Household Family Type in Child Protective Services: Single Dads Need Attention, Too

Background and Purpose: The focus on families in the child welfare system (CWS) have centered primarily on married caregivers, single mothers, or non-residential fathers (Campbell et al., 2015; Shipe, 2018) leaving out the fastest growing population of caregivers – single fathers, or men who are divorced, separated, widowed, never married, or not living with a partner, and are the primary caregiver for at least one child. In the last 20 years the growth of single fathers involved in a child protective services (CPS) investigation has almost doubled from 2.6% in 2004 to almost 5% in 2022 (DHHS, 2023), yet information about whether the needs of these families differ from other family types in virtually nonexistent. The current study begins to fill this gap by determining how single father homes differ from other household family types as it relates to both entry into and continued involvement with CPS. The research questions specifically ask: (1) what demographic and risk factors predict re-report to CPS? and (2) does household family type, specifically single father homes, moderate the relationship of re-report?

Methods: Data were from National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) 2017-2019 Child Files. The analytic sample comprised of the four household family types – single fathers, single mothers, married couples, and unmarried couples. Other variables of interest included child demographic characteristics, allegation type, and risk indicators for children (i.e., prior CPS report, substance use, behavioral issues, disabilities, and other medical concerns) (N = 249,026). The dependent variable was re-report of abuse/neglect within 18 months of investigation. Logistic regression was used to first investigate which demographic and child risk factors predicted re-report to CPS. A subsequent logistic regression was conducted to determine whether family type [single fathers] moderated the effects of re-reporting of child abuse/neglect to CPS.

Results: The results found there was a significant relationship between all child risks and re-report; however, when single father homes were added, the results indicated a significant interaction with some risks and re-report to CPS. These included children with behavioral concerns (OR = 0.898, p = .03, CI[0.954 – 1.364]), child with disabilities (OR = 0.802, p = .001, CI[0.697 – 0.922]), children with other medical concerns (OR = 1.264, p = .001, CI[1.106 – 1.404]), prior reports (OR = 0.873, p = .001, CI[0.822 – 0.928]), Latinx children (OR = 1.128, p = .001, CI[1.111 – 1.336]), physical abuse (OR = 1.201, p = .001, CI[1.104 – 1.306]), and sexual abuse (OR = 1.201, p = .001, CI[1.054 – 1.368]).

Conclusion and Implications: Although single fathers are the smallest population of caregivers involved in CPS investigations, they are not without unique risks for continued involvement in the child welfare system. To date, the majority of interventions focus on single mothers and coupled household, yet these findings suggest that household family type does warrant attention. Researchers and practitioners should consider augmenting or developing approaches that target the needs of specific family types, particularly single fathers.