Examining Risk and Protective Factors for Healthy Relationships Among Low-Income Fathers

Background and Purpose: Fatherhood research primarily focuses on parent-child and child outcomes; however, fathers’ intimate relationships have a considerable impact on child development, especially concerning modeling healthy relationships for children. This study examines how individual, interpersonal, and environmental protective and risk factors affect dimensions of healthy romantic relationships among predominately low-income, Black fathers.

Methods: 151 fathers enrolling in a fatherhood program completed baseline surveys. Cross-sectional analysis was conducted to answer How do key risk (i.e., depression, intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration, and barriers to social determinants of health (SDOH)) and protective factors (i.e., social network and resilience) affect romantic relationship quality among low-income fathers? Data from a subsample of fathers in in-tact relationships were analyzed. Z-scores were created and summed to construct “relationship quality” using father-report of three items (relationship stress, quality time spent with partner, relationship satisfaction), with higher scores indicating higher quality. Established scales were used for depressive symptoms, resilience, social network, and clinically significant physical and psychological IPV; SDOH barriers were measured using a check-list of five determinants (e.g., access to transportation, medical coverage, mental health services), with endorsement of any item coded as 1 and then summed for a total score. Assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity were examined. Descriptive statistics and a standard multiple regression model were computed.

Results: Fathers in in-tact relationships (N = 53) were predominantly Black (68.4%) and low-income (62.5% earning less than $1,000 per month), with an average age of 36.9 (SD = 10.91). Fathers reported high-levels of relationship satisfaction (M = 2.45, SD = 0.71, range 1-3) and quality time spent with their partner (M=2.02, SD = .86, range 0-3) and low-levels of relationship stress (M = 1.24, SD = 1.05, range 0-3). The relationship quality index had a mean Z-score = 2.14(SD = 2.203). Relationship quality index was significantly correlated with depression (r = .64, p < .001), IPV perpetration (r = -.42, p < .001), social network (r = .35, p < .001), and resilience (r = .40, p < .001). Ordinary least squares multiple regression with pairwise deletion was conducted with depression, IPV perpetration, SDOH barriers, social network, and resilience entered in a single block. The model explains approximately 48% of variance in the relationship quality index (adjusted R2 = .476, F (5, 48) = 10.622, p < .001). Two predictors had a statistically significant unique contribution to relationship quality index, when controlling for all other model variables: depression (β = -.608, B = -.201 , SE B = .045, p < .001) and IPV perpetration (β = -.242, B = -.079, SE = .035, p = .026). Fathers reporting depression and IPV perpetration had lower levels of reported relationship quality. Social determinant of health barriers, social network and resilience did not uniquely explain variance in relationship quality.

Conclusions: To promote wellness among women, children, and fathers, fatherhood programs may consider including targeted or stepped-care programming to address mental health, particularly depressive symptoms, and clinical levels of IPV among fathers screening positive for these risk factors.