Supporting Father Involvement

1
Supporting father involvement in low-income
families Interventions for fathers and couples
Philip A. Cowan and Carolyn Pape Cowan University
of California, Berkeley June 5, 2007
2
Three Studies Spanning Three Family
Transitions Pathways to Change in Parents and
Children
Becoming a Family Pregnancy to Kindergarten
(Child 5.5)
Schoolchildren and their Families Pre-school (age
4.5) to Gr. 11 (age 16.5)
Supporting Father Involvement Child from birth to
7 years of age
3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5

6
In our assessments and interventions, we focus
on PARENTS AS INDIVIDUALS To increase their
coping with internal stressors and meet their
needs as individuals THE COUPLE RELATIONSHIP To
increase parents collaborative problem-solving
and decrease couple conflict PARENT-CHILD
RELATIONSHIPS To increase fathers involvement
and age-appropriate parenting strategies FAMILY
OF ORIGIN RELATIONSHIPS To help parents find
ways to break negative intergenerational cycles
of harsh treatment, neglect, and abuse STRESSORS
and SUPPORTS To help parents develop strategies
for coping with external stressors and increase
support from family, friends, and social services
7
Our Family Systems Risk Model
Culture Economic forces
Friends
Work
Social support and Life Stress
Social support and Life Stress
Peers
School
8
Each aspect of family life makes a unique
contribution to the childrens adaptation to
school
Its not simply parenting
Parenting Marital
relationship Three generations
Parents adjustment Life
stress/Social support
9
Participants of first two family studies
working-class and middle-class

• Families from 28 cities and towns in the San
  Francisco
• Bay Area of California
• Working-class, middle-class 15 below median
  income
• 85 European American
• 15 African American, Asian American, Latino
• Couples married or living together and
  co-parenting child

10
BECOMING A FAMILY PROJECT
RANDOM ASSIGNMENT to
Expectant couples No intervention
Expectant couples 24 wk groups
Comparable couples no baby No intervention

• Pre-intervention assessment for all 96 couples
• Post-intervention assessments when child is
• 6 mo, 1-1/2, 3-1/2, and 5-1/2 years in
  Kindergarten
• Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health

11
GROUPS FOR PARTNERS AND PARENTS

• Each group has 5 or 6 couples
• Male-female co-leaders trained to work
• with couple and parent-child relationships
• 2-hour weekly meetings
• Transition to parenthood (24 weeks)
• Childs transition to school (16 weeks)

12
Our approach to couples groups
Open-ended group therapy
Didactic class
Our approach
13
Main goal
To help participants be the partners and parents
that they want to be We do not recommend a single
model or blueprint
14
BECOMING A FAMILY PROJECT Marital Satisfaction
Trajectories for Parents With and Without
Intervention
B -.071
B -.225
-3 6 18
42 66
Couples Groups End
15
SCHOOLCHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES PROJECT
RANDOM ASSIGNMENT to
Brief Consultation
16 week Groups w. Marital emphasis
16 week Groups w. Parenting emphasis

• Pre-intervention assessment for each parent

• Post-intervention assessments
• Kindergarten, and Grade 1, 4, 9, and 11
• Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health

16
SCHOOLCHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES PROJECT
5-YEAR EFFECTS OF THE INTERVENTION when children
are 9 years old
Parents
Parenting focus
Parenting Improved
Children
Better Self-reported
Adjustment Fewer
Internalizing Problems in
Kg, G1, G4

17
Parents
Wives Self-esteem goes up Wives and Husbands
report less Conflict and Volatility
Marital focus Marital Conflict
Declined
and Parenting Improved
Children
Higher Achievement
Scores Fewer
Externalizing Problems
in Kg, G1, G4
18
10-YEAR EFFECTS OF THE INTERVENTION

• Couple-focused and parenting-focused groups
  during the transition to Kindergarten CONTINUED
  TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE EFFECTS on
• parents satisfaction as a couple (greater)
• parents conflict as a couple (less)
• parents symptoms of depression (fewer)
• parent-child relationship quality (more
  effective)
• adolescents externalizing and internalizing
  behaviors (less)

EFFECTS of the COUPLE FOCUS IS ALWAYS or gt
than EFFECTS of the PARENTING FOCUS
19
Supporting Father Involvement
WILL THIS APPROACH WORK WITH LOW-INCOME FAMILIES?
20
LINDA HOCKMAN Assistant Chief, Office of
Child Abuse Prevention, California
Department of Social Services CAROLYN PAPE COWAN
and PHILIP A. COWAN University of
California, Berkeley MARSHA KLINE PRUETT
Smith College KYLE PRUETT Yale University
Medical School
21

• SFI OVERVIEW
• The Basics
• 4 California counties are involved
• San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Tulare, Yuba
• Housed in County Family Resource Centers
• 289 low-income families
• Primarily Latino and European American
• A 5th site in Contra Costa County has just begun
  to recruit
  African American families

22

• Screening of families
• No open CPS case
• No severe mental illness or substance abuse
• Youngest child from birth to 7 years
• Biological parents, not necessarily married
• or living together but parenting jointly

23
SUPPORTING FATHER INVOLVEMENT
RANDOM ASSIGNMENT to
Information Session
16 week Fathers groups
16 week Couples groups
Bi-monthly consultation for site staff Case
management for all families

• Pre-intervention assessment for each parent

• Post-intervention assessment 9 and 18 months
  after
• baseline

24
Participants
276 families completed pre and posttests 67
Mexican American 75 married Median family
income 28,000 67 below twice the Federal
poverty line
25
A central finding with important implications

• Fathers are more likely to be involved with
  their children when they are more satisfied with
  the relationship with the childrens mother

26
Recruitment and Retention
27
Retention from Pre to Post1

• Completed
• baseline 371 couples
• (pre) assessment
• Completed
• first posttest
• and
• at least one 276 couples
• meeting (75)

28
Assignment to study condition
NO DIFFERENCES IN RETENTION BASED ON

• European American vs Mexican-American

• GREATER RETENTION WITH
• Higher income (above 40,000 household)
• Married (84) vs. Cohabiting (74)

29
Psychological characteristics

• RETENTION LESS LIKELY when
• Participants are not functioning well as
  individuals
• more anxious and depressed
• higher parenting stress, more life stressors
• more dissatisfied with couple relationship

30
Retention to POST 2 (18 months after baseline)

• Data collected 285 families
• 99 of Post 1

31
Intervention effects
32
PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS
33
Fathers involvement in daily care of the child

• FATHERS COUPLES
• GROUP GROUP
• FATHER
• INVOLVEMENT
• INCREASED

• CONTROL
• GROUP
• NO CHANGE

34
Parenting Stress (fathers and mothers)

• FATHERS COUPLES
• GROUP GROUP
• PARENTING STRESS
• DECREASED

• CONTROL
• GROUP
• NO CHANGE

35
FATHERS/MOTHERS AS INDIVIDUALS
36
Individual functioning anxiety and depression
symptoms

• CONTROL
• GROUP
• Anxiety and Depression
• INCREASED

• FATHERS COUPLES
• GROUP GROUP
• Anxiety and
• Depression
• DECREASED

37
THE COUPLE RELATIONSHIP
38
Satisfaction with couple relationship

• CONTROL
• GROUP
• SATISFACTION
• DECREASED

• FATHERS COUPLES
• GROUP GROUP
• SATISFACTION
• MAINTAINED

39
Conflict about the children

• CONTROL
• GROUP
• NO CHANGE

• FATHERS COUPLES
• GROUP GROUP
• Conflict about
• the children
• DECREASED

40
THE CHILD
41
Childrens aggression and hyperactivity
(described by parents)

• CONTROL
• GROUP
• Aggression and Hyperactivity
• INCREASED

• FATHERS COUPLES
• GROUP GROUP
• Aggression and
• Hyperactivity
• NO CHANGE

42
Stresses and Supports
43
Household income

• CONTROL
• GROUP
• NO CHANGE

• FATHERS COUPLES
• GROUP GROUP
• INCOME
• INCREASED
• 2,505 3,770

44
No intervention effects on

• Perception of family of origin
  relationships - past or present
• Perception of life stressors (but income
  increased)
• Social support (but the groups did provide a
  support network, and the referrals increased the
  range of available resources)

45
FATHERS GROUPS VS. COUPLES GROUPS

• At the first followup (2-3 months after groups
  end)
• COUPLES GROUPS stronger effects on
• Father involvement
• Mothers and Fathers parenting stress
• Mothers and Fathers anxiety
• Parents conflict about children
• Family income

46

• FATHERS GROUPS stronger effects on
• Parents symptoms of depression

47
The intervention was equally effective for

• Mexican American and Anglo participants
• Lower-income and Higher-income participants
• Married and Cohabiting couples
• More and less depressed parents
• More and less satisfied couples

48
Organizational change
49
A second goal Changing the agencies
organizational climate
The issues Pictures on the walls Having a
place where fathers are recognized and welcome
50
Father Friendliness Self-assessment (OSA)

• FILLED OUT BY SFI AND FRC STAFF
• Support in the FRC for providing support to
  fathers
• Reputation for serving fathers
• Father-inclusive policies and procedures
• Staff prepared to provide services to fathers
• Programs for fathers
• Active approaches to fathers
• Physical environment
• Consideration of couple co-parenting issues in
  clients
• Positive treatment of fathers in the agency

51
BASELINE FIRST SECOND THIRD
YEAR YEAR YEAR

• Significant improvement on all scales, baseline
  to end of first year
• Maintained through second and third year

52
Conclusions
Low-income Mexican American and European American
families will participate in a 16-week
intervention and remain in the study over
time. Couples and fathers groups with clinically
trained leaders provided benefits for both
fathers and mothers.
53
Because the Supporting Healthy Marriage Project
will be using curricula that cover the five
domains of family life we described, It is
reasonable to expect that these couples group
interventions will increase positive father
involvement. Data from intervention and
correlational studies suggest that strengthening
couple relationships and increasing fathers
positive involvement will enhance their
childrens development and adaptation.