Saving Made Simple: An Evaluation of an Employer-Based Automatic Savings Program in Austin, TX

CFRP Policy Brief | B.022.0316

June 2016 
PDF version

Almost half of U.S. households do not save. Fewer still have the resources to weather a job loss or unexpected emergency, raising the prospect of housing instability, food insecurity, and an inability to access medical care. This brief presents evaluation findings from a pilot program designed to help low- and middle-wage workers achieve greater financial stability through an employer-based automatic savings program. Similar to other automatic payroll deductions, the program offers employees the opportunity to automatically deposit a portion of each paycheck into their savings account at the bank. For unbanked employees, the program helps facilitate account opening. The savings program was introduced to 66 employees at an Austin-based childcare provider through an on-site orientation meeting.

Over a two month evaluation period, one-third of the 66 employees enrolled in the savings program. Enrollees saved an average of $38 every two weeks, the equivalent of nearly $1000 per year. Evaluation results make clear that the pilot would not have achieved this level of success without the orientation meetings, which provided a forum for employees to learn about the program, ask questions, open bank accounts, and enroll on the spot. Nearly all of those who enrolled did so during the orientation, and the vast majority opened a new bank account with the banking partner while there. Despite these successes, the program also produced a degree of confusion among employees—many of whom struggled to understand who was offering the program and whether they could enroll using an existing bank account.

In addition to monitoring overall program outcomes, the evaluation also employed a randomized control trial (RCT) design to test the impact of different messaging tactics on enrollment and savings amounts. Though results did not achieve statistical significance, they suggest that treatment messaging embedded in program emails may have encouraged greater orientation attendance, enrollment, and savings amounts. Overall, the workplace savings initiative tested in this pilot shows significant promise as a simple and inexpensive strategy for promoting financial stability among low- to middle-wage employees. Further testing with additional employers, however, is needed to better understand the requisites and barriers to program success.

Introduction

For many Americans, the act of saving remains a persistent challenge. Nearly half of U.S. households do not save any of their current income, a statistic that has remained relatively unchanged over the last two decades.1 The percentage of U.S. adults with emergency savings is equally dismal, with more than one-third reporting no emergency savings, and almost half saying their savings would last less than three months if they lost their job.2 Perhaps unsurprisingly, emergency savings rates are even lower among the poor, less educated, and young.3 Low-income households are especially at risk; the average household in the bottom quintile has only nine days’ worth of income in liquid savings.4 This thin cushion of reserves means that a job loss or unexpected emergency can seriously threaten household well-being.5 A lack of savings can also prevent low- income families from taking advantage of opportunities to move up the economic ladder, such as going to college or buying a vehicle. Still, meager savings are only part of the financial picture; for many, the constraints wrought by a lack of savings are compounded by hefty consumer debt, low wages, and substantial volatility in household income.6

In light of these trends, researchers and policymakers are increasingly looking to the field of behavioral economics for innovative strategies to facilitate savings among low-income households. One such strategy is an employer-based automatic savings initiative that automatically deducts a small portion of employees’ post-tax wages and deposits them into a savings account. Encouraging saving through the workplace might make sense for a host of reasons. For most people, the workplace serves as their primary link to money. Employers are also able to capitalize on existing payment infrastructure, like direct deposit or retirement deferrals, to provide savings opportunities at little or no additional cost to themselves.

The average low-income household has only 9 days worth of income in cash, checking, and savings.

More importantly, employer-based savings programs feature the ability for savings to accrue automatically with little effort on the part of the employee. After enrolling, a steady stream of savings begins to automatically accumulate until an employee takes active measures to stop it, capitalizing on the inertia that may have prevented them from saving in the first place.8 Workplace savings initiatives also have the advantage of being able to disburse funds to a specially designated account (e.g. a savings account) without passing through employee hands, making them less likely to be spent or withdrawn impulsively.9 Finally, workplace savings initiatives can be designed to exploit specific mechanisms shown to increase participation in employer-based savings plans; these include a streamlined enrollment process with suggested savings levels and standard savings accounts as the default savings vehicle.10 Unlike retirement savings plans, the most common savings benefit offered by employers, automatic savings initiatives are meant to provide a pool of liquid assets that can be easily withdrawn, should they be needed.11 Despite the clear benefits of non-restricted savings, especially for low-income individuals, there is currently no standardized program or policy to encourage short-term liquid savings.12

This brief presents findings from the evaluation of an employer-based Automatic Savings Program implemented at a local childcare provider in Austin, Texas during the spring of 2015. The program allows childcare employees to automatically deposit a portion of each paycheck into a savings account at a bank of their choice. For employees who do not have a bank account, the program helps facilitate account opening.

The primary purpose of the evaluation was to learn how an employer-based savings program should be introduced to employees in order to best encourage enrollment. To help answer this question, the evaluation employed a randomized control trial (RCT) design to test the impact of different messaging tactics on program outcomes, including employee enrollment, new bank account openings, and savings amounts.

The Automatic Savings Program was collaboratively developed by a variety of partners as part of the Savings and Innovation Learning Cluster (SILC), a nationwide project launched by the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) to cultivate and test innovative strategies for facilitating savings by low- and moderate-income (LMI) individuals and families. The Child and Family Research Partnership (CFRP) at The University of Texas at Austin was contracted to evaluate the Texas portion of the SILC project by the Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP). Citi Foundation was the major funder of the evaluation of this project. RAISE Texas and CPPP provided local technical assistance for the study, and a local United Way in Austin served as the program implementer.

Program Design

Feasibility Study

Prior to implementing the Automatic Savings Program at an Austin-based childcare provider, program partners conducted a feasibility study at a local United Way in the greater Austin area, during the fall of 2014. The pilot study included 34 United Way employees, who were introduced to the Automatic Savings Program by mail. Each employee received a packet of materials at their home address, including a program flyer, enrollment form, and prepaid return envelope (copies of these materials are included at the end). The program was not formally introduced at work, and employees did not receive a reminder or follow-up information. During the one-month pilot period, there were no enrollments or inquiries into the program. The lack of enrollment appeared to stem primarily from the use of atypical communication channels (i.e. mail), suggesting that future program efforts might benefit from introducing the savings opportunity in-person, especially if presented by a familiar and trusted source within the organization. Additionally, the United Way employees were paid at the higher end of our target income range, and through the pilot, we discovered that many of them were already saving.

Primary Study

Drawing on lessons from the feasibility study, program partners moved to redesign the rollout of the Automatic Savings Program for a local childcare provider in Austin, TX. A total of 66 employees from three preschool locations participated in the study. At the time of study implementation, the childcare provider did not offer direct deposit to employees, due to a number of constraints. In contrast to the indirect communication channels employed in the feasibility study, the primary study leveraged both email and in-person communication strategies. Employees were originally introduced to the savings program by email. In the introductory email, employees were given basic information about the program and asked to attend an orientation meeting the following week where they would receive free lunch, additional information about the program, and the opportunity to enroll on the spot. The email also informed employees that a local banking representative would be available at the orientation to help them open a bank account, if necessary, and provided a list of documents to bring. Several days before the orientation, employees were sent a reminder email urging them to attend. All emails about the Automatic Savings Program were sent by the organization’s Executive Director, who handles all communications with employees about their benefits.

Orientation meetings were held over the course of three days, one per day at each of the three preschool locations. At the orientation, employees received a packet of materials including a program flyer and enrollment form (copies of these materials are provided at the end). After a joint presentation by the organization’s Executive Director and a local banking representative, employees were given time to ask questions, open bank accounts (if needed), and enroll in the Automatic Savings Program. To enroll, employees were asked to complete the enrollment form, which required them to enter their savings account information and select a savings amount to be deducted each pay period. The form included a recommended savings amount determined by program partners ($10 every 2 weeks), along with a notice that the amount could be changed at any time by contacting the Executive Director.

One week after the orientation, all employees received a follow-up email reminding them that the opportunity to enroll in automatic savings was still available. Program partners continued to monitor enrollment through this period. Approximately six weeks after the orientation, the employer conferred with program partners and decided to introduce a match to encourage enrollment among employees who had not yet signed up. The match was announced by email and offered a $50 match to all employees who had saved at least $50 through the Automatic Savings Program by six months. A final email was sent the following week, reminding employees about the match opportunity. After the final email, program partners continued to monitor enrollment data for an additional five weeks, at which time the evaluation period officially ended. Though employees retained the ability to sign up for the program after the end of the evaluation, this brief focuses on outcomes tracked during the official evaluation period, a span lasting approximately two months.

Testing Program Messaging

In addition to monitoring enrollment and savings data, program partners were also interested in whether employees responded to different messaging techniques by enrolling at higher or lower rates. Specifically, program partners were interested in whether employees who received a message including a projected savings amount (aimed to make the benefits of enrollment tangible by specifying an exact dollar amount that employees would accumulate from a year’s worth of saving) and a “regret prime” (aimed at tapping employees’ fears of “missing out” on a unique opportunity) were more likely to enroll. To test the salience of these messages, employees were stratified by wage group and work location, then randomly assigned to treatment and control groups within each of the three sites.

Throughout most of the evaluation period, employees in the treatment and control groups received identical emails; at two time points, however, emails received by individuals in the treatment group included additional language intended to further incentivize enrollment. The treatment language, which included a projected savings amount and a regret prime, was as follows:

Saving $10 per paycheck through this program would add up to $240 by the end of one year—enough to help cover an unexpected expense, or take the first step towards a larger financial goal. Don’t miss out on this great opportunity to save towards your personal financial goals.

This message was sent to treatment group employees in the introductory email, as well as in the reminder email following the orientation. Together, these two email messages served as a treatment package, and are marked in red in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Timeline of Program Messaging with Intervention Points in Red

Data

To evaluate the effect of the treatment language, as well as the efficacy of the overall messaging strategy, this evaluation relies on several sources of data. These include two employee surveys, conducted before and after the evaluation period, as well as two administrative datasets provided by the childcare provider’s Executive Director. The two surveys provide details about employee saving behaviors, financial experiences, and program perspectives, whereas the administrative datasets supply the primary enrollment and savings outcomes. To gain a deeper understanding of employees’ perspectives on the program, this evaluation also draws on information provided during hour-long focus groups conducted at each of the three locations. Each focus group included treatment and control employees who had and had not attended the orientation, as well as employees who had and had not enrolled in the Automatic Savings Program.

Employee Characteristics

The vast majority of childcare employees in this study work full-time (86%), and most earn relatively low wages. Half of the employees in the sample make between $8.50 and $11.50 per hour, whereas another 41 percent make between $11.51 and $15.00 per hour. Employees in the sample are also proportionately distributed across preschool locations, with 23 employees from Location #1, 23 from Location #2, and 20 from Location #3. There were no significant differences in hourly wage or the proportion of employees working full- or part-time across the three preschool locations.

Findings

Employee Enrollment Heavily Influenced by On-site Orientation and Location

Over the two month evaluation period, 22 employees (33%) enrolled in the Automatic Savings Program. Nearly all of those who enrolled in the program did so during the orientation meeting [Figure 2]. The orientation proved critical to employee enrollment. Though just 64 percent of employees attended the orientation, half of those who attended enrolled during the orientation itself.

Interestingly, however, enrollment rates among attendees varied widely by location, suggesting enrollment may be swayed by differences in organizational culture between locations. The employees at Location #1 were the most likely to attend the orientation (74%) but least likely to enroll while there (24%). By contrast, employees at Location #3 were least likely to attend the orientation (55%) but most likely to enroll if they attended (82%) [Figure 3].

Click here to read the full brief. 

  • Citations
    1 Solomon-Fears, Carmen. (2016). Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children. (CRS Report No. RL31025). Retrieved from Congressional Research Service. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31025.pdf
    2 Solomon-Fears, Carmen. (2016). Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children. (CRS Report No. RL31025). Retrieved from Congressional Research Service. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31025.pdf
    3 Solomon-Fears, Carmen. (2016). Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children. (CRS Report No. RL31025). Retrieved from Congressional Research Service. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31025.pdf
    4 64 Fed. Reg. 490196 (September 1, 1999). (to be codified at 99 C.FR. pt. 23341); National Fatherhood Initiative. (2016). About Us | National Fatherhood Initiative®. Retrieved from http://www.fatherhood.org/about-us
    5 Solomon-Fears, Carmen. (2016). Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children. (CRS Report No. RL31025). Retrieved from Congressional Research Service. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31025.pdf; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children & Families Office of Family Assistance. (n.d.). Healthy Marriage & Responsible Fatherhood. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/programs/healthy-marriage
    6 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children & Families Office of Family Assistance. (n.d.). Healthy Marriage & Responsible Fatherhood. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/programs/healthy-marriage
    7 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children & Families Office of Family Assistance. (2016, November 10). Responsible Fatherhood. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/programs/healthy-marriage/responsible-fatherhood
    8 Solomon-Fears, Carmen. (2016). Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children. (CRS Report No. RL31025). Retrieved from Congressional Research Service. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31025.pdf
    9 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children & Families Office of Family Assistance. (2016, June 17). About Healthy Marriage & Responsible Fatherhood. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/programs/healthy-marriage/about; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children & Families Office of Family Assistance. (2016, November 10). Reentry. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/programs/healthy-marriage/prisoner-reentry
    10 About Us. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://fatherhood-d7-stage.icfwebservices.com/about-us
    11 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children & Families Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. (2015, June). Fatherhood: Ongoing Research and Program Evaluation Efforts. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children & Families Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/es_fatherhood_ongoing_research_program_evaluation_efforts.pdf
    12 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children & Families Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. (2015, June). Fatherhood: Ongoing Research and Program Evaluation Efforts. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children & Families Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/es_fatherhood_ongoing_research_program_evaluation_efforts.pdf
    13 The Fatherhood Research and Practice Network. (n.d.). Introducing…The Fatherhood Research and Practice Network. The Fatherhood Research and Practice Network. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/frpn_flyer_final.pdf
    14 The Fatherhood Research and Practice Network. (2017). Requests for Proposals. Retrieved from http://www.frpn.org/about/request-for-proposals; The Fatherhood Research and Practice Network. (2017). FRPN Technical Assistance. Retrieved from http://www.frpn.org/training-assistance/frpn-technical-assistance
    15 The White House. (2012). Promoting Responsible Fatherhood. Washington, D.C.: The White House. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/fatherhood_report_6.13.12_final.pdf
    16 National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (n.d.). Federal programs and resources. Retrieved from https://www.fatherhood.gov/content/federal-programs-and-resources
    17 Texas Health and Human Services Commission. (2013, June 10). Request for Proposals (RFP) Fatherhood: Educating Fathers for Empowering Children Tomorrow (Fatherhood EFFECT) RFP No. 530-14-0008. Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Prevention and Early Intervention Programs (PEI). (n.d.). Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) Programs. Retrieved from https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Prevention_and_Early_Intervention/About_Prevention_and_Early_Intervention/programs.asp
    18 Texas Health and Human Services Commission. (2013, June 10). Request for Proposals (RFP) Fatherhood: Educating Fathers for Empowering Children Tomorrow (Fatherhood EFFECT) RFP No. 530-14-0008. Texas Health and Human Services Commission. FRIENDS National Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention. “Overview of the Protective Factors Survey.” https://friendsnrc.org/jdownloads/attachments/PFS%20Overview.pdf
    19 John S. Martinez Fatherhood Initiative (2014). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/fatherhood/cwp/view.asp?a=4122&q=545624
    20 John S. Martinez Fatherhood Initiative (2014). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/fatherhood/cwp/view.asp?a=4122&q=545624
    21 John S. Martinez Fatherhood Initiative (2016). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/fatherhood/cwp/view.asp?a=4113&q=481586
    22 Gordon, D., & Brabham, T. (2013). Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Final Report (Promoting Responsible Fatherhood). New Haven, CT: The Consultation Center, Inc. at Yale University School of Medicine Research, Program, and Policy on Male Development in collaboration with the Connecticut Department of Social Services and Connecticut Responsible Fatherhood Sites. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/fatherhood/lib/fatherhood/pdfs/DSS_Report_Final_2013.pdf
    23 Gordon, D., & Brabham, T. (2013). Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Final Report (Promoting Responsible Fatherhood). New Haven, CT: The Consultation Center, Inc. at Yale University School of Medicine Research, Program, and Policy on Male Development in collaboration with the Connecticut Department of Social Services and Connecticut Responsible Fatherhood Sites. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/fatherhood/lib/fatherhood/pdfs/DSS_Report_Final_2013.pdf
    24 Ohio Commission on Fatherhood (n.d.). What is the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood? Retrieved from http://fatherhood.ohio.gov/AboutUs/Purpose.aspx
    25 Ohio Commission on Fatherhood (n.d.). Ohio County Fatherhood Commission. Retrieved from http://fatherhood.ohio.gov/SpecialPrograms/CountyFatherhoodInitiative.aspx
    26 Ohio Commission on Fatherhood (n.d.) June is Responsible Fatherhood Month. Retrieved from http://fatherhood.ohio.gov/SpecialPrograms/JuneisResponsibleFatherhoodMonth.aspx; Ohio Commission on Fatherhood (n.d.) 2016 State Fatherhood Summit. Retrieved from http://fatherhood.ohio.gov/SpecialPrograms/2016StateFatherhoodSummit.aspx
    27 State of Hawaii Department of Health Services (2017). Commission on Fatherhood. Retrieved from http://humanservices.hawaii.gov/fatherhood/
    28 State of Hawaii Department of Health Services (2017). Commission on Fatherhood. Retrieved from http://humanservices.hawaii.gov/fatherhood/
    29 State of Hawaii (n.d.) Commission on Fatherhood. Retrieved from http://humanservices.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014-Fatherhood-Commission-Brochure.pdf
    30 Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood. (2017). Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood About Us. Retrieved from http://responsiblefatherhood.com/index.php/about-us-responsible-fatherhood/
    31 Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood. (2017). Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood About Us. Retrieved from http://responsiblefatherhood.com/index.php/about-us-responsible-fatherhood/
    32 Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood. (2015). The Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood 2015 Annual Report (Annual Report). Springfield, IL: Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood. Retrieved from http://responsiblefatherhood.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/THE-ILLINOIS-COUNCIL-ON-RESPONSIBLE-FATHERHOOD-2015-Report.pdf
    33 Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood. (2014). The Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood 2014 Annual Report (Annual Report). Springfield, IL: Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood. Retrieved from http://responsiblefatherhood.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/THE-ILLINOIS-COUNCIL-ON-RESPONSIBLE-FATHERHOOD-2014-Report.pdf
    34 Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood (2015). The Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood 2015 Annual Report. Retrieved from http://responsiblefatherhood.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/THE-ILLINOIS-COUNCIL-ON-RESPONSIBLE-FATHERHOOD-2015-Report.pdf
    35 Office of Children & Families in the Courts (n.d.). Children’sroundtable initiative: Father engagement. Retrieved from http://www.ocfcpacourts.us/childrens-roundtable-initiative/state-roundtable-workgroupscommittees/father-engagement
    36 Office of Children & Families in the Courts (n.d.). Fatherhood. Retrieved from http://www.ocfcpacourts.us/assets/files/page-329/file-547.jpg
    37 Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. (n.d.). Family Based Support Programs. Retrieved from https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/Family_Support/; Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. (n.d.). Responsible Fathering. Retrieved from https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/Family_Support/fathering.asp; Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Prevention and Early Intervention. (2016, September). Five-Year Strategic Plan. Retrieved from https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/About_DFPS/Reports_and_Presentations/PEI/documents/2017/09-2016_PEI_Five_Year_Strategic_Plan.pdf; Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. (n.d.). Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) Programs. Retrieved from https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/prevention_and_early_intervention/about_prevention_and_early_intervention/programs.asp; Texas Health and Human Services Texas Department of State Health Services. (2016, September 12). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.dshs.texas.gov/about-DSHS.shtm; Department of State Health Services (n.d.). Guide to agency programs: Family and Community Health Services. Retrieved from http://www.dshs.texas.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=8589980317; Healthy Texas Babies (2017). Men’s health. Retrieved from https://www.somedaystartsnow.com/mens-health/; Texas Health and Human Services Commission Texas Department of State Health Services Healthy Texas Babies. (2015, January 14). Resources for Dads and Dads-to-be. Retrieved from http://www.dshs.texas.gov/healthytexasbabies/resources-dads.aspx?terms=father; Texas Department of State Health Services Healthy Texas Babies. (2017). Live Like a Dad. Retrieved from https://www.livelikeadad.com/; Nutrition Services Department of State Health Services. (n.d.). WIC Policy and Procedures Manual Policy No. BF:03.0 Breastfeeding Peer Counselor and Peer Dad. Retrieved from https://www.dshs.texas.gov/wichd/policy/pdf_files/BF_03-0.pdf; Velarde, K. (2014, March 18). Fathers Hold Key to Breastfeeding Success. Retrieved from http://breastfeeding.nichq.org/stories/fathers-breastfeeding-support; Texas Juvenile Justice Department (2017). Overview of the Juvenile Justice System in Texas. Retrieved from http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/about/overview.aspx; Texas Juvenile Justice Department (2012). Strategic plan: 2013-2017. Retrieved from https://www.tjjd.texas.gov/publications/reports/RPTSTRAT201201.pdf; Office of the Attorney General of Texas. (n.d.). Family Initiatives. Retrieved from https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/cs/family-initiatives
    38 Office of the Attorney General of Texas. (n.d.). Family Initiatives. Retrieved from https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/cs/family-initiatives; New Mexico GRADS (2017). What is GRADS. Retrieved from http://nmgrads.org/?pId=aBt
    39 New Mexico GRADS (2017). What is GRADS. Retrieved from http://nmgrads.org/?pId=aBt
    40 Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (n.d.). Healthy Montana Teen Parent Program. Retrieved from http://dphhs.mt.gov/hcsd/ChildCare/HealthyMTTeenParentProgramHome
    41 Alabama Department of Corrections. (2013). InstitutionalPre Release / Re-entry Program and Transitional Services. Retrieved from http://www.doc.state.al.us/ReentryOverview.aspx
    42 Alaska Department of Corrections. (2016, January 1–16). Alaska Department of Corrections Programs and Services. Retrieved from http://www.correct.state.ak.us/doc/ADOC-Programs-and-Services.pdf
    43 Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC), Division of Adult Parole. (n.d.). Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC), Division of Adult Parole [Brochure]. Author. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdoc/adult-parole
    44 Idaho Department of Correction. (n.d.). Treatment Programs. Retrieved from https://www.idoc.idaho.gov/content/document/program_descriptions
    45 Kansas Department of Corrections. (2012, December 17). Department Based Resources. Retrieved from https://www.doc.ks.gov//reentry/family-services/department-based-resources
    46 Kentucky Department of Corrections. (2017). Blackburn Correctional Complex Inmate Programs. Retrieved from http://corrections.ky.gov/depts/AI/BCC/Pages/InmatePrograms.aspx; Kentucky Department of Corrections. (2017). Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex Inmate Programs. Retrieved from http://corrections.ky.gov/depts/AI/EKCC/Pages/InmatePrograms.aspx
    47 La. Department of Public Safety and Corrections. (n.d.). Reentry Programs for DOC offenders atlocal level. Retrieved from http://www.doc.la.gov/regional-programs
    48 State of Maine Department of Corrections. (n.d.). Charleston Correctional Facilities (CCF) Programs and Services. Retrieved from http://www.maine.gov/corrections/facilities/ccf/programs.htm
    49 Nebraska Department of Correctional Services. (2017). Educational Services. Retrieved from http://www.corrections.nebraska.gov/education.html
    50 State of New Jersey Department of Corrections. (2015). State of New Jersey Department of Corrections 2015 Annual Report (Annual Report). Trenton, NJ: State of New Jersey Department of Corrections. Retrieved from http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/pdf/annual_report/2015_Annual_Report.pdf
    51 New Hampshire Department of Corrections. (n.d.). New Hampshire Department of Corrections Current Programs The Family Connections Center. Retrieved from http://www.nh.gov/nhdoc/fcc/programs.html
    52 North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2008). Adult Corrections: ND State Penitentiary Inmate Programs. Retrieved from http://www.nd.gov/docr/adult/programs/tu_programs.html
    53 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (n.d.). Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Inmates Treatment Programs. Retrieved from http://www.cor.pa.gov/Inmates/Pages/Treatment-Programs.aspx#.WOls4fnyupo
    54 State of Rhode Island Department of Corrections. (n.d.). Institutional Programming. Retrieved from http://www.doc.ri.gov/rehabilitative/prisonerreentry/institutional.php
    55 South Carolina Department of Corrections Office of the Deputy Director for Operations Division of Young Offender Parole & Reentry Services. (2017). Office of the Deputy Director for Operations Division of Young Offender Parole & Reentry Services Programs. Retrieved from http://www.doc.sc.gov/programs/yoprs.jsp
    56 Utah Department of Corrections. (2017). Programs for Inmates. Retrieved from https://corrections.utah.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1060&Itemid=185
    57 Virginia Department of Corrections. (n.d.). Virginia Department of Corrections Life Skills Programming. Retrieved from https://vadoc.virginia.gov/offenders/institutions/programs/life-skills.shtm
    58 Washington State Department of Corrections. (n.d.). Washington State Department of Corrections Strength in Families [Brochure]. Author. Retrieved from http://www.doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/400-BR001.pdf;
    59 District of Columbia Department of Corrections. (n.d.). Preparing Returning Citizens for Success. Retrieved from https://doc.dc.gov/page/preparing-returning-citizens-success
    60 West Virginia Department of Corrections. (2016). West Virginia Department of Corrections Inmate Programs. Retrieved from http://www.wvdoc.com/wvdoc/OffenderPrograms/tabid/121/Default.aspx
    61 New Hampshire Department of Corrections. (n.d.). New Hampshire Department of Corrections Current Programs The Family Connections Center. Retrieved from http://www.nh.gov/nhdoc/fcc/programs.html
    62 Nebraska Department of Correctional Services. (2017). Educational Services. Retrieved from http://www.corrections.nebraska.gov/education.html
    63 Kansas Department of Corrections. (2012, December 17). Department Based Resources. Retrieved from https://www.doc.ks.gov//reentry/family-services/department-based-resources
    64 Washington State Department of Corrections. (n.d.). Washington State Department of Corrections Strength in Families [Brochure]. Author. Retrieved from http://www.doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/400-BR001.pdf; Washington State Department of Corrections. (2016). Parenting Sentencing Alternative (PSA). Retrieved from http://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/justice/sentencing/parenting-alternative.htm#fosa; Washington State Department of Corrections. (2016). Community Parenting Alternative (CPA). Retrieved from http://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/justice/sentencing/community-parenting.htm
    65 Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. (n.d.). Responsible Fathering: Tip Sheets and Resources. Retrieved from https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/Family_Support/fathering_resources.asp
    66 Families First (2016). Father Engagement Programs and Services. Retrieved from http://familiesfirstindiana.org/father-engagement/
    67 NYC Dads The Mayor’s Fatherhood Initiative (2014). About NYC Dads. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/ymi/nycdads/html/about/about.shtml.
    68 NYC Dads The Mayor’s Fatherhood Initiative (n.d.) Employment and Training. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/ymi/nycdads/html/resources/employment.shtml; NYC Dads The Mayor’s Fatherhood Initiative (2014). About NYC Dads. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/ymi/nycdads/html/about/about.shtml.
    69 Santa Clara County Fatherhood Collaborative (n.d.) About Us: Focus Areas for Advocacy. Retrieved from http://www.sccfatherhood.org/about/focus
    70 First 5 San Mateo County (n.d.). Resources for Dad. Retrieved from http://first5.smcgov.org/resources-dads
    71 Cuyahoga County Fatherhood Initiative. (n.d.). Cuyahoga County Fatherhood Initiative Funded Programs. Retrieved from http://fatherhoodinitiative.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/programs.aspx
    72 Colorado Dads (n.d.). Colorado Practitioner Network for Fathers and Families. Retrieved from http://www.coloradodads.com/index.cfm?page=30; Families First Colorado. (2016). Families First Colorado: Who We Are. Retrieved from http://www.familiesfirstcolorado.org/management.html
    73 Ohio Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families (n.d.). History. Retrieved from http://www.opnff.net/history.asp
    74 Minnesota Fathers & Families Network (2015). About us. Retrieved from http://www.mnfathers.org/about-us/
    75 Delaware Fatherhood & Family Coalition. (2015). About DFCC. Retrieved from http://www.dffcdads.org/about-dffc.html
    76 The Illinois Fatherhood Initiative (n.d.). IFI Programs. Retrieved from http://www.4fathers.org/page-1153183
    77 Office of Community Engagement and Neighborhood Health Partnerships (2016). Fathers for New Futures. Retrieved from https://oceanhp.uic.edu/1914-2/
    78 Family Focus (n.d.). Programs & Services: Fatherhood Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.family-focus.org/how-we-help/programs-services#fatherhood; Metropolitan Family Services (n.d.). Economic Stability: The Gerst Family Young Fathers Program. Retrieved from https://www.metrofamily.org/programs-and-services/economic-stability/default.aspx
    79 Fathers, Families, and Healthy Communities (n.d.). Supporting Fathers. Retrieved from http://ffhc.org/supporting-fathers/
    80 Indiana Fatherhood Coalition (n.d.). About. Retrieved from http://indianafatherhoodcoalition.com/about-ifc/
    81 South Carolina Centers for Fathers and Families (n.d.). About. Retrieved from http://www.scfathersandfamilies.com/about/
    82 Washington State Fathers Network (n.d.). What we do. Retrieved from https://fathersnetwork.org/what-we-do/
    83 The Fatherhood Task Force of South Florida (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from http://ftfsf.org/site/about-us/
    84 The Milwaukee Fatherhood Initiative (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.milwaukeefatherhood.com/blog/
    85 Healthy Fathering Collaborative of Greater Cleveland. (n.d.). Our Model. Retrieved from http://neofathering.net/our_model.asp
    86 Healthy Fathering Collaborative of Greater Cleveland. (2015). About Us. Retrieved from http://neofathering.net/about_us.asp
    87 Center for Urban Families (n.d.). Baltimore Responsible Fatherhood Project. Retrieved from http://www.cfuf.org/Baltimore-Responsible-Fatherhood-Project/
    88 Fathers and Families Center (n.d.). About FFC: History. Retrieved from http://www.fatherresource.org/about/history/
    
    
  • PDF Version