U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Office of Human Services Policy

and

Administration for Children and Families

Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Children’s Bureau

2006

Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to 

Identify, Locate and Involve 

Nonresident Fathers

What About the
What About the Dads? 

Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, 

Locate, and Involve Nonresident Fathers 

 

FINAL REPORT 

Prepared by The Urban Institute under contract HHS-100-01-0014 for: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 

Office of Human Services Policy 

Jerry Regier, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

With funding from the Administration for Children and Families, 

Administration on Children, Youth and Families 

Children’s Bureau 

April 2006 
What About the Dads? ii

Material contained in this publication is in the public domain and may be reproduced, fully or 

partially, without permission of the Federal Government. The courtesy of attribution is 

requested. The recommended citation is as follows: 

Malm K., Murray J. and Geen R. What About the Dads? Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to 

Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers. (Washington, D.C.: The U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 

2006). 

This report is available online at http://aspe.hhs.gov or written requests may be faxed to 202-690-

6562 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers iii

Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of many individuals. First, we wish to 

thank state child welfare and child support officials for their support and cooperation throughout 

the study—Janice Mickens, Dave Graham, Bill Aldrich, Nick Espadas, and Teresa Coffman in 

Arizona; Mia Alvarado, Mary Kennedy, Kathleen McCarthy, and Mary Cummings in 

Massachusetts; Dorothy Renstrom, Erin Sullivan-Sutton, Alexandra Beutel, and Mary Arveson 

in Minnesota; and Paul Montebello, John Brown, Deborah Vines, and Jason Johnson in 

Tennessee. Most importantly, we wish to thank the hundreds of front-line caseworkers in the 

four states as well as the local child welfare administrators who provided their time and input to 

this study. 

Our subcontractor, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), had overall responsibility for 

the study’s caseworker data collection. NORC staff members, Dennis Dew and Lauren Doerr, 

provided exceptional direction and management of the caseworker telephone interviews. 

In addition to the authors, several current and former Urban Institute staff contributed to the 

study. Dr. Freya Sonenstein contributed to the overall study design and early direction of the 

study. Henry Chen was invaluable in conducting the many statistical analyses throughout the 

study. Drs. Matthew Stagner, Elaine Sorensen, and Marla McDaniel provided substantive and 

editorial contributions. 

We also wish to express our thanks to our Federal Project Officers, Laura Feig Radel and Linda 

Mellgren, for their invaluable oversight and input throughout the course of the study. 
What About the Dads? iv

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary vii 

Chapter 1 Background 1 

Introduction 1 

Literature Review 3 

Project Goals and Objectives 9 

Methodology 12 

 

Chapter 2 Results of Administrator Interviews 21

Agency Perception of Fathers and Their Involvement 21 

Agency Role in Father Involvement 28 

Description of Service System Linkages 41 

Implications for Analyses of Case-level Data and Future Research 47 

Chapter 3 Descriptive Analyses of Caseworker Interviews 50

Introduction 50 

Description of Caseworker Respondents 56 

Description of Children 60 

Description of Resident Mothers 65 

Description of Nonresident Fathers 73 

Summary of Descriptive Analyses 92 

 

Chapter 4 Additional Analyses and Conclusions 97 

Overview 97 

Comparison Groups 104 

Case Characteristics 119 

Caseworker Characteristics 124 

Multivariate Analyses 127 

Child Support Linkage 143 

Summary and Conclusions 154 

 

References 169 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers v

List of Figures and Tables 

Chapter 1 

Figure 1-1 Conceptual Framework 

Table 1-1 Caseworker Interview Response Rates 

Chapter 2 

Figure 2-1 Flowchart of Father Involvement 

Table 2-1 Key Factors on Nonresident Father Involvement by State 

Chapter 3 

Figure 3-1 Total Numbers of Fathers in Analysis Subgroups 

Figure 3-2 Total Numbers of Mothers in Analysis Subgroups 

Figure 3-3 Likelihood of Contact for Fathers Identified at Different Points 

Figure 3-4 Breakdown of Cases by Timing of Father Identification 

Table 3-1 Caseworker Respondent Characteristics 

Table 3-2 Caseworker Training and Opinions 

Table 3-3 Child Characteristics 

Table 3-4 Child Placement Details 

Table 3-5 Reasons for Placement and Perpetrator Type 

Table 3-6 Case Permanency Goals 

Table 3-7 Resident Mother Characteristics 

Table 3-8 Status of Resident Mother Parental Rights 

Table 3-9 Barriers to Contacting Resident Mothers 

Table 3-10 Resident Mother Visitation 

Table 3-11 Resident Mother Support 

Table 3-12 Resident Mother Problems 

Table 3-13 Paternity Establishment 

Table 3-14 Status of Father Parental Rights 

Table 3-15 Identifying Nonresident Fathers 

Table 3-16 Nonresident Father Characteristics 

Table 3-17 Locating Nonresident Fathers 

Table 3-18 Locate Resources 

Table 3-19 Nonresident Father Information in Case Record 

Table 3-20 Barriers to Contacting Nonresident Fathers 

Table 3-21 Nonresident Father Visitation 

Table 3-22 Nonresident Father Engagement 

Table 3-23 Nonresident Father Support 

Table 3-24 Nonresident Father Problems 

Figure 3-5 Father Engagement 

Chapter 4 

Table 4-1 Nonresident Fathers Characteristics-Legal and Alleged Fathers 

Table 4-2 Locating Methods-Legal and Alleged Fathers 

Table 4-3 Nonresident Father Engagement-Legal and Alleged Fathers 

Table 4-4 Mother-Father Relationship-Legal and Alleged Fathers 
What About the Dads? vi

Table 4-5 Status of Parental Rights-Legal and Alleged Fathers 

Table 4-6 Barriers to Contact-Nonresident Fathers and Nonresident Mothers 

Table 4-7 Problems-Nonresident Mothers and Nonresident Fathers 

Table 4-8 Engagement-Nonresident Mothers and Nonresident Fathers 

Table 4-9 Status of Parental Rights-Nonresident Mothers and Nonresident Fathers 

Table 4-10 Barriers to Contact-Fathers Considered as Placement Resources 

Table 4-11 Engagement-Placement and Non-placement Fathers 

Table 4-12 Father-Child Visitation-Child Placed in Kin and Non-kin Placements 

Table 4-13 Factors Associated with Father Identification 

Table 4-14 Factors Associated with Father-Child Visitation 

Table 4-15 Factors Associated with Father Support 

Table 4-16 Results of Child Support Data Linkage- Number and Percent of Cases Included 

Table 4-17 Results of Child Support Data Linkage – Percent Consistent 

Table 4-18 Paternity Establishment – Inconsistent or Missing Data 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers vii

Executive Summary 

Over the past decade an interest in fathers and their contributions to family stability and 

children’s healthy development has heightened the attention paid within the child welfare field to 

identifying, locating, and involving fathers. Many of the children served by child welfare 

agencies have nonresident fathers. In addition, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 

renewed focus on expediting permanency for children in out-of-home placement. Engaging 

fathers of foster children can be important not only for the potential benefit of a child-father 

relationship (when such a relationship does not pose a risk to the child’s safety or well-being), 

but also for making placement decisions and gaining access to resources for the child. 

Permanency may be expedited by placing children with their nonresident fathers or paternal kin, 

or through early relinquishment or termination of the father’s parental rights. Through engaging 

fathers, agencies may learn important medical information and/or that the child is the recipient of 

certain benefits, such as health insurance, survivor benefits, or child support. Apart from the 

father’s potential as a caregiver, such resources might support a reunification goal or a relative 

guardianship and therefore enhance permanency options for the child. 

While research is lacking on whether engaging fathers enhances the well-being or case 

outcomes of foster children, lack of father involvement means that caseworkers may never know 

whether a father can help his child. Few studies have examined nonresident fathers as placement 

resources for their children and there is no research about child-father visitation or research on 

the effects of involving nonresident fathers in the lives of children being served by child welfare 

agencies (Sonenstein, Malm, and Billing 2002). 

The Urban Institute, with the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the 

University of Chicago, conducted the Study of Fathers’ Involvement in Permanency Planning 

and Child Welfare Casework to provide the Administration for Children and Families and the 

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, both components within the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, with a description of the extent to which child welfare agencies 

identify, locate, and involve nonresident fathers in case decision making and permanency 

planning. The study was designed to: 

• examine the extent to which child welfare agencies, through policies and practices, involve 

nonresident fathers of foster children in casework and permanency planning; 

• describe the various methods used by local agencies to identify fathers of children in foster 

care, establish paternity, and locate nonresident fathers; 

• identify challenges to involvement, including characteristics and circumstances that may 

be constraints and worker opinions of nonresident fathers; 

• identify practices and initiatives that may increase father involvement; and 

• explore how child support agencies’ information resources may assist child welfare 

agencies to identify and locate nonresident fathers. 
What About the Dads? viii

The results of this study provide empirical evidence on the steps that child welfare agencies 

currently take to identify, locate, and involve nonresident fathers in case planning; the barriers 

encountered; and the policies and practices that affect involvement. 

Methodology 

The study was conducted in four states, Arizona, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Tennessee, 

using three methods of data collection—interviews with child welfare administrators, case-level 

data collection through interviews with caseworkers, and data linkage between child welfare and 

child support systems. We interviewed local agency caseworkers about particular cases between 

October 2004 and February 2005 to examine front-line practices related to nonresident fathers. 

Cases were selected from among children who had been in foster care for at least 3 months but 

no more than 36 months. Children in the sample were all in foster care for the first time (first 

placement episode), and the child welfare agency’s records indicated that each of the children’s 

biological fathers were alive but not living in the home from which the child was removed. 

Additionally, only one child per mother was eligible for the study. 

Description of Nonresident Fathers of Foster Children 

Data on 1,958 eligible cases (83% response rate) were collected through telephone interviews 

with 1,222 caseworkers. The nonresident fathers of the children sampled represent a varied 

group. 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 not yet been established for over one-third of 

the total sample’s children (37%). A comparison with mothers found that demographic 

characteristics of identified nonresident fathers are similar to those of the resident mothers 

though fathers are slightly older (36 vs. 32 years old, on average) and more likely to have been 

married at some point. As expected, caseworkers appear to know less about nonresident fathers. 

The percent of “don’t know” responses is much higher for nonresident fathers than for similar 

questions about resident mothers. 

Findings on Identifying Nonresident Fathers 

Caseworkers provided detailed information on practices used to identify nonresident fathers of 

children in foster care. Below are findings from both the administrator and caseworker 

interviews include the following: 

• Most nonresident fathers are identified early in a case. Caseworkers indicate that over 

two-thirds of nonresident fathers (68%) are identified at case opening. Many 

administrators reported that caseworkers begin trying to identify a child’s father during 

the child protection investigation. Many administrators thought efforts were stronger and 

more successful early in a case but after the investigation had ended. Case-level findings 

suggest that nonresident fathers not identified early on are less likely to have contact with 

the agency. 

• Caseworkers ask a number of individuals for help in identifying the father but many do 

not provide information. For cases with fathers not identified at the time of case opening, 

the caseworker typically reported asking a number of different individuals—the child’s 

mother, mother’s relatives, other workers—for assistance in identifying the father. Only 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers ix

one-third of the mothers who were asked to provide information on an unidentified father 

did so, and other sources were not very successful either. 

Findings on Locating and Contacting Nonresident Fathers 

Workers also reported on how they located nonresident fathers who had been identified and 

circumstances that may make contacting the father difficult. Findings include the following: 

• Caseworkers ask a number of individuals for help in locating nonresident fathers.

Caseworkers reported asking for help from the mother, the mother’s relatives, the child, 

siblings, and other workers as well as the father’s relatives to help locate the nonresident 

father. Workers also consulted a number of other sources including law enforcement, 

public assistance and department of motor vehicles records, and telephone books. 

• Few caseworkers sought the assistance of the state’s child support agency in locating 

the nonresident father. While over 60 percent of workers noted that their agency 

encouraged referrals to child support for help locating the father, in only 20 percent of the 

cases in which the father had not been located did the worker make such a referral. In 33 

percent of the cases workers noted the state parent locator service was used. 

• 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. 

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

circumstance that affected contact with the father was the father being unreachable by 

phone (60%); 31 percent of fathers were reported to have been incarcerated at some point 

in the case, although it was noted as causing difficulty with contact in only about half of 

these cases; and other circumstances—such as unreliable transportation, homelessness or 

unstable housing, and being out of the country—while cited less frequently caused 

greater difficulty with agency-father contact. 

Findings on Father Involvement 

When local child welfare administrators were asked about potential benefits and drawbacks to 

father involvement in child welfare cases they reported that involving fathers may benefit both 

the child and the father. However, administrators were quick to caution that this was true only 

when such involvement poses no safety risk to the child or mother. Almost three-quarters (72%) 

of caseworkers noted that father involvement enhances child well-being and in over 90 percent 

of cases in which the father was contacted the caseworkers reported sharing the case plan with 

the father and telling him about his child’s out-of-home placement. However, only a little over 

half of caseworkers of children in the study sample (53%) believed nonresident fathers want to 

be a part of the decision-making process about their children and most reported that nonresident 

fathers need help with their parenting skills. Other findings include the following: 

• Half of the contacted nonresident fathers expressed interest in having their children 

live with them (50% of contacted fathers or 28% of the entire sample.)
What About the Dads? x

• While 45 percent of the contacted fathers were considered as a placement resource, this 

represents only a quarter of all sampled 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 as a 

placement resource. However, administrators mentioned that even if a father cannot be a 

placement resource they could offer tangible benefits such as financial support or critical 

knowledge of the birth family’s medical history. 

• Over half of the contacted fathers (56%) had visited their child while he or she was in 

foster care. However, this represents less than one third (30%) of all fathers in the 

sample.

Issues Preventing Placement with Nonresident Fathers 

For cases involving fathers with whom the agency had made contact, workers were asked to 

identify problems or issues that prevented the child from being placed with his or her father. 

Findings include the following: 

• Many fathers are either substance abusers or involved in the criminal justice system. In 

over half the contacted cases (58%), workers noted fathers with drug or alcohol abuse 

problems and half of the fathers were involved with the criminal justice system in some 

way (i.e., incarcerated, on parole, or awaiting trial). 

• Fathers are often non-compliant with services. Caseworkers reported offering services 

to fathers in over half of the cases (59%) but reported only 23 percent of the fathers had 

complied with the services offered. 

• Many nonresident fathers have multiple problems. Workers reported that over forty 

percent of the contacted fathers (42%) had 4 or more of the 8 problems listed in the 

survey. 

However, it should be noted that these are the same kinds of problems and issues that face 

mothers of children in foster care. 

Caseworker Training on Father Involvement 

While previous studies have noted a lack of training on father involvement, a significant portion 

of the study’s caseworker respondents (70%) reported having received training on engaging 

fathers. At least for the four states studied here, training on fathers appears to be fairly 

widespread. And while few significant differences were found between male and female 

caseworkers or among groups of workers with differing opinions on working with fathers, 

several differences were found between trained and untrained caseworkers. Findings include the 

following: 

• Caseworkers who received training were more likely than workers who did not receive 

training to report having located fathers of children in the study’s sample. 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers xi

• Significant differences were found in some of the methods used to locate fathers.

Workers who received training were more likely to seek help from the father’s relatives, 

another worker, search public aid records, and phone books. 

• Significant differences were also found between the two groups of workers with regard 

to a number of father engagement type activities. Workers reporting 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 the agency considered placement with the father and that the father had 

expressed interest in the child living with him. 

Results of Child Support Data Linkage 

The linkage of cases between the child welfare and child support systems explored the potential 

for more extensive use of child support information by child welfare caseworkers. The results 

indicate that in many cases, child welfare workers do have information on paternity, location, 

and support that coincides with child support agency records. There were instances, however, in 

which child support records had information that was missing or conflicted with that recorded by 

child welfare workers. Given the importance of paternity establishment and the accuracy of this 

determination it seems prudent that child welfare workers utilize child support agencies as a 

means of obtaining this information and for confirming the accuracy of their own information. 

Even if a child’s mother or other sources provide information about a father’s location, such 

information may be out of date or inaccurate simply because of the mobility of families and 

fathers. In many cases, child support administrative data systems may have more current 

information through either state or Federal Parent Locator Services. Recent advances in data 

sharing across states and on a federal level have allowed state child support systems to be a good 

source of information on nonresident fathers involved in child welfare cases. The data matching 

performed in this study indicated that on child welfare cases in which locate information through 

state or federal parent locator services was sought (about two-thirds of all cases in the matching 

sample, with some variation across states), these methods were successful in providing location 

information in 96 percent of cases. Information on official child support orders and collection on 

orders would also be beneficial to child welfare caseworkers as part of an overall assessment of 

the nonresident father as a placement resource for his child. 

Implications for Practice and Future Research 

This study is an exploratory look at nonresident fathers of children in the child welfare system. 

The findings provide a description of nonresident fathers of children in foster care from the 

perspective of caseworkers and administrators, what nonresident fathers can or cannot provide to 

their children, and where they fit within families served by child welfare agencies is the 

foundation of casework practice. 

While the study findings do not define best practices, they can inform practice. Some practice 

areas that agencies should examine include the following: 

• Search for nonresident fathers early in the case. Gathering information about a 

nonresident father’s identity as part of case investigation or other assessment activities 
What About the Dads? xii

appears to be effective since a majority of the fathers had been identified early in the 

case. Agencies should consider whether information about fathers is being sought 

consistently at (or before) the time a child is first placed in foster care. 

• Provide guidance and training to caseworkers on identifying, locating, and involving 

fathers. Caseworker practice related to nonresident fathers appears case specific and 

variable. Agencies should make clear what steps caseworkers should consider when 

mothers do not know or share information about the child’s father. Caseworker training 

appears to help caseworkers understand the importance of father involvement and 

facilitates consideration of a father placement option. Specialization of work with fathers 

may be worth exploring. A number of administrators reported that specialization proved 

helpful to their agencies, particularly with regard to seeking the location of missing 

fathers. 

• Agencies may need to examine whether services offered to fathers are designed to 

engage fathers. The study found a small percent of nonresident fathers, when offered 

services, complied with all the services offered. Further attention may need to be focused 

on how caseworkers present service options to nonresident fathers and how societal 

expectations play a role in these interactions. 

• Address domestic violence and worker safety concerns. Caseworkers and administrators 

expressed a reluctance to involve some fathers because doing so might reintroduce 

potential abusers into volatile family situations. Administrators also raised concerns 

regarding worker safety when contacting the fathers of children on the caseload. Unless 

safety concerns are effectively addressed, both those related to worker safety as well as 

those related to the safety of the child and mother, efforts to involve fathers are likely to 

stall. Safety concerns need to be acknowledged and assessed at a case level and, as 

previously noted, through training. However, that nearly half of the fathers were never 

contacted by the agency suggests that little assessment of the actual risk presented is 

occurring. 

• Use child support data more consistently. Child support information, including father 

location, paternity, and financial support, can be a helpful tool in considering placements 

with fathers or other ways in which fathers can play a constructive role in their children’s 

lives. 

• Develop models for involving fathers constructively. Unless the child has a case plan 

goal of placement with his/her father or his kin, caseworkers often are not sure what, if 

anything, they should be doing beyond sharing the child’s case plan or offering visitation. 

There is considerable room for programming that engages nonresident fathers on behalf 

of their children in ways that could extend beyond the child’s stay in foster care and 

supports the child’s best interests. 

This study also serves as a starting point for further research. For example, using the same 

dataset, more detailed state-specific analyses would be helpful in examining how different 

policies affect casework practice toward nonresident fathers. State and local characteristics (e.g., 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers xiii

rural/urban, poverty measures) could be added to the dataset and used in a variety of analyses to 

examine state and local practice differences. The regression models could be modified to include 

a different set of independent variables. While not a large sample, children who have a goal of 

placement with their father could be examined. Case outcomes could be examined for children 

reunified with mother and children placed with fathers. 

Additionally, other research could include efforts to collect qualitative data to examine the 

relationship between permanency goals and casework, specifically casework involving fathers. 

Qualitative research could also examine specific methods of identifying, locating and involving 

fathers. Further examination of training opportunities for caseworkers and the impact on practice 

directed at nonresident fathers is also suggested. 

Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 

 

1

Chapter 1 

Background 

Introduction 

Recent interest in fathers and their contributions to family stability and children’s healthy 

development has increased the attention of child welfare agencies on the tasks of locating 

biological fathers and involving them in case planning. Many, if not most, of the children served 

by child welfare agencies have nonresident fathers. Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and 

Reporting System (AFCARS) 2002 data on foster children reveal that a majority—between 50 

percent and 80 percent—of the foster children in each state were removed from single-mother or 

unmarried couple families.1

 However, the child welfare field lacks information about current 

policies and practices, and efforts made to identify, locate, and engage fathers vary considerably 

from locality to locality. Few studies have examined nonresident fathers as placement resources 

for their children and there is no research about child-father visitation or the effects of involving 

fathers in the lives of children being served by child welfare agencies (Sonenstein, Malm, and 

Billing 2002). 

Engaging fathers of foster children is likely to be important not only for the potential 

benefit of a child-father relationship (not possible or preferred in some cases), but also for 

making placement decisions and gaining access to resources. Permanency may be expedited by 

placing children with their nonresident fathers or paternal kin, or through early relinquishment or 

 

1

 It is not known how many of the men who are part of the unmarried couples are the biological fathers of the foster 

children. In addition, an unknown number of “married couple” compositions do not consist of both birth parents. 

Data were compiled from 31 states (these states had less than 10 percent missing data for this AFCARS field). Many 

large states, including California, Illinois, and New York, have large amounts of missing data and were not included 

in the analysis. Urban Institute tabulations of the 1994 National Study of Protective, Preventive, and Reunification 

Services data, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and tabulations of Urban Institute’s 1999 National 
What About the Dads? 2

termination of the father’s parental rights. Through engaging fathers, agencies may learn 

important medical information and/or that the child is the recipient of certain benefits (e.g., 

health insurance, survivor benefits, child support). While it is too soon to tell whether engaging 

fathers enhances the well-being or case outcomes of foster children, lack of father involvement 

means that caseworkers may never know whether a father can help his child. 

The Urban Institute, with the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the 

University of Chicago, conducted the Study of Fathers’ Involvement in Permanency Planning 

and Child Welfare Casework to provide the federal government2

 with a description of the extent 

to which child welfare agencies identify, locate, and involve nonresident fathers in case decision 

making and permanency planning. For the purposes of this study, nonresident fathers include 

biological fathers who do not reside with their children, usually because of divorce, separation, 

or a nonmarital birth.3

 The results of this study provide empirical evidence on the steps that child 

welfare agencies currently take to identify, locate, and involve nonresident fathers in case 

planning; the barriers workers encounter; and the policies and practices that appear to facilitate 

involvement. Because little information is available on whether child welfare agencies are using 

the Federal Parent Locator Service as provided under new legislative authority, the study is also 

designed to examine the use of child support resources to identify and locate fathers. 

Recent child welfare policies and practices appear to have increased the focus on fathers. 

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) significantly reduced the time child 

welfare agencies have to make permanency decisions for children in foster care, which may 

 

Survey of America’s Families calculated 72 percent of children served by child welfare agencies and 80 percent of 

foster children have noncustodial fathers. 

2

 The study is prepared under contract to the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and is funded by the 

Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 3

affect how agencies identify, locate, and involve the biological fathers of foster children. For 

example, ASFA encourages child welfare agencies to use the Federal Parent Locator Service 

employed by child support enforcement programs to help locate fathers and other relatives. 

Concurrent planning,4

 also encouraged under ASFA, may prompt earlier efforts to locate fathers 

because the father, or his relatives, may be identified as a placement resource even while the 

caseworker seeks to reunify the child with his or her mother. Moreover, if adoption becomes the 

case goal, a diligent search for the father must be undertaken. While judicial guidelines have 

long sought early identification of fathers, the implementation of ASFA may increase the 

likelihood that this is occurring more consistently. 

ASFA also reemphasized that kin should be sought whenever possible when identifying 

placements for foster children. Paternity establishment becomes vital to identifying a father and 

any of his relatives as potential caregivers. Family group conferencing or family meetings are 

increasingly being used by child welfare agencies to involve these extended family members in 

the case decision-making process. Using these techniques puts agencies in a better position to 

identify, locate, and involve nonresident fathers in case planning. 

Literature Review 

Over the past two decades many studies have examined the role of noncustodial fathers in the 

lives of their children. The literature review conducted in Sonenstein et al. (2002) cited numerous 

studies that focused on father involvement as it relates to child well-being and the degree to 

which a variety of factors affect involvement. Studies examined paternity, marital status, race 

 

3

 More information on the sample of fathers analyzed in this study is included in the methodology section of this 

chapter. 
What About the Dads? 4

and ethnicity, and payment of child support to determine nonresident father involvement. 

Research studies have examined fathers in both the general and the low-income populations. 

Child well-being was measured by examining outcomes such as academic performance, 

behavioral problems, and self-esteem. 

For the most part, however, the literature review revealed the dearth of research specific 

to the topic of nonresident father involvement in the child welfare system. While we found a few 

studies that focused attention on fathers as potential placement resources for their children (Greif 

and Zuravin 1989; Rasheed 1999), there was no research about child-father visitation or the 

effects of involving fathers in the lives of children being served by child welfare agencies. A 

number of studies examined gender bias in general social work practice (Greif and Bailey 1990; 

Kahkonen 1997; Lazar, Sagi, and Fraser 1991; O’Hagan 1997). Only one study explored 

practices further by examining whether fathers were being ignored as a resource for discharge 

planning (Franck 2001). 

We found some research on efforts to promote collaboration between child welfare and 

child support enforcement agencies. The results of a diligent search project in South Carolina 

appear promising; missing parents were located in over 75 percent of the cases referred by child 

welfare staff, and more than half of these cases were located in less than a month. However, the 

focus of the effort was on identifying and locating fathers primarily for the purposes of 

expediting the termination of parental rights, to hasten adoption proceedings (South Carolina 

Department of Social Services 2000). Research describes other collaborative efforts focused on 

increasing child support collections. Few programs, with the exception of a parental involvement 

 

4

 Concurrent planning enables states to seek an adoptive or other permanent placement for a child while pursuing 

efforts to preserve or reunite the family. 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 5

project in Illinois, focus attention on finding noncustodial fathers as placement resources (Roy 

2000). 

In the last several years, literature continued to examine the impact of family structure on 

child well-being and the nature of paternal involvement. One study found that father 

involvement, even if a child did not grow up in an intact family, was positively associated with 

educational outcomes (Flouri and Buchanan 2004). Research using the 1999 National Survey of 

America’s Families (NSAF) indicated that the well-being of children raised in cohabiting 

biological or nonbiological families and single-mother families did not differ (Brown 2004). This 

research expands upon the ongoing discussion of comparisons of child outcomes in married 

versus non-married families. 

Current research also delves deeper into factors that may affect paternal involvement, 

such as race, ethnicity, religion, age of a child, and gender ideologies held by fathers (Bulanda 

2004; Hofferth 2003; Hofferth and Anderson 2003; Wilcox 2002). One study in particular 

examined the effects of race and ethnicity on noncustodial father involvement, determining that 

Hispanic children had the lowest levels of contact with their nonresident fathers (King, Harris, 

and Heard 2004). The study also found that when minority fathers do stay involved with their 

children, they are more likely than white fathers to engage in behaviors that most favor their 

children’s well-being, such as talking about problems or attending religious services. 

Attention continues to focus on the particular perspectives and circumstances of lowincome fathers (see Nelson 2004 for a review of the literature on low-income fathers). In a series 

of interviews with low-income men receiving General Assistance, researchers interviewed men 

about their own fathers and their children. Of the interviewees with children, many said that the 

mothers of their children had limited their (father) contact, often as a result of unpaid child 
What About the Dads? 6

support (Kost 2001). Another set of researchers interviewed low-income men whose children 

were enrolled in the Early Head Start program and found that most of the men were either living 

with or married to their children’s mothers and said they had someone to talk to about being a 

father (Vogel et al. 2003). 

Researchers have shown continued interest in the issues surrounding payment of child 

support. An Urban Institute study indicated that the proportion of children in low-income 

families receiving child support had significantly increased between 1996 and 2001, growing 

from 31 to 36 percent (Sorensen 2003). Still, recent research has underscored challenges to child 

support receipt, such as low male earnings and incarceration (Bloomer, Sipe, and Ruedt 2002; 

Cancian and Meyer 2004; Pearson and Hardaway 2000). 

Since the 2002 literature review prepared for this study, the amount of research pertaining 

to fathers in the child welfare system has grown considerably, although the body of research is 

still relatively small. The Annie E. Casey Foundation funded a study to determine practitioners’ 

perceptions of the state of child welfare practice on fathers (National Family Preservation 

Network 2001). Workers in child welfare systems and community organizations indicated 

unanimously that there was a need for more outreach to fathers with children involved in the 

child welfare system. Many said that fathers were hesitant to come forward and often assumed 

they were only sought for child support payments. Caseworkers indicated that they had had little 

to no training on father engagement. Some fatherhood program staff involved in the groups said 

that fathers need other men to talk to, leading to recommendations for more men as caseworkers 

in the child welfare system (National Family Preservation Network 2001). 

More recent research examines specific child welfare practices on father engagement. 

Family meetings and conferences were designed to encourage family input. Recent studies 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 7

examined two such practices—family group conferences and family group decision-making—for 

the extent to which fathers and paternal relatives were contacted or present for the conference as 

well as how many children were subsequently placed with their fathers or paternal relatives 

(Shore et al. 2002; Thoennes 2003). While the rates of contact with fathers and paternal relatives 

were still lower than for mothers, the results reveal a willingness to reach out to fathers by 

agencies implementing a family meeting–type approach. 

An early review of 22 states’ Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSRs) noted a lack of 

father and paternal relative involvement in the case planning process.5

 A more recent review of 

the 2001–2004 CFSRs noted concern about an overall lack of contact with fathers by 

caseworkers, even when fathers were involved with the family (National Resource Center for 

Family-Centered Practice and Permanency Planning 2005). Analysis of National Survey of Child 

and Adolescent Well-Being data found that almost three-quarters (72 percent) of children in 

foster care reported seeing their biological fathers twice per month or less, and 41 percent had 

never visited with their fathers (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003). 

O’Donnell and colleagues (2005) examined front-line practices on fathers through focus 

groups with caseworkers. According to the caseworkers, fathers are generally peripheral to the 

child welfare system and often view the agency with distrust, especially if they have a criminal 

record. Workers also noted that they were less likely to initiate father involvement with families 

involving multiple fathers. Some young female caseworkers said they felt like fathers resented 

them or challenged their authority. Male caseworkers were less likely to voice frustration with 

involving fathers and more likely to support more gender-sensitive services to engage fathers. 

However, workers in four of the five focus groups generally said that fathers should not get child 
What About the Dads? 8

welfare services that are different from those for mothers. Caseworkers also indicated that they 

thought mothers hinder fathers’ involvement in child welfare. Mothers may restrict information 

they give to caseworkers out of anger, fear (perhaps of violence by children’s fathers), mistrust 

of workers, or a preference that the father not know about the child welfare involvement. 

Caseworkers also felt that many fathers have little commitment to their children. 

Participants in one group identified this issue as the primary reason for low paternal 

involvement, while the other four groups said it was a significant but not determining factor in 

involvement levels. Authors of the study said that caseworker responses indicated they did not 

have a unified way of thinking about fathers or their needs, signaling a need for more 

professional development on how to engage and involve fathers in casework practice. 

Other recent studies have examined the location and involvement of nonresident or 

absent parents in child welfare services. In Washington, an evaluation of state policy and local 

practices on both custodial and noncustodial fathers identified reasons why fathers showed low 

levels of involvement or were not considered appropriate placement resources by the agency 

(English 2002). Reasons included an unwillingness to work with the agency, incarceration, a 

history of child or sex abuse, or unknown whereabouts. While most fathers in the study were 

identified, one-fifth to one-third in each study site were never located. Another study found that 

caseworkers in kinship foster care services had no contact with a majority of the fathers of 

children participating in the research. Caseworkers had more contact with fathers in cases in 

which all children in a family had the same father as opposed to multiple fathers (O’Donnell 

2001). 

 

5

 Children’s Rights report of results of CFSRs with 22 states for which final reports had been issued as of February 

2003, New York City, NY.
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 9

Project Goals and Objectives 

This study sought to examine how child welfare agencies identify, locate, and involve 

nonresident fathers of children in foster care in casework and permanency planning. The study 

also sought to determine the feasibility of using child support resources to aid in identifying and 

locating fathers of children in care. Specifically, the study was designed to: 

• examine the extent to which child welfare agencies, through policies and practices, involve 

nonresident fathers of foster children in casework and permanency planning; 

• describe the various methods used by local agencies to identify fathers of children in foster 

care, establish paternity, and locate nonresident fathers; 

• identify challenges to involvement, including father characteristics that may be constraints 

and worker opinions; 

• identify practices and initiatives that may increase father involvement; and 

• explore how child support resources may assist child welfare agencies in identifying and 

locating nonresident fathers through case linkage. 

Early on during the design phase, a conceptual framework was developed (figure 1-1). The 

framework outlined four broad domains that could affect nonresident father involvement. 

Illustrated in the top rows of Figure 1-1, the domains are as follows: 

• Policies. Explicit statements about how nonresident fathers should be involved in case 

decisions. Usually they take a written form and can be found in policy statements, 

caseworker manuals, etc. Policies can vary by how recently they have been issued and how 

completely they have been implemented. 

• Practices. What caseworkers do most commonly with cases. Practices may conform or 

diverge from official policy and can be a function of leadership (or lack thereof), the local 

office, the training and supervision of the workers, and the individual beliefs and opinions 

of the caseworkers. 

• Administrative/organizational resources and linkages. The way programs, particularly 

child welfare and child support programs, are organized and linked together through 

communication and supervisory channels can facilitate or hinder the availability of 

resources and mechanisms for identifying and locating fathers. Relations between the child 

welfare agency and the court are also fundamentally important in determining how quickly 

and comprehensively fathers are identified and located. 
What About the Dads? 10

• Characteristics of program participants. The involvement of fathers in child welfare cases 

can be helped or hindered by the characteristics of the population served. Whether the 

father was ever married to the mother, whether he was the perpetrator of abuse or neglect 

of the child or mother, and whether he is geographically close to the child will all affect his 

level of involvement. When cases involve mothers who are reluctant to identify or contact 

the father or who fear abuse, negotiation of father involvement may be especially 

problematic. 

A caseworker’s ability to involve a particular father in the casework process depends on whether 

or not the father of the child is identified and whether or not he is located and is geographically 

available. The likelihood that a child’s father is identified and located is influenced by factors in 

the four domains listed above. Starting with the characteristics of the child and mother, we 

assume, for example, that the father will be identified, although not necessarily located, if the 

child was born within a marriage. The father is more likely to be identified, and perhaps located, 

if the child has been on welfare and the local child support enforcement program has worked the 

case. Policies and practices within the child welfare agency and the courts will affect how much 

effort caseworkers make to identify fathers and to locate them when this information is not 

readily available. If the policies and practices reflect minimal commitment to father involvement, 

then there is little likelihood that efforts will be made to locate and identify them. If policies and 

practices reflect more than minimal commitment, the ease or difficulty of identifying and 

locating the father could mean the difference between involvement and noninvolvement. 

Even when a father is identified and located, the extent of his involvement in the case can 

vary substantially. The length of time the child was in foster care and the length of time the 

caseworker worked the case are likely to influence father involvement. Types of involvement are 

many and include sharing the case plan with both parents, identifying paternal and kinship 

placement resources, obtaining health insurance and/or financial support resources, child-father
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 

For child

•Greater ties to father and paternal relatives •Financial resources •Reduced time in foster care, Increased adoption

For Father•Maintain, develop ties to children 

For agency•Quicker TPR•Recoup of f

Potential Outcomes

Policies and Practices Affecting Process

•Kinship care preference •Family Group Decision Making •Concurrent planning •Visitation •Use of TANF funded kinship care •Efforts to recoup foster care expenses •Diligent search 

Cha

Progr

Administrative/ 

Organizational Resources

•Worker beliefs •Training •Worker characteristics •How supportive, insistent are administrators in involving fathers 

Investigation Substantiation 

(adjudicatory hearing) 

Placement 

(disposition hearing) Periodic reviews Permanency hearing

Identify Locate

Involve

•Organizational structure •Interagency collaboration •Funding •Staffing •Training 

•Age •Type •Doefather •Prior •Abil

Figure 1-1 
What About the Dads? 12

visitation and providing services to both mothers and fathers. The bottom row of our conceptual 

figure illustrates the potential positive outcomes that are expected for the child, the father, and 

the agency. 

Methodology 

Our study of father involvement consisted of three methods of data collection—interviews with 

child welfare administrators, case-level data collection through interviews with caseworkers, and 

data linkage between child welfare and child support systems in four states. The interviews with 

local child welfare administrators were designed to collect information on policies and resources 

for fathers of children served by child welfare agencies. Caseworkers were interviewed about 

their opinions and front-line practice with nonresident fathers. In the sections below we describe 

state selection and the methodology we used to implement the administrator and caseworker 

interviews and data linkage components. 

State Selection

Because state policy and local convention are believed to influence caseworker efforts with 

regard to nonresident fathers, the study was designed to assess how child welfare agencies are 

performing regarding father involvement. We decided against a nationally representative sample 

because we are particularly interested in the difference in performance among jurisdictions, 

differences that would be lost within a national sample. While budget constraints dictated the 

exact number of states chosen, we based our decision to examine only a select number of states 

primarily on the following: 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 13

• The study is exploratory in that many of these issues have not been previously researched. 

A study of this scale will allow the federal government to determine whether the proposed 

methods and questions are feasible before committing larger resources to the topic. 

• Without being generalizable to the nation, results from four states will provide a sense of 

whether there is a range of practice in father involvement. Furthermore, the results will be 

generalizable to these four states and will provide practical information to inform state 

policies. 

• The study will provide sufficient information upon which to generate hypotheses for 

further research should that prove warranted and will provide an indication of whether 

certain issues, practices, and populations merit more extensive focus. 

In selecting our study states, we excluded a number from consideration because of 

limitations in their information systems or small foster care caseloads that would make the 

burden of this study greater than we could feasibly ask the states to agree to. We also eliminated 

some states due to the timing of their federal CFSRs. When the CFSR coincided with the 

preliminary stages of this study, we chose not to overburden state and local child welfare 

officials with involvement in a study demanding both their own and caseworker time. 

Remaining states were stratified by size (under or over 5,000 foster care cases with a 3–

36 month duration), by type of agency administration (state or county-administered child welfare 

system)6

, and by whether the state had a known fathers initiative. Arizona, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, and Tennessee were selected as our study states. With regard to size, the four states 

represent two small (Minnesota and Arizona) and two large (Massachusetts and Tennessee) 

states. Minnesota has the only county-administered child welfare system and Tennessee was the 

only state in which a fathers’ initiative was not identified during the study’s preliminary stages. 

 

6

 We selected only one county-administered child welfare system (in Minnesota) due to the anticipated greater 

burden in recruiting individual county agencies for participation. 
What About the Dads? 14

Administrator Interviews 

We interviewed 53 local child welfare administrators between July 2004 and January 2005 (a 98 

percent response rate). Administrators were selected slightly differently in each of the four states 

to accommodate differences in the structure of the child welfare agency. However, each 

administrator interviewed represented a local office included in the case-level data collection. In 

Minnesota, which has a county-administered child welfare system, state officials selected 10 

local administrators to participate in the interviews based on size of the county office and the 

state’s knowledge of the variability in casework practices. In Tennessee, all 13 regional 

administrators were asked to participate. In Massachusetts, administrators of the 15 local area 

offices in which case-level data collection took place were asked to participate. In Arizona, all 

six district-level managers were included and state officials identified 10 assistant district 

managers to participate in the interviews. 

We designed the administrative interviews to collect information about 

• policies and practices in effect in the office; 

• administrative and organizational resources available to the office and caseworkers; 

• general characteristics of the birth parents of foster children; and 

• administrators’ opinions and attitudes toward engaging fathers in the casework process 

and the likely outcomes of this involvement for the agency, the caseworkers, and the 

children. 

We used a protocol for each interview that provided flexibility so differences between 

states and localities could be identified and examined.7

 The length of the interviews ranged from 

30 to 45 minutes. 

 

7

 The administrator protocol is available at http://aspe.hhs.gov. 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 15

Information obtained during each administrator interview was organized and summarized 

into individual Microsoft Office Word documents. The content of these documents was then 

coded and entered into a qualitative content analysis database (Nud*ist software). Findings from 

the administrative interviews are presented in chapter 2. 

Case-Level Data Collection 

 Sample selection and design

We interviewed local agency caseworkers about particular cases in each of the four 

study states between October 2004 and February 2005 to examine front-line practices on 

nonresident fathers. We selected cases that met the following criteria: 

• Children had been in foster care for at least 3 months but no more than 36 months. 

• Children were in foster care for the first time (first placement episode). 

• Only one child per mother was eligible for the study.8

• Biological fathers were alive but not living in the home from which the child was removed. 

State child welfare information technology (IT) staff performed the initial task of 

extracting cases from their State Automated Child Welfare Information Systems that met the 

above criteria. States were able to extract cases meeting the first three criteria without difficulty; 

however, identifying children removed from homes in which their father did not reside proved 

more difficult. The data structure requested by the federal AFCARS process for “caretaker 

family structure” was helpful, though in most states additional programming was necessary 

using “relationships” data fields. Because of the variability of how states determined case 

eligibility on the last criterion, we built screening criteria into the caseworker questionnaire so 
What About the Dads? 16

cases that did not meet the study criteria could be eliminated at the time of the interview. These 

cases constitute “ineligible” cases. 

The fathers in the study are referred to as nonresident fathers. We feel this term best 

describes the group of fathers about whom information was provided through caseworker 

interviews. Central to our study was that children sampled were removed from homes in which 

their biological fathers did not reside. Thus, by definition, the fathers of the foster children in our 

study were “nonresidents” of the child’s home. Within the broad category, the sample includes 

fathers who are unmarried, married (either to the birth mother or someone else), divorced and 

widowed. The sample also contains children for whom paternity has and has not yet been 

established. The fathers of many children in the sample retain their parental rights, but in some 

cases parental rights have been terminated or relinquished. 

Once the state extracted the universe of cases that met the above criteria, the study 

statistician developed the state sampling designs.9

 In each state a two-stage design was 

developed. In the first stage, caseworkers managing at least two cases meeting the criteria were 

identified. Caseworkers managing only one case meeting the criteria were eliminated.10 All the 

children managed by the first-stage caseworkers constituted the second-stage sampling frame. 

Two children were selected randomly from each sampled caseworker. The design called for 

selection of 300 caseworkers per state, for a total of 2,400 cases. 

 

8

 We concluded that although some siblings would have different fathers for whom casework practices might differ, 

the likelihood of same fathers was high and would thus lessen the number of fathers in the study. 

9

 The sampling design is available at http://aspe.hhs.gov. 

10In Minnesota, our statistician had to modify the design due to a smaller than expected universe of cases meeting 

our study criteria. Circumstances in Hennepin County, Minnesota, meant that some workers there had to be 

interviewed on more than two cases. In addition, 18 of Minnesota’s 87 counties declined to participate; thus, the 

first-stage sample frame did not consist of the entire state. 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 17

 Caseworker engagement and response rates

The survey contractor, NORC, mailed advance letters to selected caseworkers that identified the 

purpose of the study and the selected cases workers would be asked to discuss. In most of the 

localities, the NORC advance letters were mailed after correspondence about the study had been 

sent by the agency itself. The caseworker questionnaire contains separate sections designed to 

collect demographic and case-related information on the following individuals: caseworkers, 

foster children, nonresident fathers, and birth mothers.11 We conducted a pretest in Baltimore, 

Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia, and incorporated recommendations into the final 

questionnaire. The final version was programmed into the Computer-Assisted Telephone 

Instrument (CATI) system used by NORC to administer complex telephone interviews. 

Telephone interviews with caseworkers averaged one hour. 

Response rates for caseworker interviews in each of the four states are provided in table 

1-1. The response rates included in the table include only eligible, completed cases. As discussed 

earlier, because of the difficulty states had in identifying households in which birth fathers did 

not reside, we included a series of screening questions. In total, 408 cases were determined to be 

ineligible due to the child having lived with the father at the time of removal (not considered a 

nonresident father), ineligible due to the father of the child having died prior to or within six 

months of case opening, or ineligible due to the child was in an adoptive home.12 The majority 

(62 percent) of these cases were ineligible due to the child having lived with the father. Thus, 

while child welfare automated information systems have made considerable gains in accuracy 

 

11 The caseworker instrument is available at http://aspe.hhs.gov. 

12 Adoptive child cases were considered ineligible due to the complexity inherent in determining father 

relationships. 
What About the Dads? 18

and completeness, information on a child’s household of origin, specifically, adults in the 

household, remains difficult to capture. 

NORC provided case-level data and caseworker respondent information to the Urban 

Institute in both SAS and ASCII formats. Urban Institute staff members removed ineligible 

cases, conducted cleaning and edit checks, and then ran frequencies and cross-tabulations using 

all the data fields. Descriptive findings from the case-level data collection are presented in 

chapter 3, and results of additional analyses are presented in chapter 4 of this report. 

 

Table 1-1 

Caseworker Interview Response Rates

State Total 

cases, 

n 

Total cases 

minus ineligible 

completed 

cases, n 

Total completed 

cases, na

Total eligible, 

completed cases, 

nb

Response rate, 

% c

AZ 750 671 640 561 84 

MA 756 617 662 523 85 

MN 509 442 411 344 78 

TN 758 635 653 530 83 

All 2,773 2,365 2,366 1,958 83 

a

 Includes both eligible and ineligible cases. 

b

 Ineligible cases included cases in which the child’s father had been residing in the home at the time of 

removal, cases in which the child’s father died prior to or shortly after case opening, and adoptive 

homes. 

c

 Response rates were calculated using eligible cases (second column of numbers) only. 

Child Support Data Linkage 

In each study state, we sought to determine the feasibility of using child support enforcement 

data systems to assist child welfare agencies in identifying and locating fathers. We compared 

data collected from the caseworker survey on a variety of child support related issues—paternity, 

use of locating resources, collections—with similar data provided by child support data systems. 

In addition, state and local policies and practices for referring foster care cases to child support 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 19

for reimbursement of foster care costs were examined during administrator and caseworker 

interviews.13 

We did not begin the data linkage process until caseworker interviews were complete. 

The caseworker interview has several questions that allow a caseworker to exclude a case from 

the data linkage component of the study. While we purposefully inserted questions designed to 

eliminate cases in which a referral to child support might bring harm to either the foster child or 

caregiver, workers were provided latitude in that no specific reason had to be given for asking 

that a case be excluded.14 A significant portion (30 percent) of the cases was excluded from the 

linkage based on caseworker responses. Caseworkers were more likely to have noted domestic 

violence as a problem for the father and more likely to have reported a bad relationship between 

the mother and nonresident father in the excluded cases than the cases included in the linkage 

component.15 

Researchers constructed a separate file for each state that contained only the list of case 

identification numbers provided earlier for sampling purposes for the survey. Researchers then 

sent this file to each state’s child welfare IT specialist to merge identifying information (child’s 

name, Social Security Number, mother’s and father’s names, Social Security numbers, and 

employer information). State officials then transferred the completed file directly to the state’s 

child support agency. 

 

13 In Tennessee, we were told all foster care cases are routinely referred to child support to begin the process of 

obtaining reimbursement for foster care costs. In Minnesota, IV-E cases are automatically referred to child support. 

Arizona and Massachusetts did not appear to have any established policy of referring foster care cases to child 

support. 

14 Only cases in which the caseworker responded ‘no’ to two questions: “Is there any reason why the information 

you have provided should not be used to facilitate a match with the parent locator services?” and “Do you think 

locating the father of this child might put the child or the mother at risk of physical harm?” were included in the data 

linkage. 

15 See later discussion (page 88) for description of relationships. 
What About the Dads? 20

Child support IT staff added any child support information available in their automated 

system—paternity, child support order (attempted, established, collections), noncustodial parent 

located, state locator resources used/successful, and federal locator resources used/successful. 

Child support IT staff then removed identifying information from the file and transferred the file 

back to the Urban Institute for analysis. 

The chapters that follow present findings from the administrator interviews, case-level 

data collection through caseworker interviews, and data linkage between child welfare and child 

support. Results from the administrator interviews are provided first in chapter 2 to provide 

policy and agency context for the case-level data collection. Descriptive analyses of the caselevel data are then presented in chapter 3. Results of more extensive analyses using the case-level 

data and the child support case linkage, and a summary and conclusions are presented in chapter 

4. 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 21

Chapter 2 

Results of Administrator Interviews 

The sections that follow present findings from the interviews with local child welfare 

administrators. The findings are organized around three central themes that arose in our 

examination of both policy and practice on fathers’ involvement: an agency’s perception of 

nonresident fathers and the impact on casework, an agency’s view of its own role in father 

involvement, and an agency’s description of other systems that involve fathers. We interpret 

these three themes as general agency philosophies that have an impact on both policy and 

practice on father involvement (figure 2-1). Throughout this chapter, we also contrast policies 

and practices among and within the study states when doing so helps illustrate important points. 

Agency Perception of Fathers and Their Involvement 

How child welfare agencies approach involving nonresident fathers in casework practice is 

influenced by how they perceive the potential impact of fathers on children. In general, most 

administrators with whom we spoke thought the potential for father involvement in child welfare 

Figure 2-1: Flowchart of Father Involvement

 

 

 Process of Father Involvement 

Impact of System LinkagesImpact of Agency 

Perception of Caseload

 Agency Policy and Practice 

Identification Location Engagement 

Impact of 

Agency’s View of 

Its Own Role

Case

Referral

Child

Outcomes
What About the Dads? 22

casework and permanency planning was a positive thing. They often cited a general trend over 

time toward increased focus on fathers (particularly with special populations such as incarcerated 

fathers) or family-centered practice in their agencies. On the other hand, administrators often 

tempered their positive perception of the potential for father involvement with grounded 

examples of barriers to fathers’ participation in a case. These factors may affect a caseworker’s 

level of effort as well. 

Caseload Information 

Agency perception of who nonresident fathers are and what they can offer their children likely 

influences any efforts to involve nonresident fathers in casework. To illuminate this perception, 

we asked administrators about the size and composition of the nonresident father population. 

Administrators generally estimated that between 30 and 80 percent of the children in their care 

have nonresident fathers, a wide range that was consistent across all four states in the study. 

The wide variety of special populations (e.g., incarcerated fathers, immigrants) 

mentioned by administrators, while changing from site to site, illustrated that administrators 

perceived the nonresident father population as having a diverse set of needs and experiences. 

They have a complex view of “father involvement” that incorporates flexibility for the specifics 

of each unique case. While administrators in all states said their caseloads included incarcerated 

fathers, estimates of the size of this group ranged from “a handful” to nearly half of the caseload. 

Some offices made a caveat that the number of unidentified fathers might conceal higher 

incarceration rates. Consistently, administrators cited drug charges, particularly 

methamphetamine usage in rural areas, and violent offenses as reasons for nonresident father 

incarceration. Many administrators, and nearly all of those in Massachusetts, mentioned serving 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 23

birth parents with a history of domestic violence. Some administrators, particularly those in areas 

along the U.S-Mexico border in Arizona, said their offices regularly deal with nonresident 

immigrant fathers. In Tennessee, a state that has seen striking growth in its immigrant population 

in recent years,16 administrators confirmed that immigrant fathers were a small but growing part 

of child welfare cases. 

Perceived Benefits of Father Involvement 

While recognizing the differing situations of nonresident fathers, administrators identified 

potential benefits of father involvement. First and foremost, administrators said that father 

involvement, provided it poses no safety risk, is beneficial to a child’s well-being. Fathers can 

offer emotional, financial, and social support to their children. Even if a father cannot be the 

caretaker for his child, a child’s knowledge of his or her father may help the child sort through 

abandonment or other emotional issues. Father involvement may have other, more tangible 

benefits for a child, such as critical knowledge of medical or genetic information or financial 

benefits, such as consistent child support payments or benefits for children of veterans. 

Administrators said father involvement could be beneficial for the child welfare agency, 

birth mothers, and fathers themselves. Father involvement can allow some children to avoid outof-home care altogether or can lead to quicker permanency when a child can be placed with his 

or her father or his kin.17 Administrators noted that quicker permanency saves child welfare 

agency resources, allowing agencies to use resources for other cases in need. Agencies could 

benefit from father involvement by reduced overall caseloads in the long run, even if more 

 

16 Tennessee was one of the top 10 states with the fastest growth in immigrant population between 1990 and 2000, 

with a rate far exceeding 100 percent (Fix and Passel 2003). 
What About the Dads? 24

intensive efforts increased time spent on cases in the short term. Administrators also said that 

father involvement could lead to a more positive work environment; if fathers are meaningfully 

involved in cases, administrators said work could be more fulfilling to a case manager with a 

social work background. Finally, a minority of administrators mentioned that birth mothers 

might feel less isolated or stressed if children’s fathers were involved. A small number also 

mentioned that father involvement might lead to fathers feeling more empowered and 

responsible for their children. 

In addition to the benefits they see from father involvement, most agency administrators 

said they had noticed an increase in agency and court focus on fathers in the past several years. 

Agencies have introduced new initiatives, such as family-group conferencing, that seek parent 

and kin involvement, and they have undertaken renewed efforts to search for fathers more 

diligently. Some administrators also said that there is increased emphasis on involving fathers 

earlier in a case. Some administrators in all states mentioned an increase in their agency or 

state’s focus on serving fathers, particularly incarcerated ones. They noted that judges were more 

open to awarding custody to nonresident fathers than they were in the past. Many administrators 

said that child support enforcement agencies had become more aggressive in searching for 

fathers, too. 

Administrators cited a number of reasons for an increased focus on fathers. 

Administrators often mentioned that judges and legal departments place pressure on agencies to 

abide by legal requirements for parental involvement, perhaps leading to earlier father 

identification or more diligent searches. In some cases, lawsuits against the child welfare agency 

prompted an increased focus on fathers. Administrators sometimes referred to state or local 

 

17 Note that some administrators mentioned the benefits of father’s kin as placement resources before mentioning the 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 25

leadership as an impetus for involving fathers, indicating that leadership tone has affected worker 

or agency efforts. Some administrators also pointed to federal legislation as a motivating force to 

improve father involvement. For example, some administrators in Massachusetts and Arizona 

mentioned that since the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, the agency has focused on 

quicker permanency and consequently on fathers and paternal kin who could act as placement 

resources. Other administrators depicted budget shortfalls, both in child welfare and child 

support, as reasons for an increased focus on recouping foster care expenses from birth parents 

(both mothers and fathers). 

Drawbacks to or Costs of Father Involvement 

In addition to the benefits of father involvement, the administrators with whom we spoke 

identified a variety of potential drawbacks or costs. One of the two most common concerns of 

administrators was that father involvement could reintroduce an abuser into a family or renew 

parental conflict. Administrators in all states repeatedly mentioned a danger of involving fathers 

with a history of domestic violence or violence to a child. A few administrators mentioned that 

some women involved with the child welfare agency had intentionally moved to their districts to 

escape abusive partners. In the words of one administrator, father involvement could “destabilize 

women who are already unable to care for their children.” One administrator also mentioned that 

female caseworkers might feel threatened by fathers with a history of domestic violence, thereby 

creating a difficult working environment. Even if birth parents merely argue, increasing a 

father’s involvement may require a worker to invest more time in a case to strike compromises 

between birth parents. Because of these drawbacks, administrators in all states routinely 

 

father himself, which may be indicative of the agency’s perception of nonresident fathers. 
What About the Dads? 26

mentioned parental conflict or a mother’s safety as reasons for excluding nonresident fathers 

from the case process or at least approaching their involvement with caution. 

An equally common concern voiced by administrators was that increasing father 

involvement would create more work for caseworkers, already described as overburdened by 

high caseloads. Involving a father and his kin in a case introduces more people with whom 

workers must consult. In addition, involving fathers, especially those out-of-state, may increase 

agency costs of providing services or transportation for visits. 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. If a nonresident father is not the best placement for a child, involving him in a 

case may create barriers to other permanency options, such as an adoptive or guardianship 

placement with the mother’s kin, if the father decides to fight for custodial rights. Some 

administrators qualified their concern over burdens on worker time by saying that the increased 

workload that would occur in the short-term would likely be outweighed in the long-term by 

overall caseload reductions if children could be placed with fathers or paternal relatives or if 

fathers were to be located more quickly to expedite adoption proceedings, leading to more 

efficient uses of resources. 

There are certain other situations that make working with fathers more difficult for child 

welfare agencies. Although several administrators noted that they find many fathers by working 

with the corrections agencies, once found, incarcerated fathers present unique challenges. Many 

administrators noted that involvement with the criminal justice system may make caseworkers 

less likely to engage a father. Some administrators noted an internal conflict between wanting to 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 27

put an incarcerated father in a child’s case plan yet recognizing that an unrealistic service 

expectation would then follow (e.g., one Massachusetts administrator remarked that if a worker 

enters a father serving a life sentence into a case plan, the worker would then have to visit him 

once a month). Arranging for children to visit incarcerated fathers can be time-consuming if 

extensive travel is involved or prisons have complex protocols for admitting visitors. Some 

administrators also said that the process of visitation might be traumatic for children and 

intimidating to caseworkers. 

Involving nonresident fathers with substance abuse issues may also present drawbacks 

for the agency and children. Quite a few administrators said that a history of substance of abuse 

would make workers less likely to involve a father in case planning. Attempts to engage fathers 

who are suffering from a drug addiction may be fruitless or require intensive services. 

Administrators depicted some specific drawbacks or costs to involving immigrant 

nonresident fathers in a child welfare case. Certain characteristics of this population, such as 

potential language barriers or frequent migration, may cost the agency money and time in efforts 

to locate and engage fathers. A birth mother and other family members may be hesitant to 

provide any information about an undocumented father for fear that he will be deported. It may 

also be difficult to engage nonresident immigrant fathers in child welfare casework. 

Administrators, particularly those in Tennessee, noted that a scarcity of local translation services 

made connecting with this population more difficult. Finally, agencies may be wary of placing 

children with undocumented fathers because of the lack of information available to the agency. 

Some administrators noted that it is difficult to do criminal background checks or prove that the 

men have steady income if they are paid “under the table.” Others expressed concern over 
What About the Dads? 28

placing a child with an immigrant father who could take the child and return to his native 

country, where U.S. courts would have no jurisdiction. 

Each agency’s perception of the nonresident father population involved in its cases can 

affect policy and practice in a number of ways. It can influence the types of efforts made to 

identify fathers and the supports agencies offer to fathers. Characteristics of this population may 

also influence the approach that the agency uses toward father engagement. In the end, the 

balancing act that agencies do to weigh the potential benefits of father involvement with the 

challenges that may exist for each father influences agency efforts to involve nonresident fathers. 

In the following section, we turn our attention to this dynamic: the way that an agency’s view of 

its own role in facilitating or guarding father involvement affects policy and practice. We also 

highlight differences between states on key factors to provide a more in-depth look at each 

state’s policies and practices on father involvement (table 2-1). 

Agency Role in Father Involvement 

Our administrator interviews reflect differences in how agencies view their role in affecting 

father involvement. Two separate factors appear to be at work—the balance between strict legal 

requirements and flexible social work practices, and the applied definition of client (e.g., a single 

child, an entire family including nonresident fathers and other kin, or the dyad of the child and 

the custodial parent from whom the child was removed). 
Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 

Table 2-1: Key Factors on Nonresident Father Involvement by State 

State Timing of Father 

Identification 

Case Plans and Nonresident Fathers 

Father-specific Programminga

Legal Representation 

Information SSupport and TLocate Father

Arizona Begins during 

investigation or petition phase; policy requires searches for missing parents at least once every 6 months 

Case plans should include nonresident fathers but do not always do so in practice; administrators say it is difficult to create case plan for each parent 

Administrators report little activity 

Fathers receive court-appointed representation in child welfare proceedings 

Administrators child support eof the Departmwhich includes 

Massachusetts Begins during 

investigation but most thorough during assessment period (45 day period after case has been assigned for assessment) 

Case plans do not always include fathers in practice; not difficult to create case plan for each parent, which is routine for cases with a history of domestic violence 

Over half of administrators mention agency/CBO partnerships to provide programming 

Fathers receive court-appointed representation in child welfare proceedings 

Administrators varies by officagencies have Understanding information wienforcement is answering quemore common 

Minnesota Begins at intake, the 

point at which placement looks likely, or during the assessment 

Nonresident father inclusion depends on variety of characteristics of father; reports of creation of separate plans varies widely across districts 

Administrators mention father programming by TANF, child support, local organizations, and the agency itself 

Fathers do not receive courtappointed representation in child welfare proceedings 

Administrators information wichild support einformation-sh

Tennessee Searches for fathers 

vary in timing; workers often ask about fathers at a meeting 7 days after child comes into care 

Frequent reports of inclusion of fathers in case plans among study states, regardless of father characteristics; creation of separate plans depends on the region 

Administrators report little activity 

Fathers do not receive courtappointed representation in child welfare proceedings 

Administrators department thawelfare, informmore difficult, benefits workeTANF data sys

Notes: TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; CBO = community-based organization. a We define father-specific programming to include any services targeted to fathers or non-custodial parents (who are likely to be fathers), some of wh

with the child welfare agency. For example, these services could include support groups, nurturing classes, batterers' intervention programs, or semin

custodial parents.
What About the Dads? 30

In this section we discuss both of these factors and the potential impact on policy and 

practice. We divide father involvement into three distinct stages: identification, location, and 

engagement. 

Father Involvement through a Legal or Social Work Lens 

Administrators identified two philosophical influences on involving fathers: one that focused on 

the legal requirements of father involvement enforced by the courts and carried out by agency 

legal departments and one that focused on the social work framework of the agency’s mission, 

with an emphasis on practice that engaged fathers apart from legal requirements. For example, 

when probed about father involvement, some administrators emphasized their agency’s 

compliance with state law or district requirements to search for fathers within a given time 

frame. They referred often to agency legal departments and the pressures of the court system to 

find fathers. Through their descriptions of father involvement, these administrators revealed the 

influence of the legal aspects of child welfare casework. Other administrators tended to focus on 

the flexibility of the agency’s approach to fathers, emphasizing family-based practice and 

meeting the needs of each individual father, particularly after identification and location had 

occurred. Some had a wide knowledge of father-specific programming available in their 

communities, or they had hired particular staff to serve fathers. These administrators revealed the 

influence of a social work philosophy on their policy and practice. 

This is not to imply that administrators held only one of these philosophies. On the 

contrary, our interviews indicated that most administrators balanced these two philosophies 

given the context of the child welfare population and dynamics affecting the local agency. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 31

Nonetheless, it is important to remember these influences as we explore the practical aspects of 

father involvement throughout this section. 

The View of the “Client”: Who Do Agencies Serve? 

Administrators differed in the way that they identified their clients. Some administrators 

emphasized that agencies work for each child rather than the parents and child. Of these 

administrators, some emphasized that this stance was particularly useful when trying to engage 

fathers, who may at first feel suspicious of a caseworker and the worker’s relationship with the 

child’s mother. Other administrators said their agencies focused on each child and those adults 

living with the child at the time of placement. Placing a premium on reunification, these 

administrators viewed nonresident fathers as outside the family unit and therefore less of a 

priority, particularly early in a case. Finally, some administrators stressed that their agencies 

approached families, defined broadly to include nonresident fathers, as the client, thereby 

making sure that father involvement was a priority with caseworkers. One administrator 

described this philosophy as a “the more the merrier” attitude toward father involvement. This 

view appeared to be the most prevalent of the three among administrators in our interviews. 

Administrators with this view often noted a bias in the system against nonresident fathers, seen 

even in small ways, such as organizing case records by a mother’s last name instead of a child’s. 

Again, it is important to remember the role that this philosophical orientation may have on 

practical efforts of agencies to identify, locate, and engage nonresident fathers. 
What About the Dads? 32

The Agency’s Role in Policy and Practice 

The varying approaches cited above could affect policy and practice throughout all phases of 

father involvement: identification, location, and engagement (including receipt of services). In 

this section, we make extensive use of state examples to illustrate both the breadth of practice 

and the range of policies that agencies employ when involving nonresident fathers. 

 Identifying nonresident fathers

The point at which agencies attempt to identify nonresident fathers varies by state and, to a lesser 

extent, by local agency. (See table 2-1 for a description of each state’s practices) While many 

administrators said workers begin trying to identify a child’s father during the investigation 

phase, most seemed to think that efforts were stronger and more successful early in a case but 

after investigation. Arizona was unique in its widespread mention of a policy to look for absent 

parents at least every six months. Some offices in the state opt to do the search more frequently, 

an effort they call a best practice rather than district policy, while others said their offices 

searched for fathers less frequently in practice than policy dictated. Administrators in all states 

said court and legal pressure to identify fathers usually occurred toward the end of a case, 

although there is a trend in some courts and among agency attorneys to press for identification 

earlier. 

States also vary in the ways they establish paternity, both for purposes of involving a 

father in a case and for the purposes of placement opportunities or relinquishment or termination 

of parental rights. The methods used to establish paternity varied more with the specifics of a 

case than by state or local office. Generally, agency administrators said that workers relied on 

birth certificates, voluntary recognition of parentage, and a mother’s word to establish paternity. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 33

Workers typically request birth certificates at the time that a placement looks likely, although in 

some cases, birth certificates may take a long time to reach local offices, particularly if a child 

was born out of state or outside the United States. A mother may identify a father in writing, and 

then the agency can pursue DNA testing if the alleged father denies paternity. 

Most administrators said their offices rarely used DNA testing, although there were some 

(particularly in Tennessee) who said that it was used routinely to establish paternity. The person 

or agency financially responsible for paternity testing may differ by state or local office. 

Administrators said that the child welfare agency, its legal department, or local court could be 

responsible for financing paternity testing; in Tennessee, some administrators said alleged fathers 

could be responsible for the cost of DNA testing in certain circumstances. Sometimes paternity 

establishment is listed as a task for the agency in a child’s case plan when a father has not been 

identified by the time the case plan is created. Administrators in all states reported that agencies 

had encountered problems when men believed to be fathers of children served by the agency 

later turned out not to be; these problems typically arose when the children in question were 

placed with kin of the alleged fathers. In these cases, the agency originally relied on a mother’s 

word (perhaps while an alleged father was missing) or birth certificates, and later DNA testing 

revealed that the men were not birth fathers. 

Reliance on a child’s mother for information about a nonresident father was a common 

refrain among agency administrators. Whether due to simple proximity or the likelihood of 

knowledge, agencies primarily rely on birth mothers for information about the identity of a 

child’s father and his whereabouts. Several administrators noted that judges ask women about 

their children’s fathers under oath; administrators said this approach placed more pressure on 

birth mothers who might not be as cooperative with a caseworker. In Tennessee, some 
What About the Dads? 34

administrators mentioned that the agency’s court liaisons often ask mothers about a child’s birth 

father during the initial proceedings. Since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work 

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which linked father identification more closely with a 

family’s eligibility for welfare benefits, some Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

agencies have assisted child welfare in identifying birth fathers. 

 Locating nonresident fathers

States vary widely in their use of staff to locate fathers. Overall, administrators said caseworkers 

were responsible for doing the first search for absent fathers. Some check a variety of sources, 

such as phone books, last known employers, and a diverse set of agencies. Most administrators 

noted that search efforts are dependent on the characteristics of a case and the individual 

caseworker. 

After workers do an initial search, they may consult others within the child welfare or 

other agencies for assistance if they have not located the parent. In Arizona, which had a 

consistent process and timeframe for searching for fathers, workers rely on legal departments or 

clerical staff in the local office who are good at searches to find fathers. Arizona offices also 

have uniform access to the State Parent Locator service for a fee when local searches yield no 

results. In contrast, most Massachusetts administrators said there are no designated staff to 

search for fathers, although some administrators mentioned that kinship workers could take on 

this responsibility. In some Massachusetts offices without specific search workers, administrators 

said they wished they had kinship workers to do searches or thought that such staff would be 

more efficient for the agency. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 35

Minnesota did not seem to have a specific process or pattern for staffing father searches. 

County directors mentioned a variety of staff positions that would aid in searches: case aides, 

workers particularly adept at searches, workers specializing in working with unmarried parents, 

legal staff, child support enforcement workers, and workers hired through a contracted 

community-based organization. 

Most administrators in Tennessee said that no designated staff members search for 

fathers, although some directors mentioned agency legal staff assistance or a staff member hired 

by a contracted community-based organization for searches. Tennessee’s child welfare benefits 

workers, who are part of the child welfare agency but are particularly adept in the family 

assistance (welfare) system, have access to some TANF information that might include 

information on fathers, so they can assist caseworkers in searches. One Tennessee agency 

recently received permission to create a diligent search staff position, and another area has 

considered creating a similar position. 

Engaging nonresident fathers

Administrators focused less frequently on efforts to engage nonresident fathers than on efforts to 

identify or locate them. When they did mention father engagement, they often talked about 

policies requiring the agency to serve (e.g., by providing parenting classes) and visit incarcerated 

fathers. Worker training rarely focused on ways to engage fathers specifically, emphasizing 

engagement of kin more generally. An administrator in one state said training does not include 

very much father engagement material because engagement is not a legal matter. However, some 

administrators mentioned a trend toward greater father engagement. Others suggested the best 

approaches to engaging fathers include assuring fathers that the agency does not work for the 
What About the Dads? 36

mother, offering services to fathers early in a case, and asking fathers about their own families as 

placement resources. 

• Including fathers in case plans. One of the ways administrators noted to engage a father 

was to include him in the child welfare case plan. While some states appear to include 

fathers more frequently than others, administrators in all states acknowledged that fathers 

are not always included in case plans. (See table 2-1 for a description of each state’s 

practices.) Reasons for fathers’ exclusion could include incarceration, domestic violence, 

lack of paternal interest in the child, inability to identify or locate a birth father, and a 

father’s proximity to the agency. Among the study states, Tennessee seemed most 

committed to including fathers, even those who were absent or alleged, in case plans.18 If 

fathers are unknown, workers are often expected to create tasks for the agency, such as a 

diligent search or paternity testing. 

One potential concern noted about including nonresident fathers in case plans is 

that inclusion may compromise each parent’s confidentiality or renew conflict in parents’ 

relationships. All administrators, when probed, said it would be possible to create 

separate plans, but most often agencies create only one plan for each child. Arizona 

administrators said it was very difficult to create separate plans for each parent because of 

the state’s data system, while Massachusetts seemed to do it easily and routinely. 

Administrators in Massachusetts repeatedly and without prompting mentioned a history 

of domestic violence as a reason to create separate case plans for parents. In Minnesota, 

some counties do not create separate plans for each parent (in some cases saying 

 

18 As part of the Brian A. Settlement Agreement, administrative policies and procedures on engaging families 

require inclusion of all known parents in the permanency planning process. This includes biological parents, legal 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 37

domestic violence and confidentiality have not been problems); others seemed to create 

separate plans any time a nonresident father was involved, regardless of his relationship 

with the child’s mother. In Tennessee, some agencies noted using only one plan, while 

others use two for separated parents or end up creating two if parents will not meet 

together. 

• Serving fathers. Some administrators indicated a trend toward providing services to 

nonresident fathers more frequently. Some mentioned legal necessity, child well-being, 

or federal or agency reviews of their own deficiencies as motivating factors for increasing 

services. Services mentioned included parenting classes, batterers’ intervention programs, 

therapy, and fatherhood programs. Particularly in Arizona, administrators expressed 

concern over serving undocumented immigrant fathers and remarked that state law19 may 

limit access to services such as housing subsidies and health insurance. Factors like 

substance abuse or fathers’ aggression toward workers may also act as barriers to serving 

fathers. In Massachusetts, one administrator mentioned that fathers react more positively 

to services provided by community-based organizations than to agency programs. In 

Minnesota, several administrators mentioned ongoing efforts, sometimes in relationship 

to child support enforcement, to inform fathers of their legal rights and direct them to 

legal aid. Hennepin County, Minnesota (Minneapolis), has a pilot project that targets 

 

parents, and alleged fathers. The procedural guidelines specifically mention that “unless contrary to the 

child/youth’s best interest, incarcerated parents must be included in the development of the permanency plan.”

19 In 2004, voters in Arizona passed Proposition 200, which prohibited offering some state and local government 

benefits to undocumented immigrants. At the time of our interviews, some administrators worried that the 

proposition would affect child welfare services or services to which the agency could refer undocumented fathers. 

While the proposition does not actually change child welfare services, it does limit access to some government 

benefits, such as utility assistance programs, which might be of use to noncustodial fathers providing placements for 

their children. 
What About the Dads? 38

nonresident father engagement. Administrators in Tennessee mentioned communitybased fatherhood programs (although administrators tended not to know much about 

them) and personalized services that fathers can receive (e.g., batterers’ intervention 

classes). Some Tennessee administrators mentioned transportation or availability of 

services in rural areas as barriers to serving fathers. 

In addition to more general services, many agencies either offer or refer fathers to 

father-specific programming. (See table 2-1 for a description of each state’s practices.) 

These referrals may go to a community-based organization that works independently or 

in partnership with the child welfare agency or to other government agencies, such as 

TANF or child support. Among the states participating in our study, Massachusetts and 

Minnesota seemed to have the most organized systems of programming targeted to 

fathers. More than half of the Massachusetts administrators mentioned ongoing 

partnerships between local agencies and community organizations to provide fatherspecific programming. Often, the agency helped fund and organize a program, but 

providers were actually located in community organizations or split their time between 

the child welfare agency and the community provider. Some Massachusetts 

administrators mentioned having workers who were designated to serve fathers. Services 

include batterers’ intervention classes or anger management programs, fatherhood 

classes, parenting lessons for fathers, reentry programs for incarcerated fathers, and 

programs targeting teenage fathers. Similarly, some Minnesota administrators mentioned 

father-specific services in the community, including efforts to reach fathers by child 

support and TANF. Several administrators mentioned legal aid services for fathers, and 

one county has a specialized worker to work with fathers. Ramsey County, Minnesota 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 39

(St. Paul), refers some fathers to a fatherhood program for African-American men with 

children in the child welfare system. 

Administrators in Tennessee and Arizona appeared to be less knowledgeable of 

services available to fathers in the community, potentially because many of them oversaw 

larger districts than the administrators in Massachusetts and Minnesota. However, one 

district in Arizona was in the process of working with a behavioral health group to serve 

fathers with children involved in child welfare. In Tennessee, while some administrators 

knew of father-specific programs, most did not know whether the agency had referred 

fathers to the programs. None of the four states stood out as having widespread or strong 

father initiatives. 

• Placing children with fathers. When a nonresident father is considered appropriate to 

care for his child, perhaps with the aid of available services, the agency may place a child 

with him. Administrators varied in the terminology they used for this process: Some 

considered it a placement as any other kin placement, while others were adamant that a 

child living with a nonresident father should not be called a placement at all. Policies also 

differed across and within states (except in Massachusetts, where responses were more 

consistent). In Massachusetts, where administrators commonly said a child living with a 

nonresident father is not a placement, agencies have fewer institutional barriers for the 

process. Fathers receive a home assessment to determine risk to a child, while other kin 

placements would receive a full home study. Fathers’ criminal records are reviewed 

within the local agency, while criminal records of other potential kin require regional or 

area approval before a placement can occur. In contrast, while administrators in 
What About the Dads? 40

Minnesota said that fathers are given preference as placement resources, most said that 

the standards and assessment procedures for fathers are the same as those for other kin. 

• Representing fathers in court. States also differed in their policy on legal representation 

in court for nonresident fathers. (See table 2-1 for a description of each state’s practices.) 

In Arizona, fathers often receive court-appointed representation in child welfare 

proceedings, though this may vary by judge or the point in a case at which a father 

expresses interest in becoming involved. One administrator mentioned that some 

appointed attorneys may search for missing fathers on their own. In Massachusetts, there 

is a state policy to appoint attorneys for fathers in child welfare cases, assuming the 

fathers are financially eligible for legal assistance. Two Minnesota administrators 

mentioned community programs they direct fathers to for legal assistance. No 

administrators in Tennessee mentioned court-appointed attorneys. 

• Recouping foster care expenses. Some administrators indicated their states had placed 

new emphasis on recouping foster care expenses from nonresident fathers in recent years. 

In some cases, administrators said child support agencies initiated increased focus on 

recouping expenses, while child welfare agencies may have led the effort in others. States 

have different processes and criteria to determine whether or not a nonresident father will 

be responsible for the costs. Across states, administrators noted judicial discretion to 

waive the payment and a lack of an enforcement mechanism as reasons that the agency 

cannot recoup money. Additionally, some administrators who said that there was a 

process to recoup foster care expenses indicated that there was a lack of incentive on the 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 41

part of the agency to adhere closely with the policy, given that recovered money 

frequently goes directly back to the state rather than to the local agency. 

In Massachusetts, administrators overwhelmingly had a negative view of the 

efficacy of the contracted agency to recoup foster care expenses, saying that little money 

was recovered. In Arizona, when a child comes into care, the caseworker is responsible 

for completing a parental assessment and determining how much each parent can pay. 

The worker then submits the assessment in the court report, leaving it up to each judge to 

actually order the repayment. Some judges (and workers) may see the process as unfair 

and not order the payments. Others may order the payments, but many administrators 

said the lack of an enforcement mechanism leaves the policy without much “bite.” In 

practice, most administrators said that the agency collects little money through this 

policy. Administrators in Minnesota said that the child support office does try to recoup 

foster care expenses from both parents and for both title IV-E and non-IV-E eligible 

children. While some administrators said efforts have remained the same in recent years, 

others said child support has stepped up its efforts due to budget pressures. Tennessee 

administrators said that caseworkers typically ask judges to order child support payments 

through the enforcement agency. Judges vary in how often they actually make the orders, 

and at least one administrator said the enforcement process is weak. (See table 2-1 for a 

visual depiction of state practices.) 

Description of Service System Linkages 

Interviews with child welfare administrators also focused on the service system linkages that 

child welfare agencies use to involve nonresident fathers. The way an agency perceives its 
What About the Dads? 42

partners may affect how or whether that agency connects with other systems to engage fathers. In 

this section we address child welfare agency relationships with child support and TANF agencies 

and the court system. (See table 2-1 for brief overviews on sharing information with TANF and 

child support.) We also address other relationships that local administrators identified as 

important in their efforts to involve nonresident fathers in child welfare casework. 

Child Support Enforcement

Minnesota and Tennessee highlighted descriptions of particularly active relationships with child 

support agencies. These two states consistently reported sharing information to identify and 

locate fathers. Administrators in Minnesota often referred to good relationships with child 

support, and most referred to some process that would allow them to get fathers’ information 

from this agency. In fact, administrators often indicated that child support enforcement was a 

primary resource in agencies’ efforts to identify fathers. A few administrators referred to an 

automatic information-sharing system in which child welfare contacts child support when a IV-E 

eligible child comes into care. One county administrator in Minnesota said that child support 

now sends one worker to all child protective services hearings to ensure child support is 

discussed at the hearing. 

Administrators in Tennessee also reported established relationships with child support 

and widespread information sharing. The sharing may be informal, formal but direct (meaning 

that there is an established process or form to use to share information, but workers still do it 

themselves), or through the courts or agency attorneys. Child welfare benefit workers in 

Tennessee are privy to some child support data. The state also automatically refers cases to child 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 43

support when a child comes into care. In addition, the child welfare agency has court liaison staff 

attend child support hearings. 

The relationship between child welfare agencies and their local child support agencies for 

sharing information about fathers appeared more tentative in Arizona and Massachusetts. In 

Arizona, the child support and child welfare agencies are both part of the Department of 

Economic Security. Administrators noted a decline in concern over information sharing with 

child support since child welfare became part of the same state department a couple of years ago. 

Provided that workers ask for child support information in their official capacity, all workers 

should theoretically be able to access information about fathers through child support. On the 

ground, though, while some Arizona administrators said their offices regularly worked with child 

support to identify fathers, others said they could not access this information but wished they 

could. Child welfare workers in some districts can ask district-level parent locator staff to access 

some available child support records, so the two agencies have at least some capacity to link 

data. Generally, though, Arizona administrators spoke of increasing collaboration with child 

support, including joint meetings or collocation. 

Most administrators in Massachusetts reported obtaining some information from child 

support about fathers, although the practice appeared infrequent in some offices. One 

administrator noted that workers in the local office would have no idea how to get information 

from child support. In contrast, some administrators reported that child support asks the child 

welfare agency for information on fathers with relative frequency. Caseworkers who do obtain 

information on fathers from child support have a form they must complete and give to the child 

support agency. Child protective services appears to have no computer access to any child 

support records. 
What About the Dads? 44

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

Some child welfare agencies also indicated sharing information about fathers with local welfare 

(TANF) agencies. This practice seemed most common in Arizona and least frequent in 

Minnesota. Some administrators in Arizona indicated, unlike in the case of the tentative 

relationship with child support, the child welfare agency could access some TANF information 

freely, particularly through shared data systems (even though all three are part of the same 

agency). Massachusetts and Tennessee both reported wide variation in the degree of 

collaboration between TANF and the child welfare agency. Some administrators mentioned that 

TANF sometimes pushed mothers to identify fathers. In Massachusetts, most administrators said 

they got information from TANF (or could do so in theory), but the formality of the process 

varied from established memoranda of understanding to informal caseworker interactions. 

Minnesota administrators did not mention working with TANF often. Those who did said the 

relationship to share information about fathers was mainly informal through caseworkers. 

The relationship in Tennessee between child welfare agencies and TANF illuminates 

changes over time and factors influencing data sharing in a couple of ways. Previously part of 

the Department of Human Services, the Department of Children’s Services was created in 1996. 

Administrators mentioned the fact that the two programs are now administered by separate 

agencies as a barrier to getting information to identify fathers. Second, Tennessee has specialized 

staff, the child welfare benefits workers, who have access to some TANF computer systems. 

Some administrators said that they use the benefits workers to search for fathers, while others 

either said benefits workers were no longer allowed to share information or appeared to have 

never shared information. Some administrators also reported that caseworkers foster informal 

relationships with TANF workers that allow them to access information about fathers. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 45

Courts 

Administrators with whom we spoke seemed to view the courts more as a source of oversight 

rather than a partner in father involvement. Respondents highlighted a variety of ways in which 

courts could influence father involvement: judicial pressure on or assistance to agencies 

searching for fathers, court involvement in efforts to recoup foster care expenses, court pressure 

to evaluate all potential child placement resources, the role of courts in establishing paternity, 

and the permission of the court to share information across agencies that might help locate 

fathers. Administrators varied in their assessments of judges–some judges ask early and often 

about a child’s birth father, while others rarely do or only do so late in a case. Administrators 

who noticed variation across judges sometimes mentioned the backgrounds of particularly 

aggressive judges (e.g., a father himself, a former child welfare agency attorney, etc.) as an 

explanation for their practice. 

Some administrators depicted changes in judicial practice over time. A few expressed 

disappointment that the relationship with the court had become more litigious or that there were 

more “legal hoops” for the agency now than in the past. Administrators who said they noticed a 

difference in the aggressiveness of courts on father involvement said attention to fathers had 

increased or that fathers were more likely to receive custody now than in the past. Agency 

attorneys may also push workers to do more thorough searches. Some administrators mentioned 

pending lawsuits or judicial “scolding” as reasons for more diligent searches. 

In general, we did not discover any court initiatives in the study states that were 

specifically seeking to improve nonresident father involvement in child welfare casework. 

However, in some states, court initiatives have improved father involvement indirectly. Three 

Minnesota administrators mentioned the Juvenile Justice Initiative, which placed an emphasis on 
What About the Dads? 46

quicker permanency. As a result of this initiative, administrators said judges look more closely at 

fathers as placement resources now. In Arizona, the state passed legislation that provided 

parents, including noncustodial fathers, the right to a jury trial in decisions of termination of 

parental rights. On the other hand, the absence of court initiatives directed at fathers (and the 

preliminary evidence that judges can impact agency practice on fathers) may indicate that 

fostering court innovation and partnerships with child welfare agencies on father involvement 

could be an area of future growth. 

Other Community Partners 

In addition to child support, TANF, and the courts, agencies identified other community partners 

with which they worked or would like to work to involve fathers. Multi-agency collaboration 

varied widely within and across states. Some of the collaborative efforts to locate fathers 

mentioned included searches with the Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Corrections 

or local law enforcement agencies, mental health agencies, or local school systems. Some 

Arizona respondents mentioned that they had contacts with the Mexican consulate or the 

Mexican agency dealing with child welfare to identify or locate fathers of immigrant children. 

Massachusetts is notable for its collaboration with local community-based organizations to create 

or support father-specific programming or services. 

Administrator Perceptions of Facilitators and Barriers to Partnerships 

Many administrators talked about confidentiality concerns as a major barrier when attempting to 

get information from other agencies (e.g., TANF, child support enforcement, schools) about 

nonresident fathers. Some administrators mentioned limited data access to child support or 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 47

TANF information, even if the departments were part of the same umbrella agency. Since some 

state administrators indicated that information sharing should not be a problem, local 

administrators’ identification of confidentiality as an issue may reveal a misunderstanding of 

what is legally permitted. 

Administrators mentioned that data sharing was more common in rural areas or in 

instances where child welfare workers had a good relationship with workers in other agencies. 

Administrators in rural areas said that child welfare workers may literally work alongside TANF 

or child support workers or may know them personally, due to the small size of their offices. 

This phenomenon may exist in some urban areas too, where some administrators said states have 

created multipurpose service centers for clients that include many agencies. 

One additional barrier to agency collaboration that is of note is the impact of agencies’ 

different missions. This issue was particularly important when child welfare administrators 

talked about the relationship with child support. In recent years, with state budget cuts and more 

federal and state emphasis on enforcing child support orders, administrators often depicted child 

support agencies as more aggressive with nonresident fathers. Some administrators noted that 

recouping money was not in the mission of child welfare agencies, where a parent’s lack of 

income or resources such as housing is often a barrier to reunification or permanency for a child. 

Implications for Analyses of Case-level Data and Future Research 

The results of the administrator interviews provide a rich context upon which to interpret 

findings from the caseworker interviews and case linkage to child support information. During 

telephone interviews, caseworkers were asked about two children on their caseload—how the 

worker identified and located their fathers. Workers provided information on different agencies 
What About the Dads? 48

they may have contacted such as child support and TANF, as well as different individuals they 

may have asked (e.g., mothers, relatives) for information. We examined a variety of father 

characteristics, many of them specifically mentioned by administrators. For example, workers 

were asked whether the child’s father was involved with the criminal justice system, whether or 

not he was out-of-state or out of the country, and whether or not he was the perpetrator of child 

abuse or family violence. These data provide a more detailed description of fathers and potential 

challenges to father involvement. Of particular interest to administrators will be information on 

worker opinions on the benefits and drawbacks to involving fathers. 

The results of our administrator interviews also provide context for our case-level data 

linkage to child support information. Each child case was linked to child support data to 

determine whether information exists on paternity establishment, the location of the nonresident 

parent, utilization of state or federal locating resources and whether the locating resources were 

successful. Information on whether a child support order was attempted, established, and 

collected upon was also sought. Results of these analyses provide case-level information on the 

feasibility and utility of using child support resources to increase father involvement. 

Local agency practices on fathers differ across the four study states, as well as within 

states, on many levels. As our interviews with administrators show, some of the difference may 

be the overarching philosophy of the agency and courts. Differing practices may also reflect 

individual case differences, such as father characteristics and relationships between fathers and 

the mothers of children served. Case-level analyses provide a clearer picture of these factors 

since we asked caseworkers to provide information on both father and mother characteristics 

(including problems or issues that make it difficult to place the child in their home) as well as 

reasons why the parent is difficult to locate and involve (e.g., out-of-state, no transportation, no 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 49

phone). The results from the caseworker interviews and child support data linkage are presented 

in the following chapters. 
What About the Dads? 50

Chapter 3 

Descriptive Analyses of Caseworker Interviews 

This chapter presents descriptive findings from the case-level data obtained through telephone 

interviews with caseworkers in the four study states. Caseworkers were asked about children on 

their caseload, the child’s birth parents, and their own opinions about working with fathers. 

Descriptive analyses are presented in this chapter with additional analyses, both descriptive and 

multivariate presented in chapter 4. 

Introduction 

Description of Subgroups 

As discussed in chapter 1, a total of 1,222 caseworkers were interviewed. Data were compiled on 

a total of 2,366 foster children; 1,958 were eligible for analysis.20 As shown in figure 3-1, in 

1,721 (88%) of the eligible cases, caseworkers reported that the father had been identified21, and 

in 1,071 (55%) of the eligible cases the father had been contacted22 by the worker or agency at 

least once.23 The results presented in this chapter reflect findings based on different groups of 

cases, depending upon the topic. For example, questions pertaining to child-father visitation were 

only asked of caseworkers that had made contact with the father at some point during the case.24

 

20 As described in chapter 1, ineligible cases included those with resident fathers, adoptive fathers, or deceased 

fathers. 

21 Identified father cases include cases in which the worker said the father’s name was known at case opening and 

cases in which the worker answered “yes” to whether the agency has identified an alleged father, i.e., does anyone at 

the agency think they know who the father is, at the time of the interview. 

22 Contact was defined broadly to include in-person, telephone, voicemail or written communication with the 

caseworker or another staff member. 

23 Cases with fathers who died prior to case opening were considered ineligible and excluded from the sample. A 

small number (n=25, 1.7% of eligible fathers) died after case opening and are included in descriptive analyses. 24 Exceptions are noted in the tables. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 51

Caseworkers who cited no contact with the father would have no (or unreliable) information on 

recent visitation. 

In this discussion of findings, percentages of the overall sample are provided in certain 

sections for context. For example, while contacted fathers comprise 62 percent of identified 

fathers, they represent 55 percent of all fathers in the sample. 

Figure 3-1. Total Numbers of Fathers in Analysis Subgroups 

A box at the beginning of each section informs the reader of the universe of case responses 

reported on in the section. Tables present unweighted Ns with percentages weighted to be 

representative of all foster care cases with nonresident fathers in each of the four states analyzed 

in the survey.25

Study states were asked to identify children in out-of-home placement who had been 

removed from homes in which their biological fathers did not reside. The primary method states 

used to identify these cases in their state automated child welfare information systems 

(SACWIS) was a household composition data field. Single, female-headed households 

 

25 Tables report weighted percents and unweighted Ns so calculations made by the reader to determine 

numbers of cases in specific subgroups will provide the estimated Ns which may differ slightly from the 

actual number of completed interviews for that subgroup. 

Contacted Fathers 

(N=1,071) 

Identified Fathers 

(N=1,721) 

Total Fathers 

(N=1,958) 
What About the Dads? 52

constituted the great majority of the cases. However, after conducting the pretest a subgroup of 

cases was identified—cases in which both the biological father and birth mother were not in the 

home from which the child was removed. 

Thus, a new group of “nonresident” mother cases was identified. The entire population of 

mothers included 1,635 resident and 323 nonresident mothers.26 As shown in figure 3-2, 

caseworkers reported that 1,571 of the 1,635 resident mothers (96%) had been contacted by the 

worker or agency. Unlike fathers, resident mothers were assumed to be identified and located at 

the time of interview (given the child had been removed from her household). Findings from 

descriptive analyses of resident mothers are presented in this chapter to provide context to the 

findings on nonresident fathers. For example, understanding what percentage of mothers had 

problems or issues similar to nonresident fathers is helpful. Because nonresident mothers are the 

group of mothers presumably most comparable to nonresident fathers, caseworkers with cases 

involving nonresident mothers were asked the same series of identification questions. Analyses 

involving nonresident mothers are presented in chapter 4. These analyses are of particular 

interest because comparisons between nonresident fathers and nonresident mothers can be made 

on agency identification, location, and engagement. 

Figure 3-2. Total Numbers of Mothers in Analysis Subgroups

 

26 Cases with deceased mothers (n=46, 2.2% of eligible mothers) remained a part of the sample in order to get 

information about the nonresident fathers in those cases. Of those deceased, 24 (52%) died prior to case opening and 

are excluded from subsequent analyses. 

Resident Mothers 

 (N=1,635) 

Contacted Mothers 

(N=1,571) 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 53

Timing of Father Identification and Contact 

The study’s goal was to examine fathers’ involvement in permanency planning and child welfare 

casework. The timing of events such as identifying, locating and contacting the father is 

important to this chapter’s discussion. An assumption is made that timing can directly impact the 

level of effort demanded of the child’s caseworker. For example, some identified fathers may 

have presented themselves to the agency or worker at the time of placement or earlier in the case. 

Presumably, the child’s foster care worker (the study’s interview respondent) would expend little 

effort identifying or locating this type of identified father. And thus, caseworkers with cases in 

which the father was identified at the time of placement were not asked to respond to questions 

about whom they asked for assistance (See table 3-15). On the other hand, if the father had not 

yet been identified at the time of placement, what is the likelihood of that father ever having 

contact with the agency? How difficult might it be for a worker to identify a father later in the 

case? The contacted fathers (55%) can either be the result of casework practices that emphasize 

identifying and contacting all fathers or it could also be that the 55 percent of fathers contacted 

were those that made contact easy (i.e., identified themselves to the agency upon learning of the 

agency’s involvement). 

To examine this issue in more detail, we divided fathers into three categories depending 

upon the timing of their identification, location, and contact. Categories include (1) fathers 

identified and located at time of case opening, (2) fathers identified but not located at time of 

case opening and fathers not identified at time of case opening but identified within 30 days, and 
What About the Dads? 54

(3) fathers not identified until after 30 days of case opening.27 Figure 3-3 provides information 

on the likelihood of contact for fathers in each of the categories. 

Figure 3-3. Likelihood of Contact for Fathers Identified at Different Points 

 

As shown, fathers most likely to be contacted by a worker are fathers who were identified and 

located when the case opened. Only 22 percent of these fathers have not yet had contact with the 

agency.28 When identification occurred more than 30 days after case opening, contact was 

unlikely. Almost 90 percent (87%) of these fathers had not yet been contacted or the caseworker 

did not know whether contact had occurred. Later in this chapter we discuss the methods used by 

 

27 Cases with fathers in categories (3) and (4) were not asked about location of father at case opening because the 

identity of the father was not known at that time. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

At Case Opening Contact at case opening 

or within 30 days

Cumultative contact after 30 days

Time of contact

Percent of fathers contacted by agency

Father identity and location known at case opening

Father identity known within 30 days or father identity, but not location, known at case opening

Father identity known after 30 days of case opening
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 55

workers to identify and locate fathers and present circumstances of nonresident fathers that may 

make these tasks difficult. 

The majority of fathers are identified at case opening or shortly thereafter—40 and 31 

percent, respectively, in the first two categories. Cases with fathers whose identity was not 

known until sometime after 30 days from case opening represent 17 percent, and unidentified 

fathers comprise the remaining 12 percent (See figure 3-4). 

Figure 3-4. Breakdown Cases by Timing of Father Identification 

When reviewing the findings on fathers in this chapter, it is important to keep in mind the 

heterogeneity of each subgroup of analysis. For example, identified fathers (N=1,721) include 

 

28 The caseworker noted no contact yet or did not know whether contact had been made with the father. 

Father identity and location 

known at case opening (40%)

Father identity known within 30 

days or father identity, but not 

location known at case opening 

(31%)

Father identity known after 30 

days of case opening (17%)

Father not yet 

identified at time 

of interview (12%)
What About the Dads? 56

both fathers who have had contact with the agency as well as fathers who have not had contact. 

Likewise, contacted fathers (N=1,071) include fathers who, according to caseworkers, visited 

with their children since case opening as well as fathers who have not visited with their children. 

Organization of Chapter 

The descriptive findings from the case-level data provide information on a wide range of topics. 

Information on the caseworker respondents, child demographic and case information, and 

resident mothers is presented first to provide context and is contained in the following three 

sections. Descriptive information about resident mothers is provided in this chapter for context 

for interpreting the information on fathers. State-by-state data are not presented in the tables but 

variation is discussed in the text. 

The final section presents study findings on fathers. Many of the findings presented will 

be examined in more depth in the next chapter. For example, whether the type of father (alleged 

or legal29) affects agency interactions and father-child visitation will be examined in the next 

chapter. Also, in the next chapter, direct comparisons between nonresident fathers and 

nonresident mothers are examined. 

Description of Caseworker Respondents 

The sample of caseworker respondents is similar to child welfare workers nationwide. Survey 

respondents were slightly more likely to be female (81% vs. 72%) than workers overall. Our 

respondents had one more year of experience than the general population of social workers in 

 

29 The difference between alleged and legal fathers is whether the caseworker reported that paternity had been 

established in the case. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 57

public child welfare agencies (8 years vs. 7 years).30 The racial breakdown of caseworkers is 

somewhat diverse with a fairly large group of African American caseworkers (20%). However, 

ethnicity is less diverse, only 8 percent of workers noted they were of Hispanic origin. 

While a sizable majority of caseworker respondents reported having received training on 

identifying, locating and involving nonresident fathers, fewer had received specific training on 

referring cases to child support for locate assistance. Overall, the sampled caseworkers feel 

strongly that father involvement is good for children but many also feel that fathers need help 

with parenting skills. Perhaps intuition tells these workers that children need their fathers, but the 

reality of working cases means they have experience with fathers who are unable to successfully 

parent their children. 

Characteristics 

Table 3-1 presents a description of the caseworker respondents. As shown, most respondents 

were female (81%). Relatively little variation in caseworkers’ gender was found among the study 

states—Massachusetts had the most male respondents (22%) versus a low of 16 percent in 

Minnesota. White workers made up the largest racial group (69%) while African-American 

workers comprised almost 20 percent. However, the race of caseworkers varied greatly among 

the study states—Tennessee had the largest percentage of African-American workers (42%) 

while Minnesota had the lowest percentage (8%). Similarly, 8 percent of caseworkers were 

Hispanic, but this varied from a low of 1 percent in Tennessee to a high of 16 percent in Arizona. 

The majority of workers had bachelor’s degrees (73%), 17 percent of which were bachelors of 

social work. Workers had an average of 8 years of experience in child welfare. Minnesota’s 

 

30 Anne E. Casey Foundation, 2003. “The Unsolved Challenge of System Reform: The Condition of the Frontline 
What About the Dads? 58

workers were most experienced (12.6 years) and Tennessee workers least experienced (5.2 

years). Minnesota also had more workers with master’s degrees (44%). 

Table 3-1 

Caseworker Respondent Characteristics

N=1,222 %

Gender, % female 81.2 

Race (N=1,222) 

 White 69.3 

 African American 18.4 

 American Indian or Alaskan Native 1.4 

 Mixed 1.8 

 Other 6.2 

 Missing 2.9 

Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin (N=1,222) 7.6 

Highest Level of Education (N=1,222) 

 Bachelor’s 73.4 

 Master’s 22.7 

 Doctoral 0.5 

 Other 3.3 

Years in child welfare (mean) 8.1 

Training and Opinions 

Caseworkers were asked questions about whether they had received training on identifying or 

locating fathers. A series of questions were also asked to elicit each worker’s opinions about 

involving fathers in casework. Table 3-2 presents the findings related to workers’ training and 

opinions. 

Overall, 70 percent of workers said they had received training on how to identify, locate, 

or engage fathers. Far fewer caseworkers (32%) noted having received training on how to refer 

cases to child support for assistance locating the father. Caseworkers in Minnesota and 

Tennessee were more likely to report having received training on father engagement or child 

support. Massachusetts had the lowest proportion of caseworkers that received training in each 

 

Human Services Workforce.” 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 59

area. Massachusetts also had a notably lower proportion of caseworkers that indicated their 

agency encourages referrals to the child support agency for locating services (46%, compared to 

76% in Minnesota). 

Overall, most caseworkers thought that father involvement enhances child well-being 

(72%), though only about half (53%) reported that nonresident fathers want to be part of the 

decision-making process with regard to their children. Workers in Minnesota were the most 

likely to report that father involvement enhances children’s well-being and that nonresident 

fathers want to be involved in decisions regarding their children. 

Table 3-2 

Caseworker Training and Opinions

N=1,215 % 

Training on. . . 

How to identify, locate, or engage fathers 69.9 

Procedures for referring to child support for locate services 32.3 

Opinions % agree or 

strongly agree 

Nonresident fathers need help with their parenting skills 81.7 

Involvement of nonresident fathers enhances a child’s well-being 72.2 

Nonresident fathers want to be part of decision-making process 

with regard to their children 

53.3 

Dealing with nonresident fathers makes a case more complicated 43.6 

Working with nonresident fathers is more trouble than it’s worth 6.2 

Note: Seven caseworkers did not respond to the training and opinion section of the 

questionnaire. 

Many workers noted that working with fathers can be difficult. The vast majority of 

caseworkers agreed that fathers need assistance with their parenting skills (82%) and 44 percent 

noted that working with nonresident fathers makes a case more complicated. However, only 6 

percent of caseworkers reported that working with nonresident fathers is more trouble than it’s 

worth. 
What About the Dads? 60

Description of Children 

The following tables (tables 3-3 through 3-6) provide a description of the children about whom 

caseworkers were interviewed.31 Compared to 2003 national Adoption and Foster Care Analysis 

and Reporting System (AFCARS) data, the sampled children are somewhat younger (8.6 vs. 

10.2). However, this is likely due to the sample selection criteria regarding children’s length of 

time in care (children were to have been in care 3-36 months) and that all were in foster care for 

the first time. The gender breakdown was similar (52% male vs. 48% female) but race/ethnicity 

varied considerably from AFCARS data. Our sample is more white (60% vs. 39%) and less 

African American (21% vs. 35%). The survey instrument disaggregated Hispanic origin from 

race that may account for some of these differences as well as the less diverse populations in the 

four study states. The placements settings for sampled children did not differ much from 

AFCARS data. Permanency goals varied slightly with sample children somewhat less likely to 

have a goal of reunification with birth parents (39% vs. 48%). 

The reasons for placement differ only slightly from national data with more caseworkers 

noting higher levels of neglect (82% vs. 60%). However, the study definition of neglect included 

emotional abuse and while AFCARS breaks this type of abuse out from the others. Much like the 

national data, mothers represent the largest group of perpetrators. Biological fathers were not in 

the household, thus, the cases sampled do not reflect similar rates of fathers as perpetrators and 

likely to be higher rates of other male perpetrators (i.e., mother’s boyfriends, stepfathers). 

 

31 The reader is reminded that children in the sample were all children who had been in out-of-home care for 3 to 36 

months, who were removed for the first time (first placement episode) and who were removed from households in 

which the father did not reside. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 61

Demographic information is presented in Table 3-3. The remaining tables provide case 

information including whether paternity was established, the reason for the placement, current 

placement, and permanency goals. 

The average age of the children was almost nine years old (8.6), with Massachusetts’s 

children the oldest on average of the study states (9.6 years) and children in Arizona the 

youngest (7.1 years). Gender distribution was relatively equal in all states, with Massachusetts 

having the most extreme split of 54 percent female to 46 percent male. Children with siblings 

made up the vast majority (83% or above) in all four states.32

There was considerable variability in the race/ethnicity of the foster children in the study 

within the four states. Arizona caseworkers reported that 40 percent of the study children in their 

state were Hispanic, compared to 25 percent in Massachusetts, 13 percent in Minnesota, and 3 

percent in Tennessee. White children comprised the largest proportion in all four states, followed 

by African-American children. The state with the highest proportion of African-American 

children was Tennessee at 36 percent and the lowest proportion was 11 percent in Arizona. 

Table 3-3 

Child Characteristics 

N=1,958 

Age (mean) 8.6 

Gender, % female 51.6 

Race % 

 White 60.2 

 African American 21.3 

 American Indian or Alaskan Native 2.8 

 Asian .7 

 Mixed 8.6 

 Other 1.1 

 Missing 5.3 

U.S. citizenship 98.3 

Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin 23.1 

Have at least one sibling 85.4 

 

32 While the majority of children in the sample had siblings, only one child from any sibling group was included in 

the sample. 
What About the Dads? 62

Children were in care for almost two years, on average. The amount of time caseworkers 

reported being responsible for the case averaged just less than one year (11 months), but varied 

from six months in Arizona to 14 months in Tennessee. Table 3-4 provides details on the 

placements in which the sampled children were living at the time of the caseworker interview. 

Across states, 65 percent of children were eligible for Title IV-E. The proportion of eligible 

children varied greatly from 42 percent in Massachusetts to 69 percent in Tennessee, with 

Minnesota and Arizona both over 74 percent. 

Table 3-4 

Child Placement Details 

N=1,958 % 

Title IV-E eligible 64.8 

Current Placement % 

Non-kin foster home 38.0 

Kin foster home 28.1 

Other 17.7 

Group home or residential treatment 11.1 

Adoptive placementa 4.8 

Don’t know .4 a Adoptive placements are pre-adopt placements, not postfinalization. 

Traditional, non-kin foster care was the placement setting of 38 percent of the children in the 

study. Non-kin foster care placements varied from 34 percent of children in Arizona to 45 

percent in Tennessee. Over a quarter of children were placed with kin ranging from 20 percent in 

Massachusetts to 38 percent in Arizona. Of the children placed with kin, 21 percent were placed 

with paternal relatives (ranging from 17% in Minnesota to 24% in Arizona). Other placements 

comprised 34 percent of children in this study. These placements included runaways, children 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 63

who had been reunified33, and children placed in residential care, group homes, or independent 

living. 

Caseworkers reported on why children came into care (Table 3-5). The large majority of 

children were placed because of neglect (82%), physical abuse (16%) or sexual abuse (9%). 

Twenty percent were placed for other reasons including (in order of descending frequency), 

parental substance abuse, emotional or verbal abuse, medical neglect, domestic violence, 

educational neglect, abandonment, parental mental illness, and abuse of the child’s siblings. 

Children may have suffered more than one type of maltreatment. There was only slight variation 

between the states in the type of abuse/neglect. The most variation was seen in the “other abuse” 

category, ranging from 18 percent in Massachusetts to 27 percent in Minnesota. 

Perpetrators of physical abuse were most often the mother (57%), followed by her 

boyfriend or husband (35%), then “other” perpetrators (15%), which included other relatives, 

caregivers, or acquaintances through parents or other family members. “Other” and “stepfather 

or mother’s boyfriend” (38% each) were the most frequent perpetrator category for sexual abuse. 

The mother was the overwhelming perpetrator of neglect (95%), followed to a much lesser 

degree by fathers (11%), her boyfriend or husband (8%), and “other” adults or caretakers (6%). 

State variation for perpetrator type for specific types of abuse/neglect is difficult to examine due 

to small numbers. 

 

33 This includes children who had been reunified after sampling occurred, as well as children on trial home visits 

(Massachusetts retains this information in administrative data for 6 months preceding reunification.) 
What About the Dads? 64

Table 3-5 

Reasons for Placement and Perpetrator Type 

N=1,958 % 

Neglect (all that apply, N=1,580) 82.1 

 Types of perpetrators 

 Mother 95.0 

 Father 11.4 

 Stepfather or mother’s boyfriend 7.7 

 Other 6.3 

 No perpetrator identified 0.2 

Physical Abuse (all that apply, N=311) 15.6 

 Types of perpetrators 

 Mother 57.2 

 Stepfather or mother’s boyfriend 34.7 

 Other 14.7 

 Father 8.1 

 No perpetrator identified 3.2 

Sexual Abuse (all that apply, N=179) 9.4 

 Types of perpetrators 

 Other 37.9 

 Stepfather or mother’s boyfriend 37.7 

 Father 14.2 

 Mother 5.3 

 No perpetrator identified 10.6 

Because the study criteria defined sample fathers as not residing in the home from which 

the child was removed, it is not surprising that these fathers are less likely to physically or 

sexually abuse their children than are other men in relationships with the child’s mother. This 

was not the case with neglect with more similar percentages of caseworkers noting the 

nonresident father as the perpetrator of the neglect (11%) than the child’s stepfather or mother’s 

boyfriend (8%). Some state differences did exist. Caseworkers indicated the father was the 

perpetrator of sexual abuse in 26 percent of cases in Arizona, while the other three states were 19 

percent or less, but overall levels of abuse by fathers were low. 

Caseworkers were asked about the child’s permanency goal and the responses were 

coded to several categories (table 3-6). The most frequent permanency goal was reunification 

with the mother (35%) followed by non-relative adoption (19%). Only 4 percent of cases with 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 65

nonresident fathers were aiming to reunify the child with the father. Permanency goals varied 

slightly among states. Reunifying the child with his or her mother ranged from 23 percent in 

Minnesota to 44 percent in Tennessee while non-relative adoption varied from 16 percent in 

Arizona to 28 percent in Minnesota. 

Table 3-6 

Case Permanency Goals 

N=1958 % 

Reunify with mom 35.3 

Non-relative adoption 18.8 

Relative adoption 10.5 

Independent living 6.2 

Relative guardianship 7.9 

Reunify with dad 4.2 

Non-relative foster care 2.8 

Relative foster care 1.1 

Non-relative guardianship 1.1 

Other 11.3 

Don’t know 0.8 

Description of Resident Mothers 

As noted in the introduction to this chapter, because mothers most likely had custody of their 

children (that is, they lived in the household from which the child was removed), it is unlikely 

that caseworkers have to spend time identifying or locating these mothers; caseworkers were not 

asked about these activities. Contacting the mother would have most likely occurred during the 

initial investigation phase. As discussed earlier, nonresident mothers will be compared with 

nonresident fathers in analyses presented in chapter 4. 

The findings in this section further describe the cases we sampled. Resident mothers are 

the birth parents from whom the child was removed given our criteria that the biological father 

not live in the household. Much of the data that follows was expected. For example, according to 

caseworkers, almost half (48%) of the mothers were never married. Other findings such as the 

percent of mothers who had been incarcerated at some point during the case process (29%) may 
What About the Dads? 66

come as a surprise to some policymakers in the field. The majority (60%) of mothers faced four 

or more problems. 

While they face many barriers, it seems clear that many mothers still have strong 

connections to their children in care. Almost three-quarters (74%) still had parental rights to the 

child. The vast majority of the mothers had visited with their children (only 4 percent had no 

visits at the time of the worker interview) at some point during the case process. And while only 

20 percent of mothers provided financial support at some point since the child was in care, nearly 

half the mothers had provided non-financial support during the out-of-home placement. 

 Characteristics

Tables 3-7 and 3-8 provide information on characteristics of the 

study children’s mothers. Table 3-7 includes a range of information 

including demographic characteristics, the mother’s current living 

situation, and marital status. Table 3-8 provides information on the status of their parental rights. 

Mothers were an average of 32 years old, ranging from 15 to 64. Most mothers were 

white (67%), 20 percent were African-American. Almost 20 percent of the mothers were of 

Hispanic origin (18%). Over 90 percent of all resident mothers were U.S. citizens, either through 

birth or naturalization. Most mothers had a high school education or less, if the mothers 

educational attainment was known to workers. Caseworkers reported that they did not know the 

mother’s education in over a quarter of the cases. 

Never-married mothers comprised the largest group (47%) of resident mothers. Almost 

20 percent were married. Six percent of these mothers were married to the child’s biological 

Resident 

Mothers 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 67

father. Another 18 percent of mothers were divorced, ranging from 12 percent in Arizona to 23 

percent in Minnesota. 

Table 3-7 

Resident Mother Characteristics 

N=1635 

Age (mean) 32.4 

Race % 

 White 66.7 

 African American 20.2 

 American Indian or Alaskan Native 3.6 

 Asian .5 

 Mixed 2.3 

 Other 1.1 

 Don’t know 5.6 

Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin 17.8

U.S. citizenship % 

 Yes 95.0 

 No 2.4 

 Don’t know 2.6 

Highest level of education % 

Less than 12 years 37.0 

High school diploma or GED 28.7 

Some college, vocational school 6.8 

College degree/graduate school 1.2 

Don’t know 26.3 

Marital status % 

Never married 47.4 

Married to someone other than child’s father 12.8 

Married to, but separated from, child’s father 5.8 

Divorced from child’s father 9.7 

Divorced from someone other than child’s father 7.9 

Separated 3.6 

Widowed 0.4 

Don’t know 12.4 

Living situation % 

 Living alone 18.5 

 Living with father of childa 2.6 

 Living with another male 23.3 

 Other 21.4 

 Don’t know 34.2 

a Sampled cases were selected because the child’s father was not living in the home. 

However, during the interim between sample pull and interview, the living arrangement 

could have changed. 
What About the Dads? 68

Almost 20 percent of mothers lived alone. A few mothers lived with the child’s father.34 Overall, 

almost a quarter of the resident mothers (23%) lived with a man other than the child’s father, 

ranging from 18 percent in Minnesota to 28 percent in Massachusetts. Nearly half the mothers 

(49%) of the mothers living with another man also lived with others, usually her other children 

or his children, friends, or relatives. 

Almost one third (31%) of caseworkers reported that mothers lived in some other living 

situation including being incarcerated; living with family members, friends, or female partners; 

living in a shelter or other group care environment; or being homeless. 

Table 3-8 provides information on whether the resident mothers had parental rights to 

their child in foster care at the time of our interviews. As shown, the majority of resident mothers 

(74%) still have parental rights to the study child, ranging from 50 percent in Minnesota to 79 

percent in Tennessee. Most mothers also have parental rights to their other children (64%). 

Table 3-8 

Status of Resident Mothers’ Parental Rights 

N=1,635 

Parental rights to this child % 

Still has parental rights 73.5 

Mother’s rights were terminated 18.4 

Mother relinquished her rights 5.9 

Don’t know 2.2 

Rights of mother to her other children % 

Still has rights to other children 64.2 

Relinquished or terminated 24.8 

N/A mother has no other children 5.3 

N/A not known if mother has other children 1.3 

Don’t know 4.4 

 

34 Sampled cases were selected because the child’s father was not living in the home. However, during the interim 

between sample selection and interview, the living arrangement could have changed. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 69

Barriers to Contacting Mothers 

Table 3-9 presents findings on circumstances that made contacting 

mothers difficult for the agency or worker. Overall, workers noted a 

quarter (26%) of the resident mothers faced none of the 

circumstances, 21 percent of mothers faced only one barrier, 41 percent of mothers faced two or 

three circumstances, and 12 percent of mothers had four or more circumstances apply. The most 

frequently cited circumstances were mothers who had transportation difficulties (52%) and were 

unreachable by phone (50%). A third of mothers were homeless and 29 percent had been 

incarcerated at some point during the case process. States varied considerably on the percent of 

resident mothers who had been incarcerated during the case process (from a low of 16% in 

Massachusetts to 37% in Tennessee). Caseworkers reported having great difficulty in contacting 

mothers when they were unreachable by phone, homeless, or lived out of state. 

 

Table 3-9 

Barriers to Contacting Resident Mothers

N=1,635

Type of circumstance (all that apply) % % caused 

difficulty 

Transportation difficulties 51.6 61.8 

Unreachable by phone 50.2 94.2 

Homeless/unstable address 33.5 83.2 

Incarcerationa 28.9 45.4 

Out of state 15.8 75.0 

Out of country 2.0 44.8 

Language barrier 1.6 44.0 a

 Twenty-one percent of those “incarcerated at some point during the case 

process” were incarcerated at the time of the survey. 

Custodial 

mothers 

Resident 

Mothers 
What About the Dads? 70

Child-Mother Visitation 

Table 3-10 provides information on children’s visitation with their 

mothers.35 Caseworkers reported that the majority of mothers had 

visited their children since case opening (88%). Eighty-two percent 

of mothers who had visited their child since case opening maintained monthly contact over the 

prior six months, and 45 percent had at least weekly contact. Almost all (96%) of the mothers 

with phone contact had visited with their child. 

Table 3-10 

Resident Mother Visitation 

N=1,571 %

Percent of mothers who have visited with child (since 

case opening) 

87.5 

Visitation (w/in past 6 months) (N=1,370) %

Always or almost always attends planned visits 50.8 

Sometimes attends 13.3 

Rarely attends 9.9 

Never attends or has no planned visits 22.2 

Don’t know 3.8 

Frequency of visitation (w/in past 6 months)(N=1,020) %

No visits 4.8 

One visit 11.9 

Monthly 20.1 

Twice a month 17.6 

Weekly 29.6 

More than once a week 15.0 

Don’t know 1.1 

Note: All workers who had been in contact with mothers were asked whether the mother has ever visited the 

child (N=1,571). If the mother had ever visited, workers were asked about her attendance for planned 

visitations (N=1,370). If mothers rarely, sometimes, almost always, or always attend planned visitation 

(N=1,020), workers were asked the frequency of visitation. 

Caseworkers reported that half (51%) the mothers who had visits with their children over 

the past six months always or almost always attended planned visitation. Mothers in 

 

35 As discussed earlier in the chapter, certain questions were only asked of caseworkers who had been in contact 

with the parent. Questions about the resident mother visiting with the child were only asked for “contacted mothers.” 

As shown 1,571 of the total 1,635 resident mothers (96%) were “contacted mothers.” 

Contacted 

Mothers 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 71

Massachusetts always or almost always attended visitation more frequently than the other states 

(59% versus a low of 43% in Minnesota). 

Financial Support by Mothers 

Based on several assumptions, caseworkers carrying cases 

involving resident mothers were asked slightly different questions 

concerning agency engagement. Caseworkers were asked questions 

pertaining to financial assistance from the mother (Table 3-11) under the assumption that since 

the child had been removed from her home, the mother, in addition to the father, would be 

looked to as a source of financial support.36 

Table 3-11 

Resident Mother Support 

N=1,571 

Ever provided financial support %

Yes 20.1 

No 75.7 

Don’t know 4.2 

Type of financial support (N=321) %

Regular (weekly or monthly) 21.9 

Some, not regular 19.5 

Occasional, sporadic 44.1 

None of these options 10.9 

Don’t know 3.6 

Ever provided non-financial support (diapers, etc.) %

 Yes 46.7 

 No 51.3 

 Don’t know 2.0 

As shown, about 20 percent of mothers provided financial support at any point since the child 

was in care. However, nearly half provided non-financial support at some point during the 

 

36 We cannot determine from the data whether the financial support provided by mothers was collected through the 

child support agency. 

Contacted 

Mothers mothers 
What About the Dads? 72

child’s stay in placement. Of those providing financial support, 22 percent provided weekly or 

monthly support. There were few state variations on mother’s financial assistance with the 

exception of Arizona, which reported fewer mothers providing both financial and non-financial 

support (11% vs. 16-22% for the other states). 

Mother Problems 

As shown in Table 3-12, mothers had a range of problems or issue areas 

that caseworkers felt were reasons why the child was not currently 

placed with the mother. A prior finding of abuse/neglect and substance 

abuse were the most frequent problems cited by caseworkers. Almost 40 percent of mothers were 

noted as having criminal justice involvement. Inadequate housing, unemployment, and mental or 

physical health concerns were cited in over half of the cases. 

Table 3-12 

Resident Mother Problems 

N=1,571 % 

Type of Problem Yes Don’t know 

Alcohol/drugs 65.4 1.5 

Prior finding of abuse/neglect 58.6 1.4 

Unemployment 58.1 3.0 

Inadequate housing/homelessness 57.4 2.6 

Mental/physical health 54.1 3.1 

Domestic violence 39.7 6.8 

Criminal justice involvement 37.5 4.4 

No child care 26.2 4.8 

Agency offered services for all problems 83.7 1.6 

Mother complied with all services offered 40.3 1.3 

Casework practice likely becomes more difficult when parents have multiple problems. The 

range of services that must be coordinated and provided is more complicated for the mother to 

Contacted 

Mothers 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 73

navigate and the agency to manage. Workers noted 24 percent of the mothers had two or three of 

the problems and 60 percent reported mothers with four or more problems. 

Description of Nonresident Fathers 

The nonresident fathers of the children sampled represent a varied group. While most workers, at 

the time of the interview, knew the identity of the fathers (88%), over one-third of the total 

sample (37%) had not yet established paternity. Like the resident mothers, most nonresident 

fathers still retained their parental rights (66%). Demographic characteristics of identified 

nonresident fathers are similar to those of the resident mothers though fathers are slightly older 

(36 vs. 32 years old) and less likely to have never married (30% vs. 48%). As expected, 

caseworkers appear to know less about nonresident fathers, as the percent of “don’t know” 

responses is much higher than for similar questions for resident mothers. 

Cases involving unidentified or not located fathers means the caseworker may have to 

perform tasks to identify and locate the father. A variety of individuals and resources were noted 

by caseworkers as methods they used to obtain information on fathers. As previously discussed, 

the likelihood of a worker having contact with a nonresident father diminished greatly if the 

identity and location of the father was not known at, or shortly after, case opening. 

While the vast majority of caseworkers noted sharing the case plan with contacted fathers 

and telling fathers about their child’s placement (94% and 96%), they noted only half of 

contacted fathers expressed an interest in the child living with him. Caseworkers noted a number 

of barriers to contacting fathers. The most frequent barrier, father unreachable by telephone, was 

also the barrier that workers reported as causing the most difficulty. Given the saturation of cell 

phone use within the general population, this barrier might seem outdated. Perhaps this new 
What About the Dads? 74

technology that allows for caller identification and frequent changes in numbers has affected 

caseworker expectations. Caseworkers themselves are likely to be more accessible by cell phone 

making them doubly frustrated by clients who are not equally accessible. 

Like mothers, nonresident fathers face numerous challenges to having their children live 

with them but far fewer fathers are visiting their children. For cases in which fathers had been 

contacted, over 40 percent (42%) of caseworkers noted fathers with four or more problems—the 

most frequently cited problem was alcohol and drug use (58%). Not surprisingly, nonresident 

fathers were less likely to have visited their child at least once than resident mothers. Still, over 

half (55%) of the contacted fathers had done so. And of the fathers who had visited, almost a 

third (31%) visit at least weekly. While most of the contacted fathers were not providing 

financial or non-financial support, some were doing so. Almost thirty percent (29%) had 

provided financial support at some point since case opening and almost a third (32%) had 

provided non-financial support. 

The sections that follow provide detailed tables and discussion of these issues. 

Paternity Establishment 

Table 3-13 provides information on whether the fathers in our study 

were only alleged to be the fathers or had paternity established 

(which we refer to as legal birth fathers). Caseworkers were asked whether paternity had been 

established for the child and if so, by what method.37 Likewise, if the caseworker responded that 

 

37 For study purposes, paternity was established if the caseworker responded in the affirmative to the question. 

Subsequent analysis of ways in which paternity was established (e.g., genetic testing, signing of voluntary paternity 

document, father’s name on birth certificate, self-declaration by father, default order) did not negate a caseworker’s 

Nonresident fathers Total Fathers 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 75

paternity had not yet been established, a series of questions were asked to examine why this had 

not yet occurred. These data reveal that the majority of nonresident fathers had established 

paternity and were known to workers at the time of placement. Sixty-three percent of nonresident 

fathers were fathers with established paternity; the balance remained alleged. In only a small 

minority of cases (3%), did mothers claim exemption from identifying the father based on a 

threat to herself or her child. Multiple possible fathers were identified in 25 percent of the cases, 

with considerable variation among states (17% in Tennessee to 32% in Arizona). 

Table 3-13 

Paternity Establishment 

N=1,958 

Type % 

 Legal 62.8 

 Alleged 37.2 

More than one potential father identified 24.8 

Mother claim exemption from identifying father 2.9 

How was paternity established? (N=1239) % 

Father’s name on birth certificate 42.0 

Genetic/DNA testing 24.4 

Voluntary paternity document 16.1 

Father states he is the father and/or signed non-legal documents 5.8 

Established by default order 0.6 

Other 8.2 

Don’t know 3.0 

Why paternity not established (all that apply, N=718) % 

 Other 57.8 

 Unable to locate alleged father 35.1 

 Alleged father denies paternity 21.3 

 Alleged father unaware of child 18.9 

 Action in progress 7.3 

 DNA excluded alleged father 8.5 

Of cases with paternity established, 42 percent of workers cited paternity had been 

established through the father’s name on the birth certificate and 24 percent noted genetic 

testing. Determination of paternity through having the father’s name on the birth certificate 

 

response. Thus, while we recognize that self-declaration of fatherhood is not the same as legally established 

paternity, for purposes of the study, these cases were considered to have had paternity established. 
What About the Dads? 76

varied from 26 percent in Minnesota to 49 percent in Tennessee. Genetic testing as the method 

ranged from 14 percent in Tennessee to 39 percent in Arizona. For children whose paternity had 

not been established (37% of the overall sample), caseworkers most frequently cited “other” 

reasons (58%) than those offered in the question posed to them. “Other” reasons why paternity 

was not established included not knowing who the father was, alleged fathers failing paternity 

tests, not having the father’s name on the birth certificate, the alleged father abandoning the 

child, or the mother or father refusing to cooperate. Inability to locate the alleged father (35%), 

and the alleged father being unaware of the child (19%) or his denial of the child (21%) were 

also frequently cited reasons for not establishing paternity. A relatively small proportion of cases 

had a paternity action in progress (7%). 38 

Status of Fathers’ Parental Rights 

Important to the discussion of nonresident fathers is whether or not 

the father has parental rights to his child in foster care. Analyses 

were conducted on all cases because parental rights can be terminated when diligent search 

efforts fail to identify a father. Findings from more detailed analyses of this issue are presented 

in chapter 4. As shown in table 3-14, most of the cases in this study involved nonresident fathers 

(66%) with parental rights to their children still intact. All states have relatively low levels of 

nonresident fathers relinquishing their rights, ranging from 3 percent in Arizona to 9 percent in 

 

38 While terminology differs between child welfare and child support agencies, for study purposes, fathers for whom 

the child’s caseworker cited “paternity has been established” are considered legal birth fathers; all other fathers are 

considered to be alleged fathers. The use of the term “birth father” is prevalent in child welfare agencies as the term 

applied to the biological father of an adopted child. There is no equivalent term used for biological fathers of foster 

children and thus, survey questions often used the term “birth father.” 

Total Fathers 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 77

Minnesota. Termination of rights is more prevalent than relinquishment in each of the states, and 

highest in Minnesota at 37 percent. 

Table 3-14 

Status of Fathers’ Parental Rights 

N=1955 

Parental rights to this child % 

Still has parental rights 65.9 

Father’s rights were terminated 20.3 

Father relinquished his rights 4.8 

Don’t know 9.0 

Rights of father to his other children % 

Still has rights to other children 41.9 

Relinquished or terminated 8.7 

N/A father has no other children 3.6 

N/A not known if father has other children 19.1 

Don’t know 26.7 

Note: N does not equal 1958 due to 3 fathers who died since the case was 

opened. 

Identifying Nonresident Fathers 

Table 3-15 presents information provided by caseworkers on efforts 

to identify the study children’s fathers. That is, for cases in which 

the father’s identity was not known at case opening (a minority of the cases), workers were asked 

whom they contacted in an attempt to identify him.39 As one would expect, the birth mother is 

likely to be the first person the worker asks about an unidentified father. Indeed, caseworkers 

reported asking the birth mother to identify the father in the vast majority of cases (84%). 

However, when asked, a little less than one third (31%) of the mothers provided information that 

could identify the father (e.g., name, SSN). Practices aimed at asking other individuals to 

identify the father appear to be less consistent and vary across states. In 44 percent of the cases, 

workers asked maternal relatives (ranging from 29% in Massachusetts to 50% in Arizona). In 40 

 

39 Fathers identified through consulting birth records are likely to be subsumed in the “identified at time of case 

opening” category if birth records were consulted at any time in the case preceding placement. The survey does not 

allow for delineation of this identification method. 

Total Fathers 
What About the Dads? 78

percent of cases the worker asked another worker about the identity of the father. Children were 

consulted in 38 percent of cases, leading to a positive identification almost a quarter (23%) of the 

time. States varied in the degree to which they sought information from the child’s siblings (84% 

had at least one sibling, although not all were old enough to have assisted in identifying the 

father). Tennessee asked siblings in 20 percent of cases, Minnesota asked siblings in about 10 

percent of cases, and workers in Massachusetts and Arizona asked siblings in less than 6 percent 

of cases.40

Table 3-15 

Identifying Nonresident Fathers 

N=446

Who was asked to identify father? %

asked 

%

provided information 

(of those who were 

asked)

Child’s mother 83.7 30.9 

Mother’s relatives 44.4 20.9 

Another worker 39.7 30.4 

Child (only asked on children over 6) 37.9 23.4 

Child’s sibling 10.8 21.1 

Father’s relativesa 9.6 38.2 

Other 18.5 23.2 

Note: These questions were only asked for cases in which the fathers had not been identified at the time of case 

opening. See Figure 3-3 for the cumulative percentage of identified fathers over time. a

 Caseworkers who responded to this question may be referring to paternal relatives of the study child’s 

siblings. While the father of the study child was not identified, it could be that the caseworker believes the child 

has the same father as one or more of the child’s siblings and asks these relatives for help in identifying the 

study child’s father. 

The most effective method of identifying the father was asking paternal relatives, though 

caseworkers are unlikely to use this method because the father is unidentified.41 However, when 

asked, 38 percent of paternal relatives provided identifying information. Other sources child 

 

40 Some siblings may have been too young to assist with locating the father. Unlike the “ask child” question, the 

“ask sibling” question did not consider the age of siblings (i.e., only with cases involving children over 6 were 

caseworkers asked whether the child was asked about the father’s location) because information on sibling age was 

not collected. 

41 Caseworkers who did respond to this question may be referring to paternal relatives of the study child’s siblings. 

While the father of the study child was not identified it could be that the caseworker believes the child has the same 

father as one or more of the child’s siblings and asks these relatives for help in identifying the study child’s father. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 79

welfare workers used to identify fathers (19%) included friends of the mother, fathers of other 

children and ex-husbands or boyfriends. Other methods lead to identification information in 

about 23 percent of cases that used them. 

Characteristics

Table 3-16 provides demographic characteristics of the identified 

fathers (that is, the 1,721 fathers who were identified at some point 

prior to the caseworker interview). These fathers were an average of 36 years old, with a range 

of 14 to 78. Just over half were white, 21 percent were Hispanic, and 23 percent were AfricanAmerican. Arizona had the largest proportion of Hispanic fathers (37%) while Tennessee had the 

smallest (3%). Tennessee had the largest proportion of African-American fathers (37%) while 

Arizona had the smallest (13%). Minnesota had the smallest proportion of white fathers (45%) 

while Arizona had the largest (60%). 

The vast majority of nonresident fathers were U.S. citizens, either by birth or 

naturalization. However it should be noted that workers did not know the father’s immigration 

status in 22 percent of the cases in which they knew the father’s identity. Only 4 percent were 

known to be non-citizens. Most caseworkers knew the educational attainment of few nonresident 

fathers in our study (30%). The vast majority of those with known education levels were at or 

below high school equivalency. 

Identified 

Fathers 
What About the Dads? 80

Table 3-16 

Nonresident Father Characteristics 

N=1,721 

Age (mean) 36.3 

Race (N = 1,720) % 

 White 53.9 

 African American 23.0 

 American Indian or Alaskan Native 2.2 

 Asian .6 

 Mixed 1.0 

 Other 2.1 

 Don’t know 17.2 

Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin 20.9 

U.S. citizenship % 

 Yes 74.1 

 No 4.0 

 Don’t know 21.9 

Highest level of education % 

 Less than 12 years 13.1 

 High school diploma or GED 15.0 

 Some college, vocational school 2.2 

 Don’t know 69.7 

Marital status % 

 Never married 29.9 

 Married to, but separated from, birth mother 10.9 

 Married to someone other than birth mother 11.7 

 Divorced from birth mother 11.6 

 Divorced from someone other than birth mother 4.7 

 Separated 1.3 

 Don’t know 29.9 

Living situation (N=1,056)

 a % 

 Living alone 13.9 

 Living with birth mom of childb 4.0 

 Living with woman other than birth mom (romantic) 22.4 

 Other 24.1 

 Don’t know 35.6 

a

 These questions were only asked for cases in which the fathers had been identified 

and the agency or worker had made contact with the father in the past 6 months. 

b

 Length of time between sample selection and interview means living arrangements 

may have changed. 

Caseworkers reported almost a third of the cases (30%) involved fathers who were never 

married. Almost a quarter (23%) were married, 11 percent still married to the birth mother. 

Another 12 percent were divorced from the birth mother. The proportion of married fathers was 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 81

largest in Tennessee (28%) compared to a low of 15 percent in Minnesota. Tennessee had the 

largest percentage of divorced fathers (24%) and Arizona had the lowest (13%). 

Caseworkers reported not knowing the living situation of 36 percent of the identified 

nonresident fathers in the study. Twenty-two percent of fathers were reported to live with a 

woman who was not the child’s mother, 14 percent lived alone, and 4 percent lived with the birth 

mother. As noted with resident mothers’ living situations, while cases were eligible only if the 

biological father was not living in the home from which the child was removed, due to the length 

of time between sample pull and interview date, living arrangements may have changed. Almost 

one-quarter (24%) of the fathers did not live in any of the previously mentioned living situations. 

Other arrangements include incarceration, living with adult family members, and military 

deployment. 

Locating Fathers 

Earlier we noted the methods caseworkers used to identify 

nonresident fathers. This section describes methods used to locate 

fathers. The base population for these analyses is the 1,721 fathers 

(88%) identified at any point before the interview with the caseworker. Slightly over half of the 

identified fathers (52%) were located at case opening and thus, the worker did not have to locate 

the father. 

For cases involving identified fathers not located at the time the case opened, 

caseworkers were asked questions about methods used to locate fathers who had been identified. 

Similar to findings on identifying methods, almost all caseworkers (86%) reported asking the 

child’s mother how to locate nonresident fathers (table 3-17). Caseworkers reported less than 

Identified 

Fathers 
What About the Dads? 82

half of the mothers (40%) who were asked, provided information on the father’s location and 

there was considerable state variation (from 34% in Arizona to 51% in Minnesota) in this 

practice. Workers also asked other workers (40%), mother’s relatives (33%), and the child 

(34%). Minnesota workers were most likely to ask other workers (53%) and Massachusetts’ 

workers were least likely to ask other workers (28%). While the states were similar on the 

percent of workers asking children, the percent of success with this method varied greatly, from 

only 10 percent in Arizona to 38 percent in Tennessee. The most successful resources were 

paternal relatives, giving location information 60 percent of the time, although these relatives 

were only utilized by 20 percent of caseworkers. 

Table 3-17 

Locating Nonresident Fathers 

N=802

Who was asked about father’s location? (all that apply) % asked % provided 

information (of 

those who were 

asked) 

Child’s mother 86.0 39.8 

Another worker 40.0 40.3 

Mother’s relatives 33.4 28.6 

Child (only asked if child is 7 or older) 34.3 27.6 

Father’s relatives 20.4 60.3 

Child’s sibling (only asked if child had siblings) 9.6 22.8 

Other 29.8 49.1 

What records were searched? (all that apply) 

 Law enforcement records 44.4 30.7 

 Public aid (TANF, Food stamps, Medicaid) 34.4 14.2 

 Telephone books 30.7 10.2 

 DMV records 22.1 18.4 

 Utility company records 11.0 7.8 

 Other 21.6 23.2 

Note: Only cases in which fathers were not located at time of case opening were included in these analyses. 

There was considerable variation across states in other resources searched to find fathers. 

Arizona consistently utilized resources from other departments in a greater proportion of cases 

when compared to the three other states. Law enforcement records were most frequently 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 83

searched (22% in Massachusetts to 57% in Arizona), followed by public aid files (10% in 

Massachusetts to 56% in Arizona). 

Child welfare workers also found means of locating fathers that were not originally 

included in the survey responses. These resources included newspaper ads, bankruptcy records 

and credit bureaus, other benefits workers, “calling every surname in town,” family and friends, 

Internet searches, and putative father registries.42

Table 3-18 provides information on locating resources. Overall, caseworkers contacted 

the state child support offices in 20 percent of cases. Interestingly, when asked whether the 

agency encouraged them to make referrals to child support, 63 percent of all caseworkers 

responded “yes.” Minnesota (39%) and Tennessee (33%) were more likely to refer cases to child 

support than Arizona (18%) and Massachusetts (3%). Caseworkers who heard back from child 

support offices at the time of the interview averaged 43 percent across the states, ranging from 

35 percent in Arizona to 78 percent in Minnesota. 

Table 3-18 

Locate Resources 

N=802 % 

 State child support office contacted 20.1 

 State parent locator service 33.4 

 Federal parent locator service 7.5 

 Other locating resource 7.6 

Note: Only cases in which fathers were not located when the case opened were included in 

these analyses.

Thirty-three percent of caseworkers reported that the state parent locator services had been used 

to locate the father in the case.43 There was considerable variability among states in the use of 

both the state and federal parent locator services. Use of the state locator services was reported in 

 

42 Putative father registries are listings of non-legal fathers. This is, the father has been named, but the father has not 

established paternity. 
What About the Dads? 84

79 percent of Arizona’s cases while use of the state locator services was only reported in 3 

percent of Massachusetts’ cases. Caseworkers reported not knowing whether state locator 

services were used in a substantial portion of cases including 32 percent in Minnesota and 23 and 

21 percent in Tennessee and Massachusetts, respectively. Federal parent locator services (FPLS) 

were also most frequently used in Arizona cases.44 In 18 percent of Arizona’s cases, workers 

reported use of the FPLS while the other states ranged from 0 to 2 percent. The proportion of 

“don’t know” responses was substantial averaging 31 percent across the four states. 

Caseworkers were asked what types of identifying and locating information on fathers 

were located in the case record (table 3-19). Most caseworkers reported having the full name 

(87%)45 and date of birth (77%) of the child’s identified father in the case file. The presence of 

other information was less frequent, but included social security number (44% total, ranging 

from 27% in Massachusetts to 58% in Arizona), address (38% total, ranging from 30% in 

Massachusetts to 43% in Tennessee), names of paternal relatives (35%), phone number (34%), 

and other information (18%).46 Relatively few caseworkers had information about the father’s 

employment (12% total, ranging from 6% in Massachusetts to 17% in Tennessee). 

 

43 The question read, “To your knowledge, was the state/federal parent locator services used by your agency to 

locate the father?” While it is unlikely that child welfare caseworkers could use the service directly, we did not want 

workers to report on possible child support locate activities undertaken for child support purposes. 

44 Federal data confirm extensive use of the federal parent locator service (FPLS) in Arizona. 

45 This number does not equal the number of “identified” fathers. Identified fathers comprise cases in which the 

father’s name was known at time of case opening and cases for which the agency (at time of interview) had 

identified a father of the child. The worker may have identified a father but not yet have the father’s name in the 

case record. 

46 “Other information” caseworkers have about fathers included some background and assessment information, 

criminal history, paternal relative and significant other contact information, and physical description. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 85

Table 3-19 

Nonresident Father Information in Case Record 

N=1,721 % 

Full name 87.3 

Birth date a 77.2 

Social security number 43.6 

Address 38.1 

Paternal relatives 35.1 

Phone number 33.9 

Employer information 11.8 

Alias 9.7 

Other information 18.0 a Caseworkers were asked the father’s age. When a father’s age was provided either 

through preload data or through asking the worker respondent it was considered 

having date of birth in the case record.

Agency Contact with Fathers and Barriers to Contact 

Table 3-20 provides information on worker and agency contact with 

identified fathers. Barriers to contact were asked of all cases whether or 

not the agency had made contact with the father. Caseworkers were 

asked which circumstances posed a barrier to contacting nonresident fathers. Caseworkers were 

also asked to report on the type of relationship between the mother and nonresident father. 

Table 3-20 

Barriers to Contacting Nonresident Fathers 

N=1,721 

Type of circumstance (all that apply) % % caused difficulty 

Unreachable by phone 59.9 94.0 

Out of state 31.4 80.5 

Incarceration a 30.5 53.1 

Problem transportation 21.5 70.0 

Homeless/unstable address 10.6 84.5 

Out of country 5.1 93.9 

Language barrier 3.1 78.3 a

 Of the “ever incarcerated,” 43 percent were incarcerated at the time of the survey. All other 

incarcerated fathers had been incarcerated at some point since the case opening. 

If caseworkers indicated fathers were affected by any circumstance, they were asked if the 

circumstances made contact difficult. Sixty percent reported that fathers were unreachable by 

Identified 

Fathers 
What About the Dads? 86

phone, which caused difficulty in almost all (94%) cases. Thirty-one percent of fathers were out 

of state, which caused difficulty in 81 percent of cases. This finding argues for making more 

extensive use of the Federal Parent Locator Service, since state locator services cannot locate 

out-of-state parents. Thirty-one percent of fathers had been incarcerated at some point since case 

opening, and 43 percent of those were currently incarcerated. The proportion of currently 

incarcerated fathers ranged from 32 percent of total incarcerated (since case opening) in 

Minnesota to 48 percent of total incarcerated in Tennessee. Incarceration caused difficulty in 53 

percent of cases. 

Language barriers, being out of the country, and being homeless were circumstances that 

affected relatively small proportions of fathers, although they made contact difficult. Of the 

circumstances listed, incarceration and transportation issues created the least difficulty for 

caseworkers. 

Though some workers reported that some fathers experienced no circumstances that 

affected contact (14%), many workers reported multiple circumstances that may cause barriers to 

contact. In 42 percent of the cases, workers reported two or three barriers and in 7 percent of the 

cases, four or more barriers. 

Another barrier to contact with the nonresident father is the relationship between the birth 

mother and nonresident father. Almost two-thirds of the cases were reported to involve 

relationships in which parents are hostile with one another, hardly ever or never talk to one 

another.47 Workers did not know the type of relationship between the parents in 9 percent of the 

cases. The type of relationship does appear to affect agency-father contact. Fathers in 

 

47 A father is classified as having a good relationship with the child's mother if the caseworker reported that the 

mother and father are friends, are romantically involved on a steady basis, or involved in an on-again/off-again 

romantic relationship. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 87

relationships reported to be friendly or romantic were more likely to have contact with the 

agency than fathers in relationships reported to be less positive (92%** vs. 65%). 

 

Child-Father Visitation 

Caseworkers were asked to describe visitation between the 

nonresident father and his child in foster care (table 3-21). Before 

presenting the findings it is important to note that a nonresident 

father’s visitation with his child in foster care is not unrestrained. Custody and visitation orders 

often dictate visitation for separated and divorced fathers. Fathers may also be restrained due to 

protection orders established to prohibit contact with the child’s mother. Kinship arrangements 

with maternal kin may also create some restraints for fathers in visiting their children. Even nonkin foster care arrangements can set up constraints to father-child visitation. Over fifty (56%) 

percent of nonresident fathers who had been identified and had at least one contact with the 

agency had visited their child at least once since the child had been in foster care. This represents 

only 30 percent of the total sample of nonresident father cases. The analyses in this section 

included cases in which the father had been contacted at least once during the case (at the time of 

the interview). Forty percent of these fathers always or almost always attend planned visits while 

almost a third (29%) never attend planned visits or have no planned visits. While this figure 

seems somewhat promising in terms of fathers engaging with their children while the children 

are in foster care, the 40 percent who always or almost always visit are only 13 percent of the 

total sample of nonresident fathers. Most fathers had at least one visit with clusters of responses 

at one visit (21%), monthly (23%) or weekly (19%) visitation. Twelve percent of caseworkers 

reported nonresident fathers see their children more than once a week. Similar to resident 

Contacted 

Fathers 
What About the Dads? 88

mothers, the vast majority (84%) of the fathers who had phone contact also visited with their 

children. 

Table 3-21 

Nonresident Father Visitation 

N=1,071 

Percent of fathers who have visited with child (since case opening) 55.5 

Visitation (w/in past 6 months)(N=608) %

Always or almost always attends planned visits 40.3 

Sometimes attends 14.3 

Rarely attends 13.5 

Never attends or has no planned visits 28.5 

Don’t know 3.5 

Frequency of visitation (w/in past 6 months)(N=400) %

No visits 6.4 

One visit 20.9 

Monthly 23.1 

Twice a month 15.5 

Weekly 19.2 

More than once a week 12.1 

Don’t know 2.9 

Note: All workers who had been in contact with fathers were asked whether he ever visited the child. If the 

father had ever visited, workers were asked about his attendance for planned visitations (N=608). If fathers 

rarely, sometimes, almost always, or always attend planned visitation (N=400), workers were asked the 

frequency of visitation. 

Father Engagement 

Tables 3-22 and 3-23 provide findings on engaging nonresident fathers 

in casework. Again, workers were only asked to respond to these 

questions if the father of the case in question had had contact with the worker or agency; thus, 

the questions were asked in 1,071 cases. Important to remember is that the contacted fathers 

represent just over half (55%) of the total sample. 

Caseworkers with cases involving fathers whom the agency had not yet contacted were 

not asked questions about father engagement. For cases in which fathers had been contacted, a 

range of issues representing possible engagement both between the worker and the father as well 

as between the father and his child were examined. Types of agency engagement include 

Contacted 

Fathers 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 89

whether the agency shared the case plan with the father and whether or not the agency 

considered placing the child with his or her father or paternal relatives. Father engagement 

includes whether a father had expressed an interest in having his child live with him and whether 

he provided the child with financial or non-financial support. 

Table 3-22 

Nonresident Father Engagement 

N=1,071 % 

Father told of child’s out-of-home placement 95.9 

Agency shared plan with fathers 93.5 

Father expressed interest in child living with him 50.3 

Agency considered placing child with father 45.1 

Agency considered placing child with paternal relatives (N=791)a 53.9 

Agency sought health care coverage from father as part of the case plan 14.3 

Agency sought financial assistance from father as part of the case plan 36.6 a

 Only asked of cases in which the child was not in paternal kin placement. 

Caseworkers report telling almost all contacted fathers about the child’s out-of-home 

placement (96%) and sharing the case plan with them (94%). Half of the contacted fathers 

expressed an interest in having the child live with them. Caseworkers reported considering 

placement with 45 percent of contacted fathers, ranging from 34 percent in Massachusetts to 51 

percent in Minnesota. Workers initiated an assessment for 87 percent of fathers the agency 

considered as potential placement resources, and performed a child protective services (CPS) 

clearance on 83 percent of them. The proportion of cases in which a CPS clearance check was 

conducted varied by state—from 71 percent in Massachusetts to 89 percent in Tennessee. 

Consideration of paternal relatives as placement options varied from 44 percent of cases with 
What About the Dads? 90

contacted fathers in Massachusetts to 67 percent in Minnesota, with an average of 54 percent 

across the study states.48

There was considerable variation between states in whether or not caseworkers sought 

health care coverage or financial assistance from nonresident fathers. Seeking health insurance 

coverage was part of the case plan in 9 percent of the contacted father cases in Massachusetts, 

but 21 percent in Minnesota. In Massachusetts, 11 percent of case plans included obtaining 

financial assistance from the father, compared to 38 percent in Minnesota, 41 percent in Arizona, 

and 55 percent in Tennessee. 

The proportion of cases with contacted fathers who ever provided financial support (table 

3-23) was largest in Tennessee (35%) and smallest in Arizona (21%). In most cases where the 

father had provided financial support, the support came regularly (43%) or occasionally (33%). 

Almost one-third of contacted fathers (32%) had provided non-financial support such as clothes, 

diapers, child care, food, or health insurance. Almost a quarter (23%) of the fathers provided 

both financial and non-financial support; 9 percent only financial, and 12 percent only nonfinancial. States varied somewhat with Arizona having only 18 percent of fathers providing both 

financial and non-financial support while in Massachusetts and Tennessee, a quarter of fathers 

(25%) provided both. Arizona workers reported only 5 percent of fathers providing only 

financial support while 14 percent of Minnesota workers reported fathers providing only 

financial support. 

 

48 Only included cases in which the child was not currently placed with paternal relatives. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 91

Table 3-23 

Nonresident Father Support 

N=1,071 

Ever provided financial support % 

Yes 29.0 

No 58.9 

Don’t know 12.1 

Type of financial support (N=349)a % 

Regular (weekly or monthly) 43.2 

Some, not regular 12.4 

Occasional, sporadic 32.8 

None of these options 8.0 

Don’t know 3.7 

Ever provided non-financial support % 

Yes 31.5 

No 56.4 

Don’t know 12.2 a Only cases in which the father had ever provided financial support were asked about the type 

of support. 

Father Problems 

Caseworkers were asked questions regarding the problems or issues of 

concern that affect whether or not a child can be placed with the father. 

As shown (table 3-24), the most frequently cited problem for fathers was alcohol/drug abuse 

(58%). Slightly over half the contacted fathers were reported to have problems associated with 

criminal justice involvement.49 States varied slightly in the problems noted for fathers. 

Unemployment was reported less in Massachusetts’ cases (32% vs. 39-46% in the other states) 

and a prior finding of abuse/neglect was cited more frequently as a problem in Massachusetts’ 

cases (40% vs. 25-27% in the other states). Arizona reported more cases in which fathers had 

alcohol or drug problems (64%) while Massachusetts and Tennessee had the least with 54%. 

 

49 Criminal justice involvement was meant to include a wide range of possible involvement including fathers who 

might have been arrested, were pending trial, incarcerated, or on probation. 

Contacted 

Fathers 
What About the Dads? 92

Table 3-24 

Nonresident Father Problems 

N=1,071 % 

Type of Problem (all that apply) Yes Don’t know 

Alcohol/drugs 58.2 15.2 

Criminal justice involvement 52.5 13.3 

Inadequate housing/homelessness 41.7 12.4 

Unemployment 40.7 15.1 

Domestic violence 33.3 17.9 

Prior finding of abuse/neglect 29.6 8.5 

Mental/physical health 22.9 15.4 

No child care 21.2 15.1 

Agency offered services for all problems 58.6 5.1 

Father complied with all services offered 22.5 3.5 

Note: Caseworkers were asked about the problem areas of fathers with whom they had been in 

contact (N=1,071). If a father had a problem in one or more areas, workers were asked whether 

or not services were offered to him (N=929). If services were offered, workers were asked 

whether or not he complied with provided services (N=522). 

Multiple problems almost certainly impact fathers’ ability to care for and visit their children. In 

14 percent of the cases, workers noted fathers with no problems but in over 40 percent (42%) 

workers report fathers with four or more of the problems listed. There was some variation in the 

proportion of fathers with multiple problems. Tennessee reported slightly less fathers (35%) with 

four or more problems than the other states (42-46%). 

 Caseworkers were asked whether services were provided to nonresident fathers to assist 

them in overcoming the problems identified and whether or not fathers had complied with 

services. In almost 60 percent (59%) of the contacted father cases caseworkers reported offering 

services to fathers but workers reported only 23 percent of fathers had complied with all the 

services offered. 

Summary of Descriptive Analyses 

This chapter presented findings on the case-level data collection effort conducted in four states—

Arizona, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Tennessee. Data on 1,958 eligible cases were collected 

through telephone interviews with 1,222 caseworkers. Workers provided detailed information on 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 93

casework practices regarding nonresident fathers of children in foster care and the characteristics 

and potential limitations of these fathers. 

Nonresident fathers had been identified by local child welfare agencies in almost 90 

percent (88%) of the cases by the time of the interview (see figure 3-5) and most were identified 

early on in the case process. As the case unfolds it becomes less likely that an unidentified father 

will be identified even though workers are making efforts. For cases with fathers not identified at 

the time of case opening, the caseworker reported asking a number of different individuals—the 

child’s mother, mother’s relatives, other workers—for assistance in identifying the father. Less 

than a third of the mothers (31%) who were asked provided identifying information on the father, 

and other sources were not very successful either. We examined whether practices differed by 

whether or not the child’s mother provided information under the assumption that if the mother 

did not provide information, the caseworker would have more incentive to ask for assistance 

from other individuals. The assumption held true for some categories—for example, caseworkers 

reported seeking help from a mother’s relatives in only about a third of cases (31%) in which 

mothers provided identifying information and in over half the cases (55%) in which mothers did 

not provide identifying information (p < .01). Caseworkers were also more likely to report 

seeking help from the child and siblings in cases in which the mother did not provide information 

on the father. However, workers were not more likely to seek help from another worker in these 

cases. It appears as if casework practice regarding identifying fathers is case specific and 

variable. 

Workers also reported on how they located fathers who had been identified. Similar to 

the questions related to identifying fathers, caseworkers reported asking for help from the 

mother, the mother’s relatives, the child, siblings, and other workers as well as the father’s 
What About the Dads? 94

relatives. Workers also consulted a number of other sources including law enforcement, public 

assistance and department of motor vehicles records, and telephone books. Caseworkers were 

more likely to report seeking help from a variety of sources including mother’s relatives, 

siblings, DMV records, public assistance records, telephone books and utilities, when the mother 

did not provide locate information on the father than when the mother did provide such 

information. However, the percent of cases in which workers asked these sources is low. And, 

while over 60 percent of workers noted that their agency encouraged referrals to child support 

for locating the father, in only 20 percent of the cases in which the father had not been located 

did the worker refer the case to child support. In the next chapter, findings from the child support 

data linkage are presented and a more detailed discussion is provided. 

Workers were asked to report on circumstances that may make contact with the 

nonresident father difficult. The most frequently reported circumstances were fathers who were 

unreachable by phone (60%). While incarceration was cited as a circumstance in almost a third 

of cases (31%), it was noted as causing difficulty with contact in only about half of these cases 

(53%).50 Other circumstances—such as unreliable transportation, homelessness or unstable 

housing, and being out of the country—while cited less frequently caused greater difficulty with 

agency-father contact. The type of relationship between the mother and nonresident father also 

affects agency-father contact. Fathers in relationships perceived as hostile by the caseworker or 

fathers who hardly ever or never talk to the mother were less likely to have had contact with the 

agency. 

Slightly over half of all cases had fathers who had been contacted by the worker (55%) 

(See figure 3-5). Workers were asked specific questions related to agency-father engagement and 

 

50 Incarcerated at some point since case opening. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 95

father-child visitation for the contacted fathers. Over 90 percent of caseworkers reported sharing 

the case plan with these contacted fathers and telling him about his child’s out-of-home 

placement, though this represents only about half of the entire sample. Far fewer of the contacted 

fathers had visited their child (56%) representing only 30 percent of all fathers in the sample. 

Caseworkers reported half of the contacted fathers expressed an interest in having the 

child live with them (28% of entire sample). For cases involving fathers with whom the agency 

had made contact, workers were asked to identify problems or issues that prevented the child 

from being placed with his or her father. In over half the contacted cases (58%), workers noted 

fathers with drug or alcohol abuse problems and half of the fathers were involved with the 

criminal justice system in some way (i.e., incarcerated, on parole, awaiting trial). Caseworkers 

reported offering services to fathers in over half of the cases (59%) but reported only 23 percent 

of the fathers had complied with the services offered. 

Figure 3-5. Father Engagement 

1958 children removed from homes 

where father did not reside 

88%

Agency has identified the father 

30%

Father has visited his child

55%

Agency has made contact with 

father 

Father expresses interest 

in child living with him

28%
What About the Dads? 96

Many nonresident fathers have multiple problems. Workers reported over forty percent 

(42%) of the contacted fathers had four or more of the problems listed. It is important to 

emphasize that these data represent only the fathers with whom the agency or worker had 

contact. Fathers who have not been identified, located, or contacted by the agency may have 

more or fewer problems than the contacted fathers. However, it is interesting to note that 

caseworkers reported a similar frequency of problems for resident mothers. Comparisons 

between nonresident mothers and nonresident fathers are presented in chapter 4. 

Overall the caseworkers interviewed appear to have conflicting opinions about father 

involvement. Most reported that father involvement enhances child well-being (72%) but only 

about half (53%) reported that nonresident fathers want to be part of the decision making about 

their children. In the next chapter, we examine whether worker bias may affect whether 

nonresident fathers are identified and contacted. 

Engaging and involving nonresident fathers of foster children in permanency planning 

and casework is important and challenging for child welfare agencies. The findings presented in 

this chapter provide a first step in understanding this issue. While it may be tempting to use these 

data to paint a picture of casework practice and fathers that is not flattering (e.g., agencies must 

not be doing their best to engage nonresident fathers if only 55 percent of fathers have been 

contacted, and nonresident fathers must not care about their children because only 30 percent of 

fathers have visited their child), it would be premature. Findings from this exploratory study 

provide a first sketch, yet further analyses are needed in order to examine specific questions 

about casework practices. The analyses presented in chapter 4 provide some preliminary results 

for the next step in the process. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 97

Chapter 4 

Additional Analyses and Conclusions 

Overview 

In chapter 3 we presented descriptive information about the study children’s nonresident 

fathers—the fathers’ characteristics, contact with the child welfare agency, and involvement with 

their children. This chapter presents findings from analyses conducted on subgroups of 

nonresident fathers to determine if differences exist. We also compare and contrast nonresident 

fathers and nonresident mothers for context.51 Comparisons across groups of cases with differing 

child, case, and caseworker characteristics are also examined. Finally, multivariate analyses were 

conducted to examine factors associated with identified and involved fathers.52 

This chapter also presents findings from the study’s child support linkage component. 

This component, described in more detail in chapter 1, was implemented to examine the 

feasibility of using child support information to assist in identifying and locating nonresident 

fathers of children in foster care. Lastly, a summary of all study findings is provided. 

Research and Practice as Guides 

Examining nonresident parent and caseworker characteristics through comparative analyses of 

certain subgroups will help us understand factors that might influence caseworker activities (i.e., 

casework practices). Gaining a more complete understanding of how caseworkers identify, 

locate, and involve nonresident fathers will move the field closer to effectively utilizing all 

available resources, both maternal and paternal, to ensure the best outcomes for children in out-

 

51 Please note the discussion of nonresident mothers in chapter 3. 
What About the Dads? 98

of-home placement. In part because there is so little research to guide these analyses, we relied 

more heavily on our knowledge of practice to guide the analyses presented in this chapter. Where 

research findings do exist, we attempted to incorporate such findings into our analysis plan. 

First we tried to compare groups that, for casework purposes, might present differently. 

Nonresident fathers were grouped by whether they were reported to be the child’s alleged or 

legal birth father. A legal father of a child in foster care might have more interest in and 

involvement with the child welfare agency. A caseworker may be required to (by policy or 

protocol) or feel more obligated to provide case information to a legal, rather than an alleged, 

father. Administrators noted problems occurring when children were placed with kin of men 

believed to be their fathers but later discovered not to be. Clearly, casework practices directed at 

nonresident fathers may differ by whether or not paternity is established. 

Casework practices toward nonresident mothers and nonresident fathers and 

characteristics of the two groups were also examined. Child welfare policies and practices are 

often described as being maternally focused.53 While resident mothers were described in chapter 

3, comparing mothers and fathers in similar situations (i.e., not living in the home from which 

their child was removed), provides a more unbiased examination of casework practices. For 

example, caseworkers in a recent study on fathers in child welfare cases noted that a father’s 

incarceration might be cause for less engagement (O’Donnell 2005). The analyses presented in 

this chapter will examine whether incarceration is reported by caseworkers as a barrier to contact 

for both nonresident mothers and nonresident fathers. 

 

52 That is, the caseworker thought he or she had identified the study child’s father. Involved fathers are defined as 

fathers caseworkers reported as visiting with their children frequently (twice a month or more) or supporting their 

children financially or non-financially. 

53 “Fatherhood Training Curriculum: Principles, Policies and Practices to Engage Fathers in their Children’s Lives,” 

National Family Preservation Network, 2005. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 99

Caseworkers were asked whether or not the father was ever considered as a placement 

resource. These responses led to the creation of two subgroups of fathers—those who were 

considered as a placement option and those who were never considered or dismissed early in the 

case.54 And while it would seem likely that the fathers’ characteristics would affect whether they 

were considered as a placement resource, local agency policies and protocols are also likely to 

impact this determination. In fact, child welfare agencies routinely identify and assess 

nonresident parents as potential placement resources, and some states’ policies explicitly give 

them preference. (Sonenstein et al. 2002). 

Case characteristics including type of placement, permanency goal, length of placement, 

and child’s age were also examined through comparative analyses. For example, we wanted to 

know whether nonresident fathers are more likely to visit their children if the children are placed 

with kin versus with non-kin. Past research has shown children visit with parents more 

frequently when placed with kin (Geen 2003). However, given the majority of kin placements 

are with maternal family, visits with fathers could be less affected or even negatively affected if 

the relationship between the father and mother’s kin is poor. We also examined whether 

identifying and locating methods differ if the child was living with kin. If a child is placed with 

kin, do caseworkers make fewer efforts to identify and locate the father? 

Casework practice is premised on the case plan or permanency goal for the foster child. 

That is, if the case goal is to reunify the child with his or her mother, then services and practices 

are directed at that goal. Would a case plan goal of adoption translate into more aggressive 

 

54 It is important to remember that the caseworker respondent is the ongoing or foster care worker. It is not possible 

to determine whether the caseworker respondent is reporting on whether the father had ever been considered as a 

resource at some point in the case prior to the worker being assigned. 
What About the Dads? 100

efforts to identify and locate nonresident fathers to meet diligent search requirements for 

adoption? Would visits between the child and his or her father be less frequent? 

Given the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the renewed focus on 

expedited permanency for children in placement it seems likely that the length of placement 

could affect caseworkers’ actions, particularly as they attempt to identify and locate fathers. And 

while focusing on permanency would appear to increase attention on nonresident fathers (due to 

the father being a potential placement resource and the caseworker needing access to paternal 

kin) caseworkers might react differently. Clearly, many caseworkers (44% of respondents) feel 

that involving nonresident fathers makes a case more complicated (See chapter 3, page 57). 

Perhaps the expedited nature of today’s casework means workers have less time to devote to 

father inclusion. 

Similar to other casework practices, a father’s involvement is likely to be influenced by 

his child’s age. Fathers may be more or less likely to visit their child depending upon the age of 

the child. Older children may have weaker ties to their nonresident fathers or, conversely, older 

children may be more emotionally ready to initiate or continue a relationship with a nonresident 

father. Older children may also be less likely to have a goal of adoption and, thus, the caseworker 

may make fewer efforts to identify the father to terminate his parental rights. 

Caseworker characteristics may also influence practice with nonresident fathers. A recent 

study noted in the literature review in chapter 1 examined differences in practices related to 

fathers by caseworkers’ gender. Male caseworkers were less likely to voice frustration with 

involving fathers (O’Donnell et al. 2005). Responses to our training and worker opinion 

questions provide additional ways to group caseworkers for analysis. Caseworkers who received 

training on how to identify, locate, and involve nonresident fathers would likely do so more 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 101

competently. Caseworkers reporting more positive opinions of nonresident fathers may also be 

more likely to engage fathers. 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. Caseworkers were also grouped according to whether they had received training on 

how to identify, locate, or engage nonresident fathers. 

The comparison group analyses were conducted to identify certain factors we could 

further examine through multivariate analyses. With the logistic regression, factors that might be 

associated with the identified and involved nonresident fathers of children in foster care could be 

examined. Involved fathers were defined in two ways—through visiting with the child and 

through support provided to the child. Previous studies on nonresident fathers have examined 

their involvement by similar means (Lerman and Sorensen 2000). 

Limitations 

There are several limitations to the data presented in this chapter. Unlike the descriptive analyses 

presented in chapter 3, the comparison group and multivariate analyses required constructs be 

developed. Results of prior research studies would usually guide such construct development. 

However, little research has been conducted on this study’s population of nonresident fathers 

(i.e., fathers of children in foster care who were not residing in the home from which the child 

was removed). Some studies noted in the literature review section of chapter 1 and in this 

chapter’s overview section guide our analyses. For example, caseworkers in a recent study on 
What About the Dads? 102

fathers in child welfare cases noted that a father’s incarceration might be cause for less 

engagement (O’Donnell et al. 2005). Criminal justice involvement is examined as it relates to 

barriers to contact for the worker and as one of the reasons why the child cannot be placed with 

his or her father. We also obtained data on whether the nonresident father perpetrated the abuse 

or neglect. Both these factors may be associated with fathers’ involvement and are included in 

the logistic regression. When we were unable to base the specific analyses on past research we 

examined the data from a general knowledge of casework practice. 

 Much of the general father involvement research is premised on the belief that father 

involvement affects child well-being, either positively or negatively. Our study is different in 

many ways. First, the population of nonresident fathers includes only fathers of children served 

by child protection agencies. Father involvement is defined differently for a family being served 

by a child welfare agency than it would be for a family not involved with child welfare. 

Visitation may be quite different—it is planned and often supervised by agency staff.55 Visitation 

may only be allowed for fathers with whom the child has an established relationship or for legal 

fathers. A permanency goal of adoption by a non-relative may preclude visitation between the 

father and child. Caseworkers’ efforts to contact a nonresident father may be directed at 

terminating his parental rights, not fostering the father-child relationship. 

In addition to the different context in which we are examining father involvement, all our 

data is obtained through the lens of the child welfare caseworker. Some caseworkers responded 

“don’t know” to certain questions. Caseworker responses to questions about practices (e.g., Did 

you share the case plan with the father?) were less likely to be “don’t know” responses than 

 

55 Caseworkers may supervise a visit, or visits may occur in a supervised visitation center. Parent visitation often 

differs by whether the child is placed with kin or is placed in a non-kin foster home or other setting. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 103

questions about the father’s characteristics and the problems that affected whether the child 

could be placed with him. 

Some prior research findings could not be examined with our data. For example, some 

research suggests that a father’s marital status is a factor in whether he gains custody of his 

children when they are removed from the mother’s custody due to abuse or neglect (Greif and 

Zuravin 1989). However, caseworkers were unable to provide marital status for 30 percent of all 

nonresident fathers in the study sample. The percent of missing data is substantially higher for 

alleged fathers and fathers who were not considered as a placement resource. 

Another important limitation to this chapter’s findings is the structure of the caseworker 

questionnaire. To obtain the most accurate and updated information, we limited certain questions 

to caseworkers who had been in “contact” with the nonresident father. We did not want 

caseworkers who had never been in contact with a nonresident father to respond to questions 

such as his marital or housing status, whether he had ever expressed interest in his child living 

with him, and the like. We were certain that responses to these types of questions—without 

actual contact with the father—would likely be secondhand from the child’s mother or 

guesswork on the part of the caseworker. Contact was defined broadly. The frequency of contact 

may have varied considerably but these data were not collected. For our study, the distinction is 

whether contact had ever been made. 

The “contact” determination is likely to bias findings because of differential contact rates 

for certain subgroups. For example, while 73 percent of legal fathers had contact with the worker 

or agency, only 35 percent of alleged fathers did. Every nonresident mother had been contacted 

versus only 55 percent of all nonresident fathers. It is important to note that the “contact” 

differential only affects the analyses conducted on questions about “contacted father” cases (see 
What About the Dads? 104

discussion in chapter 3, page 49). Comparisons between fathers considered for placement and 

those not similarly considered, are not affected by the “contact” differential. The question on 

whether placement had been considered was only asked of cases involving contacted fathers; 

however, our inability to determine the frequency and duration of contact does affect the 

interpretation of the findings. It could well be that fathers whom the worker considered as a 

placement for the child were fathers with whom the worker had fairly frequent contact while 

fathers not considered for placement had only minimal contact with the worker. As discussed 

later in this chapter, large percentages of “don’t know” responses on problem areas of fathers the 

agency did not consider for placement preclude a comparison of problems across the two groups 

of fathers. 

Comparison Groups 

In the following sections, findings from analyses on efforts to identify, locate, and involve 

nonresident fathers are presented. Comparisons across subgroups are presented first. First alleged 

and legal father subgroups are examined. Then nonresident fathers are examined in relation to 

nonresident mothers and finally, cases are examined by whether the father was ever considered 

as a placement resource. 

Alleged vs. Legal fathers 

As noted in chapter 3, all fathers for whom paternity was established were considered to be the 

study child’s legal birth father.56 Fathers for whom paternity had not yet been established or for 

 

56 See footnote on page 75 in chapter 3. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 105

whom caseworkers did not know whether paternity had been established were considered alleged 

fathers. 

Demographic characteristics

Some differences were found between alleged and legal fathers (table 4-1). Significant 

differences were found in age. Legal birth fathers were on average slightly older than alleged 

fathers. Legal fathers were also more likely to be white and not Hispanic. Differences in level of 

education, marital status, and living situation cannot be examined due to high levels of “don’t 

know” responses for cases with alleged fathers.57 

Table 4-1 

Nonresident Father Characteristics—Legal and Alleged Fathers 

 Legal

fathers

(N=1,240)

%

Alleged 

fathers 

 (N=481) 

% 

Age (mean) 37.0** 34.0 

Race 

 White 60.3** 38.3 

 African American 21.7 26.2 

 American Indian or Alaskan Native 2.4 1.5 

 Asian .7 .3 

 Mixed .9 1.1 

 Other 1.7 3.1 

 Don’t know 12.2** 29.5 

Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin 17.5** 29.2 

U.S. citizenship 

 Yes 81.9 55.0 

 No 3.4 5.4 

 Don’t know 14.7 39.6 

Highest level of education 

(% don’t know) 

62.7 87.0 

Based on t-tests, statistically significant differences between the alleged and legal father 

groups are denoted as * = p < .05 and ** = p < .01.

 

57 Caseworkers did not know the father’s level of education in over 87 percent of alleged father cases and 63 percent 

of legal father cases. Father’s marital status was not known in 45 percent of alleged father cases and 27 percent of 

legal father cases. 
What About the Dads? 106

Locating methods

Overall, caseworkers reported that fewer alleged fathers than legal fathers had been located at 

case opening: over half (62%) of legal fathers compared to 29 percent of alleged fathers.58

Methods used to locate nonresident fathers are shown in table 4-2. As shown, caseworkers 

reported asking mothers for help locating the child’s father in the vast majority of 

Table 4-2 

Locating Methods—Legal and Alleged Nonresident Fathers 

 Legal 

fathers

(N=465)

%

Alleged 

fathers 

(N=337) 

% 

Who was asked about father’s location? (all that 

apply) 

Child’s mother 84.9 87.4 

Another worker 37.8 42.8 

Mother’s relatives 27.4 41.4 

Child (only asked if child is age 7 or older) 34.0 34.7 

Father’s relatives 26.7** 12.2 

Child’s sibling (only asked if child had 

siblings) 

9.1 10.4 

Other 28.0 32.1 

What records were searched? (all that apply) 

 Law enforcement records 45.3 43.3 

 Birth certificate, vital stats 39.8 44.9 

 Public aid (TANF, Food stamps, Medicaid) 29.7** 40.7 

 Telephone books 27.6 34.8 

 DMV records 18.9* 26.3 

 Utility company records 9.0 13.7 

 Other 21.2 22.2 

Locating resources utilized (all that apply) 

 State parent locator 26.6** 42.4 

 Federal parent locator 5.7 9.9 

 Other locating resource 6.4 9.2 

Based on t-tests, statistically significant differences between the alleged and legal father 

groups are denoted as * = p < .05 and ** = p < .01. 

both groups of fathers (85% and 87%). The same holds true for asking children for help locating 

their fathers. In similar portions of both groups of fathers, workers asked children for help (34%). 

 

58 Significant at p < .01. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 107

Workers did report searching public aid records (30%** vs. 41%, p < .01), DMV records 

(19%** vs. 26%, p < .05), and use of the state parent locator (27%** vs. 42%, p < .01), more 

frequently in alleged father cases than legal fathers. 

Not shown in table 4-2 is the percentage of sources that provided location information. 

As one might expect, caseworkers reported that mothers, mother’s relatives, other workers, 

children, and siblings were all more likely to provide locate information for legal fathers than for 

alleged fathers. And, while use of some sources was more prevalent among cases involving 

alleged fathers, law enforcement records and public aid records were more likely to provide 

locate information for legal fathers than alleged fathers. 

Barriers to contact

Barriers to contact with the worker were also examined for the alleged and legal fathers; 

however, “don’t know” responses accounted for the majority of responses for alleged fathers. 

This is predictable if caseworkers have not yet determined if the alleged father is the child’s legal 

father, the worker is likely to know less about the father. The percent of “don’t know” responses 

for alleged fathers ranged from a low of 14 percent for “unreachable by phone” to a high of 71 

percent for “problem transportation.” 

One noteworthy finding was that incarceration made contact difficult more frequently in 

cases involving alleged versus legal fathers (66%** vs. 50%, p < .01). This is likely the result of 

limitations on staff visits and contact with fathers who have not established paternity. Policies 
What About the Dads? 108

and procedures for prison visitation by caseworkers and by children are variable across states, 

communities, and individual jail or prison facilities.59 

Problems

Large numbers of “don’t know” responses also made examining differences in problem areas 

and in services offered to legal and alleged fathers difficult to interpret. Due to frequent “don’t 

know” responses for alleged fathers, legal fathers (for whom more caseworkers answered the 

questions) were reported as being more likely to have each of the problems. As noted earlier, 

both groups represent “contacted” fathers; however, alleged fathers were less likely to have been 

contacted and thus are disproportionately represented. 

Engagement

We conducted analyses to examine agency engagement with both groups of fathers. As shown in 

table 4-3, the overwhelming majority of both groups of nonresident fathers was told of the outof-home placement and shared the case plan.60 However, significant differences exist between 

the two groups of fathers in the father’s interest in the child living with him and the agency 

considering placing the child with him.61 Both of these questions had similar, low percentages of 

“don’t know” responses for both groups. Not shown in table 4-3 is the percentage of fathers 

assessed by the agency. If considered as a placement resource, legal fathers were more likely to 

be assessed by the agency than alleged fathers (89%* vs. 73%, p < .05). Caseworkers also 

 

59 Per communication with Amy Solomon, Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute and Betsey Nevins, Council of 

State Governments. 

60 Please note the earlier discussion of differential contact rates between alleged and legal fathers. While the 

percentages are similar for contacted fathers of both groups, the percentages differ across the larger groups, i.e., a 

caseworker cannot share a case plan with a father with whom there has been no contact. 61 These questions had low rates of “don’t know” responses for both legal and alleged fathers (2% for both questions 

and types of fathers). 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 109

reported legal fathers were far more likely to have provided financial or non-financial support 

since the case opened.62 

Table 4-3 

Nonresident Father Engagement—Legal and Alleged Fathers 

Legal 

fathers 

(N=902) 

% 

Alleged 

fathers 

(N=168) 

%

Father told of child’s out-of-home placement 96.2 94.1 

Agency shared plan with fathers 93.4 93.8 

Father expressed interest in child living with him 54.2** 31.0 

Agency considered placing child with father 47.5** 32.5 

Agency considered placing child with paternal relativesa 55.9* 43.2 

Agency sought health care coverage from father as part of case plan 16.1** 5.1 

Agency sought financial assistance as part of case plan 38.1* 28.8 

Father ever provided financial support 33.6** 5.5 

Father ever provided non-financial support 35.8** 9.6 

Based on t-tests, statistically significant differences between the alleged and legal father groups are denoted 

as * = p < .05 and ** = p < .01. a

 Only asked of cases in which the child was not in paternal kin placement. 

We asked caseworkers about the status of the relationship between the father and mother 

for a number of reasons (table 4-4). For many nonresident fathers, the mothers of their children 

have considerable control over when and if he visits the child. While the children in the study 

sample are in out-of-home placement, the relationship between the father and mother may still 

impact the father’s engagement with his child. Though caseworkers noted a greater percent of 

alleged fathers never talk to the mother of their child (43%** vs. 32%, p < .01), a small, but 

statistically significant percentage of legal fathers were reported to be in a “hostile” relationship 

with the mother of their child (14%** vs. 3%, p < .01). A similar percentage of legal fathers 

were reported by caseworkers to be “just friends” with the mother of their child (10%** vs. 1%, 

p < .01). 

 

62 Analyses of the regularity of financial support could not be conducted due to small numbers of alleged fathers. 
What About the Dads? 110

Table 4-4 

Mother-Father Relationship—Legal and Alleged Fathers

 Legal 

fathers

(N=1,005)

%

Alleged 

fathers 

(N=292) 

% 

Never talk to each other 32.1** 42.7 

Hardly ever talk to each other 19.6 17.7 

Hostile toward each other 13.6** 3.4 

Just friends 9.3** 1.2 

On-again/off-again relationship 6.0 7.0 

Steady relationship 4.1* 1.8 

Other 8.2 13.1 

Don’t know 7.2 13.7 

Based on t-tests, statistically significant differences between the alleged and legal father 

groups are denoted as * = p < .05 and ** = p < .01. 

Termination of parental rights

Even when paternity has not been established (i.e., the child’s father is “alleged”) or in cases 

where the father is unknown, a father’s parental rights can be terminated. However, as expected, 

legal fathers retained their parental rights more often than alleged fathers (71%** vs. 57%, p < 

.01) (See table 4-5). Caseworkers reported that parental rights had been terminated for onequarter of alleged fathers. 

Table 4-5 

Status of Parental Rights—Legal and Alleged Nonresident Fathers 

 Legal

fathers

(N=1,239)

%

Alleged 

fathers 

(N=716) 

% 

Still has parental rights 71.1** 57.2 

Father’s rights were terminated 17.0** 25.8 

Father relinquished his rights 6.1 2.4 

Don’t know 5.8 14.4 

Based on t-tests, statistically significant differences between the alleged and legal father groups 

are denoted as * = p < .05 and ** = p < .01. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 111

Nonresident fathers vs. nonresident mothers 

As noted in chapter 3, cases involving “nonresident” mothers were identified during interviews 

with caseworkers.63 Because these cases involved both mothers and fathers who were not living 

in the same household as the child prior to the child’s removal from the home, agency and 

worker practices toward these two groups of parents may be similar. 

Nonresident mothers differ slightly from resident mothers (see tables 3-7 through 3-12 

for a complete description of resident mothers). Nonresident mothers were slightly older (34 vs. 

32) and more likely to be African American (26% vs. 20%) and Hispanic origin (23% vs. 18%). 

As one would expect, the percent of “don’t know” responses are greater in some categories for 

cases with nonresident mothers. Caseworkers did not know the nonresident mother’s level of 

education for more than half (52%) of cases compared to 26 percent for resident mothers. The 

percentage of “don’t know” responses was also greater for living situation and marital status of 

nonresident mothers compared to resident mothers. 

 

Identifying and locating methods

Only 5 of the 323 (1.5%) nonresident mothers were unidentified at case opening compared to 

446 of the 1,958 (23%) nonresident fathers. Comparative analyses on identification methods 

between unidentified nonresident mothers and fathers cannot be conducted because of the very 

small number of nonresident mothers unidentified at case opening. Nonresident mothers were 

more likely to have been located at case opening compared to nonresident fathers (78%** vs. 

52%, p < .01).64 While caseworkers asked the same types of individuals and used similar 

 

63 There were a total of 323 nonresident mother cases. 

64 These figures represent percent of identified nonresident fathers and nonresident mothers who were located at case 

opening. Caseworkers reported 73 nonresident mothers who had not been located at case opening. 
What About the Dads? 112

resources in trying to locate both nonresident fathers and nonresident mothers, though they asked 

more frequently for nonresident mothers. For example, workers reported searching public aid 

records for both nonresident mothers and nonresident fathers but more frequently for nonresident 

mothers (51%* vs. 34%, p < .05). Children were more likely to be asked to help locate their 

nonresident mother than nonresident father (62%** vs. 34%, p < .01). Siblings were also more 

likely to be asked to help locate nonresident mothers (26%* vs. 10%, p < .05). 

Barriers to contact

Among parents identified by caseworkers, nonresident mothers appear to share circumstances 

with nonresident fathers that might pose barriers to contact by caseworkers (see table 4-6). For 

both, workers most frequently noted that the nonresident parent was unreachable by telephone, 

which caused the most difficulty (94% and 95% respectively) for contact. It is important to note 

that in all the categories caseworkers responded “don’t know” more often for nonresident fathers 

than for nonresident mothers.65 Overall, nonresident fathers were more likely to be out of state. 

Among parents for whom caseworkers had some information, nonresident mothers were more 

likely to be incarcerated (40%* vs. 31%, p < .05) and have transportation and housing issues. 

 

65 “Don’t know” responses constituted 30 percent of the overall responses for nonresident fathers and only 12% for 

nonresident mothers. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 113

Table 4-6 

Barriers to Contact—Nonresident Fathers and Nonresident Mothers 

Type of circumstance (all that apply) Nonresident 

mother

(N=281)

%

Nonresident 

father

(N=1,719)

%

Unreachable by phone 66.3 59.9 

Out of state 23.9* 31.4 

Incarceration 39.2* 30.5 

Problem transportation 50.1** 21.5 

Homeless/unstable address 39.2** 10.6 

Out of country 3.4 5.1 

Language barrier 1.8 3.1 

Based on t-tests, statistically significant differences between the alleged and legal father groups are 

denoted as * = p < .05 and ** = p < .01. 

Problems and services

Caseworkers reported more problems for nonresident mothers than nonresident fathers on all 

problems except criminal justice involvement (table 4-7). The percent of “don’t know” responses 

was greater for nonresident father cases than for nonresident mothers. The percentage of “don’t 

know” responses for nonresident fathers ranged from 9 to 18 percent for the types of problems.66

While caseworkers reported a lower percentage of “don’t know” responses for nonresident 

mothers, the same categories elicited the least (prior finding of abuse) and the greatest (domestic 

violence) number of “don’t knows.” It is also important to note that the phrasing of the question 

may have impacted caseworker response. Caseworkers were asked about problems of each 

parent that made the child’s placement with them difficult.67 

 

66 The greatest percent of “don’t know” responses was in the category of domestic violence while a prior finding of 

abuse had the lowest percent of “don’t know” responses. 67 The question was, “We want to know if the child’s father has ever had any problems (of the following list) 

affecting whether his child can be placed with him.” That few fathers were considered as a placement resource may 

affect how caseworkers interpreted the question. 
What About the Dads? 114

Table 4-7 

Problems—Nonresident Mothers and Nonresident Fathers 

Type of problem (all that apply) Nonresident 

mothers 

(N=251) 

% 

Nonresident 

fathers 

(N=1,071) 

% 

Alcohol/drugs 79.0** 58.2 

Criminal justice involvement 50.5 52.5 

Inadequate housing/homelessness 66.8** 41.7 

Unemployment 68.5** 40.1 

Domestic violence 37.4 33.3 

Prior finding of abuse/neglect 59.7** 29.6 

Mental/physical health 53.3** 22.9 

No child care 33.1** 21.2 

Agency offered services for all problems 80.5** 58.6 

Father/mother complied with all services offered 31.7* 22.5 

Note: Caseworkers were asked about the problem areas of fathers/mothers with whom they had 

been in contact (N=1,071 fathers, 251 mothers). If a father had a problem in one or more areas, 

workers were asked whether or not services were offered to him/her (N=929) fathers, 241 

mothers). If services were offered, workers were asked whether or not he/she complied with 

provided services (N=522 fathers, 187 mothers). 

Based on t-tests, statistically significant differences between the alleged and legal father groups 

are denoted as * = p < .05 and ** = p < .01.

Engagement

For those with contact, caseworkers were as likely to tell a nonresident mother as a nonresident 

father that her child is in out-of-home care (98% vs. 96%, respectively, see table 4-8). Workers 

also share the case plan with an equally large percentage of nonresident mothers as nonresident 

fathers. There is, however, a large difference in the percent of workers noting that the 

nonresident mother has expressed an interest in having the child live with her, compared to the 

nonresident fathers (68%** vs. 50%., p < .01). Similar percentages of nonresident mothers and 

nonresident fathers were considered as a placement resource by caseworkers (52% vs. 45%). 

While caseworkers noted more nonresident fathers had provided financial support since 

the case opened, nonresident mothers were somewhat more likely to have provided non-financial 

support to the child. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 115

Table 4-8 

Engagement—Nonresident Mothers and Nonresident Fathers 

 Nonresident 

mothers 

(N=251) 

% 

 Nonresident 

fathers 

(N=1,071)

% 

Father (mother) told of child’s out-of-home placement 97.7 95.9 

Agency shared plan with fathers (mothers) 96.0 93.5 

Father (mother) expressed interest in child living with him (her) 68.4** 50.3 

Agency considered placing child with father (mother) 51.6 45.1 

Agency considered placing child with paternal (maternal) relativesa 54.1 53.9 

Agency sought health care coverage from father (mother) as part of 

the case plan 

12.4 14.3 

Agency sought financial assistance from father (mother) as part of 

the case plan 

35.5 36.6 

Father (mother) ever provided financial support 23.6 29.0 

Father (mother) ever provided non-financial support 36.1 31.5 

a

 Only asked of cases in which the child was not in paternal (maternal) kin placement. 

Based on t-tests, statistically significant differences between the alleged and legal father groups are denoted as * 

= p < .05 and ** = p < .01. 

Termination of parental rights

An examination of termination of parental rights (table 4-9) found that while there was a slight 

difference in percentages of nonresident mothers and nonresident fathers who retained rights to 

their child in foster care, a greater percentage of “don’t know” responses for nonresident father 

cases could mediate this finding. 

Table 4-9 

Status of Parental Rights—Nonresident Mothers and Nonresident Fathers 

 Nonresident 

mother

(N=283)

%

Nonresident 

father 

 (N=1,955) 

% 

Still has parental rights 73.4* 65.9 

Parental rights were terminated 18.3 20.3 

Father (mother) relinquished his (her) rights 6.7 4.8 

Don’t know 1.7** 9.0 

Based on t-tests, statistically significant differences between the alleged and legal father 

groups are denoted as * = p < .05 and ** = p < .01. 
What About the Dads? 116

Visitation 

Overall, a greater percentage of nonresident mothers had visited with the child at least once since 

case opening (77%** vs. 56%, p < .01).68 Caseworkers report that nonresident mothers have 

similar attendance at planned visits to nonresident fathers (i.e., always, sometimes, or rarely 

attends planned visits). Nonresident mothers are more likely than nonresident fathers to have 

phone contact with their children (49%** vs. 28%, p < .01). 

Fathers as Placement Resources 

Caseworkers were asked whether the agency had ever considered placing the child with his or 

her father. Cases in which the agency had considered placing the child with his or her father were 

grouped as “placement father” cases. Cases in which the caseworker responded “no” were 

assigned to the “non-placement father” group.69 Analyses were conducted to examine differences 

between the two groups of fathers. 

Demographic characteristics 

Few differences were found in the demographic characteristics of placement and non-placement 

fathers.70 We examined marital status to determine whether there were any differences between 

the two groups. Previous research has noted the presence of a female partner to be a factor in 

whether fathers gain custody of their children (Greif and Zuravin, 1989). Significant differences 

 

68 Questions pertaining to visitation were only asked of caseworkers who had contact with the nonresident father or 

nonresident mother. 

69 The case breakdown between the two groups was nearly equal—48 percent of caseworkers responded “yes” and 

50 percent responded “no.” “Don’t know” responses constituted the remaining 2 percent of responses. 

70 Nonresident fathers of Hispanic origin and non-citizen fathers were both less likely to be considered for placement 

but the Ns for both categories are small. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 117

were found in the nonresident fathers in our study sample. Nonresident fathers considered for 

placement were more likely to be living with another woman (27%** vs. 17%, p < .01). Fathers 

considered for placement were also more likely to be divorced from the child’s mother (16%** 

vs. 8%, p < .01). 

Barriers to contact

Caseworkers noted circumstances that might pose barriers for contact with nonresident fathers of 

children in foster care. Table 4-10 provides the results from comparative analysis of placement 

and non-placement groups of cases. Significant differences were found in frequency of 

incarceration and being unreachable by phone. Fathers considered for placement were less likely 

to be incarcerated at some point during the case (27%** vs. 47%, p < .01) and less likely to be 

unreachable by phone (47%* vs. 57%, p < .01). 

Table 4-10 

Barriers to Contact—Fathers Considered as Placement Resources 

Type of circumstance (all that apply) Father was 

considered 

for placement 

(N=493)

%

Father was not 

considered for 

placement 

(N=557) 

% 

Unreachable by phone 47.1** 57.1 

Out of state 27.5 26.2 

Incarceration 26.8** 46.8 

Problem transportation 29.9 29.3 

Homeless/unstable address 14.4 15.4 

Out of country 2.2 3.6 

Language barrier 2.7 4.3 

Note: Caseworkers responded “don’t know” to the question regarding whether the agency had 

considered the father as a placement resource in 21 identified and contacted father cases. 

Based on t-tests, statistically significant differences between the alleged and legal father groups are 

denoted as * = p < .05 and ** = p < .01. 
What About the Dads? 118

Problems and services

Due to the large percent of “don’t know” responses for non-placement father cases, examining 

data on problem areas across the two groups of cases is difficult. Overall, the data suggest that 

workers reported more problems for fathers with whom the agency considered placing the child. 

As discussed in the overview section of this chapter, caseworkers are likely to have less contact 

with fathers with whom the agency did not consider placing the child and thus, less likely to 

know of the father’s problems. In only one category—mental/physical health problems—did 

caseworkers report a higher percentage for fathers not considered for placement.71 Workers 

reported mental/physical health issues for 22 percent of fathers considered for placement and 35 

percent of fathers not considered for placement. 

Engagement

As shown in table 4-11, fathers with whom the agency considered placing the child were 

significantly more likely to have been told about the child’s placement even though both groups 

were told in over 90 percent of the cases. Caseworkers noted sharing the case plan more often 

with these fathers as well. Perhaps not surprising is that a greater percent of fathers considered 

for placement expressed an interest in the child living with them, according to caseworkers 

(77%** vs. 29%, p < .01). Fathers considered for placement were more likely to provide 

financial support (39%** vs. 21%, p < .01) and non-financial support (46%** vs. 20%, p < .01). 

 

71 The percentage of caseworkers reporting “don’t know” responses for both categories was relatively low (less than 

15%) and similar for both groups of father cases. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 119

Table 4-11 

Engagement—Placement and Non-placement Father Cases 

Father 

considered for 

placement 

(N=493) 

% 

 Father not 

considered for 

placement

(N=557)

%

Father told of child’s out-of-home placement 98.0** 94.1 

Agency shared plan with fathers 99.0** 89.1 

Father expressed interest in child living with him 77.2** 28.6 

Agency considered placing child with paternal relatives a 61.1** 47.4 

Agency sought health care coverage from father as part of the 

case plan 

19.1** 9.9 

Agency sought financial assistance from father as part of the case 

plan 

48.2** 26.7 

Father ever provided financial support 39.0** 20.5 

Father ever provided non-financial support 45.5** 20.4 

Note: Caseworkers responded “don’t know” to the question regarding whether the agency had considered the father 

as a placement resource in 21 identified and contacted father cases. 

a

 Only asked of cases in which the child was not in paternal or maternal kin placement. 

Based on t-tests, statistically significant differences between the alleged and legal father groups are denoted as * = p

< .05 and ** = p < .01.

Case Characteristics 

Kin vs. Non-kin Placement 

We examined cases where children were placed in kin and non-kin placements to determine 

whether differences exist. First, we examined methods of identifying and locating nonresident 

fathers by type of placement. We also examined father-child visitation by whether the child was 

in a kinship or non-kinship placement. In addition, we examined problems or issues for 

nonresident fathers of children in the two types of foster care placements. 

 Identifying and locating fathers

Methods of identifying nonresident fathers did not differ greatly by whether or not the child was 

placed with kin. Not surprisingly, workers did seek help from the mother’s relatives to identify 

the father in cases in which the child was living with kin (54%* vs. 41%, p < .05). There were 
What About the Dads? 120

more significant differences found in locating methods. As with identifying, caseworkers noted 

seeking the help of the mother’s relatives more often in cases in which the child was living with 

kin (51%** vs. 27%, p < .01). They also more frequently noted seeking help with locating from 

the father’s relatives (27%* vs. 18%, p < .05). 

Workers also were more likely to search law enforcement (54%** vs. 41%, p < .01), 

DMV (31%** vs. 19%, p < .01) and public aid (48%** vs. 30%, p < .01) records for nonresident 

fathers of children placed with kin. State and federal parent locator services were used more 

often for locating nonresident fathers of children placed with kin (state: 49%** vs. 28%, p < .01 

and federal: 13%* vs. 5%, p < .05). 

 Visitation

As shown in table 4-12, caseworkers noted only a slightly greater percentage of cases in which 

the father is visiting the child if the child is in a kinship placement. Nonresident fathers with 

children in kinship placements were also more likely than their counterparts with children in 

non-kin placements to have always or almost always attended visits. Caseworkers reported that 

children living with kin were almost twice as likely than children living in a non-kin placement 

to visit with their father weekly or more frequently (45%** vs. 24%, p < .01). Telephone contact 

between child and father was only slightly more likely when the child was in a kinship placement 

(31% vs. 27%). 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 121

Table 4-12 

Father-Child Visitation—Children in Kin and Non-kin Placements 

Child in kinship 

placement

(N=512)

%

Child in nonkinship placement

(N=1,432)

%

Percent of fathers who have visited with child 

(since case opening) 

60.0 53.8 

Visitation (w/in past 6 months) 

Always or almost always attends planned 

visits 

46.9 37.1 

Sometimes attends 16.5 13.3 

Rarely attends 11.8 14.3 

Never attends or has no planned visits 22.3 31.6 

Don’t know 2.6 3.7 

Frequency of visitation (w/in past 6 months)

No visits 3.6 7.3 

One visit 16.2 23.4 

Monthly 21.4 24.2 

Twice a month 10.6 18.3 

Weekly 25.5* 15.8 

More than once a week 19.0* 8.5 

Don’t know 3.7 2.5 

Note: Of the 1,958 nonresident father cases, caseworkers responded “don’t know” for the type of 

placement the child is currently residing in 14 cases. 

Based on t-tests, statistically significant differences between the alleged and legal father groups are 

denoted as * = p < .05 and ** = p < .01.

Fathers’ problems

Overall, caseworkers’ reports of fathers’ problems did not differ greatly by whether or not the 

child was living with kin. However, a greater percentage of fathers of children placed in kinship 

care were reported to have problems with alcohol/drug use compared to fathers of children in 

non-kin care but the difference is not significant.72

 

72 “Don’t know” responses were similar for the two groups of cases—13-14 percent for both. 
What About the Dads? 122

Case Plan Goal 

As discussed in chapter 3, the most common permanency goal for children in the study was 

reunification with the mother (35%); the second most common was a non-relative adoptive 

placement (19%). We examined locate methods for both groups of cases and found few 

differences between the two groups. 

 Cases with a goal of reunification with the mother were more likely than cases with a 

goal of adoption by a non-relative to have a father located at case opening (55%** vs. 45%, p < 

.01). While few differences were found in the types of resources contacted (e.g., law 

enforcement or DMV records) and use of state and federal parent locator services, a significant 

difference was found with regard to asking the child. Cases with a goal of reunification with the 

mother were more likely than cases with a goal of non-relative adoption to seek help from the 

child in locating the father (38%** vs. 15%, p < .01). 

Length of Placement 

We categorized cases according to whether, at the time of sampling, the child had been in foster 

care more or less than one year.73 We thought that identifying and locating methods might be 

different based on length of placement. While there were few differences in the methods used to 

identify nonresident fathers between the two groups of cases there were several differences 

found in locating methods. The only significant difference found in identifying methods was that 

cases in which the child had been in care for more than one year were more likely to have sought 

help identifying the father from another worker (47%* vs. 34%, p < .05). 

 

73 Please note that study criteria called for cases in out-of-home care between 3-36 months; however, we did not 

eliminate cases if the length of placement fell outside of this range. No placements were less than 3 months but there 

was a small percentage that are over 36 months. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 123

Children in care less than one year were more likely to have had a father located at case 

opening than children in care for more than one year (56%* vs. 48%, p < .05). We also found 

differences in locating methods. Caseworkers reporting on children in placement more than one 

year were more likely to search all types of locating resources including law enforcement records 

(51%** vs. 39%, p < .01), public aid records (43%** vs. 26%, p < .01), phone book (36%* vs. 

26%, p < .05), DMV records (29%** vs. 16%, p < .01), and utility records (16%** vs. 6%, p < 

.01). State and federal parent locator resources were also more likely to be used with cases in 

out-of-home placement for longer periods of time. Caseworkers noted that state and federal 

parent locator resources were used more frequently for cases of children in placement more than 

one year (state: 40%** vs. 26%, p < .01, federal: 10%* vs. 5%, p < .05).74 

Age of Child 

We examined possible differences in how workers seek out and involve fathers of younger and 

older children by categorizing children into two age groups—0 to 5 years and 6 years and 

older—to determine whether differences could be detected on a number of casework dimensions. 

The two groups of children had similar case lengths—children 5 and younger had an average 

case length of 1.8 years while children 6 and older had an average case length of 2.2 years. 

The two groups of children did not differ in terms of visits with the father. Caseworkers 

reported 54 percent of fathers of children 0 to 5 had visited their child since case opening and 56 

percent of fathers of children over 5 years of age had visited. As expected, workers reported a 

larger percent of fathers had had phone contact with older children (32%** vs. 9%, p < .01). 

Identifying and locating methods were similar for the two groups of cases except where 

 

74 Significant at p < .05. 
What About the Dads? 124

differences were expected because of younger children’s developmental limitations (e.g., 

workers reported asking siblings for help identifying fathers more often in older child cases). 

Other slight differences were likely the result of a somewhat longer case length for older 

children. For example, for cases involving older children, more caseworkers reported not 

knowing when in the case process the father was identified. Caseworkers were also more likely 

to respond “don’t know” to a number of the questions about methods used to locate the father on 

cases involving older children (e.g., Were father’s relatives sought for assistance in locating the 

father?). The number and frequency of fathers’ problems did not appear to differ much between 

the two groups of child cases. 

Caseworker Characteristics 

Results of analyses of the worker subgroups are presented below. Findings of analyses by 

caseworkers’ gender are presented first. Then caseworkers were grouped by whether or not they 

received training in involving fathers and their opinions about working with nonresident 

fathers.75

Gender 

Overall, there were only slight differences between male and female caseworkers on most 

casework dimensions.76 Similar percentages of cases for both male and female caseworkers 

involved sharing the case plan with the father, telling the father his child was in out-of-home 

placement, and fathers expressing interest in having his child live with him. The one significant 

 

75 Because caseworkers responded to questions regarding multiple cases (See chapter 1 for more detail), the 

possibility arises that responses to each caseworker’s cases are correlated with each other (intraclass correlation). 

We take intraclass correlation into account by calculating clustered robust standard errors. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 125

difference was with regard to the agency considering placing the child with the father. Cases 

with male caseworkers were more likely to have fathers considered as a placement resource 

(55%** vs. 43%, p < .01). Cases with male and female caseworkers had similar percentages of 

fathers who had contact with the agency and fathers who visited with their children since case 

opening. 

More specific analyses of different identifying and locating methods (e.g., Did the worker 

ask the mother for help identifying/locating the father?) revealed only one significant difference. 

The one difference noted was that cases with male caseworkers were less likely to have obtained 

identifying information from the child (6%** vs. 28%, p < .01). 

Worker Training 

Worker training did appear to impact some casework practices.77 Differences were found 

between cases with workers who had received training on identifying, locating, and engaging 

nonresident fathers and cases in which the worker did not receive training. Workers were more 

likely to seek assistance with locating the father from other workers, the mother’s relatives and 

father’s relatives in cases in which the worker reported having received training. Workers were 

also more likely to report having used telephone books to locate the father in cases involving 

trained workers. The case plan was more likely to be shared in cases involving a worker who 

reported receiving training than in cases in which the worker did not receive training (95%** vs. 

89%, p < .01). These workers were also more likely to report that the agency had considered 

placing the child with the father (48%** vs. 37%, p < .01), the father had expressed in interest in 

having the child live with him (53%* vs. 43%, p < .05), and the agency sought financial 

 

76 See chapter 3, page 56 for gender breakdown for caseworker respondents. 
What About the Dads? 126

assistance from the father as part of the plan (40%** vs. 27%, p < .01). A significant difference 

was also found between the two groups of cases with regard to whether a CPS clearance check 

was performed on the nonresident father for whom placement was considered (86%* vs. 74%, p 

< .05). 

 While cases with workers who received training were somewhat more likely than other 

cases to have fathers who had visited with their child (58% vs. 51%), the difference was not 

significant. A greater percentage of cases with trained workers had a nonresident father whose 

location was known at case opening (54%* vs. 48%, p < .05). Methods used to identify fathers 

were similar across the two groups of workers. However, significant differences were found with 

methods used for locating fathers—seeking help from father’s relatives (25%** vs. 10%, p < 

.01), seeking help from another worker (43%* vs. 34%, p < .05), and searching public aid 

records (38%** vs. 26%, p < .01), and telephone books (38%** vs. 26%, p < .01). 

Caseworker Opinions 

Caseworker opinions about father involvement do not appear to have a large impact on casework 

practices identifying and locating nonresident fathers. As noted previously, workers were 

grouped according to their responses to a series of opinion questions.78 The two groups of 

caseworkers reported similar percentages of fathers being told about the child’s out-of-home 

placement and sharing the case plan with the father. The first group of workers was more likely 

to report the agency considered placing the child with the father (49%** vs. 34%, p < .01). 

 

77 See table 3-2. 

78 The small number of workers (N=133) who neither disagreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed to the opinion 

questions made some detailed analyses difficult. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 127

Slight differences, though not significant, were found with fathers expressing interest in having 

his child live with him. Fifty-three percent of cases with workers who reported positive opinions 

had fathers who had expressed an interest in his child living with him while only 47 percent of 

the cases with workers who reported less positive opinions did. 

Very few differences were noted in how workers identified and located nonresident 

fathers. The one significant difference found between the two groups of workers involved 

locating methods. Workers with more positive opinions reported searching public aid records 

more often than other workers (39%**, 23%, p < .01). 

Multivariate Analyses 

In this section we present findings from multivariate analyses examining factors associated with 

identified father cases, cases in which the nonresident father is reported to be visiting with his 

child, and cases in which the nonresident father is reported to be supporting his child. Three 

logistic regression models are presented. 

Sample

As discussed in detail in chapter 1, the sample consists of data on 1,958 cases obtained during 

telephone interviews with caseworkers in each of the four study states—Arizona, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, and Tennessee.79 Sampled cases met a variety of criteria. The one criterion unique to 

this sample of foster care children is that in each case the biological father was a nonresident, 

i.e., not living in the home from which the child was removed. Chapter 3 presents findings from 

detailed descriptive analyses of the sample. 
What About the Dads? 128

The three models presented use samples of different sizes due to the way in which the 

caseworker questionnaire was structured. In all 1,958 cases, caseworkers were asked questions 

about whether or not the nonresident father was identified. However, questions on father-child 

visitation and father support were only asked if cases involved identified fathers and fathers with 

whom the agency or worker had contact.80 Thus, while the samples are smaller, the number of 

independent variables is greater for the models on visitation and support. The father 

identification model, while using a larger sample, contains fewer independent variables.81 

Measures 

The analyses focused on three dependent measures: fathers who were identified; fathers who 

were reported to be visiting their children twice a month or more; and fathers who were reported 

to be providing financial or non-financial support82 to their children. Because of the exploratory 

nature of this study, we chose to incorporate a large number of independent variables in the 

logistic regression models. Categories of independent variables include case characteristics and 

characteristics of the children, fathers, and caseworkers. 

Case characteristics include state, case length, the type of maltreatment, perpetrator, 

current placement type, permanency goal, and whether the case had a resident mother (the 

 

79 See chapter 1 for a complete description of the sample selection and design, response rates and weighing 

procedures. 

80 A sample size of 400 was used for the father visitation model and a sample of 844 was used for the father support 

model. 

81 Many of the variables that may affect father identification could not be included because the information could 

only be collected if the father was identified. For example, whether the father was ever married to the child’s mother 

was only collected on identified fathers. In addition, questions pertaining to father problems, circumstances that 

could be barriers to contact with the agency, child support, and questions of whether he had expressed interest in 

having his child live with him, and whether the agency had ever considered placing the child with him, were asked 

only if the father had been identified and contacted by the worker or agency. Thus, the father identification model 

could not include these variables. 

82 Non-financial support was described as provision of clothing, diapers, child care, food or health insurance. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 129

mother was in the home from which the child was removed).83 Child characteristics include 

gender, age, and race. Caseworker characteristics include gender, race, years of experience in 

the child welfare field, and whether the worker received training on how to identify, locate, and 

involve nonresident fathers. Father characteristics include age, type of father (alleged or legal), 

whether he still maintains parental rights to the child84, whether he was ever married to the 

mother of the child, whether he ever expressed interest in his child living with him, and whether 

or not the agency ever considered placing the child with his or her father.85 We also recoded 

variables on circumstances that could be barriers to contact between the father and agency (see 

chapter 3 page 83) to create a multi-circumstance variable. Three or more circumstances, 

regardless of whether the caseworker reported it as a barrier, were considered to be multicircumstance cases. Caseworkers reported on fathers’ problems that were reasons why the child 

could not be placed with him (see chapter 3 page 88). Three or more problem areas were recoded 

as a multi-problem father case.86 We also include a relationship variable. This variable was 

coded from caseworker responses to a question about the relationship between the nonresident 

father and birth mother of the child.87 

 

83 See discussion of resident and nonresident mother cases in chapter 3. 

84 Termination of parental rights was included as a control variable because of the likelihood that it can explain a lot 

of the variance in which fathers are visiting their children. While a father whose parental rights have been terminated 

would be less likely to visit his child and in some cases may be legally prohibited from doing so, the cross-sectional 

dataset does not allow examination of the timing of events. The small percent of fathers whose rights are terminated 

but visited their children could have done so prior to the termination of rights. In other cases, fathers who no longer 

have parental rights may still be visiting their children. 

85 Father’s race/ethnicity was not included in the model due to its high correlation with child’s race/ethnicity. 

Consideration of placement was included as an independent variable but could also likely be a dependent variable. 

Caseworkers are likely to decide whether a father should be a placement resource on whether or not he is visiting or 

supporting his child. Likewise, after a father is considered a placement resource the caseworker might encourage (or 

actually schedule) visits between him and his child. The survey instrument did not collect data on the timing of these 

caseworker decisions. 

86 Caseworkers had to report three or more of the problems in order for the case to be deemed a multiple problem 

case. 

87 A “good relationship” was defined as whether the caseworker responded to one of the following about the 

nonresident father and birth mother: 1) they are romantically involved on a steady basis; 2) they are involved in an 
What About the Dads? 130

Lastly, father support and father visitation variables were included. As mentioned earlier, 

the father support variable was defined to include fathers providing financial support or nonfinancial support. Father visitation was defined in two different ways. For the dependent variable 

used in the father visiting model, visitation was defined as cases in which caseworkers reported 

fathers visiting their child twice a month or more. However, for the independent variable used in 

the family support model, a more generic definition was used. Using the frequency of visits 

definition of father visitation made the number of usable observations extremely low so the 

definition used in the family support model was broadened to include cases in which the 

caseworker reported the father had ever visited the child since case opening. 

Analyses 

We conducted logistic regression analysis to examine which factors were associated with our 

three dependent measures. We ran three separate models to measure the relative odds that a 

father would be identified, visiting, or supporting his child. It is important to note that the crosssectional dataset does not allow examination of the timing of events. Without knowledge of the 

timing of caseworker decisions and other events such as termination of parental rights, causality 

cannot be determined for associated factors. 

Results 

Results from a logistic regression model examining factors associated with father identification 

are shown in table 4-13. Several independent variables were found to be significant. Two child 

 

on-again off-again relationship; or 3) they are just friends. Other caseworker responses included 1) they are hostile 

toward each other; 2) they hardly ever talk to each other; 3) the never talk to each other; or 4) other. These 

responses were coded as a “bad relationship.” 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 131

characteristics—age and race—were significant. Case characteristics found to be significant 

include current placement type and whether the case had a resident mother. Caseworker 

characteristics found to be significant include gender and race. 

The child’s age was positively associated with an identified father. Older children had an 

increased likelihood of having an identified father. Cases involving African American and 

Hispanic children were associated with decreased odds of having an identified father. Cases in 

which the child was in a non-relative foster placement, adoption or guardianship placement, or 

other placement88 were also associated with decreased odds of having an identified father 

compared to children in relative foster care. Cases in which there was a resident mother (child 

was removed from a home in which the child’s mother resides) were associated with increased 

odds of having an identified father than cases involving nonresident mothers. Cases involving 

male caseworkers and African American caseworkers (compared to white caseworkers) were 

associated with decreased odds of having an identified father. 

 Table 4-14 presents results from a logistic regression model identifying factors associated 

with father visitation. Multiple factors were found to be associated with whether or not a 

nonresident father is visiting his child.89 Several factors were associated with increased odds of 

the father visiting using the reference variables presented. Compared to cases in Massachusetts, 

Arizona cases were more likely to have a father visiting his child. Cases with a goal of reunifying 

with the father or placement/guardianship with a relative were also associated with increased 

odds of having a father visiting. Cases with fathers who were older, who had expressed an 

interest in the child living with him, or who had provided support to the child were all more 

 

88 Other placements included group homes, residential treatment centers, and children reunited with mother. 

89 It is important to remember that the data represent caseworker responses to the questions on visitation. Responses 

might likely have been different if the questions were asked of the fathers, mothers, or other caregivers. 
What About the Dads? 132

likely to have a visiting father. Cases involving fathers with multiple problems were also more 

likely to have a visiting father.90 Cases with Hispanic caseworkers were also more likely to have 

a visiting father. 

Factors associated with decreased odds of father visits include cases involving older 

children, cases with the father as perpetrator, cases in which the father had multiple 

circumstances that could pose barriers to contact, and cases with more experienced caseworkers. 

In addition, cases in which the current placement type was “other”, the child’s permanency goal 

was non-relative adoption as a permanency goal, and cases where the mother resided in the home 

at the time of the child’s removal were less likely to have a visiting father. 

 Results from a logistic regression on father support91 are provided in table 4-15. Multiple 

factors were associated with whether or not the father is supporting the child. In this model, 

several case and father characteristics, and one caseworker characteristic were associated with 

father support. With regard to case characteristics, compared to cases in Massachusetts, Arizona 

cases were less likely to have a father supporting his child. Cases involving sexual abuse and 

cases in which the permanency goal was non-relative adoption were both less likely to have a 

father supporting the child. Father characteristics associated with increased odds of supporting 

his child include whether he was ever married to the mother, whether he expressed an interest in 

the child living with him, whether the agency had considered placing the child with him, and 

whether he has visited with the child. Hispanic workers, compared to white workers, had 

decreased odds of having a father supporting his child. 

 

90 See page 118. Cases in which the father was considered as a placement resource were more likely to have multiple 

problems. This is likely due to less “don’t know” responses, i.e., the caseworker has had greater access to the father 

and more time to identify and assess various “problems.” 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 133

Discussion 

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the lack of previous research on father involvement within 

the child welfare system means we must rely on our anecdotal knowledge of practice to examine 

and interpret these findings. Father identification and a father visiting with the child appear to 

have some association with characteristics of the child, case, and caseworker. Father support 

appears to have some association with case and caseworker characteristics, as well as father 

characteristics. 

It is important to note again that the lack of data on father characteristics available for 

inclusion on the father identification regression model (due to not being able to collect this 

information on unidentified fathers) limits our ability to interpret the findings from this model. 

Both African American and Hispanic children are far less likely than white children in the 

sample to have an identified father. Father’s marital status and problems or circumstances faced 

by fathers may explain these differences. 

The findings on caseworker characteristics are also difficult to explain. Cases involving 

male caseworkers or African American caseworkers compared to white caseworkers were both 

negatively associated with fathers being identified. Urban/rural differences in casework practices 

may affect the findings on caseworker race and ethnicity. Additional analyses will be conducted 

as a follow-up to this study in order to examine urban/rural practice differences. 

Findings on case characteristics—current placement type and whether the child’s mother 

was in the home—make practical sense. Compared to children in relative foster care, children in 

non-relative care or adoption/guardianship homes are less likely to have identified fathers. It is 

not feasible with these data to determine whether the placement type led to differences in 

 

91 It is important to note that the definition of “support” included both financial and non-financial support. 
What About the Dads? 134

casework practice or whether differences in case circumstances led to a different placement 

types. For example, caseworkers may be able to more easily identify a child’s father when the 

child is living with kin due to greater access to sources of information. Identifying the child’s 

father would presumably be easier in cases in which the mother was in the home at the time of 

the child’s removal (“resident mother” cases constitute the vast majority of our sample) due to 

her proximity and the worker’s ability to ask the mother for information on the father. 

While some findings from the visiting father model seem consistent with anecdotal 

practice knowledge, other findings are more difficult to interpret. Some factors associated with 

increased odds of the father visiting are easy to understand—when the child’s permanency goal 

is placement with his or her father, the father is visiting with the child or, given that we do not 

know the timing of events, it could be that when the father visits the child there is a greater 

likelihood of the permanency goal being reunification with father. Other findings easy to 

interpret include cases involving fathers who are providing support to their children and fathers 

who expressed interest in living with their children were both far more likely to have a father 

who visited his child. 

Factors associated with decreased odds of father visits include a variety of case and father 

characteristics. Cases with a goal of non-relative adoption were far less likely to have a father 

visiting his child than a case with reunification with the mother as the goal. Cases involving 

multiple circumstances that pose barriers to contact between the agency and the father are less 

likely to have a visiting father. Again, this finding is easy to interpret. A father with whom the 

agency or worker has difficulty contacting would presumably be less likely to be visiting his 

child. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 135

The negative association between residential mother cases and the likelihood of a father 

visiting is difficult to explain. Perhaps the relationship between the mother and father in resident 

mother cases (i.e., cases in which the child’s mother was in the home from which the child was 

removed), is more hostile or less friendly and therefore the father-child relationship was never 

formed or continued. Perhaps cases with residential mothers are more likely to involve a 

stepfather or live-in boyfriend that could negatively affect the father-mother relationship. There 

could also be unique aspects of the non-resident mother cases such as a greater likelihood of a 

paternal kinship care placement that could affect visitation positively. 

The direction of the effects for fathers’ problems were not as expected. Fathers whom 

caseworkers noted as having multiple problems were more likely to be visiting their child than 

fathers with fewer problems though the effect is not significant. A caveat to this finding is that a 

number of caseworkers provided “don’t know” responses in answering questions pertaining to 

problem areas of nonresident fathers (e.g., substance abuse, unemployment, domestic violence). 

Having more problems identified by the caseworker may merely be the result of greater contact 

with the caseworker. Visiting fathers may, through greater contact with the caseworker, be 

described as having more problems than non-visiting fathers. Similar problems were encountered 

in the interpretation of findings presented earlier in this chapter on fathers with whom the agency 

considered placing the child (see page 112). 

Similar to the father identification model, findings on caseworker characteristics are 

again somewhat difficult to understand in the father visiting model. Cases involving Hispanic 

caseworkers are much more likely to have a visiting father while cases involving workers with 

more experience are somewhat less likely to have a visiting father. 
What About the Dads? 136

Some of the findings from the family support model make practical sense (e.g., the 

positive association between a father providing support and having been married to the mother at 

some point, a father expressing interest in the child living with him, or being considered for 

placement). Other findings such as Arizona cases being less likely to involve a father supporting 

the child are difficult explain. This finding is particularly troublesome given that Arizona cases 

were far more likely to have a visiting child and support and visitation were positively associated 

with each other in both models. 

Type of abuse is difficult to interpret. Cases involving sexual abuse were reported to be 

less likely to have a father providing support than cases involving physical abuse. It should be 

noted, however, that the group of cases involving sexual abuse is small and likely to be quite 

different from the sexual abuse cases in the greater child welfare case population due to our case 

criteria that the child’s father not be living in the home from which the child was removed. The 

small number of cases in this subgroup may skew these findings. 

 There are several limitations that affect interpretation of findings from the logistic 

regression models. Most importantly, in the father identification model there are many father 

characteristics we were unable to include due to their unavailability in cases involving 

unidentified fathers. Collection of longitudinal data instead of cross-sectional data would allow 

examination of causality. We also want to examine rural and urban differences and other 

measures that may impact on the percent of single-female headed households on the agency’s 

caseload. It seems likely that case practices may differ depending upon the extent to which the 

caseload is comprised of cases involving nonresident fathers. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 137

Tables 

Table 4-13 

Factors Associated with Father Identification 

Obs = 1,568 

Variable 

Odds Ratio 

(SE) 

Sign. 

* = p < .05 

 ** = p < .01

Child Characteristics 

Age 1.08 (0.02) ** 

Male 1.30 (0.23) 

Racea 

Black 0.53 (0.12) ** 

Hispanic 0.35 (0.12) ** 

Other Race 0.95 (0.24) 

White (Reference) 

Case Characteristics 

State 

Minnesota 1.35 (0.45) 

Arizona 0.67 (0.18) 

Tennessee 0.77 (0.20) 

Massachusetts (Reference) 

Length of Case 1.00 (0.01) 

Type of Abuseb 

Sexual 0.74 (0.31) 

Neglect 0.86 (0.28) 

Other/No Reported Abuse 0.86 (0.37) 

Physical (Reference) 

Perpetrator of Abusec 

Boyfriend/Stepfather 1.00 (0.33) 

Other Individual(s) 0.97 (0.29) 

Mother (Reference) 

Current Placement 

Non-relative Foster Care 0.62 (0.15) ** 

Adoption or Guardianshipd 0.34 (0.12) ** 

Other 0.54 (0.16) ** 

Relative Foster Care (Reference) 

Permanency Goale 

Relative Adoption or Guardianship 0.70 (0.19) 

Non-relative Adoption 0.86 (0.23) 

Independent Living/Other 0.80 (0.19) 

Reunify with Mother (Reference) 

Residential Motherf 2.10 (0.48) ** 

Caseworker Characteristics 

Male 0.67 (0.16) * 
What About the Dads? 138

Table 4-13 

Factors Associated with Father Identification 

Obs = 1,568 

Variable 

Odds Ratio 

(SE) 

Sign. 

* = p < .05 

 ** = p < .01

Race 

Black 0.48 (0.12) ** 

Hispanic 0.64 (0.21) 

Other 0.65 (0.19) 

White (Reference) 

Years in Field 0.98 (0.01) 

Received Training on Fathers 0.82 (0.16) a Race- Individuals are classified as White or Black if they report only one race. Individuals reporting multiple races are classified 

as Other. Any individual reporting that they are Hispanic is classified as Hispanic. b Type of Abuse- Any child for whom sexual abuse was reported was classified as being abused sexually. Children who were 

abused physically but not sexually were classified as physically abused. Children who were neglected but not sexually or 

physically abused were classified as neglected. Finally, children who were abused in other ways only or not abused were classified 

as being victims of other or no abuse. 

c Perpetrator- Any child reported by the caseworker to have been abused by an individual who was not the mother, father, or the 

mother's boyfriend/stepfather was classified in the other category. This includes cases in which the perpetrator was reported to be 

another individual and some combination of mother, father, boyfriend, or stepfather. Cases with no identified perpetrator were 

also placed in this category. Cases in which children were abused by a stepfather or mother’s boyfriend are placed in their own

category. Cases were classified as stepfather/boyfriend perpetrator when both the stepfather/boyfriend and mother were reported

as perpetrators in the case. Mother perpetrator cases are cases where only the mother is reported as a perpetrator. All cases with 

the father reported as the perpetrator were identified. The father perpetrator cases were not used in the model. 

d Includes relative and non-relative adoption/guardianship. 

e Cases with permanency goal of placement with father were perfectly correlated with father identification and were removed from 

this model. 

f Residential Mother-The vast majority of mothers in the cases were residing in the home from which the child was removed. 

However, there were 323 mothers who did not reside in the home from which the child was removed and these mothers are 

categorized as "nonresident" mothers. See chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion of the two groups. 

Table 4-14 

Factors Associated with Father-Child Visitation 

Obs = 242

Variable 

Odds Ratio 

(SE) 

Sign. 

* = p < .05 

 ** = p < .01

Child Characteristics 

Age 0.86 (0.04) ** 

Male 2.12 (0.95) * 

Racea 

Black 1.02 (0.58) 

Hispanic 4.08 (4.66) 

Other Race 0.75 (0.54) 

White (Reference) 

Case Characteristics 

State 

Minnesota 1.75 (1.54) 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 139

Table 4-14 

Factors Associated with Father-Child Visitation 

Obs = 242

Variable 

Odds Ratio 

(SE) 

Sign. 

* = p < .05 

 ** = p < .01

Arizona 5.15 (3.30) ** 

Tennessee 1.68 (1.06) 

Massachusetts (Reference) 

Length of Case 1.00 (0.01) 

Type of Abuseb 

Sexual 0.74 (0.54) 

Neglect 0.28 (0.22) 

Other/No Reported Abuse 0.31 (0.30) 

Physical (Reference) 

Perpetrator of Abusec 

Father 0.26 (0.19) * 

Boyfriend/Stepfather 0.35 (0.30) 

Other Individual(s) 0.39 (0.32) 

Mother (Reference) 

Current Placement 

Non-relative Foster Care 0.44 (0.26) 

Adoption or Guardianshipd 1.90 (3.65) 

Other 0.34 (0.22) * 

Relative Foster Care (Reference) 

Permanency Goal 3.70 (2.63) * 

Reunify with Father 7.69 (6.77) ** 

Relative Adoption or Guardianship 0.06 (0.06) ** 

Non-relative Adoption 1.43 (0.92) 

Independent Living/Other 

Reunify with Mother (Reference) 

Residential Mothere 0.09 (0.08) ** 

Father Characteristics 

Birth Father 2.47 (2.94) 

No Longer Has Parental Rights 0.24 (0.24) 

Age 1.05 (0.03) * 

Ever Married to Birth Mother 1.11 (0.54) 

Expressed Interest in Child Living with Him 5.19 (3.74) ** 

Agency Considered Father for Placement 0.82 (0.43) 

Multiple Circumstances Affecting Contactf 0.05 (0.03) ** 

Multiple Problemsg 3.61 (1.61) ** 

Provides Supporth 4.88 (3.06) ** 

Mother and Father Have Good Relationshipi 1.52 (0.75) 

Caseworker Characteristics 

Male 1.39 (0.94) 
What About the Dads? 140

Table 4-14 

Factors Associated with Father-Child Visitation 

Obs = 242

Variable 

Odds Ratio 

(SE) 

Sign. 

* = p < .05 

 ** = p < .01

Race 

Black 0.97 (0.54) 

Hispanic 5.30 (4.67) * 

Other 1.31 (0.88) 

White (Reference) 

Years in Field 0.91 (0.03) ** 

Received Training on Fathers 0.69 (0.35) a Race- Individuals are classified as White or Black if the caseworker reported only one of these race categories. Individuals 

reporting multiple races are classified as Other. Any individual reporting that they are Hispanic is classified as Hispanic. b Type of Abuse- Any case for which sexual abuse was reported was classified as sexual abuse. Cases involving physical abuse 

but no sexual abuse and cases involving physical abuse and neglect are classified as physical abuse. Cases involving only neglect 

with no sexual or physical abuse are classified as neglect. Finally, cases involving other types of abuse or cases in which the

caseworker reported no abuse were classified as other/no reported abuse. c Perpetrator- Any child reported by the caseworker to have been abused by an individual who was not the mother, father, or the 

mother's boyfriend/stepfather was classified in the other category. This includes cases in which the perpetrator was reported to be 

another individual or some combination of mother, father, boyfriend, or stepfather. Cases with no identified perpetrator were also 

placed in the other category. Children abused by a father and stepfather/boyfriend were also placed in the other category. Cases 

were classified as father perpetrator when both the father and mother were reported as perpetrators in the case. Cases were 

classified as stepfather/boyfriend perpetrator when both the stepfather/boyfriend and mother were reported as perpetrators in the 

case. Mother perpetrator cases are cases where only the mother is reported as a perpetrator.

d Includes relative and non-relative adoption/guardianship.

e Residential Mother-The vast majority of mothers in the cases were residing in the home from which the child was removed. 

However, there were 323 mothers who did not reside in the home from which the child was removed and these mothers are 

categorized as "nonresident" mothers. See chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion of the two groups. f An individual is classified as having multiple circumstances affecting contact if the caseworker notes three or more 

circumstances. Circumstances include living out of state, living out of the country, incarceration, homelessness, being 

unreachable by phone, not having adequate transportation, and having a language barrier.

g An individual is classified as having multiple problems affecting the child's placement with him if the caseworker notes three or 

more problems. Problems include homelessness/inadequate housing, unemployment, abuse or neglect, alcohol/substance abuse, 

criminal justice involvement, domestic violence, lack of child care, and mental/physical health problems.

h Provides either financial or nonfinancial support to child.

i A father is classified as having a good relationship with the child's mother if the caseworker reported that they are friends, are 

romantically involved on a steady basis, or involved in an on-again/off-again romantic relationship.

Table 4-15 

Factors Associated with Father Support 

Obs = 406 

Variable 

Odds Ratio 

(SE) 

Sign. 

* = p < .05 

 ** = p < .01

Child Characteristics 

Age 0.99 (0.04) 

Male 0.68 (0.21) 

Racea 

Black 0.64 (0.26) 

Hispanic 0.80 (0.52) 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 141

Table 4-15 

Factors Associated with Father Support 

Obs = 406 

Variable 

Odds Ratio 

(SE) 

Sign. 

* = p < .05 

 ** = p < .01

Other Race 0.95 (0.42) 

White (Reference) 

Case Characteristics 

State 

Minnesota 1.08 (0.66) 

Arizona 0.40 (0.17) ** 

Tennessee 0.86 (0.38) 

Massachusetts (Reference) 

Length of Case 0.99 (0.01) 

IV-E Eligible 0.99 (0.41) 

Type of Abuseb 

Sexual 0.24 (0.16) ** 

Neglect 0.66 (0.30) 

Other/No Reported Abuse 1.39 (0.99) 

Physical (Reference) 

Perpetrator of Abusec 

Father 0.80 (0.37) 

Boyfriend/Stepfather 0.60 (0.32) 

Other Individual(s) 0.71 (0.35) 

Mother (Reference) 

Current Placement 

Non-relative Foster Care 0.69 (0.27) 

Adoption or Guardianshipd 0.48 (0.41) 

Other 1.93 (0.93) 

Relative Foster Care (Reference) 

Permanency Goal 

Reunify with Father 2.03 (1.09) 

Relative Adoption or Guardianship 0.69 (0.35) 

Non-relative Adoption 0.34 (0.15) ** 

Independent Living/Other 1.49 (0.76) 

Reunify with Mother (Reference) 

Residential Mothere 1.74 (0.97) 

Father Characteristics 

Birth Father 2.55 (1.59) 

No Longer Has Parental Rights 0.63 (0.26) 

Age 1.00 (0.02) 

Ever Married to Mother 2.63 (0.94) ** 

Expressed Interest in Child Living with Him 2.23 (0.86) ** 

Agency Considered Father for Placement 2.42 (0.90) ** 
What About the Dads? 142

Table 4-15 

Factors Associated with Father Support 

Obs = 406 

Variable 

Odds Ratio 

(SE) 

Sign. 

* = p < .05 

 ** = p < .01

Multiple Circumstances Affecting Contactf 0.56 (0.20) 

Multiple Problemsg 0.64 (0.24) 

Has Visited Child During Case Period 3.74 (1.33) ** 

Mother and Father Have Good Relationshiph 1.04 (0.36) 

Caseworker Characteristics 

Male 0.70 (0.26) 

Race 

Black 1.27 (0.65) 

Hispanic 0.20 (0.13) ** 

Other 2.24 (1.25) 

White (Reference) 

Years in Field 0.99 (0.02) 

Received Training 1.04 (0.34) a Race- Individuals are classified as White or Black if the caseworker reported only one of these race categories. Individuals for 

whom caseworkers reported multiple races are classified as Other. Any individual reported by the caseworker as Hispanic is 

classified as Hispanic.

b Type of Abuse- Any case for which sexual abuse was reported was classified as sexual abuse. Cases involving physical abuse 

but no sexual abuse and cases involving physical abuse and neglect are classified as physical abuse. Cases involving only neglect 

with no sexual or physical abuse are classified as neglect. Finally, cases involving other types of abuse or cases in which the

caseworker reported no abuse were classified as other/no reported abuse. c Perpetrator- Any child reported by the caseworker to have been abused by an individual who was not the mother, father, or the 

mother's boyfriend/stepfather was classified in the other category. This includes cases in which the perpetrator was reported to be 

another individual or some combination of mother, father, boyfriend, or stepfather. Cases with no identified perpetrator were also 

placed in the other category. Children abused by a father and stepfather/boyfriend were also placed in the other category. Cases 

were classified as father perpetrator when both the father and mother were reported as perpetrators in the case. Cases were 

classified as stepfather/boyfriend perpetrator when both the stepfather/boyfriend and mother were reported as perpetrators in the 

case. Mother perpetrator cases are cases where only the mother is reported as a perpetrator.

d Includes relative and non-relative adoption/guardianship.

e Residential Mother-The vast majority of mothers in the cases were residing in the home from which the child was removed. 

However, there were 323 mothers who did not reside in the home from which the child was removed and these mothers are 

categorized as "nonresident" mothers. See chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion of the two groups. f An individual is classified as having multiple circumstances affecting contact if the caseworker notes three or more 

circumstances. Circumstances include living out of state, living out of the country, incarceration, homelessness, being 

unreachable by phone, not having adequate transportation, and having a language barrier.

g An individual is classified as having multiple problems affecting the child's placement with him if the caseworker notes three or 

more problems. Problems include homelessness/inadequate housing, unemployment, abuse or neglect, alcohol/substance abuse, 

criminal justice involvement, domestic violence, lack of child care, and mental/physical health problems. h A father is classified as having a good relationship with the child's mother if the caseworker reported that the mother and father 

are friends, are romantically involved on a steady basis, or involved in an on-again/off-again romantic relationship.
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 143

Child Support Linkage 

As discussed in Chapter 1, the study’s child support linkage component was designed to explore 

how child support resources may assist child welfare caseworkers in identifying, locating, and 

involving nonresident fathers. Topics of interest include paternity establishment, whether locator 

resources are utilized, and whether child support orders are established and paid. Determining 

whether paternity has been established is an important first step to locating and involving fathers. 

ASFA both allowed and encouraged state child welfare agencies to use the Federal Parent 

Locator Services (FPLS) employed by child support enforcement programs to locate fathers and 

other relatives. States can also use their in-state child support locate resources to assist child 

welfare cases. Additionally, determining whether nonresident fathers are providing financial 

support to their children could be an important component of a father assessment. 

Before we present the findings from the data linkage, we draw on the contextual 

information obtained through discussions with local child welfare administrators (see chapter 2) 

to present state-specific child support findings from the case-level data collection. We then 

present findings from the case linkage. 

State-specific Child Support Findings 

Results of discussions with local child welfare administrators in the four states are generally 

consistent with findings from the case-level data collection effort. As discussed in chapter 2, 

state child welfare agencies vary in the ways they establish paternity, both for purposes of 

involving a father in a case and for purposes of placement opportunities or relinquishment or 

termination of parental rights. Generally, local administrators said that workers relied on birth 

certificates, voluntary recognition of parentage and a mother’s word. Case-level data confirmed 
What About the Dads? 144

that workers rely heavily on birth certificates (see table 3-13) but also make use of genetic/DNA 

testing and voluntary paternity documents in many cases. State laws govern voluntary paternity 

establishment and court proceedings and voluntary paternity establishments are considered court 

judgments. Additionally for children born after 1993, a father’s name cannot appear on a birth 

certificate unless a voluntary acknowledgement is filed. These records maybe obtained through 

the child support agency or directly from the court or state vital records office. DNA testing is 

not necessary for legal paternity to be established and is generally not used when paternity is 

established through voluntary acknowledgement. 

Arizona administrators noted consistently that workers rely on legal departments or 

clerical staff to find fathers. They also noted uniform access to the State Parent Locator service 

for a fee when local area searches yield no results. Case level results show overwhelmingly that 

in comparison to workers in the other study states, Arizona workers reported high levels of use 

of state parent locator services (77% compared to 3-12% in the other states) in cases with no 

father identified at time of case opening. Arizona also had the lowest percent of “don’t know” 

responses for this question. Nine percent of caseworkers in Arizona reported not knowing 

whether state parent locator services were used compared to 19-30% in the other states. 

 Recouping foster care expenses from birth parents was also discussed with local 

administrators. Practices varied across states. Massachusetts’s administrators had a negative view 

of the efficacy of a contracted agency responsible for the recouping costs. Minnesota 

administrators noted the child support office does try to recoup expenses. Arizona caseworkers 

are responsible for completing a parental assessment and determining how much each parent can 

pay. Tennessee administrators discussed caseworkers having to ask judges to order child support 

payments through the enforcement agency. Using case-level data, there was some variation 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 145

across states with regard to caseworkers noting that seeking financial assistance from the father 

was part of the case plan (10% in Massachusetts to a high of 21% in Minnesota).92

 An issue that is of concern when discussing establishing child support orders is whether 

or not the father has a history of domestic violence, specifically, whether ordering child support 

may heighten the risk of domestic violence to the child’s mother or other guardian. Over the past 

two decades, Massachusetts has been identified as a state with policies in place to address 

domestic violence and its overlap with child maltreatment and the impact on families served by 

child welfare agencies (Findlater et al. 1999). This history of awareness and training may be 

reflected in the administrator interviews and case-level data. While nearly all administrators in 

local Massachusetts offices mentioned serving birth parents with a history of domestic violence, 

the same was not true for the other three states. Administrators in the other states, while 

mentioning domestic violence, did not do so as consistently as administrators in Massachusetts. 

In addition, administrators in Massachusetts noted creating separate case plans for each parent in 

order to not compromise confidentiality or otherwise renew conflict between parents. Domestic 

violence was identified as a problem area for nonresident fathers in all study states; however, 

Massachusetts and Minnesota caseworkers were more likely to identify domestic violence (44% 

of cases in Massachusetts and 43% in Minnesota identified domestic violence as a problem area 

for the nonresident father, compared to approximately 30% in Arizona and Tennessee). 

During the early phases of the study there was discussion of whether child support 

officials would choose to establish a child support case on a nonresident parent identified 

through the study’s data linkage process. No state decided to pursue such activity; however, 

 

92 Caseworkers were asked if seeking financial assistance from the nonresident father was ever part of the case plan. 

The question did not specify whether the financial assistance would be sought through a child support order 

established through the child support agency or through informal mechanisms. 
What About the Dads? 146

screener questions were added to the caseworker questionnaire so that any caseworker concerns 

about risk to the mother or child would be addressed. Thus, before sending a data file to the child 

support agencies in each study state, a percentage of cases were removed. Cases in which the 

caseworker did not know if there was risk were also removed.93 In each state between 30 and 32 

percent of all completed eligible cases were excluded from the linkage.94 

Child Support Case Match and Data Consistency 

The caseworker survey collected data on a number of issues important to the child support 

field—paternity, locate activities, financial and non-financial support provided by the father. The 

linkage component was designed to match survey cases with cases from the states’ child support 

administrative data systems. The caseworker survey data was then checked against data in 

similar fields in the child support data file to determine whether information was consistent 

and/or complete across systems. While the objective was to determine whether using child 

support data systems could assist child welfare agencies in identifying and locating fathers, in 

order to be useful, information available from child support resources would need to be more 

complete or accurate than information available in the child welfare record. If child welfare 

workers could access such information, would it supplement or supplant information already 

available to them? That is, are caseworkers likely to benefit from use of child support resources? 

Overall, information on paternity establishment is likely to be more reliable from the 

child support system than from the child welfare record because it is more reflective of legal 

 

93 Only cases in which the caseworker responded ‘no’ to two questions: “Is there any reason why the information 

you have provided should not be used to facilitate a match with the parent locator services?” and “Do you think 

locating the father of this child might put the child or the mother at risk of physical harm?” were included in the data 

linkage. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 147

paternity than information likely to be available in the child welfare record. Information on the 

father’s location may be more complete and accurate as well. A child welfare caseworker may 

have information on the father’s location but given that workers often rely on information 

provided by the child’s mother (see table 3-17), the data may be outdated, inaccurate, or 

incomplete. Caseworkers may have little or no information on fathers living out-of state or those 

not living in the community. 

The caseworker survey collected informal data on a nonresident father’s financial support 

and this makes the comparison of these data across systems difficult to interpret. Child support 

systems collect information only on official financial support provided by the father to the child. 

The caseworker survey asked caseworkers if the father had provided financial support to the 

child during the child’s time in placement, not whether there was an established child support 

order on which he was paying. Thus, the data collected by the caseworker survey cannot be 

considered a proxy for official child support payments. However, both formal and informal 

forms of support are generally considered to indicate a father’s commitment to his child. 

Matched cases

As discussed, a number of cases were removed from this component of the study as a result of 

caseworkers’ response to questions regarding potential risk to mother or child. Once these cases 

were removed, a separate file was constructed for each state that contained a list of case 

identification numbers of children in the sample to be included in the child support match 

process. This file was then sent to each state’s child welfare IT specialist who added into the file 

identifying information on the child and his or her birth parents (to which the researchers did not 

 

94 State percentages of excluded cases are as follows: Arizona 31%, Massachusetts 31%, Minnesota 30% and 
What About the Dads? 148

have access). The file was then sent directly to the corresponding state child support agency 

where the cases were “matched.”95 The extent to which the child welfare system contained 

identifiers for the case principals affected whether or not a case could be “matched” with child 

support information. State policies on referral of foster care and TANF cases to child support 

agencies also affects this “match.” 

After the cases were matched, the child support data was merged with the file. Identifiers 

were again removed to protect families’ privacy, and the files were sent back to the researchers. 

The overall number of cases matched varies greatly across states. Table 4-16 provides the 

number of cases matched compared to the number of cases sent to child support to be matched. 

Only 25 percent of Massachusetts cases and 36 percent of Arizona cases matched, compared to 

all sent cases in Minnesota and Tennessee. 

Table 4-16 

Results of Child Support Data Linkage – Number and Percent of Cases Included

Total # of Cases 

in the Study 

Sample 

Total # of Cases 

Sent to Child 

Support (after 

caseworker 

exclusions) 

Total # of Cases 

Successfully 

Identified in 

Child Support 

Files 

% Cases 

Successfully 

Identified Across 

Agencies (of total 

sent) 

Arizona 561 387 138 36 

Massachusetts 523 361 91 25 

Minnesota 344 243 243 100 

Tennessee 530 362 362 100 

Total 1958 1353 834 62 

The results shown in table 4-16 mirror information provided by local administrators. 

Administrators in Minnesota and Tennessee consistently reported sharing information with child 

support agencies to identify and locate fathers. Tennessee automatically refers cases to its child 

 

Tennessee 32%. 

95 A child welfare case “linked” with information in the child support data system does not equate to a child support 

order having been attempted or established. Referral to child support could have happened for locate or other 

purposes. Cases could also have been referred to child support by local TANF agencies. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 149

support agency when a child enters out-of-home placement. Some administrators in Minnesota 

also noted an automatic referral process when IV-E eligible children come into care. As noted in 

chapter 2, the relationship between child welfare agencies and their local child support agencies 

in Arizona and Massachusetts appeared more tentative. 

Before presenting findings from the case matching it is important to describe some 

differences in the child support data received from the four states. Three of the four states 

(Arizona, Minnesota and Tennessee) were able to provide detail on whether a child support order 

was attempted, established (if attempted), and paid upon (if established). Overall for the three 

states, 71 percent of the matched cases had a child support order attempted. Over half (53%) of 

those orders attempted were established, and of those established, 38 percent had been paid 

upon. State variation was greatest in the “percent of orders attempted” which ranged from 70 

percent in Minnesota to 87 percent in Arizona. However, given the fact that Minnesota had 100 

percent of their cases successfully identified across agencies, Minnesota’s results are, in fact, 

superior to Arizona’s in terms of orders attempted. 96 There was less state variation in percent of 

orders established—from 50 percent in Tennessee to 58 percent in Minnesota. 

Child support data also contained information on whether the State Parent Locator 

Service (SPLS) and Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) methods had been used and whether 

they were successful in providing information on the father’s location, generally either his 

address or that of his employer. Overall in three states (Arizona, Minnesota, and Tennessee), 

state locate methods had been used in 67 percent of the cases.97 There was a 10 point range 

 

96 Overall, Minnesota attempted to establish orders in 70 percent of their cases (100 percent of which were identified 

in child support files) while Arizona attempted to establish in 31 percent of their cases (87 percent of the 138 cases 

identified in child support files). 

97 Massachusetts data contained information on whether state or federal locate resources had been used but not 

whether these efforts were successful. 
What About the Dads? 150

across states (62 to 72%). In 96 percent of the cases in which the state locate methods were used, 

the methods were successful in locating the father. Federal locator resources were used 

somewhat less frequently, in 60 percent of the cases. However, these resources were also 

successful in 96 percent of the cases in which they were used. 

Data consistency across systems

Table 4-17 presents findings on the consistency of information across systems. This analysis 

involved comparing the data from the caseworker survey with child support administrative data 

to determine if the information was consistent (that is, was the information in the child support 

file the same as that provided by the child welfare caseworker).98 Inconsistent data indicates the 

two sources could be relying on different information. For example, if during the interview, a 

caseworker noted paternity had been established and data collected from the child support 

system notes the same result, i.e., paternity established, this was considered “consistent” data. It 

is important to note however, that we cannot determine the source of the caseworker 

respondent’s information. That is, child support data could very well have been the source of the 

caseworker’s response. 

As shown in table 4-17, almost three-quarters of paternity data were consistent across 

systems. However, in the remaining one-quarter of cases, child welfare workers’ responses 

conflicted with the information contained in the child support administrative data. Overall, data 

on father location and father’s child support matched in 63 and 51 percent of the cases, 

respectively. As discussed previously, due to the differences in definitions of location and 

support, interpreting the meaning of inconsistencies in these types of data is more difficult. It is 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 151

also difficult to interpret state variation except through administrator opinions as discussed 

above. However, state differences can be presented and may raise questions that future research 

efforts can examine. While Massachusetts had a small percentage of inconsistent data with 

regard to paternity, a much greater consistency was found with regard to child support in that 

state. Arizona’s data was the opposite—a high percent of the data was consistent on paternity, 

but less than a quarter (23%) of the data on child support was consistent. 

Table 4-17 

Results of Child Support Data Linkage – Percent Consistent

% Data Consistency between Caseworker Survey Data 

and Child Support Data 

AZ 

(N=138) 

MA 

(N=91) 

MN 

(N=243) 

TN 

(N=362) 

All States 

(N=834) 

Paternity establishment 79 31 76 79 73 

Father locationa 75 44 61 64 63 

Child supportb 23 69 41 62 51 a

 Fathers are considered "located" by child welfare if their location was known at time of placement, or if any of the 

locator efforts provided information on the non-custodial father's whereabouts. b

 The caseworker survey definition of child support was whether the caseworker responded “yes” to whether or not the 

nonresident father ever provided financial support to the child. Reports of non-financial support were not included as 

“child support” for purposes of these analyses.

Inconsistent and missing data

Inconsistent information is important for two reasons. First, it may mean that child 

welfare data are inaccurate (e.g., child welfare data indicates paternity has been established but 

child support data shows paternity has not been established). Secondly, inconsistent data 

represents information that child welfare caseworkers might benefit from by utilizing child 

support resources (e.g., child welfare data is missing but the child support system contains data). 

Breakdowns by type of inconsistency are provided in Table 4-18. 

 

 

98 Matched cases are those in which both sources contained “yes” responses, “no” responses, or “missing” 
What About the Dads? 152

Table 4-18 

Inconsistent or Missing Data

AZ 

(N=138) 

MA 

(N=91) 

MN 

(N=243) 

TN 

(N=362) 

All States 

(N=834) 

Paternity Establishment 

Inconsistent % % % % % 

Paternity established by child welfare, not 

established by child support 

4 66 12 9 15 

Paternity established by child support, not 

established by child welfare 

17 2 4 11 9 

Missing 

Paternity information missing by child 

welfare, not missing in child support 

0 0 2 1 1 

Paternity information missing in child 

support, not missing in child welfare 

0 0 7 0 2 

Consistent 79 31 76 79 73 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 

Father Location 

Inconsistent % % % % % 

Location known by child welfare, not by 

child support 

12 23 6 27 18 

Location known by child support, not by 

child welfare 

9 3 4 8 6 

Missing 

Location information missing by child 

welfare, not missing in child support 

0 0 0 1 0 

Location information missing in child 

support, not missing in child welfare 

4 30 28 0 12 

Consistent 75 44 61 64 63 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 

Father Support 

Inconsistent % % % % % 

Collection noted by child welfare, not by 

child support 

0 19 7 7 7 

Collection noted by child support, not by 

child welfare 

30 4 16 25 21 

Missing 

Support information missing in child 

welfare, not missing in child support 

4 8 8 5 6 

Support information missing in child 

support, not missing in child welfare 

43 0 28 0 15 

Consistent 23 69 41 62 51 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 

As shown, for all three categories of data—paternity, location, and support—there are cases in 

which data was available in the child support system yet the child welfare caseworker reported a 

 

responses. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 153

lack of information. For example, in 17 percent of the matched Arizona cases, child support data 

shows paternity establishment while the child welfare caseworker reports it has not been 

established. Similarly, in 9 percent of the Arizona cases, father location is known to the child 

support system but the child welfare caseworker reported that the father was not located.99 

Overall, paternity and location were more often known by the caseworker and not found in the 

child support data than visa versa. Perhaps not surprisingly, collection of support was more often 

noted in the child support system and not reported by the child welfare worker. The category of 

father support also has the greatest percent of cases in which the caseworker data was missing 

yet child support data contained such information. However, in Arizona and Minnesota, a 

significant percentage of cases contained “missing” data on collections in the child support 

system yet the caseworker respondent reported the father providing support to his child. Again, 

this may be due to the differing definitions of “child support” between the two systems. 

While these analyses are exploratory the findings suggest the need for continued 

collaboration between child welfare and child support systems. The intent was to determine 

whether child support data could be helpful to child welfare agencies for locating nonresident 

fathers. Indeed, with regard to paternity establishment and father location, information available 

in the child support agency’s administrative data system can be useful to child welfare 

caseworkers. It is also important for assessment purposes that child welfare caseworkers have 

more complete and accurate information about the status and regularity of a nonresident father’s 

provision of financial support. 

 

99 Father was reported not located at time of case opening and all reported efforts to obtain locate information did 

not provide information. 
What About the Dads? 154

Summary and Conclusions 

This study explored casework practices involving nonresident fathers through both qualitative 

and quantitative research methods. In-depth discussions with 53 local child welfare 

administrators provide an overview of policies and practices related to fathers and provide state 

context and across-state variation. Case-level data collection in the four study states provides 

rich, detailed information on characteristics of the nonresident fathers of the sampled children, 

case characteristics, and the actions of caseworkers in these cases. Survey data were compared to 

available child support information to determine if child support information can be of assistance 

to child welfare caseworkers. 

The case-level data collection includes sampled children in foster care who had been 

removed from households in which their biological father did not reside. While this population 

of cases allowed for the rich data obtained, it also limits the implications of the findings. Study 

findings cannot describe how caseworkers interact with fathers who lived in the home with the 

child prior to removal. Local administrators reported a significant portion of their cases involve 

nonresident fathers—estimates ranged from 30 to 80 percent of cases. Thus, in some localities, 

nonresident fathers are the norm. Below, a summary of the study’s findings is provided. Findings 

are presented along the continuum of casework practices regarding nonresident fathers—

practices aimed at identifying, locating, and engaging fathers. 

Identifying and Locating Nonresident Fathers 

This study examined practices used to identify and locate nonresident fathers with regard to the 

timing of these activities and whether there are certain case, father, or child characteristics that 

affect when these fathers are sought, how many methods a caseworker uses to search, and 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 155

whether searches are successful. Caseworker bias was examined by comparing practices used 

with nonresident mothers and nonresident fathers and by grouping caseworkers according to 

gender, training, and opinions. Workers reported having identified the fathers in 88 percent of 

the cases in the study sample, although workers had contacted only 55 percent of the fathers. 

 

Timing of identification

While many administrators reported that caseworkers begin trying to identify a child’s father 

during the investigation phase, most seemed to think that efforts were stronger and more 

successful early in a case but after the investigation was complete. According to caseworkers, the 

majority of nonresident fathers had been identified at case opening (68%). It is likely that while 

most nonresident fathers are identified early, efforts needed to identify a father later become 

more time-consuming and less successful. Fathers identified and located at the time of case 

opening were more likely to be contacted by the caseworker and engaged in the case in ways 

such as visitation with the child. 

Factors that may affect practices to identify and locate nonresident fathers

While slightly over half of all identified nonresident fathers had been located at case opening, 

this varied considerably by whether the identified father was the legal birth father or whether he 

was an alleged father. Results of our multivariate regression found several significant factors 

related to father identification. Father identification does appear to be associated with case and 

caseworker characteristics. Case characteristics associated with father identification include the 

age and race of the child and current placement type. Cases in which the child was currently 

placed in a non-relative foster home were less likely than children living with kin to have an 
What About the Dads? 156

identified father. Cases assigned to male caseworkers or African American caseworkers were 

also less likely to have an identified father. 

Cases with a case plan goal of reunification with the mother were more likely than cases 

with a goal of non-relative adoption to have a father who was located at the time of case opening. 

However, different case plan goals appear unrelated to caseworkers’ methods to locate 

nonresident fathers except with regard to asking the child for assistance. Children were more 

likely to be asked to help locate the nonresident father in cases in which the goal was 

reunification with the mother than in cases in which the goal was non-relative adoption. 

Differences in locating methods were found when length of placement was taken into account. 

Caseworkers were more likely to utilize many locating resources—law enforcement and public 

assistance records, DMV records, phone books, and utility records—for cases involving children 

in placement a year or more. State and federal parent locator resources were also more likely to 

be used when children had been in placement more than one year. 

There were a few differences found in locating methods utilized by caseworkers when 

cases were analyzed by whether the child was living with kin or living in a non-kin placement. 

Not surprisingly, workers were more likely to seek help from the mother’s relatives in cases in 

which children were living with kin. Workers were also more likely to search law enforcement, 

public assistance records, state and federal parent locator services for help in locating 

nonresident fathers of children placed with kin. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 157

Caseworker bias in practices to identify and locate nonresident fathers

In order to examine whether there are caseworker biases against nonresident fathers we 

compared caseworker actions toward nonresident fathers and nonresident mothers and conducted 

analyses for subgroups of caseworkers. While some comparisons can be drawn between 

nonresident fathers and resident mothers, as discussed in chapter 3, the sample of “nonresident” 

mother cases also allowed for comparison of caseworker practices directed at nonresident fathers 

and nonresident mothers.100 

A comparison of nonresident mothers and nonresident fathers found that nonresident 

mothers are more likely to be located at case opening than nonresident fathers. There were some 

slight differences in how caseworkers attempted to locate nonresident mothers and nonresident 

fathers. Not surprisingly, public aid records were searched more frequently to help locate 

nonresident mothers than fathers. Children were asked to help locate nonresident mothers far 

more often than they were sought to help locate their fathers. Caseworkers reported that not all 

individuals asked to help identify or locate nonresident fathers are forthcoming with information. 

Mothers in particular are not always helpful in providing locating information on the father. This 

finding concurs with other recent research that found that caseworkers noted that mothers often 

hinder the involvement of fathers in child welfare casework (O’Donnell et al. 2005). 

The comparison analyses conducted using different groupings of caseworkers by gender, 

training and opinions found that caseworkers who received training were more likely than other 

workers to have cases involving fathers located at case opening. However, caseworker training 

was not found to be significant after considering other factors associated with father 

identification. Workers were more likely to seek locating assistance from other workers, the 

 

100 See definition of “nonresident” mother in chapter 3. 
What About the Dads? 158

mother’s relatives and father’s relatives in cases in which the worker reported having received 

training. 

Caseworker gender was examined to determine whether a gender bias exists in relation to 

identifying and locating nonresident fathers. Previous research found that caseworkers orient 

services to mothers, regardless of gender of the caseworker (Lazar, Sagi, and Fraser, 1991). 

While recent research found that male caseworkers were less likely to express frustration with 

involving fathers (O’Donnell et al 2005), overall, our comparison group analyses found no 

significant differences between male and female caseworkers on most of the casework 

dimensions examined. 

More specific analyses of different identifying and locating methods revealed only one 

significant difference—male caseworkers were less likely to have obtained identifying 

information from the child. And, as mentioned earlier, male caseworkers were somewhat less 

likely than their female counterparts to have an identified father case. 

Father Involvement 

Engaging fathers is an important, but in many cases, difficult task. Administrators perceived the 

nonresident father population as having a diverse set of needs and experiences. Case level data 

reinforce this perception though it should be noted that caseworkers were only asked about 

fathers’ problems in cases involving identified fathers who had been contacted.101 Caseworkers 

reported a number of circumstances that posed barriers to contact with nonresident fathers 

including fathers being unreachable by phone, living out of the state, and being incarcerated. The 

type of relationship the mother and nonresident father had also affects agency-father contact with 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 159

fathers more likely to have had contact with the agency in cases involving a good relationship 

with the child’s mother. While a substantial group of fathers express interest in having their 

children live with them or were considered as a placement resource (approximately one quarter 

of all cases), caseworkers report in many instances 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. 

 

Administrator and caseworker opinions on father involvement

When local child welfare administrators were asked about potential benefits and drawbacks to 

father involvement in child welfare cases, they reported that involving fathers may benefit 

children. However, administrators were quick to caution that this was true only when such 

involvement poses no safety risk to the children or mothers. Administrators mentioned that even 

if a father cannot be a placement resource they could offer tangible benefits such as financial 

support or critical knowledge of the birth family’s medical history. While administrators noted 

fathers as potential placement resources, some administrators mentioned the benefits of paternal 

kin as placement resources before mentioning the father himself. A small number of 

administrators noted that involving fathers may make fathers feel empowered and responsible for 

the care of their children. Almost three-quarters of caseworkers believed that father involvement 

enhances child well-being, but only a little over half believed nonresident fathers want to be a 

part of the decision-making process about their children and most reported that nonresident 

fathers need help with their parenting skills. 

 

101 Fifty-five percent of the entire sample of cases involved fathers who had been contacted by the agency or 

caseworker (this represents 62% of identified fathers). The frequency and duration of contact was not determined. 
What About the Dads? 160

Fathers’ problems and needs

Nonresident fathers who had been identified and in contact with the caseworker or agency have a 

diverse set of needs and problems. The most frequently cited problem for fathers was 

alcohol/drug abuse, a factor in 58 percent of cases in which the father had been in contact with 

the agency. In slightly over half the contacted father cases, workers cited problems associated 

with criminal justice involvement.102 Caseworkers were asked whether services were provided to 

nonresident fathers to assist them in overcoming the problems identified and whether or not 

fathers had complied with services. Caseworkers reported offering services to almost 60 percent 

of the contacted fathers but they reported only 23 percent of those offered had complied with all 

the services offered. 

Examining problems of subgroups of nonresident fathers proved difficult. Comparative 

analyses of legal and alleged fathers found caseworkers reported more problems for legal fathers 

than alleged fathers. This may be because legal fathers actually have more problems but another 

plausible explanation is that the caseworker may have had greater contact with legal fathers, and 

therefore more opportunity to assess his problems. Caseworkers reported far less “don’t know” 

responses for legal fathers than for alleged fathers. 

 Father-child visitation, support, and interest in living with children

Caseworkers reported 56 percent of contacted fathers had visited their child but this represents 

less than one third (30%) of all fathers in the sample. As one might expect, more resident 

mothers than nonresident fathers were visiting with their children. This is likely due to the child 

having a permanency goal of reunification with mother. However, caseworkers reported that 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 161

nonresident mothers were also more likely to have visited their child than nonresident fathers (a 

statistically significant difference). Less than one third (29%) of the contacted fathers were 

reported to have provided financial support to their children representing only 16 percent of all 

fathers in the sample. Non-financial support was provided by almost one third (32%) of the 

contacted fathers with almost a quarter (23%) providing both types of support. Clearly, there is a 

group of nonresident fathers who are visiting and supporting their children. When compared to 

nonresident mothers, caseworkers noted nonresident fathers were slightly more likely to have 

provided financial support since the case opened but nonresident mothers were more likely to 

have provided non-financial support to the child. 

Caseworkers reported half of the contacted fathers expressed interest in having their 

children live with them though this represents only 28 percent of the entire sample. Legal fathers 

were more likely to express such an interested compared to alleged fathers. Caseworkers also 

reported nonresident mothers were more likely than nonresident fathers to express an interest in 

having their children live with them. Interestingly, caseworkers reported similar or greater 

percentages of problems for nonresident mothers then for nonresident fathers but this could 

similarly be due to greater contact with the nonresident mother and increased opportunity to 

assess problem areas. 

 

Caseworker bias against father involvement

Caseworker bias against father involvement has been researched as a barrier to fathers’ 

participation in child welfare casework. Prior research has found that caseworkers do not pay as 

much attention to birth fathers as birth mothers but fathers also do not respond to outreach efforts 

 

102 Criminal justice involvement was meant to include a wide range of possible involvement including fathers who 
What About the Dads? 162

as well as mothers (Franck 2001; O’Donnell et al. 2005). Some gender differences among 

caseworkers were noted (O’Donnell et al. 2005). Our logistic regression models of father-child 

visitation and father support offer additional research on this topic but do not support the prior 

findings of gender differences among caseworkers. Caseworker gender was not found to be 

significant in the father visiting or father support models. In addition, similar percentages of 

nonresident mothers and nonresident fathers were considered as a placement resource by 

caseworkers (44% vs. 48%). 

While previous studies have noted a lack of training on father involvement (Hairston 

1998), in the four study states, caseworker training on fathers appears fairly widespread. More 

than two-thirds of the caseworker respondents (70%) noted having received training on 

identifying, locating and involving fathers.103 Significant differences were found between cases 

involving workers who did and did not report having received training about fathers. The case 

plan was more likely to be shared with the father and the agency was more likely to consider 

placing the child with the father in cases involving workers who reported having received 

training. Significant differences were also found between cases with workers who received 

training and those who did not with regard to whether the father expressed interest in having the 

child live with him (workers with training regarding fathers were more likely than workers who 

did not receive training to report cases in which the father had expressed such interest), and 

whether the agency sought financial assistance from the father as part of the plan (workers 

reporting training about fathers were more likely than other workers to report cases in which this 

occurred). 

 

might have been arrested, pending trial, incarcerated, or on probation. 

103 The question asked of caseworkers was “Have you ever received training on how to identify, locate, or engage 

nonresident fathers?” 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 163

Child Support Case Linkage 

The linkage of cases between the child welfare and child support systems explored the potential 

for more extensive use of child support information by child welfare caseworkers. The results 

indicate that in many cases, child welfare workers do have information on paternity, location, 

and support that matches the information in the child support agency’s files. However, the 

number of cases with conflicting information is not trivial. Given the importance of paternity 

establishment and the accuracy of this determination it seems prudent that child welfare workers 

utilize child support agencies to obtain new information and to confirm the accuracy of their own 

information about the location and paternity status of fathers of children in foster care. 

Data resources specifically designed to provide locate information make it likely that 

child support administrative data systems have more reliable information about fathers’ locations 

than do child welfare agencies, particularly in cases where the mother has lost contact with the 

father. And child support systems may be more able to obtain information on out-of-state fathers 

through the use of the Federal Parent Locator Service. Recent advances in data sharing across 

states and on a federal level have allowed state child support systems to be a good source of 

information on nonresident fathers involved in child welfare cases. Information on official child 

support orders and collection on orders would also be beneficial to child welfare caseworkers as 

part of an overall assessment of the nonresident father as a placement resource for his child. 

Implications for Practice and Future Research 

This study has been repeatedly described as an exploratory look at nonresident fathers in child 

welfare casework. The findings provide a more comprehensive picture of fathers of children in 

 
What About the Dads? 164

foster care than has been presented previously. And because the case-level data come directly 

from caseworkers, the picture is from the perspective of the caseworker. While the accuracy of 

certain types of information can be questioned based on caseworker lack of knowledge or 

potential bias against nonresident fathers, the perceptions of caseworkers, the front-line workers 

who have direct interactions with nonresident fathers, are key to understanding how fathers are 

identified, located and involved in permanency planning and casework. Caseworkers’ and 

administrators’ expectations of nonresident fathers, what they can or cannot provide to their 

children, and where they fit within families served by child welfare agencies is an important 

component of casework. 

While the study's findings cannot define best practices, they can inform practice. In 

particular, findings indicate a need to: 

• 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 either as case 

investigation or other assessment activities. If a nonresident father’s identity and location are 

not determined early on, there is less of a chance he will have contact with the agency. 

• Provide guidance and training to caseworkers on identifying, locating, and involving 

fathers. Casework practice related to identifying, locating and involving fathers appears case 

specific and variable. Agencies and courts should make clear what steps caseworkers should 

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

mothers do provide information on the child’s father, workers may want to reach out to other 

individuals (e.g., relatives, former caseworkers) in order to confirm and expand upon the 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 165

information provided. Significant differences were found between workers who reported 

being training on fathers and those who did not receive such training in terms of father 

location and involvement. For example, the agency was more likely to have considered 

placing the child with father in cases involving trained workers. Overall though, the 

percentage of involved fathers was low. 

• Agencies may need to examine whether services offered to fathers are designed to engage 

fathers. The study found a small percent of nonresident fathers, when offered services, 

complied with all the services offered. Further attention may need to be focused on how 

caseworkers present service options to nonresident fathers and how societal expectations play 

a role in these interactions. 

• Address domestic violence and worker safety concerns. Caseworkers and administrators 

expressed a reluctance to involve some fathers because doing so might reintroduce potential 

abusers into volatile family situations. Administrators also raised concerns regarding worker 

safety when contacting the fathers of children on the caseload. Unless safety concerns are 

effectively addressed, both those related to worker safety as well as those related to the safety 

of the child and mother, efforts to involve fathers are likely to stall. Safety concerns need to 

be acknowledged and assessed at a case level and, as previously noted, through training. 

However, that nearly half of the fathers were never contacted by the agency suggests that 

little assessment of the actual risk presented is occurring. 
What About the Dads? 166

• Use child support data more consistently. Child support information, including father 

location, paternity, and financial support, can be helpful in considering placements with 

fathers or other ways in which fathers can play a constructive role in their children’s lives. 

The frequency with which caseworkers sought available information from child support 

agencies varied by state and was related to administrators’ views of the relationship between 

the two agencies and the ease with which caseworkers (or other staff at the child welfare 

agency) could request locator services. 

• Develop models for involving fathers constructively. Unless the child has a case plan goal of 

placement with his/her father or paternal kin, caseworkers are unlikely to know what, if 

anything, they should be doing to involve nonresident fathers. The case plan was shared with 

the father in almost all cases in which the father was contacted. However, we cannot 

determine from these data whether the case plan is mailed to the father or whether the worker 

meets with the father to share and explain the plan. Caseworkers may offer visitation to the 

father in some cases but there does not appear to be clear guidance on when, and in what 

instances, this should be offered. Family court decisions may also vary regarding father 

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

background and obtaining access to benefits are also not likely to be routine. There is 

considerable room for programming that engages nonresident fathers on behalf of their 

children in ways that could extend beyond the child’s stay in foster care and supports 

whatever permanency goal is in the child’s best interest. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 167

This report has noted several areas that warrant further research and we hope this study 

serves as a starting point for such research. Additional research can be conducted using this 

dataset, which will be available to researchers through the National Data Archive on Child 

Abuse and Neglect. For example, more detailed state-specific analyses would be helpful in 

examining how different policies affect casework practice toward nonresident fathers. State and 

local characteristics (e.g., rural/urban, poverty measures) could be added to the dataset and used 

in a variety of analyses to examine state and local practice differences. The regression models 

could be modified to include a different set of independent variables. While not a large sample, 

children who have a goal of placement with their father could be examined. Case outcomes could 

also be examined for children reunified with mothers and children placed with fathers. 

Other research could include efforts to collect qualitative data to examine the relationship 

between permanency goals and casework, specifically casework involving fathers. Qualitative 

research could also examine specific methods of identifying, locating and involving fathers. 

Further examination of training opportunities for caseworkers and their impact on practice 

directed at nonresident fathers is also suggested. 

In addition to caseworker actions, caseworker expectations of nonresident fathers are 

important in examining practices and policies. Perhaps equally important is how agency and 

family expectations of fathers get articulated during agency and family-directed approaches (e.g., 

permanency planning reviews and family group conferences). Are nonresident fathers expected 

to be an integral part of family group conferences? Is the expectation that fathers as well as 

mothers have primary responsibility for the care of their children? Kinship care has become an 

invaluable placement resource for child welfare agencies but has the focus on kin affected 

workers’ expectations for placing children with nonresident fathers? Are agency expectations 
What About the Dads? 168

such that grandparents and other kin are looked to as placement resources, even before 

nonresident fathers? Qualitative research methods could be used to explore expectations. 

While our findings do not indicate biases in casework practices involving nonresident 

fathers, low expectations of fathers may be ingrained in agency policies and practices. 

Caseworkers reported that nonresident fathers have a wide range of problems and face a variety 

of circumstances that impact on their ability to care for and visit their children. However, similar 

problems were also reported for both resident and nonresident mothers. Protocol may dictate that 

caseworkers invest more heavily in remediation of a resident mother’s problems given that 

returning the child to the mother’s care is likely to be the permanency goal. Indeed, the vast 

majority (84%) of resident mothers were offered services for all reported problems. At the same 

time, agencies offered more services to nonresident mothers than nonresident fathers (79%** vs. 

59%). Societal expectations that mothers know how to care for children and fathers are less 

capable may also affect these practices. Perhaps workers feel that less effort is needed to help 

mothers since the expectation is that the mother already knows how to be a mother, she just 

needs some help getting “back on track.” 

This study found nonresident fathers less likely than both resident and nonresident 

mothers to visit their child or express an interest in having their child live with them. Some of 

these differences could be due to fathers’ lack of a prior relationship with the child and additional 

research should examine this issue. It could also be that caseworkers do not have the same 

expectations for fathers as they do for mothers. Perhaps nonresident fathers are simply 

responding to low expectations—expectations that likely mirror those of the community and 

society in general. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 169

References 

Anne E. Casey Foundation, 2003. “The Unsolved Challenge of System Reform: The Condition 

of the Frontline Human Services Workforce.” 

Bloomer, S. R., T. A. Sipe, and D. E. Ruedt. 2002. “Child Support Payment and Child Visitation: 

Perspectives from Nonresident Fathers and Resident Mothers.” Journal of Sociology and Social 

Welfare 29(2): 77–91. 

Brown, S. 2004. “Family structure and child well-being: The significance of parental 

cohabitation.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66: 351-367. 

Bulanda, R. E. 2004. “Paternal Involvement with Children: The Influence of Gender Ideologies.” 

Journal of Marriage and Family 66: 40–45. 

Cancian, M., and D. Meyer. 2004. “Fathers of Children Receiving Welfare: Can They Provide 

More Child Support?” Social Service Review 78(2): 179-206. 

Flouri, E., and A. Buchanan. 2004. “Early Father’s and Mother’s Involvement and Child’s Later 

Educational Outcomes.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 74: 141–53. 

Franck, E. J. 2001. “Outreach to Birthfathers of Children in Out-of-Home Care.” Child Welfare

80(3): 381–99. 

Greif, G. L., and C. Bailey. 1990. “Where Are the Fathers in Social Work Literature?” Families 

in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services 71(2): 88–92. 

Greif, G. L., and S. J. Zuravin. 1989. “Fathers: A Placement Resource for Abused and Neglected 

Children?” Child Welfare 68(5): 479–90. 

English, D. 2002. Washington State Office of Children’s Administration, Department of Health 

and Human Services. Preliminary Findings, “Fatherhood in the Child Welfare System” Research 

Progress Report. 

Findlater, Janet E., Kelly, Susan. The Future of Children, Winter 1999. Child protective services 

and domestic violence. 

Fix, Michael, and Jeffrey S. Passel. 2003. “U.S. Immigration—Trends and Implications for 

Schools.” Presentation to the National Association for Bilingual Education. Washington, DC: 

The Urban Institute. 

Hofferth, Sandra L. 2003.”Race/Ethnic Differences in Father Involvement in Two-Parent 

Families: Culture, Context, or Economy?” Journal of Family Issues 24(2): 185–216. 

Hofferth, S. L., and K. G. Anderson. 2003. “Are All Dads Equal? Biology Versus Marriage as a 

Basis for Paternal Investment.” Journal of Marriage and Family 65: 213–32. 
What About the Dads? 170

Kahkonen, P. 1997. “From the Child Welfare Trap to the Foster Care Trap.” Child Welfare

76(3): 429–45. 

 

King, V., K. Mullan Harris, and H. E. Heard. 2004. “Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Nonresident 

Father Involvement.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66: 1–21. 

Kost, K. A. 2001. “The Functions of Fathers: What Poor Men Say About Fatherhood.” Families 

in Society 82(5): 499–508. 

Lazar, A., A. Sagi, and M. W. Fraser. 1991. “Involving Fathers in Social Services.” Children and 

Youth Services Review 13(4): 287–300. 

Lerman, R, and Sorensen, E., 2000. “Father Involvement with their Nonmarital Children: 

Patterns, Determinants, and Effects on their Earnings.” Marriage and Family Review, 29 (2): 

137-158. 

Marsiglio, W., 1991. Paternal engagement activities with minor children. Journal of Marriage 

and the Family, 53, 973-986. 

National Family Preservation Network. 2001. “An Assessment of Child Welfare Practices 

Regarding Fathers.” Prepared for the Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

http://www.nfpn.org/tools/articles/fathers.php. (Accessed June 12, 2005.) 

National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice and Permanency Planning. 2005 

“Findings from the Initial Child and Family Service Reviews, 2001–2004.” Hunter College 

School of Social Work. 

Nelson, Timothy J. 2004. “Low-Income Fathers.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 427–51. 

O’Donnell, J. M. 2001. “Paternal Involvement in Kinship Foster Care Services in One Father and 

Multiple Father Families.” Child Welfare 80(4): 453–79. 

O’Donnell, J. M., W. E. Johnson Jr., L. E. D’Aunno, and H. L. Thornton. 2005. “Fathers in Child 

Welfare: Caseworkers’ Perspectives.” Child Welfare 84(3): 387–414. 

O’Hagan, K. 1997. “The Problem of Engaging Men in Child Protection Work.” The British 

Journal of Social Work 27(1): 25–42. 

Pearson, J., and C. Hardaway. 2000. “Designing Programs for Incarcerated and Paroled 

Obligors.” Welfare Information Network 1 (1). 

Rasheed, J.M. 1999. “Obstacles to the Role of Inner-City, Low-Income, Noncustodial African 

American Fathers.” Journal of African American Men 4(1): 9–23. 
Child Welfare Agencies Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers 171

Roy, Kevin. 2000. “Fathers on the Margins of Work and Family: The Paternal Involvement 

Project.” Poverty Research News 4(2): Chicago: Northwestern University, University of 

Chicago, Joint Center for Poverty Research. 

Shore, N., J. Wirth, K. Cahn, B. Yancey, and K. Gunderson. 2002. “Long-Term and Immediate 

Outcomes of Family Group Conferencing in Washington State.” Restorative Practices E-Forum. 

Sonenstein, Freya, Karin Malm, and Amy Billing. 2002. “Literature Review: Study of Fathers’ 

Involvement in Permanency Planning and Child Welfare Casework.” Prepared for the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/CW-dads02/index.htm. 

Sorensen, Elaine. 2003. “Child Support Gains Some Ground.” No. 11 in Series Snapshots of 

America’s Families III. Washington, DC. The Urban Institute. 

South Carolina Department of Social Services. 2000. “Diligent Search Project, Final Evaluation 

Report.” Columbia, SC: The Center for Child and Family Studies, University of South Carolina. 

Thoennes, N. 2003. “Family Group Decision Making in Colorado.” Protecting Children—

Promising Results, Potential New Directions: International FGDM Research and Evaluation in 

Child Welfare 18 (1–2): 80. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families, 2003. “Executive Summary” National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, One 

Year in Foster Care Wave 1 Data Analysis. 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/nscaw/ 

Vogel, C. A., K. Boller, J. Faerber, J. D. Shannon, and C. S. Tamis-LeMonda. 2003. 

“Understanding Fathering: The Early Head Start Study of Fathers of Newborns.” Princeton, NJ: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Wilcox, W. B. 2002. “Religion, Convention, and Paternal Involvement.” Journal of Marriage 

and Family 64: 780–92.