A Bit of Light in That Tunnel of Darkness: Guaranteed Income for Nonresident Fathers

Background: This study examined the experiences of nonresident fathers who participated in a guaranteed income (GI) intervention. This is the first GI study focused on fathers, an underrepresented group in both social welfare policy development and academic inquiry. Almost all participants in the sample were Black, nonresident fathers, who are often characterized by the American public as absent, lazy, and unwilling to support their children. This viewpoint, however, does not reflect the lived reality of Black fathers. This research project sheds light on structural barriers and policy issues affecting Black fathers, centering racial equity and social justice in research and policy.

Methods: This mixed methods randomized controlled trial study was a GI intervention over 18 months. The study included 230 participants who were enrolled in programming at a nonprofit organization serving fathers. One hundred people were randomized into the treatment condition, receiving $500 per month for 12 months, and the other 130 were randomized into the control condition, receiving no intervention. This study focuses on qualitative data, whereby we conducted 23 semi-structured interviews (17 treatment and 6 control), with each interview lasting approximately 1-1.5 hours. The analytic approach consisted of a blend of thematic analysis and grounded theory.

Results: GI helped smooth income volatility and promoted food security. In addition, it supported fatherhood activities, in the form of financial provision and quality time spent with children. Fathers viewed the GI payments as belonging to their children and, therefore, spent most of the payments on them. Fathers felt more able to say “yes” to their childrens’ wants and not just their immediate needs. Payments also afforded fathers the ability to forgo overtime and extra gig work to spend more time with their children.

Interviews also revealed that many of the fathers felt forgotten, both in their children’s lives, and by the courts and government. Many expressed that they felt labeled by systems and society as “deadbeats”, despite contradictory evidence provided by the fathers. For example, some fathers presented child support courts with documentation to demonstrate their ongoing financial support and involvement in their children’s lives. They expressed that the court did not recognize these documents, predetermining their relationship with their children, and treating them as if they were chronically absent. This stigmatization compounded the mental health problems and feelings of loneliness that most men exhibited.

Conclusions and Implications: This study revealed how GI can be utilized as a policy tool for nonresident fathers, both to support them in their lives, and to support their ability to parent. It also raises important questions about the structural constraints that Black, nonresident fathers face. Although many of the men internalized capitalistic ideas and the myth of upward social mobility through individual effort, it remained structurally impossible for most to achieve this ideal, bringing doubt to the feasibility of the American Dream for these men. This study, while strongly illuminating the benefits of GI for nonresident fathers, sheds light on the need for additional structural and systemic changes to more fully support these men.