# Presentation: 795093

## Unmarried Fathers’ Contributions to Children: Findings from the Fragile Families Study

- Irv Garfinkel
- Columbia University
*ACF 10**th** Annual National Welfare Research *
*and Evaluation Conference*
*Washington, D.C.** *
- June 4, 2007

## Structure of Talk

- Briefly describe the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study
- Findings
- Capabilities of fathers and mothers
- Relationships of fathers to mothers
- Fathers’ contributions to children – time and money
- Effects of strong child support enforcement

## The Fragile Families Study Research Questions

- What are the capabilities of unmarried parents, especially fathers?
- What is the nature of parental relationships, and how stable are relationships?
- How do children fare and how does family structure and stability affect child wellbeing?
- How do social policies affect family dynamics and child wellbeing?

## The Fragile Families Study 

- Probability sample of 4,900+ new births (1998-2000)
- 20 cities (200,000 or more)
- 75 hospitals
- 3700 non-marital births; 1200 marital births
- Data are representative of births in large cities
- Interviews conducted with both parents at birth
- Follow-up interviews when child is 1, 3, and 5 years old
- Child assessments at 3 and 5 years
- Follow at 9 years (Interviews with children an teachers; DNA from mothers and children)

## The Cities

**Notes:**
Stratified by policy and labor market environment 

## Innovations 

- Large sample of ‘high risk children’
- High response rates
- 88% for unmarried mothers
- 75% for unmarried fathers (60% at the hospital)
- 85% of mothers were interviewed at year 5
- 88% of fathers were interviewed at least once
- Couple Data
- Especially important for fathers not interviewed
- Future: child interviews, teacher surveys, and DNA
- Public use data for baseline, year one and year 3
- http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu

## FINDINGS

## Parents’ Capabilities and Relationships

## Low Capabilities

|  | Mothers |  | Fathers |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Married | Unmarried | Married | Unmarried |
| Age (mean) | 29.6 | 23.3 | 31.9 | 26.7 |
| Teen parent | 4 | 25 | 0 | 13 |
| Child with other partner  | 14 | 42 | 16 | 43 |
| Education
  Less HS
  High school
  Some college
  College | 
18
25
21
36 | 
45
38
16
1 | 
19
21
27
34 | 
38
40
18
4 |
| Weeks worked
(mean) | 21 | 22 | 48 | 42 |
| Earnings (mean) | $17,107 | $7,997 | $40,499 | $20,962 |

## Health & Behavior Problems

|  | Mothers |  | Fathers |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Married | Unmarried | Married | Unmarried |
| Depression | 13 | 16 | 7 | 11 |
| Heavy drinking | 3 | 7 | 22 | 27 |
| Illegal drug use | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 |
| Either has problem | 42 | 52 | 42 | 52 |
| Both have problem | 6 | 10 | 6 | 10 |
| Father incarcerated | - | - | 6 | 40 |

***DeKlyen, McLanahan, Brooks-Gunn,  Knab (2006); Garfinkel & Geller (2007***

## Annual Child Support Payment per Nonresident Father

**Assortative Mating**

**Mothers’ Reports**

**Previously Unobserved Variables **
**Multiple Imputation**

**Ineligible Fathers**

**Prior, then Current **

**Current plus Prior**

**Annual Earnings**

## Relationship Status at Birth

## Relationship Status at Age 5

**Notes:**
Are these weighted? #s in previous slide are weighted by national wgts. I would make this pie like baseline in style.

## Fathers’ Contributions:  Time and Money

## Fathers’ Commitment at Birth

|  | Total 
(%) |
| --- | --- |
| Gave money/bought things for child | 81 |
| Helped in another way | 79 |
| Visited baby’s mother in hospital | 77 |
| Child will take father’s surname | 80 |
| Father’s name is on birth certificate | 84 |
| Mother says father wants to be involved | 92 |
| Mother wants father to be involved | 96 |

**Notes:**
Mothers’ reports

## Fathers’ Time with Child 

|  | Year 1 | Year 3 | Year 5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Lives with child(%) | 51   | 42 | 34 |
| (Condition on non-residence) |  |  |  |
|   Saw child in past year (%) | 88 | 78 | 72 |
|   Saw child in past month (%) | 63 | 55 | 51 |
|   # days saw child (mean) | 8 | 7 | 6 |
| (Condition on seeing child)
  # days saw child (mean) | 
14 | 
13 | 
12 |
|  |  |  |  |

**Notes:**
ADD CITE TO CARLSON, MCLANAHAN AND BROOKS-GUNN

## Fathers’ Child Support-Age 3

- %

## Fathers’ In-Kind Support-Age 3

- %

## Changes in Child Support 

**Changes in Child Support**** **

## Effects of Strong Child Support Enforcement 

## Effect of CSE on Child Support 

- Strong paternity programs associated with
- more paternity establishment
- greater proportion of mothers receiving any support
- Strong CSE is associated with
- More formal support
- Less informal support
- No change in total support
- 		Decrease in support for recently separated
- 	  Increase in support for long term separated
- 		Benign vs negative Interpretations
- 		Stay tuned

## Effect of CSE on Father’s Time with Child 

- Strong paternity establishment associated with:
- Higher proportion of fathers having overnight visit w/child
- Formal payments weakly associated with
- Increased father contact
- But not the other way around
- Informal payments strongly associated with
- Increased father contact
- Relationship is reciprocal, but is slightly stronger from contact to payments
- Strong CSE and employment
- Associated with fewer underground employment hours
- No association with regular employment

## Effects of CSE on Parents’ Relationships 

- 4 of 5 FF studies indicate negative effect of strong CSE on marriage for unmarried parents to each other
- 1 study suggests that strong CSE is associated with domestic violence, especially for mothers on welfare (w/no order)
- No studies on effect of CSE on re-partnering

## Summary

- Unmarried fathers and mothers are highly disadvantaged
- Low education, health, employment rates, and earnings
- High rates of incarceration, multiple partner fertility,  welfare participation
- Parental Relationships are highly unstable
- At birth, 80% of unmarried parents are romantically involved
- By age 5, only about 1/3 are romantically involved

## Summary

- Father child relationships are stronger
- 1/3 of fathers live with child
- 1/3 of fathers see child a lot and contribute financially
- Strong CSE has mixed effects
- Decreases total support shortly after break-up
- Increases support for long term break-ups
- Net effect remains to be seen
- Increases father child involvement
- Deters marriage of parents
- Increases domestic violence among TANF recipients

## Thank You

- National Institute of Child Health & Development (NICHD), Annie E.
- CaseyFoundation,California HealthCare Foundation, Commonwealth
- Fund, Ford Foundation, Foundation for Child Development, Fund for
- New Jersey,  William T. Grant Foundation, Healthcare Foundation
- of New Jersey, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Hogg
- Foundation, Christina A. Johnson Endeavor Foundation, Kronkosky
- Charitable Foundation, Leon Lowenstein Foundation, John D.
- and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, A.L. Mailman Family
- Foundation, Charles S. Mott Foundation, National Science
- Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Public
- Policy Institute of California, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
- St. David’s Hospital Foundation, St. Vincent Hospital and Health
- Services, and US Department of Health and Human Services
- (ASPE and ACF).

**Notes:**
SLIDE 31

## Children Living with Fathers At 1, 3, and 5 Year Follow-Up

**Notes:**
FIX GROUPINGS, ADD TOTAL. COMBINED NON-RESIDENT