molest a child.75 However, the most widespread myth is that children are molested by a "stranger-in-a-trenchcoat."76

Blankenhorn does not address people who have children with more than one partner. When a man has fathered children with more than one woman, which woman and child should benefit from married fatherhood? Bigamy remains illegal in the United States. What if the man is already married? Adultery has not been stamped out. If a man marries the mother of one of his children, and if that woman has additional children who were fathered by other men, does Blankenhorn believe that this newly-married father will molest only his stepchildren while being a "responsible father" to his biological child? It's highly doubtful that a man has a molestation switch in his head that he turns on and off, depending on whether his child or his stepchild is present. These are problematic situations Blankenhorn has neglected to addressed.

If Blankenhorn insists that "fatherlessness" is to be cited as a direct cause for child sexual abuse, why does he avoid discussing the sexual abuse of boys? A father's absence or presence is irrelevant when it comes to the sexual abuse of boys because "boys tend to be abused outside the family sphere. Dissolution of the parental relationship does not appear to alter appreciably the risk of abuse for boys.77 Boys are more likely to be abused by "strangers, teachers, and friends"78 as opposed to family members. The nature of the sexual abuse of boys alone negates his claim that married fatherhood reduces incidences of child sexual abuse. An intact family will not make children, especially boys, immune from child sexual abuse.

"Fatherlessness" does not directly lead to child sexual abuse of girls. Dysfunction such as "gender, marital conflict, parental attachment, paternal overprotection, and parental alcoholism"79 as well as "conflicted parent-child relationships, parental substance or alcohol abuse, and emotional instability"80 are associated with increased risk of molestation.

In fact, the absence of either parent, not the father alone, increases the risk of child molestation.81 Of the few studies in existence about children in father-custody households, 58% of girls younger than 18 are shown to be at risk in father-headed households when the mother is absent for a period of time during their childhood. Finkelhorn has concluded that "missing a mother is the most damaging kind of disruption."82 The mother's death has also been predictive of child sexual abuse by someone outside the family, in part due to her lack of supervision of the child.83

While social science provides valuable contributions to family law and public policy, "social science data is susceptible to misuse by legal policy makers and authors who are unfamiliar with social science material and may give the findings undue weight, or may draw unwarranted generalizations from limited research findings."85 Blankenhorn and the House of Representatives should take those statements under consideration when recommending public policy that affects families.

It has been shown that education and awareness of abuse has resulted in today's low rates of all forms of child abuse, including child sexual abuse.85 Studies have shown that single and divorced parents are frequently unaware of the risks associated with predators who feed on their vulnerabilities.86 Rather than promote a politically popular but unfounded notion of "married fatherhood" as a means of stemming the tide of child sexual abuse, public policy should support what has already worked -- namely, increasing the education and abuse awareness of the population most vulnerable to the exploitation of their children87 -- single and divorced parents of both genders.

Married Fatherhood as the Remedy for
Domestic Violence Against Women

As was the case with child sexual abuse, Blankenhorn comes to the unbelievable conclusion that marriage reduces the risk of domestic violence against women. He begins with the erroneous assumption that lawmakers, the media, advocates for abused women, and feminists believe that there is a "causal link between marriage and violence."88 He then extrapolates that the declining marriage rate should show a concurring decline in domestic violence -- which of course is not the case. Based on this faulty premise; he claims that "as more women are living apart from husbands and families, more women are being battered by men."89 He cites marriage as a remedy for domestic violence because the number of charges made by married women are lower than the number of charges made by separated, divorced, and unmarried women.90

While male violence may be rooted in "male sexual jealousy and proprietariness,"91 it is irresponsible for him to insist that marriage acts as a buffer against violence. However, that's exactly what he does. Not only does he see married fatherhood "as the primary inhibitor of male domestic violence,"92 he blames the woman for his violence, especially if she bore his children. In leaving or divorcing her abuser, a woman risks his wrath because "he dislikes being obligated to her,"93 ostensibly in the form of child support payments, and "in part because she alone largely controls something that is important to him"94 -- namely, she most often has sole custody of their children. By removing a father from the household, Blankenhorn believes the abused woman is responsible for his rage and his abusive behavior. This mentality is highly inflammatory and insulting to abused women, and it threatens her safety and that of her children.

A Bureau of Justice study cited in the Boston Globe reported that abuse escalates over time, so older women are more at risk than younger women for more serious incidents of domestic violence, including incidents resulting in death.95 Older, married women are also more likely to have had children by their abusers, so they may be more reluctant to leave the relationship. Abuse escalates greatly once the woman leaves. If she has children, her abuser is likely to contest custody, not pay child support, or kidnap the children,96 factors she considers when deciding how to handle the abuse. There are also economic factors to consider, such as the cost of litigation as well as the additional costs of raising a child that a childless, younger abused woman does not experience.

Blankenhorn has not considered that abuse rates for married women may be lower than that for unmarried, divorced, or separated women because it is more difficult for married women with children to leave an abusive relationship than it is for women without children. Divorced and separated women were married at one time. Marriage does not stem the abusive tide, as he claims it should. The Bureau of Justice study found that "women who were separated or divorced reported higher rates of violence from partners or former partners than those who were married, widowed, or never wed."97 However, Callie Rennison, a Justice Department statistician and author of the report, "urged some caution on interpreting the statistics by marital status, saying married women may be more unwilling than others to report violent behavior."98 Horn, DHHS, and Blankenhorn should keep that advice in mind.

Married Fatherhood as the Remedy for
Child Poverty and Economic Insecurity

While it is true that "families headed by single women with children are the poorest of all major demographic groups regardless of how poverty is measured,"99 the presence of the father alone will not automatically lift these families out of poverty. Existing studies do not differentiate between single, divorced, and separated households headed by mothers. As is the case with limited research on fathering, "more basic studies and secondary analyses are needed ... to support the sweeping generalizations that are made about the impact of father absence from a relatively small core of data."100

Single-mother-headed homes are not guaranteed to be poor, nor are they guaranteed as it is assumed to be headed by mothers who have never been married. Most children brought up by single parents do well.101 The research Blankenhorn cites does not state that these children will remain poor throughout their youth. He cited David T. Ellwood's conclusion that "the vast majority of children who spend time in a single-parent home will experience poverty." He does not state how long these children live in poverty, nor does he state the conditions under which they came to live in poverty. Single mothers do have higher rates of poverty than other families, but "a substantial portion of their poverty is a consequence of marital disruption."102

While it is debatable whether or not "sex and marital status of the head of the household may be the most important determinants of poverty status for families,"102 such an assessment does not indicate that the mother must marry the father of her children in order for the family to thrive. Saul Hoffman's and Greg Duncan's research found that women's standard of living dropped the year after divorce by approximately 30%.104 Blankenhorn cited the same figure and source. However, he failed to mention that Hoffman's and Duncan's research was a correction of Lenore Weitzman's famous claim that women's living standards dropped 73% one year following divorce.105 Weitzman's figure had been used by conservatives to scare women out of leaving unhappy marriages. Blankenhorn also does not cite another important finding in Hoffman's and Duncan's research: the mother's standard of living rose five years later to surpass that of her ex-husband primarily when she remarried a man with a higher income. Her living standard rose more slowly if she did not remarry.106

Although ideologues like Blankenhorn and Horn claim that married fatherhood lifts mothers and children out of poverty, improves the mothers livelihood, and ensures well-child outcomes, the mothers do not agree with them. A study of mostly single women on workfare indicated that the women believed that "they themselves had to take primary responsibility for making ends meet and for child rearing... Marriage as a mode of support was not a preferred option. Virtually no woman believed she should marry for the sake of her children. In fact, they saw marriage as undermining their ability to care for their children. Men were simply another demand on their time... Many women had suffered stormy relationships. Domestic abuse, cheating, substance abuse, and inability of the men to hold a job were common complaints. They also felt that men contributed little to the household and, instead, competed with their children for their attention." 107 In a statement that counters Blankenhorn's bigoted claim that many single mothers "simply do not prevent their boyfriend from showing sexual interest in their daughters," 108 this report found that "other concerns [expressed by these mothers] included the safety of their children. Many women believed that men who were not the fathers of their children posed a risk of abuse, both physical and sexual.109

Solutions: What Does Not Work

Programs that have been created based on these socially and politically popular assessments of fatherhood have not shown a great deal of success. Horn has expressed disillusionment with the excessive focus of fatherhood programs on child support collection.110 However, he (with co-author Isabel Sawhill) has also acknowledged additional flaws in existing and prior fatherhood programs.111 He admits that these programs "have not been very successful at increasing employment or earnings."112 The modest increases in child support collection that has resulted from these programs do not warrant their cost. He states that these programs "may have helped"113 men in low-income communities become better fathers, as if he is not sure whether or not these programs have helped at all. "May have helped" is not sufficient reason for taxpayers to fund questionable initiatives. In addition, he states that "most evidence to date suggests that these ties are temporary and seldom lead to the kind of lifelong commitment to raising children that occurs within marriage."114

So, why form these programs at all? There are several reasons. They provide funding to the states through HHS fatherhood initiatives. They provide a simplistic means for states to dispose of poor women and children who receive public assistance by transferring their dependence from the states to the biological fathers. They appeal to the personal agendas, biases, and prejudices of ideologues like Blankenhorn and Horn, and because they are politically popular, not because they have any basis in fact. It has been determined that religious faith and Christian values do not guarantee that the relationships will succeed.115 Previously cited research has determined that marriage does not guarantee that the children will thrive, nor does marriage guarantee that families will rise out of poverty. Horn and Sawhill admit that research suggests that marriages between unwed teens are "particularly unstable." The previously cited statements from workfare mothers describe that instability in glaring detail. Horn himself noted that "70 percent of births to teenage girls were fathered by men 20 years of age or older."116 However, the vast majority of teen births were to 18 and 19 year old girls.117 Although births to 15 year olds were substantially lower than births to older girls, the Urban Institute found that 40% of births to fifteen year old girls were fathered by substantially older men.118

Mothers on welfare will not improve their living conditions solely by getting a job. Although welfare-to-work/workfare programs require mothers to work increasingly longer hours outside the home, even when their children are very young, "child poverty rates are nevertheless relatively insensitive to increases in parental employment."119 Horn and Sawhill acknowledge these serious drawbacks. The solution is not so much requiring mothers to get a job, but ensuring that "a job that pays well enough to lift the family (and its children) out of poverty."120 However, Horn and Sawhill do not support such a recommendation. They wish to see more "meaningful conversation about marriage."

The Bigger They Are, The Harder They Fall:
Parent's Fair Share

The largest and most extensively studied of the fatherhood programs to date is Parent's Fair Share (PFS)121, which was "a seven-site test of programs that provide employment and training and other services to noncustodial parents (usually fathers) who are unemployed and unable to meet their child support obligations for their children who are receiving welfare."122

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) has analyzed PFS. The vast majority of participants were black or Hispanic. Manpower has found that, despite some increases in child support collection, PFS has not improved the fathers' employment and earnings, nor has it resulted in fathers becoming more active in their children's lives in a healthy manner. These fathers had serious problems of their own: "70% of the PFS fathers have been arrested on charges unrelated to child support. ... About half lacked a high school diploma. ... Only 20 percent had participated in any education or training program in the year before referral to the program. ... At best, the fathers had worked at a series of short-term, low-wage jobs. ... Many lacked stable housing, relying on friends and relatives for a place to stay and moving on when they wore out their welcome. At times some were homeless, living in their cars, in public spaces, or in shelters."123 Personal assessments from the fathers indicated that they "seemed to genuinely care about and wanted to be involved with their children," but they took issue with the excessive focus on collecting child support.124 No data is available from Parents Fair Share regarding whether father involvement increased child well-being. The primary conclusion is that programs like PFS do not achieve adequate results worthy of the money spent on them.

Grants and Programs For Incarcerated and Previously -Incarcerated Fathers

On September 28, 2001 Health and Human Services secretary Tommy Thompson announced the award of "more than $1.8 million in research and demonstration grants to 12 states to support innovative programs for strengthening and improving the child support program."125 Those grants, which have been praised by Wade Horn, include services to incarcerated and previously-incarcerated fathers.

Despite its own literature stating that there is no direct link between marriage, father involvement, and well-child outcomes, the National Center on Fathers and Families has scheduled a Roundtable Series devoted to father incarceration for November, 2001.126 An announcement of the Roundtable noted that "well over 90 percent of incarcerated adults are men; more than 63 percent of men in federal prisons and nearly 55 percent of men in state prisons are fathers of children under 18 (Mumola, 2000)." Recidivism rates are very high: "more than two-thirds of inmates will be re-arrested within three years of their release." NCOFF points out that problems experienced in single mother homes are magnified when the father is incarcerated. It notes that "[f]ather incarceration is directly linked to negative outcomes for children and families, as well as to intergenerational patterns of risk, poor schooling, and father absence."

However, rather than express concern for the children and women repeatedly exposed to men with prison records, NCOFF laments the lack of studies that focus on fathers in the criminal justice system, in particular studies illustrating "the extent to which current prison efforts create mechanisms to help fathers re-connect with their children post-incarceration." The answer to pathology allegedly caused by "single mother homes" is to introduce dad as head of the household, no matter how inappropriate his presence may be. NCOFF wants to ensure that dads with prior criminal records and dads currently incarcerated get their time with their children. Conferences such as this one give the impression that public policy makers believe that a dad -- any dad, even one with a serious criminal history -- is better for children than no dad at all. NCOFF is less concerned with children's safety than it is with reuniting fathers with their children -- regardless of their criminal backgrounds.

The children's welfare and that of their mothers are not paramount considerations in these kinds of programs. Child support collection and the fathers' access to his children, regardless of his background and the appropriateness of contact, are of utmost importance.

Solutions: What Does Work
The U. S.: "Welfare Makes A Difference"

In 1999, a group of women gathered in Washington, D. C. for the "Welfare Makes A Difference" public information campaign.127 These were influential and powerful political and professional women who had at one time been on welfare. They held WMAD to combat stereotypes about welfare in preparation for upcoming elections and the reauthorization of the federal welfare reform act. WMAD sought to "document the experiences of parents who have received welfare and collect their recommendations for improving the system." All participants resoundingly agreed that "we need to move away from containing poverty to ending it."128 Welfare policy should seek to end poverty, not merely reduce caseloads.

Recommended ways of achieving that end included "providing adequate income assistance based on need, allowing access to education and training, and providing protection from domestic violence and safe and affordable health and child care."129 It also hoped to establish more realistic time limits, especially for people who need long term assistance. One participant summed up the conference with a sentiment shared by many of the women. Referring to herself, she said, "my 7-year-old daughter lives with a woman who's professionally and financially successful. For me, and for my family, welfare made a difference."130

Prior to the 1996 increases in work loads and hours placed on mothers on workfare, it was easier for these mothers to finish their high school educations, obtain post-secondary degrees, and achieve real economic independence.131 Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California spoke at the WMAD conference. 132[Ibid] She thanked the welfare safety net that protected her and her children more than 30 years ago when he husband left her. Without public assistance, she would not have been able to properly feed, clothe, and house herself on her children on her secretary's salary of $580 per month. Woolsey has been critical of the changes in welfare reform. Increasing workfare demands places burdens on mothers receiving public assistance, especially those who struggle to remain in school. "That was quite a trip from welfare to Congress," Woolsey said. "All across the country you hear stories like mine--women abandoned by their husbands who have made better lives for themselves and their families because of the support they received through the welfare system."133

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-California, also spoke at the conference. While on welfare prior to 1996, she had earned a master's degree in social work. "You can't just say we're ending welfare today, go to work tomorrow," said Lee. "You've got to have that transition, you've got to provide support mechanisms for women who need transportation, child care, housing, substance and alcohol abuse services, relief from domestic violence, as well as education and job-training opportunities."134 In the apt words of Jillyn Stephens, who used college as a path out of poverty as a single parent with two children, "poverty does not have to be a chronic condition for women and children."135

The U. K.: The National Council for One Parent Families

The National Council for One Parent Families is "the leading national organization representing lone parents and their children in England and Wales."136 Founded in 1918, it was originally called "The National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child." 137 NCOPF provides information for single parents. It offers help and support to other groups that work with lone parents (single parents), and it is a leading voice in improving policies and services as well as challenging single mother stereotypes.138

NCOPF wants to see public policy that more directly on "meeting more of the direct costs of children" as well as acknowledge the "indirect costs of children by valuing unpaid caring work." It also seeks to develop a "system of guaranteed child maintenance payments (balancing public and private responsibilities and further promoting return to work), and "tackling low or unequal pay and other steps to help lone parents be better-off in paid work." It advocates pension and benefits reforms that recognize the contributions of lone parents and to tackle the "low-paid poverty trap." J. K. Rowling, who had struggled on public assistance until writing the world-famous Harry Potter series, is an ambassador for NCOPF.139

Problems experienced by U. S. single parents occur worldwide: lack of childcare, little support for working mothers, and low income. the U. K. Housing Green Paper sought to address housing problems with its paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All."140 Although the working families tax credit (the U. K. version of the U. S. Earned Income Tax Credit) provided substantial gains for single parents, much of that was lost with the housing benefit (the U. K. version of U. S. public subsidized housing).

The Green Paper proposed that single parents should be able to earn more before their housing benefits are reduced. NCOPF took the opportunity to point out that "one-parent households often experience downward housing mobility following separation or divorce and are often housed in a poorer standard of accommodation. This is due to poverty, lack of housing stock and the allocation policies of housing authorities. However, lone parents need the same size and standard of accommodation as other families. The Green Paper proposes a new system of housing allocations that gives more choice to existing and prospective tenants and also plans to extend priority housing to those fleeing harassment or domestic violence. We agreed with this, but argued for policies to ensure that lone parents are not offered more restricted choices than others through bad practice and that the new system should be carefully piloted to ensure best practice. We agreed with Shelter that we need core national standards and a common system of monitoring to ensure fair allocations."141

OCOPF has a considerably different view of fatherhood than that promoted by current U. S. public policy initiatives. The group encourages fathers to become responsible for their children, but it acknowledges that "the automatic extension of parental responsibility might not be the best way to go about achieving this."142 In 1996, nearly 42% of births by unmarried parents were registered by parents who lived apart, most of them being sole registrants. These women chose to have sole responsibility because "there may be good reasons why such a lone parent believes that it is not in the best interests of the child for someone else to have parental responsibility. The father may be reluctant to become involved, have little contact with the child or may be unknown to the child. In these circumstances the resident parent may wish to take things slowly and assess whether contact is in the best interests of the child. She may be keen to encourage involvement, but needs time to establish herself as a parent before introducing someone else into the picture."143

OCOPF values the contributions of mothers to society, and it seeks to assist rather than condemn those mothers who need public assistance to raise their children. It does not endorse introducing a man into the household solely because he is the biological father of the children, nor does it endorse dubious claims about "fatherlessness." It urges the establishment of programs that enable mothers to truly rise out of poverty and gain true financial and personal independence. A content and healthy mother benefits the children she raises. They thrive in her care.

No Solution: Why What Does Work Is Not Being Implemented

Economic, child-care, and educational incentives for mothers on welfare have been very successful. So why does U. S. welfare reform ignore those types of programs in favor of initiatives that focus on the collection of child support, workfare, father involvement, and married fatherhood? Public policy initiatives refuse to create programs that assist single and divorced mothers in establishing true economic independence. While conferences are held and HHS funding is provided to ensure that incarcerated fathers have access to their children, poor mothers are told to "dumpster dive" to save money.144 Mothers and their children are being shunted from dependence on the state to dependence on a man solely because he fathered her children.

Horn and Sawhill want to reform the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is the largest and most effective of the antipoverty measures, so that it does not punish low-income couples who choose to marry145 -- notwithstanding that such a reform would punish mothers who choose not to marry. Horn had originally supported the discriminatory notion that "needy married couples be given priority in terms of material and financial benefits and programs--over needy but unmarried people."146 In a 1997 paper he had written for the Hudson Institute, he "advocated putting married couples ahead of unmarried parents and couples when it came to other government benefits such as Head Start, education aid, housing and job training."147 He wrote: "If we want to revitalize marriage in low-income neighborhoods, we will have to reverse the current preference for single-parent households and favor married couples."148

Due to political pressure during his confirmation hearings for his public policy position with the Dept. of Health and Human Services, he has rejected that position, saying in a prepared statement that "it was neither a viable or helpful recommendation."149 Women's groups have greeted his change of heart with skepticism. The Feminist Majority Foundation's Eleanor Smeal worried that the change of heart was due to the confirmation hearings.150 He continues to endorse politically popular but untenable married fatherhood over other incentives that have a proven track record for lifting poor families out of poverty.

One reason for all of this is the desire to establish the father as the God-ordained head of the household, yet there is another more insidious reason. The exaltation of fatherhood alongside the simultaneous vilification of motherhood is clearly explained by Cabrera and Evans of the Center for Poverty Research, when they wrote that "the goal of welfare reform to encourage self-sufficiency in poor families might have unintended consequences for the men attached to these families. Although welfare reform affects mothers, for better or worse, it has the potential of leaving men behind. As a result, mothers might become economically self-sufficient and estranged from fathers, while fathers may lose all opportunities for positive involvement with their children."151 The overriding message is that the government should not assist poor mothers so that they are able to care for themselves and their children on their own if the end result will be that fathers will feel left out. It's better to keep mothers dependent than to risk the loss of "father involvement," even if the father leaves quite a bit to be desired. Those who endorse fatherhood programs most fear that mothers may someday no longer need fathers if they are able to economically support themselves and their children, even though there is no evidence that mothers would turn away good men.


1. Jewish World Review March 22, 1999. Fatherhood Hype. By Dr. Wade F. Horn

2. Sung, Ellen. What's Responsible for the Dropping Crime Rate? Tuesday, October 19, 1999. voxcap.com

3. Mahony, Rhona, Divorce, Nontraditional Families, and Its Consequences for Children citing to Cherlin, et al., Science, 1991, June 7, 252 (5011), pp.1386-89

4. Furstenberg, Jr., F. F. & Harris, K. M. (1993). When fathers matter/why fathers matter: The impact of paternal involvement on the offspring of adolescent mothers. In A. Lawson & D. L. Rhode (Eds.), The politics of pregnancy: Adolescent sexuality and public policy (pp. 189-215). New Haven: Yale University Press.

5. Sung, Ellen. Ibid.

6. Kristin A. Moore, Angela Romano, and Cheryl Oakes, "Facts at a Glance," Child Trends, October 1996.

7. Ibid.

8. Figures from College Entrance Examination Board, Princeton, NJ. Article 08/30/2000 Boston Globe, A01.

9. Johnson, Hoffman, and Gerstein (1986), on the effects of family structure on adolescent substance abuse, data from 1995 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.

10. Blankenhorn, David. "Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem."

11. Clinton, William Jefferson. The White House. Washington, June 16, 1995. "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Subject: Supporting the Role of Fathers in Families."

12. Ibid.

13. Responsible Fatherhood Initiative. "Fathering: The Man and The Family, The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) report of its initial review and plan of action." October 16, 1995.

14. Benton Foundation Projects. KidsCampaigns: Helping America Act on the Behalf of Children. Benton Foundation. 134 Eye Street, NW, 12th Floor, Washington, D. C. 20006

15. Doherty, William, Kounesky, Edward F., Erickson, Martha Farrell. "Responsible Fathering: An Overview and Conceptual Framework," University of Minnesota, September, 1996.

16. Ibid.

17. Benton Foundation Projects. KidsCampaigns: Helping America Act on the Behalf of Children. Benton Foundation. 134 Eye Street, NW, 12th Floor, Washington, D. C. 20006. www.benton.org. Original link to "Mad Dads" header "We're on the side of fathers on their families" was http://www.kidscampaigns.org/Whoseside/maddads.html.

18. Budnick, Nick. NEWS STORY-THE LAW. "Dueling Dads: The state bar spanks a Portland fathers' rights group for playing lawyer without a license. An internal rift has prompted the state bar to take another look at the conduct of Dads Against Discrimination." Willamette Week, Willamette, Oregon. July 18, 2001

19. Note: Fathers' Manifesto frequently changes servers. Use of a search engine may locate new domains should Manifesto move.
Father's Manifesto home page:
Signatories to the Fathers' Manifesto:
Also see Normalvanbreucher, Janet. "Stalking Through The Courts" for a concise list of leaders and members of the fathers' rights movement who are Manifesto signatories, including those originally cited by KidsCampaigns. http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/FRtactic.html

20. Father's Manifesto signatory pages. Ibid.

21. "No Happy Fathers Day for Non-Custodial Fathers, DOR "Responsible Fatherhood" event at Statehouse mocks fatherhood; Fatherhood Coalition to hold counter demonstration Tuesday.' Press Release. June 13, 2000.

22. Media Transparency. Grant Data Matrix for the National Fatherhood Initiative for the years 1998 through 2001.

23. Ibid. Scaife provided $40,000 on 1/1/94 for the "start-up of a new organization."Bradley provided $100,000 on 4/11/94 and the same amount on 8/10/94 in order "to support the establishment of the National Organization of Fathers."

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. O'Connor, Stephen. "Truth About When Children Relied on Faith-Based Agencies," The New York Times, May 26, 2001. AND Allen, Mike and Milbank, Dana. Washington Post. July 12, 2001.

27. David Blankenhorn: NFI Chairman of the Board. KidsCampaigns profile of NFI. 1998. The Benton Foundation. Also NFI literature and web site. The National Fatherhood Initiative is located in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

28. David Blankenhorn: President of IAV. KidsCampaigns profile of both NFI and IAV. 1998. The Benton Foundation. Also IAV literature and web site. The Institute for American Values is located in New York City. 10023.

29. Media Transparency. Grant Data Matrix for the Institute for American Values for the years 1991 through 2001.

30. Ibid.

31. Blankenhorn, David. "Fatherless America."

32. Resolution: Sense of the House Regarding Responsible Fatherhood, House of Representatives, June 19, 2000.

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid. statements by Mr. Wu.

38. Ibid, statements by Mr. Souder (Indiana).

39. Ibid, statements by Mr. Souder (Indiana)

40. Ibid, statements by Mr. Souder (Indiana)

41. Cabrera, Natasha J., Tamis-LeMonda, Catherine S., Lamb, Michael E., Boller, Kimberly. "Measuring Father Involvement in the Early Head Start Evaluation: A Multidimensional Conceptualization." Presented at the National Conference on Health Statistics, August 2 - 3, 1999, Washington, D. C.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. Lamb, M. E. & Oppenheim, D. (1989). Fatherhood and father-child relationships: Five years of research. In S. H. Cath, A. Gurwitt, & L. Gunsberg (Eds.), Fathers and their families (pp. 11-26). Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

45. Thompson, Diana. "Fathers Rights Aren't Just for Fathers." Executive Director, American Coalition for Fathers and Children/ President of ACFC California Chapter. Press release for ACFC sent to the editor of Fathers and Family Magazine. Also see Kuhn, Richard and Guidubaldi, John."Custody Problems and Divorce Rates in the United States." Prepared for 11th Annual Conference of the Children's Rights Council October 23-26, 1997. Washington, D.C. The Children's Rights Council.

46. Lamb, Ibid.

47. Koray Tanfer, Battelle Memorial Institute; Frank Mott, Ohio State University; "The Meaning of Fatherhood," Prepared for NICHD Workshop "Improving Data on Male Fertility and Family Formation" at the Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., January 16-17, 1997

48. Lamb, Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. HR 3073 RFS;"Fathers Count Act of 1999;" 106th CONGRESS; 1st Session; H. R. 3073; IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. November 16, 1999. Received, November 19, 1999

51. H. Res. 280. Recognizing Importance of Strong Marriages for a Strong Society (House of Representatives - June 12, 2000)

52. Blankenhorn, David. Ibid.

53. Ibid.

54. Kleder, Martha. "Bush Appoints Fatherhood Proponent," Washington, D. C., correspondent. AND Meckler, Laura. "New Welfare Chief Promotes Marriage," Associated Press. September 23, 2001.

55. KidsCampaigns profile of the National Fatherhood Initiative. 1998. The Benton Foundation.

56. Meckler, Laura. Ibid.

57. Horn, Wade F. "Doing Something to Boost Marriages," Jewish World Review, October 26, 2000.

58. Daniel T. Lichter and David J. Eggebeen, Population Research Institute, 601 Oswald Tower, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 (U.S.A.) The effect of parental employment on child poverty (p. 633-645)

59. Jordan. Will J., National Center on Fathers and Families, Role Transitions: A Review of the Literature, University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, 3700 Walnut Street, Box 58 Philadelphia, PA 19104-6216, 8/25/97

60. Ibid.

61. Ibid.

62. Horn, Wade F. "Doing Something to Boost Marriages," Jewish World Review, October 26, 2000.

63. Horn, Wade F. Ibid.

64. Welfare Waivers and Nonmarital Childbearing, research by Ann Horvath-Rose and H. Elizabeth Peters

65. Horn, Wade F. "Doing Something to Boost Marriages," Jewish World Review, October 26, 2000.

66. Sullivan, K.T., & Bradbury, T.N. (1997). Are premarital prevention programs reaching couples at risk for marital dysfunction? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 65 (1), 24-30.

67. Horn, Wade F. "Doing Something to Boost Marriages," Jewish World Review, October 26, 2000.

68. Blankenhorn, David. "Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem," 1995. Chapter: "Fatherless Society." "Domestic Violence Against Women:" pgs. 32 - 39 ; "Child Sexual Abuse:" pgs. 39 - 42; "Child Poverty and Economic Insecurity:" - pgs. 42 - 45

69. Blankenhorn, David. "Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem," 1995. Chapter: "Fatherless Society." "Child sexual abuse:' pgs. 39 - 42

70. Wilson, Robin Fretwell "CHILDREN AT RISK: THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF FEMALE CHILDREN AFTER DIVORCE," Cornell Law Review, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 251, January, 2001.

71. Ibid.

72. Ibid.

73. Blankenhorn, David. "Fatherless America." pgs. 39 - 42

74. Ibid.

75. Ibid.

76. Wilson, Ibid.

77. Ibid.

78. Ibid.

79. Ibid..

80 Ibid.

81. bid.

82. Ibid

83. Ibid.

84. Ibid.

85. Ibid.

86. Ibid.

87. Ibid.

88. Blankenhorn, David. "Fatherless America." Chapter: "Fatherless Society." "Domestic Violence Against Women." pgs. 32 - 39

89. Ibid.

90. Ibid.

91. Ibid.

92. Ibid.

93. Ibid.

94. Ibid.

95. Loven, Jennifer. "Study finds youth adds to domestic attack risk. Homicide most likely in the middle years." The Boston Globe, October 29, 2001.

96. White, Ann C., The Florida Bar Journal, Vol LXVIII, No. 9, citing Hansen, Marsali, and Michele Harway, Battering and Family Therapy 175 (1993); Grieg, Geoffrey L. and Rebecca Hegar, "Parents Whose Children Are Abducted by the Other Parent: Implications for Treatment," 19 American Journal of Family Therapy 215, 221 (1991); Zorza Joan, "Protection for Battered Women and Children," 27 Clearing House Rev. 1437 (1994).

97. Loven, Jennifer. Ibid.

98. Ibid.

99. Blankenhorn, David. "Fatherless America." Chapter: "Fatherless Society." "Child Poverty and Economic Insecurity." pgs. 42 - 45

100. Gadsden, Vivian L. and Marcia Hall, National Center on Fathers and Families. Intergenerational Learning: A Review of the Literature.

101. U.S. government census statistics 1998; DHHS, "Percentage Distribution of Children in United States by Number of Parents in Household.

102. McLanahan, S., & Booth, K. (1989). Mother-only families: Problems, prospects, and politics. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51 (3), 557-580.

103. Blankenhorn, David. "Fatherless America."

104. Duncan, Greg and Hoffman, Saul. "What Are The Economic Consequences of Divorce?" "Demography, 25," No. 4. November, 1988. Pg. 641. See also Duncan, Greg and Hoffman, Saul. "Economic Consequences of Marital Instability" "Horizontal Equity, Uncertainty and Economic Well-Being." 1985. pgs. 427 - 471.

105. Weitzman, Lenore."The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America." 1985. pgs. 358- 362.

106. Duncan, Greg and Hoffman, Saul. "A Reconsideration of the Economic Consequences of Marital Dissolution," "Demography, 22 (1985); 485.

107. Ellen K. Scott, Kathryn Edin, Andrew S. London, and Joan Maya Mazelis. "Welfare Reform and the Work-Family Tradeoff," for the working paper "My Children Come First."

108. Blankenhorn, David. "Fatherless America."

109. Scott et al. Ibid.

110. Horn, Wade. "President's Program for Fathers Misses Mark," Jewish World Review, March 16, 2000.

111. Horn, Wade F. and Sawhill, Isabel V. "Making Room For Daddy: Fathers, Marriage and Welfare Reform." To appear in The New World of Welfare: Shaping a Post-TANF Agenda for Policy.

112. Ibid.

  • Icon_print
  • Mail-icon
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Newsvine
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Twitter
  • Icon_join

Stay Informed

Privacy Policy