DECEMBER 2006 

ABOUT THIS ISSUE BRIEF CHILD WELFARE CASEWORK WITH 

NONRESIDENT FATHERS OF CHILDREN IN 

FOSTER CARE

This ASPE Issue Brief 

presents findings related to 

casework practice from a study 

that sought to determine the 

extent to which child welfare 

agencies seek out nonresident 

fathers of children in foster care 

and involve them in their 

children’s case management 

and permanency planning. The 

study was conducted by the 

Urban Institute and NORC 

under contract to ASPE and was

funded in large part by the 

Administration for Children and 

Families.

Introduction 

Nonresident fathers of children in foster care are 

rarely involved in case planning for their children, 

and, in the four states studied, nearly half had not 

been contacted by the child welfare agency. By not 

reaching out to fathers, caseworkers may overlook 

potential social connections and resources that 

could help to achieve permanency for the child. 

Most children in foster care are not living with their fathers at the 

time they are removed from their homes, and once in substitute 

care, these children may experience even less contact with their 

nonresident fathers. Yet fathers and their relatives represent half 

of a child’s potential family connections and kin resources. If 

ignored, important social or financial support for the child may be 

missed as permanency planning is conducted. Fathers or their 

relatives may be potential substitute caregivers for the child, may 

support a reunification plan with child support, respite or other 

assistance, or may voluntarily relinquish parental rights in support 

of an adoption plan. But without contact from the caseworker, such 

potential contributions cannot be assessed. Consequently, child 

welfare and child support agencies have placed new emphasis on 

identifying, locating, and involving nonresident fathers of children 

served by the child welfare system. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Planning and Evaluation 

Office of Human Services Policy 

U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services 

Washington, DC 20201 

Jerry Regier 

Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary 

Melissa Pardue 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Human Services Policy Researchers conducted telephone interviews with 1,222 

caseworkers in four study states—Arizona, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, and Tennessee. Caseworkers were interviewed about 

1,958 specific children in their caseloads, each of whom had a 

living father who did not reside in the household from which the 

child was removed. The response rate to the survey was 83%. At 

the time of the interview, each of the children had been in foster 

care between three and thirty six months and was in foster care for 

the first time. 
Fifty-three child welfare administrators in these states were interviewed as well about agency policies and 

practices regarding nonresident fathers. In addition, unless caseworkers dissented because of perceived 

danger to the child or mother or other concerns about the case, child welfare administrative data regarding 

paternity, location of the father, and fathers’ history of financial support for the child were compared 

electronically with similar fields in the child support agency’s records. Of child welfare cases included in 

the electronic match, over 60% percent were previously known to the child support agency, though this 

overlap varied widely among the states. 

Study findings provide insight into how caseworkers identify and locate nonresident fathers, 

circumstances that may pose barriers to engaging fathers, and ways in which fathers are involved in the 

lives of children in foster care. Caseworkers’ opinions about fathers were explored, as were issues of 

workload, safety and training. 

While most caseworkers, at the time of the interview, knew the identity of the fathers of children in the 

study’s sample (88%), paternity had been established for not quite two-thirds of the children (63%) and 

contact had been made with just over half of the fathers (55%). The lag in paternity establishment is 

important because unless paternity has been established a named father is not considered legally related to 

the child and cannot participate in court proceedings about the child. Contact with the nonresident father 

was likely only if his identity and location were both known immediately at the time of case opening. 

Figure 1 summarizes the study’s findings regarding levels of father engagement among all the nearly 

2,000 cases in the sample. 

4% goal is live 

with father 

28% father expressed 

an interest in custody 

30% father has visited 

the child since placement 

55% child welfare agency has contacted the 

father at least once 

63% child welfare caseworker reports that 

paternity has been established 

88% father’s name is in the case file 

Figure 1. Levels of Father Engagement Among Nonresident 

Fathers of Children in Foster Care 

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 2 
Identifying and Locating Nonresident Fathers

The majority of nonresident fathers are identified early in a case. Approximately two-thirds of 

nonresident fathers are identified at the time of case opening or very shortly thereafter. Only 17% are 

identified more than 30 days after the case was opened, and contact with fathers not identified within the 

first month is very unlikely. 

Efforts used by caseworkers to locate fathers vary widely. As shown in figure 2, caseworkers usually 

consulted the child’s mother when information about the father’s location was not known at case opening. 

Although a wide variety of other sources were sometimes consulted, there was no consistency in the use 

of these other methods. No source other than the mother was used in more than about one-third of cases. 

Only 34% of school age children were asked whether they knew anything about their fathers’ 

whereabouts. 

Figure 2. Methods Used to Locate Nonresident Fathers

(for identified fathers whose location was not known at case opening, N=802)

34%

16% 10% 9% 12%

2%

15% 14%

5% 3% 4% 1% 5%

52%

24%

24% 25%

8%

7%

15%

31%

30% 28%

18%

10%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

child's mother

another worker

mother's relatives

child (if age 6+)

father's relatives

child's sibling

other person

law enforcement records

public aid records

telephone books

motor vehicle records

utility company records

other data source

Person or Source Consulted

Information provided No information provided

"Information provided" means that the source produced some information related to the father's location, but this may or may not 

have been accurate, current or otherwise sufficient to make contact possible.

Caseworkers report little use of child support agency locator resources. Overall, caseworkers reported 

use of their state’s parent locator services in 35% of the study cases and the Federal Parent Locator 

Service in 7% of cases. While over 60% of caseworkers noted that their agency encouraged referrals to 

child support for help in locating the father, in only 20% of cases in which the father had not been located 

did the worker make such a referral. There was a great deal of state variation in these practices, however. 

Case-level results show overwhelmingly that in comparison to workers in the other study states, Arizona 

workers reported high levels of use of the state locator services (79% compared to 3-13 percent in the 

other states). Also, while a significant portion of caseworkers (70%) reported receiving training on 

identifying, locating, and involving nonresident fathers, less than one third (32%) noted specific training 

on referring cases to child support for help in locating nonresident fathers. 

3 | ASPE ISSUE BRIEF
Engaging Fathers

In slightly over half of all cases (55%), the nonresident father had been contacted by the agency or 

worker. Contact was broadly defined to include in-person contact, telephone calls, or through written or 

voicemail communication. Contact was likely only if the father’s identity and location were both known 

at the time of case opening. Caseworkers reported having at least one contact with 80% of nonresident 

fathers when this information was available immediately. However, the likelihood of contact dropped to 

38% for fathers whose identity was known either at case opening or during the first month, but for whom 

location information was not immediately available. For fathers identified more than 30 days after case 

opening, the likelihood of contact was only 13%. Figure 3 summarizes information on contact with 

nonresident fathers depending on when their identities and locations became known to the worker. 

Figure 3. Likelihood of Agency Contact with the Child's 

Father by Time of Identification and Location

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Contacted within the First Week Contacted within the First Month Ever Contacted (any time prior to

the caseworker interview)

Percent of Fathers Contacted

The father's IDENTITY AND 

LOCATION were known at the time 

the case was opened

The father's IDENTITY BUT NOT 

LOCATION was known early (identity 

known during first month; location not 

known at case opening)

The father's identity was 

determined more than 

30 days after case 

Several circumstances make it hard to contact fathers. The most frequently reported circumstance that 

affected contact with the father was his being unreachable by phone (60%). One third of fathers (31%) 

were incarcerated at some point in the case, although it was noted as causing difficulty with contact in 

only about half of these cases. Other circumstances—such as unreliable transportation, homelessness or 

unstable housing, and being out of the country—were less frequent problems but caused greater difficulty 

with agency-father contact when they did occur. The relationship between the mother and nonresident 

father also affects agency contact with the father. Fathers in relationships perceived by the caseworker as 

hostile, as well as fathers who hardly ever or never talk to the mother, were less likely to have had contact 

with the agency. 

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 4 
Half of the nonresident fathers contacted expressed interest in having their children live with them 

(50% of contacted fathers or 28% of the entire sample.) However, the caseworkers considered them as 

placement resources in somewhat fewer cases. Caseworkers report a wide range of circumstances and 

problems that are likely to complicate any efforts to place the child in the home of his or her father, and 

some administrators seemed to favor paternal kin over fathers as a placement resource. However, 

administrators reported that even if a father cannot provide a home for the child, he might still offer 

tangible benefits such as financial support or critical knowledge of his medical history. 

Many nonresident fathers have multiple problems and do not often follow through when services are 

offered. Workers reported that many of the contacted fathers (42%) had 4 or more of the 8 problems 

listed in the survey. (The survey asked about substance abuse, prior findings of abuse/neglect, 

unemployment, housing problems, physical or mental health issues, domestic violence, criminal justice 

involvement, and lack of child care.) Caseworkers reported offering services to fathers in most of the 

cases (59%) but reported that few of the fathers (23%) had complied with the services offered. 

Caseworker Training, Gender and Opinions

Significant differences were found in methods used to locate fathers between workers who received 

training and those who did not receive training related to fathers. Most of the caseworker respondents 

(70%) noted having received training on engaging fathers, though this could have been either a 

specialized training or material presented as part of a more generic training session. This finding contrasts 

with previous research that has noted a lack of training on fathers. Workers who reported having received 

training were more likely than other workers to report seeking help from the father’s relatives or from 

another worker, and were more likely to have searched public aid records and phone books for 

information on the father’s whereabouts. 

Workers reporting training on fathers were more likely to involve fathers in the case. Workers who 

received training were more likely than other workers to report sharing the case plan with the father and 

seeking financial assistance from him as part of the case plan. These workers were also more likely to 

report that the agency considered placement with the father and that the father had expressed interest in 

the child living with him. 

Male and female caseworkers report similar casework practices. Previous research examining 

caseworker gender and father involvement has shown some differences between male and female 

caseworkers. In this study, however, male and female caseworkers were equally likely to have shared the 

case plan with the father, told the father his child was in out-of-home placement, and to report that the 

father had expressed an interest in living with his child. Male and female caseworkers had similar 

percentages of cases with fathers who had contact with the agency and fathers who visited with their 

children since case opening. However, male caseworkers were somewhat more likely to report that fathers 

had been considered as a placement resource. 

Caseworkers hold mixed opinions about the involvement of nonresident fathers. While the majority of 

caseworkers surveyed (72%) agree that involving nonresident fathers enhances a child’s well being, even 

more (82%) agree that fathers need help with parenting skills. Only about half of caseworkers (53%) 

believe that nonresident fathers want to be part of decision making for their children. A bit less than half 

(44%) believe that dealing with nonresident fathers makes a case more complicated, and 6% expressed 

the opinion that “working with nonresident fathers is more trouble than it’s worth.” Figure 4 presents this 

information graphically. 

5 | ASPE ISSUE BRIEF
Figure 4. Caseworkers' Opinions About Nonresident Fathers

6%

44%

53%

72%

82%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Working with nonresident fathers is more trouble than it's

worth

Dealing with nonresident fathers makes a case more

complicated

Nonresident fathers want to be part of the decision making

process with regard to their children

Involvement of nonresident fathers enhances a child's wellbeing

Nonresident fathers need help with their parenting skills

Percent Agree or Strongly Agree

Most Caseworkers Agree

Opinions are Mixed

Most Caseworkers Disagree

Caseworker opinions do not seem to influence the likelihood of contacting and engaging nonresident 

fathers. When workers were grouped according to their responses to the opinion questions,1

 those with 

varying opinions about fathers reported similar percentages of cases in which the fathers were told of the 

child’s out-of-home placement and in which the case plan was shared with the father. However, workers 

with more positive opinions were more likely than other workers to report cases in which the agency had 

considered placing the child with the father. 

Workload and Safety Concerns

Administrators were concerned that increasing father involvement would create more work for 

overburdened caseworkers. Involving a father and his kin in a case introduces more people with whom 

workers must consult. Some administrators stressed that the term “father involvement” evokes an image 

of a single father per case, whereas the reality is that a sibling group with the same mother may have 

multiple fathers. Involving each child’s father in a case of this sort could overwhelm a caseworker, 

making his or her attempts to engage fathers less likely. Almost half (44%) of caseworkers echoed these 

concerns, either agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement “dealing with a nonresident father 

makes a case more complicated.” In addition, almost a quarter of the unidentified father cases had more 

than one father named at some point in the case. Such cases may tend to overwhelm and frustrate 

caseworkers in their attempts to involve fathers. 

 

1 We categorized workers according to their responses to two opinion questions: caseworkers who “agreed” or “strongly agreed” 

that (1) nonresident fathers want to be part of the decision-making process with regard to their children, and (2) involvement of 

nonresident fathers enhances a child’s well-being. Workers who responded “neither agreed or disagreed,” “disagreed,” or 

“strongly disagreed” with both of the statements were grouped together. 

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 6 
Administrators expressed concern that involving fathers could reintroduce potential abusers into 

volatile family situations. Domestic violence was identified as a problem area for one third (33%) of the 

nonresident fathers in the study and in a significant percentage of additional cases (18%) workers did not 

know whether domestic violence was an issue. Workers may also be concerned for their own safety in 

dealing with nonresident fathers with violent histories. 

Implications

• Search for fathers early in the case. Most successful information gathering about a nonresident 

father’s identity and location occurs very early in the case. If a nonresident father’s identity and 

location are not determined quickly, it becomes unlikely that he will ever be contacted by the agency. 

• Consult a wide variety of information sources in order to identify and locate fathers. Study results 

showed that no single information source (other than the child’s mother) was likely to consistently 

provide contact information for the father. However, many different sources provided information 

occasionally, and taken together most fathers could be located. Yet which sources were consulted 

seemed haphazard and rarely were searches exhaustive. Caseworkers need to know what steps they 

should consider when mothers do not know or share information about the child’s father. 

• Make better use of state and federal parent locator services. In most places, caseworkers would 

benefit from better access to location information available from the child support agency. These 

agencies are specialists in locating nonresident parents, and child welfare agencies are explicitly 

authorized to use their services to locate parents of children in foster care. More systematic use of 

child support locate services may also make searches more focused and less time consuming to 

caseworkers. But caseworkers and agency administrators should be aware that in most places, unless 

a referral is presented as a “locate only” request, the child support agency will follow up with case 

actions to establish paternity and put a child support order in place. Child welfare agencies should 

carefully consider when such a full range of child support actions is in the child’s interests, and under 

what circumstances a “locate only” request would better serve the child. 

• Assess safety issues individually. Caseworkers and administrators express sincere and legitimate 

concerns about the safety of the children and mothers they work with, as well as for their own safety, 

when dealing with fathers with histories of violence. Such concerns must be acknowledged and 

assessed at the case level. However, the fact that nearly half of the fathers were never contacted by 

the agency suggests that fathers are often excluded without an assessment of the actual risk presented. 

• Consider a range of ways nonresident fathers could be involved in the lives of children in foster 

care. Unless the child has a case plan goal of placement with his or her father or paternal kin, 

caseworkers may not know what, if anything, their agencies expect of them with regard to involving 

nonresident fathers. In the cases studied, sharing the case plan was the only consistent activity that 

followed from contact with a child’s father. Caseworkers may offer visitation to the father in some 

cases but there was no consistent understanding regarding when or whether visitation should be 

offered or encouraged. Less intensive forms of involvement such as obtaining the father’s medical 

background and obtaining access to benefits do not seem routine. There is considerable room for 

improvement in activities that engage nonresident fathers on behalf of their children in ways that 

could extend beyond the child’s stay in foster care and support whatever permanency goal is in the 

child’s best interest. 

The full report What About the Dads? Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve 

Nonresident Fathers, is available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/06/CW-involve-dads/index.htm.

7 | ASPE ISSUE BRIEF
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

& HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary 

Washington, DC

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300