EVENTS

Date:	Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Time:	9:00 AM -- 4:00 PM
Location:	Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI

WASHINGTON, JUNE 19, 2009--Poverty is inextricably linked with low work levels. In 2007, among all adults who worked, only 6 percent were poor. For men aged sixteen to fifty, 50 percent of those who were poor did not work. Although welfare reform of the 1990s focused on increasing employment levels of mothers with children, little has been done for men who do not work. Who are these men and can we put them to work? At a conference at the American Enterprise Institute on May 27, 2009, visiting scholar Lawrence M. Mead discussed how we can create "welfare reform for men" by comprehensively reforming child support and prison reentry programs to require employment among low-income men.

Both cultural and economic reasons explain the men's work problem. In his introduction, Mead said that "the economic approach speaks in terms of certain large changes in the economy, globalization, rising inequality that reduce the relative wages of unskilled men," while the cultural approach "says that falling work levels primarily reflect a breakdown of work discipline." The right way forward, he explained, considers "economic structure, particularly in dealing with low wages, but to deal with lack of all employment we must be prepared to require work."

Since many poor men are child support defaulters or ex-offenders who have been incarcerated, Mead convened experts from the states that have pioneered successful employment programs in child support and corrections policy. State and local administrators shared their experiences creating programs to start a dialogue on how best to get these men into sustained employment. Mead urged that the central focus of child support and corrections agencies be turned toward employment--essentially creating a work requirement--since employment is a strong predictor of stability among men. 

"Getting these men to work is a crucial aspect of alleviating poverty," Mead noted. While "welfare reform was an effort to drive women away from the government, in the men's case, the movement has to go the other way. . . . Men have to come towards government, need to accept a relationship with the official system where they work in legitimate jobs, pay taxes, pay child support, and in turn, we help them out."

Mead also presented preliminary results from a survey of the states to identify existing men's work programs. The findings indicate that the landscape for employment programs aimed at low-income men--particularly men who are non-custodial parents or have been incarcerated--is tangled, with emerging, closing, and active programs. Many programs exist, but most are small and largely detached from the mainstream child support and criminal justice systems. They seldom have experimental evaluations and administrators are often left to create programs from scratch without collaboration. Federal action is needed to help scale up such programs to meet the broader needs of poor men.

Child Support

Child support enforcement has improved its ability to collect wages of non-custodial parents automatically, but there are still many nonpaying obligors. One cause is child support agencies' inability to encourage and require employment among men. In fact, child support can actually deter men from gaining legitimate employment because, as Mead explained, "getting a job can mean being found!"

Creating an employment program through child support is crucial to reducing poverty because working has systemic effects: More men working translates into increased collections for child support, which ultimately means fewer women on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Lisa Marks of Milwaukee County Child Support Enforcement noted, "child support is where the men are. TANF was where the women were, but child support is how you focus on the men."
According to the survey, ten out of thirty states have work programs of some kind associated with child support, and most of these programs are mandatory--that is, nonpaying men are referred to them by judges, and there are penalties for not participating.

But child support employment programs are not easy to create. Successful program generally show these features:

• First, state agencies must perform their original missions well. Michael Hayes, who runs a particularly successful employment program in Texas called Non-Custodial Parents Choices (NCP) Choices stressed using agencies' strengths. In Texas, child support can identify defaulters, the courts can decide what to do with defaulters, and workforce agencies can deliver employment services to defaulters. NCP Choices harnesses these abilities: child support finds defaulters and sends them to court, where the judge provides three options: pay child support, go to jail, or participate in an employment program. If the father chooses the latter, workforce agencies have representatives in the courtroom who immediately work with the defaulter. The workforce agency then performs its specialty: finding employment and placing men in jobs. Partnering among agencies mutually enhances their abilities to perform their primary missions.
• Second, participation must be mandatory and enforced by the courts. Judge Kristin Ruth of North Carolina, a pioneer of Child Support Courts, explained that a partnership between the courts and community-based organizations "facilitates the delivery of employment services" to the men in need and provides a cheaper alternative to putting them in jail. A work requirement essentially mandates the men to show up and receive help. Hayes explained that in Texas, they tried the "if you build it they will come" approach, and it did not work. Successful programs need a "help but hassle" approach that provides employment services with immediate sanctions for those who fail to comply.
• Third, Marks explained the need for a "human side." She manages the largest child support caseload in the state of Wisconsin, yet has excellent collections rates--due mostly to rebranding child support to gain the trust of low-income men. Marks explained that "men knew where to go to get help," and she has built "trust over time" with an "open and approachable staff." Gaining the trust of low-income men is essential to any effort that will be successful in getting them back to work.

Prison Reentry

There is a strong correlation between unemployment and recidivism--89 percent of men who violate probation or parole are unemployed at the time of the violation. Recidivism has broad effects on poverty, as many ex-offenders--some studies showing numbers as high as 70 percent--are noncustodial parents who owe child support. Though it is common for corrections agencies to have an "elaborate parole system" that involves case management, "that system has not evaluated well [and] doesn't reduce recidivism," Mead explained. Reentry programs must "shift the focus from public safety to employment."

The statewide survey found employment programs in twenty of twenty-seven states completed. The programs are myriad in size, scope, structure, and funding sources. These findings, coupled with presentations from administrators of innovative reentry programs, suggest the necessary elements of a successful program:

• First, job placement must happen quickly after men leave prison, and, to achieve this, work programs must be mandatory. Finding a job is priority number one for most ex-offenders. As Mindy Tarlow of the Center for Employment Opportunities explained, "when they come home from prison, you have to meet people where they are, and most people coming home from prison want to work." Most offenders violate probation or parole within months of their release. They are particularly vulnerable right after release--as Erin Jacobs of ComAlert noted, it is "key to engage parolees before they return to old practices." Job placement should be the primary focus, with services such as vocational training, child support modifications, and drug abuse programs included.
• Second, programs must have political support from the highest level to gain legitimacy. Reducing recidivism is a bipartisan issue currently gaining traction in Congress with Senator Jim Webb's National Criminal Justice Commission Act. The state level is equally important. Jeff Padden, who helped design the Michigan Prison ReEntry Initiative, explained that a major component of their program was support from Governor Jennifer Granholm. This gave his program legitimacy but still allowed him to be innovative and flexible at the local level. Jacobs noted the importance of having the District Attorney's office on board for ComAlert, as "support from law enforcement adds legitimacy."
• Third, programs must be broadened. While the Center for Employment Opportunities and ComAlert are both innovative programs, they serve only 2,000 and 350 offenders per year, respectively. Programs exist around the country, but they are generally very small and cannot meet the need of all ex-offenders returning to the workforce. Programs must be institutionalized within state departments of corrections and scaled up to meet larger populations of men.

Difficulties to Scaling

Vicki Turetsky of the Center for Law and Social Policy touched on the importance of scaling. "If we're going to go in the direction of providing services for men to get jobs and perhaps also to strengthen family relationships," she said, "you need to build statewide capacity." In both child support and prison reentry, there are serious barriers to building up programs to meet the larger needs of men. Most successful programs rely on intensive case management, which means each caseworker handles only a small number of men. In order to broaden mandatory employment programs, a massive increase in case managers is required, and their focus must be on employment.

Additionally, the jurisdictions of agencies involved (i.e. child support and work force agencies) often do not coincide. Hayes had to overcome these differences in developing NCP Choices. "It was hard because workforce and child support regions do not line up. Now, try to mix in judges--crazy." In Hayes' case, NCP Choices started with pilot programs that were covered by expanding the workforce board areas. Child support and the workforce agencies worked with the courts to further define their jurisdictions. NCP Choices also used technological collaboration--creating a joint computer database to foster close contact and streamline communication between agencies. Now, when the child support agency finds a defaulter, the courts and workforce agencies know immediately.

In the survey of state programs, one universal impediment to reform faced by state administrators was budget cuts. Most states simply do not have the money to tackle reform singlehandedly. Meaningful and comprehensive reform will require money from the federal level. Mead's initial estimates the cost at approximately $5 billion--"peanuts in these current times." There are also savings that offset costs--since, as Ruth shared, increased work "pours money back into the system," reducing dependency costs per men and increasing child support collections. In Texas, for every man involved in NCP Choices, there was on average a 17 percent decrease in TANF enrollment among the corresponding welfare mothers.

Funding sources for existing programs are myriad. Sources for child support programs currently include Office of Child Support Enforcement grants, 1115 grants, state child support budgets, TANF money, Department of Labor grants, and Workforce Investment Act money. For prison reentry, funding sources include but are not limited to state criminal justice, Justice Department grants, Labor Department Grants, Prison Reentry Initiative grants, and Serious and Violent Offenders Reentry Initiative grants. Each funding source has limitations on which population of men may be served.

Mead summarized implementation challenges based on visits to six states: Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin.  There is a clearer political support for work programs in child support than in criminal justice. Both child support and criminal justice systems are complicated, with many agencies involved in running work programs. In child support, judges play an especially important role. They can either an obstacle and a resource for these programs.

Policy Recommendations

Turestky said that there is "growing consensus that government ought to be in the business of worrying about men and women." But, Mead added, "no one has yet conceived of the idea that we can require all of these men to work." Any additional policy must enforce a work requirement. Mead offered several national policy recommendations:

Create work requirements for men who are already obligated to work: child support defaulters and ex-offenders on parole. The primary focus should be work. This will also require other services like vocational training and drug abuse treatment (a "help but hassle" model).

• For child support employment programs, Social Security Title IV D funding should be allowed for work programs for defaulters, subject to participation requirements as in TANF.
• In criminal justice, continue project grant funding but shift toward programs run by state agencies, not NGOs.
• Create a larger wage subsidy--similar to the Center for Employment Opportunity's incentives--for low-paid men, provided they work full-time and pay child support judgments.
• Conduct experimental evaluations of employment programs in child support and prison reentry to learn more about what is effective.
  

In both child support and criminal justice, work programs have a long way to go before they can meet the broader need of low-income men. There is a movement out there to expand these program, but Mead noted that it "needs greater ambition--to expect all nonworking men to work . . . These men are indispensible; we can't do without them." Increased employment among them would transform the inner city--decreasing recidivism, increasing child support collections and family interaction, and ultimately reducing poverty.

--JON FLUGSTAD

• Video, audio, and event materials