Low-Income Nonresident Father Involvement with their Toddlers: Variation by Fathers’ Race and Ethnicity

1. Low-Income Nonresident Father Involvement with their Toddlers: Variation by Fathers’ Race and Ethnicity Natasha J. Cabrera, University of Maryland Jacqueline D. Shannon, Brooklyn College, CUNY Rebecca Ryan, University of Chicago

2. New Research on Nonresident Father Involvement • Fewer studies have focused on variations in nonresident father involvement among low-income, never-married men with young children, a group that has dramatically increased • Residency status is dynamic – challenges for understanding nature and type of involvement • New data suggest nonresident fathers are involved with their children in various ways • Patterns of involvement vary by race and ethnicity

3. Theoretical Framework • Resource Theory : • Parents with greater resources (e.g., education and income) will invest more money and time in their children than those with fewer resources • Differential levels of resources among never married, low-income, nonresident fathers may contribute to variations in father involvement. • If we consider child support, White children are more likely to receive child support, and may also see their fathers more often, than minority children • When fathers’ financial contribution includes informal types of support (e.g., gifts or extra cash), minority nonresident fathers may contribute at levels close or equal to their White counterparts

4. Theoretical framework… • Family Systems Theory • The quality of the relationship between nonresident fathers and mothers may vary by race and ethnicity • Nonresident fathers visit their children more often when parents have positive relationships • They visit less often when relationships are hostile or unstable • Minority unwed nonresident fathers are more likely to maintain romantic relationships with the child’s mother than White fathers, which is linked to father involvement • Mothers’ new romantic partner and extended family may influence nonresident biological involvement • Divorced fathers’ visitation/child support payments are lower when mothers remarry • White mothers are more likely to remarry or cohabit • Minority mothers live in intergenerational households more often than White mothers

5. Three Research Questions • What is the frequency of father involvement (i.e., accessibility, engagement, and responsibility) among nonresident fathers? • How does nonresident father involvement vary by race and ethnicity? • Are the differences explained by fathers’ resources and parents’ relationships with one another and others in the mothers’ household?

6. Highlights of the EHS Research and Evaluation Design • Nearly 3,000 low-income families • 17 research sites • Random assignment to program and control groups • Child and family outcome data when children are 14, 24, and 36 months old and Pre-K • Service use data at 6, 15, and 26 months after random assignment and at program exit • Interviews with fathers when children are 24 and 36 months old and Pre-K

7. EHS Father Studies Work Group Members Gina Barclay-McLaughlin Lisa Berlin Kimberly Boller Lisa Boyce Robert Bradley Jeanne Brooks-Gunn James Butler* Natasha Cabrera Rachel Cohen Jerry Cook Kathleen Coolahan Mark Fine* Hiram Fitzgerald Sarah French Howard Kathy Fuger* Cynthia Gibbons Jacqueline Shannon Jeffrey Shears Rachel Schiffman Nancy Smith Mark Spellmann Paul Spicer Susan Spieker Susan Sprachman* Joseph Stowitschek Jean Ann Summers Catherine Tamis-LeMonda Louisa Tarullo Ross Thompson Kathy Thornburg* Cheri Vogel Welmoet van Kammen Shavaun Wall Brian Wilcox Carollee Howes* Jon Korfmacher Michael Lamb John Love Carol McAllister Susan McBride Linda MeEllgren Ronald Mincy Martha Moorehouse Laurie Mulvey Barbara Pan Carla Peterson Anthippy Petras Helen Raikes JoAnn Robinson Lori Roggman Rebecca Ryan Trinidad Sanchez

8. Participants in the Early Head Start Research • Welfare recipients and low income working parents • Ethnically/racially diverse populations • Teenage and older parents • Single parent and two parent families

9. Research Question #1 What is the frequency of father involvement (i.e., accessibility, engagement, and responsibility) among nonresident fathers by race and ethnicity?

10. Nonresident Fathers (n = 883) Variation in Demographics by Race and Ethnicity • White fathers were more likely to have completed HS than both minority groups of fathers and were more likely to be working or in school than African American fathers. • Mothers in the White father group were less likely to live with extended family and more likely to co-reside with a romantic partner than mothers in both minority father groups. • Minority mothers were more likely to describe nonresident fathers as their boyfriends (both groups) or friends (African Americans only) than White mothers.

11. Accessibility Measure • We used frequency of father contact as a proxy for father accessibility. • Mothers were asked, “In the last three months, how often has (child) seen his father?” • 5-point Likert scale from 1 “never” to 5 “every day or almost every day”

12. Nonresident Father Accessibility—Contact a Few Times a Month

13. Nonresident Father Accessibility—Contact a Few Times a Week

14. Engagement Measures: • Frequency of caring for child: • “How often did father take care of your child while child’s mother did other things?” • Dichotomously coded: 1 = “every day or almost every day”, 0 = less than daily • Frequency of eating with child: • “How often does child’s father eat with child? • Dichotomously coded: 1 = daily, 0 = less than daily

15. Mother report of Father Engagement & Responsibility were used because: • Our sample of mothers was less biased than our sample of fathers • Mothers’ perception of nonresident fathers’ involvement can be an important indicator of parent relationship quality • Mother report of nonresidential fathers’ involvement has been found to relate to relationship status

16. All Fathers - Engagement by Race/Ethnicity

17. Nonresident Father Engagement—Eats with Child Daily

18. Responsibility Measure • Financial Contribution: • “How often does the father pay for the child’s clothing, toys or presents?” • “How often does the father pay for medical expenses (medicine or doctor bills)?” • “How often does the father give extra money to help out?” -Dichotomously coded: 1 =“sometimes” or “always”; 0 = “never”

19. Nonresident Father Responsibility—Pay for Medical Expenses

20. Nonresident Father Responsibility—Pay for Child’s Clothing, Toys, etc.

21. Nonresident Father Responsibility—Gives Extra Money to Help

22. Research Questions #2 and #3 How does nonresident father involvementvary by race and ethnicity? Are the differences explained by fathers’ resources and parents’ relationships with one another and others in the mothers’ household?

23. Mulitvariate Data Analysis: • Father Involvement Composite Scale • 3 types of FI correlated (r = .68 to r = .86) = standardized/ averaged into a composite scale, (alpha = .93) • Conducted a series of Ordinary Least Squares regression models • Step 1 - two indicator variables for African American and Latino father, with White father as the reference category, and controlled for family characteristics. • Step 2 -fathers’ resources (i.e., education, employment) • Step 3 -mothers’ coresidence with extended family and romantic partner • Step 4, we entered parents’ relationship status (Parent conflict was not entered into models because it did not vary by race and ethnicity)

24. OLS Regression Models Predicting Nonresident Father Involvement *** *** * * * * * * *** *** Model 1: R2 = .12; Model 2: R2 = .42

25. Results • After controlling for parents’ resources, the difference between White and African American fathers’ involvement remained significant, and the difference between White and Latino fathers’ increased • Although White fathers were significantly more likely to have graduated from high school than minority fathers, and White and Latino fathers were more likely to work at 24 months than African American fathers, fathers’ resources explained little of the variation in involvement among the groups (although employment was positively associated with involvement, p < .05).

26. Results • Only presence of a resident romantic partner was negatively associated with father involvement (at p < .001) • Suggests that higher rates of resident romantic partnerships among White mothers accounted for some of the variation in father involvement between White fathers and the other two groups • Higher rates of intergenerational living among minority mothers explained little of the difference. • When we added parents’ relationship status variables (boyfriend, friend) we found that being the mothers’boyfriend was the strongest predictor of involvement • Suggests that minority fathers’ higher likelihood of being romantically involved with the mother explained a large proportion of the variation in involvement between White and minority fathers.

27. Discussion Mother-Father Relationship Status and Father Residency: • 90% of nonresident fathers at 24 mos. were also nonresident at 36 mos. • Latino and White mothers are more likely to be in a married or cohabiting relationship than Black mothers • Black mothers are more likely to report a nonresident father (i.e., romantic/friend or in no relationship) than White and Latino mothers Black mothers are more likely to report a nonresident father who is a boyfriend/friend than White or Latino mothers who report a nonresident father

28. Discussion • Fathers’ level of resources did not explain the variation in father involvement among White, African American and Latino fathers. • Even after controlling for parents’ education, age, and child gender, White fathers had lower levels of father involvement than minority fathers. • This finding is noteworthy because White fathers were more likely to have resources such as a high school diploma and be employed than minority fathers in our sample, which resource theory suggests should make them more involved than fathers with fewer resources.

29. Discussion.. • The difference in father involvement was explained by relationships and household structure within the groups. • Mothers in the White father group were more likely to report new romantic partners and less likely to report the biological father as her boyfriend or friend than mothers with minority partners. • In contrast to previous findings, we found that parent conflict (measured as parental disagreement about the child) did not vary by race and ethnicity. • It is possible that we may have found different results if we had measured other aspects of the partner relationship. Overall, our findings support family system theory more strongly than resource

30. Discussion… • Our results advance the extant literature by extending these findings to unwed, nonresident fathers of toddlers and demonstrating that patterns of relationships between parents and household structures that are specific to each racial and ethnic group may account for differences in patterns of father involvement across racial and ethnic groups. • Because minority nonresident fathers of toddlers are more likely to remain romantic partners or friends with their child’s mother and minority mothers are less likely live with other romantic partners, fathers are more likely to be in regular contact with and potentially be engaged in positive nurturing activities (e.g., eating and playing) with their biological children than White fathers. The implications of these findings for child development need to be explored.

31. Discussion… • Our findings point to the need for more studies on racial and ethnic differences in father involvement over time, paying particular attention to the quality of relationships with partners and extended kin. It is possible that many of the romantic and friend relationships among parents will dissolve later in the children’s lives, diminishing father involvement. • It is also possible that the longer fathers are involved in their children’s lives the more likely it is that they will feel invested and hence remain involved even when they are no longer in a relationship with their child’s mother.

32. Conclusions and Future Directions • We need to further explore how different types of involvement among nonresident fathers vary over time and what factors predict these changes • Nonresidence status is dynamic and its impact on children varies in yet unclear ways • The meaning and impact of “Nonresidence” is related to cultural and structural variables