Federal Funding
  1. Direct Grants - $75 million/yr. $75/mil marriage promotion. Using TAGGS, hhs grant search, grants given to:
    • Supervised visit/Mediation/counseling centers many run by father's rights groups ref. CRC newsletter
    • State and local court administration
    • Fatherhood groups
    No abuse knowledge ref. GAO report

  2. Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) block grant given to states Maintenance of Effort (MOE) 75% state match
    • 25 states use for fatherhood programs ref. Fatherhood Initiatives
    • Reported as "formation of 2 parent families"
    • Total spent: 2001 - $119 million; in 2012 - $283 million
    • 2012, States with high levels included: Connecticut ($22,926,619); Georgia ($12,382,614); Maryland ($35,760,351); Michigan ($27,939,513); Virginia ($48,438,723); Wisconsin ($12,948,772); and, the highest, Louisiana ($99,026,204)
    • "The 63% reduction in cash welfare caseload, together with the fixed block grant funding, means funds that otherwise would have been spent for cash assistance are now available for other purposes. These other purposes could include fatherhood initiatives which are allowable uses of TANF and State MOE funds. Moreover, fatherhood initiatives are not subject to the requirements that apply to spending for ongoing cash assistance such as work requirements and time limits. The cash welfare caseload declined from a peak of 5.1 million Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFCD) in 1994 to 1.8 million TANF families in December 2012.
      "Fatherhood Initiatives CRS report"

  3. Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) - funded under SS Title IV-D
    • Ref: CRS Report RS22380, "Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics" confirms that although historically, visitation and child support were legally separate, "in recognition of the negative long-term consequences for children associated with the absence of their father", welfare reform legislation provided $0 million/year for grants to states to develop access/visitation programs (custody) which would include mediation, counseling, education, and supervised visitation. $180 million over 18 years
    • Grants fund program expansion - ref. HHS report "A collaboration and Strategic Planning Guide for States: Child Access and Visitation Programs."
      • States are told to convene Judges, Court Administration, Support Office Administrators, lawyers, mental health practitioners, father’s rights groups, domestic violence groups, to work collusively to increase father’s custody.
      • Support officers are told to inform fathers who complain about paying support that filing for custody will reduce their support. Divorcing parents are ordered to mediators and other counselors who encourage fatherhood over protection from abuse.
      • States are encouraged to hire consultants (such as AFCC trade association) to form Commissions to write and implement the plan (Pennsylvania’s Commission created “Changing the Culture of Custody in Pennsylvania”).
      • States are encouraged to find other sources for funding such as DOJ grants for visitation centers, and legislative implementation of state fees (for example on traffic tickets, marriage licenses, sin taxes) for court-ordered services.
    • Pure genius for fatherhood movement to pay practitioners from OCSE to become involved in custody litigation facilitated the sabotage of State custody laws which offered the protection from abuse that women had won: laws that required courts to consider abusive behavior as detrimental when determining custody; laws that forbid orders to attend counseling with your abuser; laws that put children’s needs above parents desires. The OCSE access/visitation mandate obliterated due process: all those involved in custody litigation were required to create false evidence and hide true evidence of father’s unfitness to parent. Simple professional ethical standards have to be purposefully disregarded in order to increase father’s custody. The OCSE access/visitation mandate has grown a family court industry that thrives on abuse!
    • Ref. Annie E. Casey Foundation Report “Making Fathers Count,” history of the fatherhood movement, “Broadening The Mission of Child Support Policy”
      “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996, overhauled the welfare system. Judge David Gray Ross, a MD judge, OCSE commissioner, Clinton, 1997, (republicans ran Bob Dole, Clinton signed PRWORA to get re-elected). “Before I came, this office was just not a father-friendly place. The mission was to collect child support. Now, it’s more to provide for financial and emotional support of children. To tell fathers about their rights to see their children—and to help ensure those rights.”
    • Judge David Gray Ross has helped the fatherhood movement so much that the National Partnership for Community Leadership (NPCL) dedicates an annual award in his name, given at their yearly fatherhood conference.
    • Benefits of receiving support – having custody defined by overnight visits
      • Tax exempt income instead of no tax credit debt
      • Child tax exemption of $3,950/child
    • Fed. Gov. reimburses States 66% adm. Costs plus add’l incentive payment
    • States profited by using support payments to reimburse welfare payments
      • 1997 – fed. Paid $1,707,946,256 ; states profited $657,819,774
      • 2009 – fed. Paid $3,887,391564 + $504mil. Incentive payment; states lost $718,262,504
      • Growth of costs due to increased litigation/payment of service providers
      Ref. CRS Reports: “Analysis of Federal-State Financing of the Child Support Enforcement Program”, July, 2012, and, “Child Support Enforcement Program Incentive Payments: Background and Policy Issues,” May 2, 2013
  4. Social Security Block Grants – Funded under SSBG Title IV-B
    • Amount equal to TANF distribution
    • Funds Children & Youth, Child Protective Services, Foster Care including marriage promotion and fatherhood programs under the “preservation of the family unit as the foundation for success for children” goal. Including the marriage/fatherhood goal has shifted these programs to prefer fathers over mothers.
    • In Pennsylvania, these funds are allocated to State “Family Centers.” Family Centers operate the fatherhood program for released prisoners. Incarcerated fathers can receive reduced sentences through fatherhood programs, upon release, they are aided by family centers, where they are allegedly taught to be good Dads & given gifts to participate – parties, entertainment and attraction freebies
  5. Private FoundationsIn addition, many private foundations are providing financial support for fatherhood programs. These are the largest sources of funding for fatherhood.” CRS Fatherhood Initiatives.
    • Fund & develop positive-to-Fathers research, omit negative father traits such as control, violence, alcoholism, criminal behavior, chronic unemployment, or pedophilia (incest).
    • Lobby State and Federal governments for laws that benefit fatherhood movement.


    Examples:
    The Casey Foundation paid to write and disseminate reports such as “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood” which advise States to use TANF and MOE (matching funds) for fatherhood custody.

    Ford Foundation funded Mathematica analysis of fatherhood programs

    Ford Foundation funded Partners for Fragile Families with OCSE; Young Unwed Fathers Assets of $ 12,259,961,589 in 2013, ranked 2nd in US.

    Annie E. Casey Foundation, UPS founder in 1984, moved to Baltimore, 1994. Endowed to improve children’s welfare. From its roots of funding camps for developmentally disabled, literacy programs, foster care, what it calls “community support,” this large endowment is being used to further the Fatherhood movement agenda of male control under the guise of pretending that a father makes life better for kids.

    Ranked 25th in US; Assets of $2,933,059,949
Reference: Fatherhood Initiatives Congressional Research Service report 2013.