Do Responsible Fatherhood Programs Work? A Comprehensive Meta‐Analytic Study

Abstract

Objective To investigate the effectiveness of fatherhood programs targeting unmarried, low‐income, nonresident fathers. Background Programs for unmarried, nonresident, and low‐income fathers increased in number and scope over the past decade. Programs for fathers have typically targeted five broad areas: positive father involvement, parenting, co‐parenting, employment, and child support payment. Method We conducted a systematic search for published and unpublished evaluations of fathering programs targeting unmarried, never married, and low‐income fathers. We identified 25 reports with 30 independent studies. Of these, 21 employed a control–treatment design, and nine employed a one‐group/pre–post design. Results These programs produce small but statistically significant effects (d = .099, p < .01). We found that only father involvement (d = .114, p < .05), parenting (d = .110, p < .01), and co‐parenting (d = .167, p < .05) were significantly affected; the strongest effect size was in co‐parenting. Unfortunately, these programs did not significantly influence father employment and economic well‐being, nor did they significantly impact father payment of child support. Conclusion Although programs for low‐income, unmarried, nonresident fathers have a small statistically significant effect, evaluation work may increase the impact of these programs. Implications. There is a continued need for evaluation focused on unmarried, nonresident, low‐income fathers. There is also need for improved statistical reporting, reports of attrition, assessment of child outcomes, observational measures of outcomes, and better assessment of moderators, such as father age, program location, child developmental stage, multipartner fertility, and other barriers to father involvement.

“Harder Being Without the Baby”: Fathers' Coparenting Perspectives in Responsible Fatherhood Programming

“…Although this and similar studies have been useful for gauging the perspectives of men in RFPs, less attention has been paid to how programs help men navigate these challenges and potentially promote more “gate opening” among mothers. We know that participation in RFPs is associated with improvements in coparenting skills, especially communication (Friend et al, ; Holmes et al, ), but we know less about other indirect ways that fatherhood programs support coparenting. This is crucial knowledge given how maternal gatekeeping is as much a response to fathers' behavior as it is a regulator of it (Cannon, Schoppe‐Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, Brown, & Sokolowski, ).…”

“…It indicates that RFPs that serve fathers only through job services likely have positive, indirect benefits for coparenting. Even if RFPs do not significantly improve fathers' child support payments and economic and employment prospects (Holmes et al, ), they give marginalized men an opportunity to prove parenting commitments to mothers and others who use fathers' financial responsibility as evidence of dedication to family (Edin & Nelson, ). It also provides hope that coparenting relationships, even high‐conflict relationships, are still amenable to intervention even after fathers are no longer romantically linked with mothers.…”

“…Although existing research is promising about the potential for RFPs to improve coparenting (Avellar et al, ; Holmes, Hawkins, Egginton, Robbins, & Shafer, ), additional exploratory research is necessary to understand how RFP services can directly or indirectly support marginalized fathers as they navigate diverse and complex coparenting situations. Friend et al () found that a third of fathers in the PACT evaluation had cooperative coparenting relationships; a third described their relationships as conflicted; and the other 40% reported disengaged, low‐cooperation, low‐conflict coparenting.…”

The Evolution of Fathering Research in the 21st Century: Persistent Challenges, New Directions

“…The results of these studies are just beginning to be published. A recent meta‐analysis of 24 experimental and quasi‐experimental studies of fatherhood and coparenting programs for low‐income, unmarried, nonresident fathers revealed small but statistically significant positive effects for father involvement with children, parenting, and coparenting (Holmes, Hawkins, Egginton, Robbins, & Shafer, ). The strongest effect size was in coparenting skills.…”

“…As previously discussed, the U.S. federal government has invested considerable financial support for programs for low‐income nonresident fathers since 2005, yet only a small number of evaluations of these programs have been conducted to determine their effects. Holmes et al () concluded in their meta‐analysis that there is a continued need for evaluation of these fatherhood programs to determine their impact on fathers and families, best practices for addressing the needs of fathers, and ways to improve the capacity of programs to serve fathers.…”