EDUCATION

TRANSPORTATION

HEALTH

FINANCES
CHILD CARE

A Whole-Family
Approach to
Workforce
Engagement
By Kerry Desjardins

H

uman service programs and
social policies frequently
focus only on adults or only
on children. This is true of
many programs and policies explicitly
aimed at families. A two-generation
approach to human services is one that
focuses on the needs of parents and the
needs of children together, out of recognition that children do better when
their parents are healthy and stable,
and that parents do better when their
children are healthy and stable.
While the terms two-generation
or multi-generation approach are
commonly used, APHSA’s Center for
Employment and Economic WellBeing prefers the whole-family label
to accurately describe the most productive approach to human services
and workforce engagement; this term
is more inclusive and considers the
extended family context, including
challenges and resources of family
members outside of the assistance
unit, including nonresident or noncustodial parents, adult siblings,
extended family members, and kin.
The whole-family approach recognizes

the importance of the roles these individuals often play in supporting family
stability and well-being.
Many of the safety-net programs
for low-income families include work
requirements, in some instances, or
opportunities for family members to
voluntarily engage in various programs
aimed at increasing their employment
and earnings. These work-oriented
efforts are critical components to
moving them to a path of self-sufficiency, well-being, social integration,
and greater opportunity. However,
being a working caregiver presents a
number of challenges, and the nature
and circumstances of the work can
have significant impacts, positive or
negative, on a child’s well-being and
future. Studies show that stress and
dissatisfaction at work negatively
impact relationships and parenting
style. At the same time, stress and
concerns at home can negatively
impact work performance. Both need
to be addressed by attaching families
to necessary work supports, including
transportation, child care, and ongoing
job counseling and case management.

April 2016   Policy & Practice

17

The Argument for a
Whole-Family Approach to
Workforce Engagement
A whole-family approach to workforce engagement not only reviews
the parent or caregivers needs, but
also considers the needs, challenges,
and resources of family members
outside of the traditional assistance
unit. Noncustodial parents (NCPs),
adult siblings, and other workingage family members besides parents
often contribute to household income.
In fact, most low-income families,
including single-parent families, do
have more than one potential wage
earner. Addressing the employment
needs of the entire family is important
because low-income families often
need more than one wage earner to
secure an adequate household income.
By utilizing a whole family approach
to workforce engagement, we can
encourage and support the gainful
employment of all potential wage
earners in a family, which increases
the likelihood that they will successfully increase their income and
self-sufficiency.
Unfortunately, many current
policies and practices fail to consider
and address the whole family.
Workforce programs are typically
funded based on individual eligibility
and individual outcomes and are not
rewarded for their work with families.
Therefore, there is little incentive
for programs to address the employment needs of the entire family, or
the impact of a participant’s employment on their household. For example,
the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program places
strong emphasis on work activities that
count toward work participation rates

Kerry Desjardins is
a policy associate
with APHSA’s Center
for Employment
and Economic WellBeing.

18

Policy & Practice  April 2016

rather than those which lead to meaningful outcomes that strengthen each
unique family. As a result, parents may
feel pressure to accept jobs or work
assignments even when the working
conditions create instability or another
situation where they cannot adequately meet their children’s physical
or psychosocial needs for healthy
development. In order to preserve
and promote healthy families, while
simultaneously ending needy parents’
dependence on public assistance to
support their children, the TANF
program must have the flexibility to
meet the varying needs of individual
families, by conducting individual
assessments of their unique barriers
to sustainable, gainful employment
opportunities, and strengthening their
capacity to balance work and family
responsibilities.

Engaging Noncustodial
Parents—a Key Element of
the Whole-Family Approach
While a whole-family approach can
have many dimensions, one of its key
elements is engaging absent NCPs
both economically and socially, where
possible, in their children’s lives.
When child support policies and practices lack a whole-family approach,
the resources and needs of noncustodial parents can be overlooked.
Noncustodial parental employment
has significant implications for lowincome families with children. On
average, child support payments
from the absent parent represent 40
percent of additional income for poor
families. New family-first payment
rules provide this income to those
who have established paternity, have
a child support order in place, and
receive collections, usually through
the Title IV-D child support program.
Child support payments represent one
of the largest wage supplements for
low-income working families and a
critical add-on to families receiving
cash assistance.
Unfortunately, many NCPs,
including a disproportionate share
of those whose children are living
in poverty, have low incomes themselves. They are often unable to pay
child support orders that constitute
a large percentage of their already

Human service
agencies must lead
their partners in
utilizing a whole-family
approach to workforce
engagement efforts in
order, most effectively,
to support the success
of low-income working
families, and to
empower them to
achieve self-sufficiency,
economic mobility,
and broader family
well-being.
limited income. Efforts to enforce child
support without offering low-income
NCPs supports and incentives can drive
them underground or to informal work
arrangements and job-hopping when
wage-withholding orders cause their
disposable income to fall below their
living expenses.
Some states and localities have
established programs for noncustodial parents (most often fathers)
to improve their parenting skills,
increase their earnings and employment, and encourage them to pay
child support. More than half of states
have work programs with active child
support agency involvement that
serve NCPs; however, these programs
tend to be local. Maryland is a notable
exception. Maryland’s statewide
Noncustodial Parent Employment
Program, funded using TANF dollars,
links NCPs who cannot afford to pay
child support to job training, educational opportunities, and work
experiences. Between 2007 and 2014,
the program enrolled more than
17,500 NCPs in job training and job
readiness programs to help them find
and retain employment. Collectively,
those parents made $97 million in
child support payments, much of
which was disbursed to former recipients of TANF cash assistance.

Another state that is proving to
be a leader in engaging low-income
NCPs is Texas. Texas’ Noncustodial
Parent (NCP) Choices program targets
low-income unemployed or underemployed NCPs who are behind on
their child support payments and
whose children are current or former
recipients of public assistance. The
NCP Choices program is not statewide,
but is operated by 17 of the state’s
Workforce Development Boards.
Like Maryland, Texas’ NCP Choices
program is funded with TANF dollars.
The results of the program have been
outstanding; 71 percent of participating parents entered employment,
and 77 percent of participating parents
retained employment for at least six
months. Between 2005 and 2015,
program participants paid more than
$202 million in child support.
Direct-service programs for NCPs
can be an effective method of engagement, but New York has proven that
policy changes can be as well. For
years, New York has offered an Earned
Income Tax Credit to NCPs who
stay current on their child support

payments. The Noncustodial Parent
New York State Earned Income Tax
Credit is just one of a number of
state initiatives to address the needs
of low-income NCPs in an effort to
help them be more involved in the
economic and social well-being of
their children. It has proven to be one
of the nation’s most effective tools for
increasing labor force participation of
low-skilled workers, and an efficient
means of supplementing the income of
low-wage workers.

Conclusion
Employment is one of the surest
and most long-lasting means for
working-age individuals and their
families to achieve self-sufficiency and
economic well-being. Human service
agencies, along with their workforce
development partners, the economic
development community, the education and training system, and other
stakeholders, play a critical role in
supporting our customers’ success
in the workforce. The implementation of the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act and impending

reauthorizations, such as the Carl
D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act and the TANF program,
hold the potential to enable workforce
programs to better serve the employment needs of the entire family.
In the meantime, implementing a
whole-family approach to workforce
engagement requires deliberate collaboration and creativity in utilizing
multiple funding sources. Human
service agencies must lead their
partners in utilizing a whole-family
approach to workforce engagement
efforts in order, most effectively, to
support the success of low-income
working families, and to empower
them to achieve self-sufficiency,
economic mobility, and broader
family well-being. Learn more about
a whole-family approach to workforce engagement by visiting APHSA’s
Center for Employment and Economic
Well-Being website1.
Reference Note
1.	 http://www.aphsa.org/content/APHSA/
en/pathways/center-for-workforceengagement.html

April 2016   Policy & Practice

19