Residential and Nonresidential Fathers: Implications for Child Well-Being

Purpose: Father involvement with children from disadvantaged backgrounds is an increasingly important area in social work practice and policy because fathers have significant influence on child well-being. Nonresident father involvement is especially important because social work practitioners often assist families with nonresident fathers. Gaps still exist in current research, however, about the mechanisms through which fathers make a contribution to their children's lives. The purpose of this study is to address this gap. Specifically, we aim to explore the difference in child outcomes between resident and nonresident fathers and to assess whether the quantity of time nonresident fathers spend with their children is associated with child well-being.

Method: This study uses the fifth wave of data (N = 795) from the Community Advantage Panel Study (CAP). CAP is a secondary-mortgage pilot program for low- and moderate-income households and includes an annual survey of homeowners and renters in 21 states. We utilize two subscales measuring child outcomes - social competence and compliance. These measures come from the Positive Behavior Scale and are based on parental evaluation of the focal child's behavior. Using multivariate regression analyses, we examine the differential effect that residential versus nonresidential fathers have on the outcomes of interest. We then assess the extent to which the level (measured by number of hours) of nonresidential father involvement is associated with child outcomes.

Results: Results indicate that in families where the father resides in the home, children are more likely to have higher levels of social competence (p < .05) and compliance (p < .01) compared with households where the father is not present. Among children with nonresident fathers only, higher levels of father contact are also associated with an increase in both social competence (p < .05) and compliance (p < .001), but at very modest levels. Other significant predictors of social competence among families with a father at home include age (p < .001), gender of the child (p < .05), parental homeownership (p < .05), and race (p < .05). Additional significant predictors of compliance include parental education (p < .01), work (p < .05), and marital status (p < .05). Among nonresident father households, having a father figure at home (p < .05) and being black (p < .05) were both associated with higher levels of competence.

Implications: The results suggest that both residential and nonresidential fathers play a fundamental role in children's development of positive social behavior skills. However, it is important to note that the effect size with regard to the number of hours of father contact and child outcomes is quite small. This suggests that other dimensions of paternal involvement, such as the quality of the relationship, may be more important and should be considered in policy and practice. Implications of this study are valuable to social work practitioners and researchers as it provides insight into how to support children whose fathers no longer live at home but who remain actively involved in their child's life.