Targeting for Healthy Marriage
and Responsible Fatherhood
Ronald B. Mincy and Marah Curtis
Columbia University
and
Chien-Chung Huang
Rutgers University
Marriage vs. Fatherhood Services




Unfortunately healthy marriage and responsible
fatherhood have been posed as competing
agendas.
Marriage + argument did not prevail
I was part of a panel of experts that participated
in an effort to structure the forthcoming healthy
marriage demonstrations
Goal: Position programs to win healthy marriage
competitive grants
Early decisions

Couples
 romantically
involved
 express interest in marriage
 no multiple partner fertility

Services
 Marriage
promotion media campaigns
 Relationship education and counseling
 Little or no





Employment and training
Substance abuse
Mental health
Legal intervention
Policy reform
Table 1 - Characteristics of all Unmarried Parents (2515)
%
Pa re nts Re la tionship a t Follow -Up
Romantically Involved
64
Not Romantically Involved
36
Ra ce /Ethnicity of Mothe r
W hite non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Other Race
15
57
25
3
Me a n Age of mothe rs a t ba se line
24 (5.6)
Me a n Age of fa the rs a t ba se line
26 (7.1)
Educa tion
HS Diploma or More - Mother
HS Diploma or More - Father
61
62
Employme nt Sta tus
Mother worked one year before birth
Father worked one week before birth
68
77
Fe rtility
Multiple Partner Fertility - Mother
Multiple Partner Fertility - Father
Total Fertility with Father
43
42
1.5 (0.8)
Fa the r Contribute d during Pre gna ncy
85
Re la tionship Indica tors
Father's Support Index at Baseline (0-2)
Disagreement about Pregnancy (0-2)
1.6 (0.4)
0.3 (0.6)
Pa te rnity Esta blishme nt
72
Policy Indica tors
Maximum State AFDC Grant Amount ($100)
State Child Support Effectiveness
3.33 (1.24)
.26 (0.03)
Targeting for Healthy Marriage
and Responsible Fatherhood


These early decisions can help us re-frame the debate about
restoring families in terms of targeting for outcomes
For individuals and childless couples:


Anyone who is interested in marriage can receive healthy marriage
exploration services
For couples

Married people should receive marriage maintenance services
 Unmarried parents with children who are romantically involved and
interested in marriage should receive marriage prep and maintenance
services

Others should receive responsible fatherhood/team parenting
services

Not romantically involved
 Facing significant barriers to marriageability
Table 2 - Logistic Regression on Parental Relationship at Followup (N=2515)
(0 Romantically Involved; 1 Non-Romantic)
Odds Ratios Robus t (SE)
Race/Ethnicity of Mother
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Other Race
Parents are of the same race/ethnicity
1.53***
0.84
1.32
0.82
(0.18)
(0.14)
(0.33)
(0.17)
Age of Mother
Under 20
30+
1.02
0.9
(0.10)
(0.10)
Age of Father
Under 20
30+
1.15
0.97
(0.23)
(0.10)
Education
HS Diploma or More - Mother
HS Diploma or More - Father
0.95
1.19
(0.06)
(0.13)
Employment Status
Mother worked one year before birth
Father worked one week before birth
0.8
1.18
(0.12)
(0.13)
0.98
1.56***
.75***
(0.08)
(0.10)
(0.04)
Father Contributed during Pregnancy
.33***
(0.04)
Relationship Indicators
Father's Support Index at Baseline (0-2)
Disagreement about Pregnancy (0-2)
.43***
1.26***
(0.03)
(0.07)
.56***
(0.07)
0.92
0.6
(0.12)
(1.09)
Fertility
Multiple Partner Fertility - Mother
Multiple Partner Fertility - Father
Total Fertility with Father
Paternity Establishment
Policy Indicators
Maximum State AFDC Grant Amount ($100)
State Child Support Effectiveness
Log likelihood
-1319.4
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Robust standard errors are used to take into account the f act that w omen live in the same city
What to ignore when targeting exclusively for
responsible fatherhood services







Age of mother or father
Education of mother or father
Employment status of mother or father
Ethnicity of mother or father
Mother’s MPF
Generosity of State’s TANF benefit
Effectiveness of State’s child support program
What to consider when targeting exclusively for
responsible fatherhood

Factors that increase odds of non-romantic
involvement
 Black
vs. White
percent
 Fathers’ MPF
percent
 Disagreed about the pregnancy

53
56
26 percent
Factors that reduce odds of non- romantic
involvement
 Previous
birth in common
 Contributions during pregnancy
 Fathers are supportive of mothers
 Paternity Establishment
25 percent
67 percent
57 percent
44 percent
Using Responsible Fatherhood To
Screen for Appropriate Services


Couples who do not fit this profile need further
screening
Unclear about the status of their relationship, for
example:
 Black
couple with MPF, but paternity is established,
he contributed during this pregnancy and is
supportive of mother
 White couple made no contribution during pregnancy,
but no disagreement about pregnancy and no MPF
Table 3 - Characteristics of non-residential, non-romantic parents at 12 months (N=895)
Father Child Contact
Less than monthly contact/no contact
Monthly contact
Weekly contact
Child has had an overnight visit with the father since birth
%
38
24
38
54
Race/Ethnicity of Mother
White non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Other Race
Parents are of different race/ethnicity
12
67
18
3
14
Age of Mother
Under 20
20-29
30+
Mean Age of mothers
11
70
18
25 (5.7)
Age of Fathera
Under 20
20-29
30+
Mean Age of fathers
12
63
25
26 (8.3)
Education
HS Diploma or More - Mother
HS Diploma or More - Fatherb
60
61
Employment Status
Mother worked last week
Father is currently working
52
73
Fertility
Multiple Partner Fertility - Mother
Multiple Partner Fertility - Father
Total Fertility with Father
44
51
Father has provided Child Support and/or In-Kind Support since child's birthc
62
Mother's Preference for Level of Father-Child Contactd
Weekly Contact
Monthly Contact
No Contact
82
9
7
Current Relationship Status
Parents are Friends
Father is living with or married to another partner e
49
21
Baseline Relationship Status
Cohabiting
Visiting/Friends
Rarely Speak/Never Speak
27
61
13
Ave. Child Support payment for a single Mother in each state
a
m ean age as s igned in 1% of cas es
b
m is s ing on this variable in 5% of cas es
c
m is s ing on this variable in 4% of cas es
d
m is s ing on this variable in 1% of cas es
e
m is s ing on this variable in 13% of cas es
1555 (357)
Table 4 - Effects of Parent Characteristics on Overnight Visits at 12 months (N=895)
Reduced Model
Odds Ratios Robust (SE)
Race/Ethnicity of Mother
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Other Race
Parents are of different race/ethnicity
1.99***
1.04
1.85
1.01
(0.42)
(0.29)
(0.88)
(0.16)
Age of Mother
Under 20
30+
0.67
1
(0.21)
(0.22)
Age of Father
Under 20
30+
3.02**
.60**
1.21
(0.10)
Education
HS Diploma or More - Mother
HS Diploma or More - Father
0.7
1.13
(0.16)
(0.23)
Employment Status
Mother worked last week
Father worked last week
1.32
1.14
(0.22)
(0.24)
Fertility
Multiple Partner Fertility - Mother
Multiple Partner Fertility - Father
Total Fertility with Father
1.2
.64**
0.86
(0.15)
(0.10)
(0.12)
3.11***
2.20*
(0.86)
(0.82)
Father is living with or married to another partner
.64**
(0.10)
Baseline Relationship Status between Parents
Visiting/Friends
Rarely Speak/Never Speak
.48***
.24***
(0.10)
(0.05)
1
(0.01)
Mother's Preference for Level of Father-Child Contact
Weekly Contact
Monthly Contact
Ave. Child Support payment for a single Mother in each state
Log likelihood
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Robust standard errors are used to take into account the f act that w omen live in the same city
-537.42
Overnight Visit Predictors
 Factors that increase odds
 Black
vs. White
99 percent
 Teen vs. 20-29 father
202 percent
 Mother prefers weekly to no contact
211
percent
 Mother prefers monthly to no contact
220
percent

Factors that decrease odds
 Over
30 vs. 20-29 father
40 percent
 Father’s MPF
36 percent
 Father has new union
36
percent
 Baseline visit/friends vs. cohab
52
percent
 Baseline rare/never speak vs. cohab
76
Table 5 - First Stage Regression, All Independent Variables Regressed on Child Support
OLS
Coe fficie nts
Robus t (SE)
P value
Instrument
Ave. Child Support Payment per Single Mom in each state
0.01
0.00
*
Race/Ethnicity of Mother
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Other Race
Parents are of different race/ethnicity
0.1
0.1
0.12
-0.01
(0.03)
(0.04)
(0.11)
(0.05)
**
*
Age of Mother
Under 20
30+
0.06
-0.06
(0.06)
(0.04)
Age of Father
Under 20
30+
0.001
0.1
(0.05)
(0.03)
Education
HS Diploma or More - Mother
HS Diploma or More - Father
0.02
-0.05
(0.04)
(0.03)
Employment Status
Mother worked last week
Father worked last week
-0.04
0.05
(0.02)
(0.03)
Fertility
Multiple Partner Fertility - Mother
Multiple Partner Fertility - Father
Total Fertility with Father
0.01
-0.07
0.002
(0.04)
(0.03)
(0.02)
p=.051
Mother's Preference for Level of Father-Child Contact
Weekly Contact
Monthly Contact
0.3
0.22
(0.05)
(0.08)
***
*
Current Relationship Status
Father is living with or married to another partner
-0.22
(0.04)
***
Baseline Relationship Status betw een Parents
Visiting/Friends
Rarely Speak/Never Speak
-0.02
-0.25
(0.04)
(0.07)
**
constant
0.32
(0.11)
**
F(1, 17)
4.84
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Robust standard errors are used to take into account the f act that w omen live in the same city
**
*
Table 6 - Effects of Parent Characteristics on Overnight Visits at 12 months (N=895)
Comparison of OLS and Instrumented Model
OLS
Instrumented OLS
Coe fficie nts Robus t (SE) P value Coe fficie nts Robus t (SE) P value
Race/Ethnicity of Mother
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Other Race
Parents are of different race/ethnicity
0.11
-0.02
0.09
0.003
(0.04) *
(0.05)
(0.09)
(0.04)
0.14
0.003
0.12
0.003
(0.06) *
(0.06)
(0.11)
(0.03)
(0.07)
(0.05)
-0.08
0.002
(0.07)
(0.06)
Age of Mother
Under 20
30+
-0.1
0.02
Age of Father
Under 20
30+
0.21
-0.14
(0.06) **
(0.04) **
0.21
-0.11
(0.07) **
(0.06)
Education
HS Diploma or More - Mother
HS Diploma or More - Father
-0.08
0.04
(0.04)
(0.04)
-0.08
0.03
(0.05)
(0.06)
0.07
0.01
(0.04)
(0.04)
0.06
0.03
(0.04)
(0.05)
(0.03)
(0.03) *
(0.02)
0.04
-0.1
-0.03
(0.03)
0.05
(0.03)
Employment Status
Mother worked last week
Father worked last week
Fertility
Multiple Partner Fertility - Mother
Multiple Partner Fertility - Father
Total Fertility with Father
0.04
-0.08
-0.03
*Support
0.32
(0.03) ***
0.01
(0.45)
Mother's Preference Father-Child Contact
Weekly Contact
Monthly Contact
0.12
0.07
(0.05) *
(0.07)
0.21
0.13
(0.16)
(0.13)
Current Relationship Status
Father - living with/married to another partner
-0.02
(0.03)
-0.09
(0.09)
Baseline Relationship Status between Parents
Visiting/Friends
Rarely Speak/Never Speak
-0.14
-0.21
(0.04) ***
(0.04) ***
-0.15
-0.29
(0.05) **
(0.13) *
0.35
(0.11) **
0.48
(0.22) *
Constant
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Robust standard errors are used to take into account the f act that w omen live in the same city
Summary




Healthy Marriage and responsible fatherhood
are not in fundamental conflict
Through targeting they can find common
ground
Healthy marriage requires romantic
involvement, which has clear predictors
Responsible Fatherhood + can
 screen
for potential effectiveness of healthy
marriage and responsible fatherhood services and
 increase responsible fatherhood, even where
there is little apparent potential