Soc Indic Res (2008) 87:427443

DOI 10.1007/s11205-007-9149-8

Children Living Without Their Fathers: Population

Estimates and Indicators of Educational Well-being
Matthew DeBell

Accepted: 14 May 2007 / Published online: 3 July 2007

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract This paper estimates the number of American children in grades K12 who live
without their biological fathers and examines the association of absent-father status with
childrens well-being. The 2003 Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey of the
National Household Education Surveys Program (n = 12,426) shows that 28% percent of
White students, 39% of Hispanic students, 69% of Black students, and 36% overall live
without their fathers. In bivariate comparisons, absent-father status is associated with reduced
well-being: worse health, lower academic achievement, worse educational experiences, and
less parental involvement in school activities. When socio-economic factors are controlled,
father-absence is associated with small deficits of well-being. The findings suggest that the
conventional wisdom may exaggerate the detrimental effects of father absence.
Keywords

Absent fathers
Fatherlessness
Child well-being

1 Introduction
About half of American children will spend part of their childhood in a single-parent
family (Andersson 2002), and most of these children will be living without their father.
Will they be worse off for their fathers absence? The conventional wisdom propagated by
researchers, social commentators, and recent presidents (Bush 2001; Clinton 1995) is that
they will. The widespread absence of fathers from childrens homes has been called a
social disaster (Lowry 2005) and arguably the most consequential trend of our time
(Horn and Bush 2003). Public opinion also appears to reflect this concern, as a Gallup poll
in 1999 found that 72% of Americans agreed that fatherlessness is the countrys most
significant family or social problem (National Center for Fathering 1999).
M. DeBell (&)
Institute for Research in the Social Sciences, Stanford University,
450 Serra Mall, Bldg 120,
Stanford, CA 94305-2050, USA
e-mail: debell@stanford.edu

123

428

M. DeBell

Is the conventional wisdom well founded? It amounts to the claim that the well-being of
children living with their fathers is much greater than the well-being of children living
without their fathers. Perhaps surprisingly, this particular comparison is rare in the
empirical research literature. This paper makes that comparison to better inform discussion
about the contribution of fathers to childrens well-being. Focusing on school-age children
(kindergartners through grade 12), the paper addresses three research questions about the
extent and significance of father absence in the United States: (a) How many school-age
children live without their biological fathers? (b) How is living without a biological father
associated with social and demographic characteristics? (c) How is living without a biological father associated with indicators of childrens well-being, such as health, academic
achievement, educational experiences, and parent involvement in their school?
Most research on family structure and childrens well-being has focused on comparisons
of two-parent families with other arrangements, or on single-mother-families compared to
other arrangements. The father-present vs. father-absent comparison is standard in public
discourse, but rare in research. One good methodological reason for this is that the fatherspresent-or-absent comparison results in substantial within-groups variation. That is, it
clumps together children living in several different family arrangements. Children living
with single fathers, or with the biological father and a stepmother, or with both biological
parents, all fall in the father-present category. This is clearly a heterogeneous group, and
social scientists usually prefer to make comparisons between more narrowly defined
groups when they test and refine theories.
Though most research has not measured father absence per se, there is indirect evidence
that children living without fathers may be disadvantaged on a wide range of indicators of
well-being, including health, educational experiences, and academic performance. For a
useful review, see Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan (2004). Children living with two biological parents tend to be healthier than children who do not (Coiro et al. 1994; Dawson
1991) and are less likely ever to have been suspended or expelled from school or to have
repeated a grade (Dawson 1991; Zill 1996). They also have higher average grades (Lee
1993) and are less likely to have developmental problems (Corio et al. 1994; Dawson
1991). Similarly, children living with single mothers are more likely to become sexually
active at a young age (DeLeire and Kalil 2002; Flewelling and Bauman 1990) and have
less academic success (Entwisle and Alexander 1995, 1996) than children living in other
family arrangements, and adults who were raised in mother-only families are worse-off
financially than those raised by both parents (McLanahan and Sandefur 1994).
Reports such as these certainly raise questions about the effects of father absence on
children. Just as certainly, they do not constitute (and were not designed to be) rigorous
empirical tests of the effects of father absence. The contrast between the certainty
expressed in tendentious public discourse and the indirect nature of most of the evidence
points to a growing disjuncture between research results and policy discussion. This disjuncture is well-illustrated in the National Fatherhood Initiatives report, Father Facts
(Horn and Sylvester 2002). This report, which is widely disseminated with over 100,000
copies in print (Sylvester and Reich 2002), summarizes a large body of research for the
purpose of stressing fathers importance in childrens lives. In one typical passage (Horn
and Sylvester 2002, pp. 116117), it cites seven studies (Bankston and Caldas, 1998;
Bisnairs, Fireston, and Rynard, 1990; Cooksey and Fondell 1996; Luster and McAdoo
1994; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Smith 1995; Tucker et al. 1998) in support of the
general proposition that father absence is bad for childrens academic achievement. The
proposition may be correct, yet not one of the seven studies used a national probability
sample of children to compare the academic achievement of children living with their

123

Children Living Without Their Fathers

429

fathers to the achievement of children with absent fathers. The studies lend indirect support
to the hypothesis that father absence is harmful, but they do not directly test that
hypothesis. This illustrates the failure of current research to squarely address public claims
that fathers, per se, are essential for successful child development. In response to the
growing disjunction between research and policy discussion, this paper makes the fatherpresent vs. father-absent comparison.
Researchers generally agree that some of the outcomes associated with (proxy measures
of) father absence are explained by income differences. Income is relatively strongly
associated with child well-being (Duncan and Brooks-Gunn 1997), and children living with
two parents benefit from higher average household income and lower poverty rates than
children in other family arrangements (Ricciuti 2004). There is evidence that when welfare
states provide resources to single-parent families, children improve academically (Pong
et al. 2003).
Other explanations of differences in childrens well-being remain contentious because
research on parenting has developed contrasting theoretical accounts of the effects that
fathers may have on childrens development. One gender difference perspective holds that
fathers and mothers each make unique contributions to child development because of
different parental gender roles (Downey et al. 1998). For example, by assuming that
parents follow traditional gender roles, researchers may suppose that women are more
effective nurturers and men are more effective disciplinarians (Popenoe 1996; Thompson
et al. 1992), and that men are more effective in fostering the development of childrens
cognitive skills, but women are more effective in fostering the development of interpersonal skills (Carlsmith 1964). When one parent is not present, the single parent may not
make the same contributions to child development that two parents can make in concert. In
this perspective, relatively immutable socialized gender differences or biological (sex)
differences prevent an individual parent from occupying both gender roles at once. As a
result, children living without fathers experience less of the unique and valuable parental
behavior that fathers are most likely to provide, which may reduce childrens well-being in
the short or long term. It should be noted that evidence from several studies is inconsistent
with this perspective (e.g. Downey and Powell 1993; Downey et al. 1998; Powell and
Downey 1997), but the question of its validity is unresolved. To the extent that this
perspective is valid, we would expect children living without their fathers to exhibit less
disciplined behavior and inferior academic performance.
A second perspective on gender differences holds that although it is empirically true that
fathers and mothers behave differently with their children, parents adapt their behaviors to
the child-rearing situation (Downey et al. 1998). Though parents in two-parent households
typically adopt a gendered division of labor for parenting tasks, parents in single-parent
households provide a broader range of care. For example, although mothers are more
highly involved with their children than fathers are in two-parent households, mothers and
fathers in single-mother and single-father households are about equally likely to be highly
involved with their children (Nord et al. 1997). From this perspective, living without ones
father would not be expected to have any direct relationship with child well-being, once
correlates of absent-father status (such as income and parent education) are controlled.
Apart from the differences that potentially may be attributed to the gender roles of
mothers and fathers, fruitful research has looked at parenting in terms of resources (Zill
1994), such as time, education and skills, and money. All else being equal, single parents
generally have fewer resources to devote to a child than coupled parents. Single parents
are, on average, poorer and have less time to spend with the child than parents in twoparent families (Asmussen and Larson 1991). In this perspective, children in single-parent

123

430

M. DeBell

families could be worse off than children in two parent families, but the presence or
absence of fathers per se would not be the reason for differences. Rather, because children
without resident fathers generally live in single-mother families, children could be worse
off in these families because the single parent brings fewer resources to the parentchild
relationship. Differences in child well-being between no-father households and two-parent
households could be attributable to the number of parents affecting the availability of
family resources, not to the gender and gender-specific behavior of the absent parent.
The association of family structure with childrens well-being makes it reasonable to
ask whether living without a resident father puts children at a disadvantage. Such a disadvantage, if it exists, could be related to gender differences relating to the potentially
unique contributions of mothers and fathers, or resource differences associated with family
structure, among other factors. The remainder of this paper describes the population of
school-age children living without their fathers, examines the association of this status with
childrens well-being (e.g., health, behaviors, and indicators of school success), and considers what the data imply about the roles of gender, resources, and other factors in shaping
childrens well-being.
2 Method
This paper is based on data collected in the Parent and Family Involvement in Education
Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program of 2003 (NHES). The
NHES is an ongoing program of telephone surveys that are representative of the civilian
non-institutionalized population of the United States. In 2003, interviews were conducted
with the parents or guardians of 12,426 children in kindergarten through grade 12, in
regular school or in homeschool. The overall weighted response rate was 53.8%. When
weighted, these data are representative of 52.6 million children in grades K12 (Hagedorn
et al. 2004). The unit of analysis in the NHES is the child.
The NHES has the advantages of being representative of the nations school-age children
and permitting estimation of the number of children living without their biological fathers.
NHES has multiple measures of well-being that are appropriate for children, and it is a recent,
timely data collection, with a large sample. In contrast to some other data sources that have
been used in the study of families and child development, the NHES avoids undercounting
fathers (e.g., in the National Survey of Families and Households; Sorensen 1997), failing to
identify the presence of a childs father in the household (e.g., the Current Population Survey),
or representing only a narrow age range of children (e.g., the National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth and the Department of Educations longitudinal studies of high school classes).
Due to the complex sample design of the NHES surveys, these data must be weighted
for analysis, and estimates of sampling error and statistical significance must account for
the effects of the complex design. Estimates in this paper were prepared using SUDAAN
software, and standard errors were computed using replication methods. All comparisons
of percentage estimates presented in the text were tested using the two-tailed Students t
test and are statistically significant at the 0.05 level or better.
3 Results
How many school-age children live without their fathers?
How is living without a biological father associated with social and demographic
characteristics?

123

Children Living Without Their Fathers

431

Table 1 presents population estimates of school-age children not living with their biological fathers in early 2003. About 36% of the 52.6 million students in grades K12 do not
live with their fathers (19 million children). The percentage of children without resident
fathers varies significantly by some population groups. Twenty-eight percent of White
students do not live with their fathers, while 39% of Hispanic students and 69% of Black
students do not. Sixty-three percent of children living in households with incomes of
$25,000 or less have no biological father at home, compared to 18% of those in households

Table 1 Percentage of school-age children living without their biological father in 2003, by child
characteristics (n = 12,426)
Characteristics

Population
Total

Percent

SE

52,581,643

36

0.6

Male

26,930,561

36

0.7

Female

25,651,082

37

0.8

Total
Sex

Grade
K

3,757,084

30

1.6

15

20,626,169

34

0.9

68

12,472,218

39

1.0

912

15,709,344

39

0.8

Race/ethnicity
White

32,843,774

28

0.7

Hispanic

8,321,817

39

1.3

Black

8,273,547

69

1.6

Other

3,142,505

34

2.3

$25,000 or less

12,818,549

63

1.3

$25,00140,000

9,091,008

44

1.7

$40,00175,000

15,945,649

28

1.1

$75,001 or more

14,726,436

18

0.9

Household income

Parent education attainment

Less than high school credential

3,687,258

62

2.4

High school credential/equiv.

13,142,654

47

1.2

Some college

16,545,277

41

1.0

Bachelors degree

10,165,432

22

1.1

Graduate education

9,041,022

18

1.2

Mothers age at childs birth

17 or younger

4,896,355

51

2.0

1824

14,079,033

50

1.0

2529

14,576,914

31

0.9

30 or older

19,029,339

26

0.8

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding

Data source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family
Involvement in Education Survey of the 2003 National Household Education Surveys Program

123

432

M. DeBell

making over $75,000. About 62% of children living in households where the parent(s)
completed less than a high school diploma or equivalent have no resident father, compared
to 18% of children who have at least one parent with a graduate education. These estimates
show that if living without a resident father puts children at a disadvantage, then this
disadvantage is experienced by a substantial minority of the general population (one in
three school-age children) and by a majority of children in certain population groups.
How is living without a biological father associated with indicators of childrens
well-being?
Researchers rely on many kinds of indicators to gauge the well-being of children. This
paper concentrates on four specific kinds of indicators, selected for their relevance to
school-age childrens development and education. Health indicators are provided by parent
reports of the childs general health and of whether the child has Attention Deficit Disorder
or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Academic achievement is measured
by parent reports of the childs grades and whether the child has ever repeated a grade.
Educational experience indicators reflect distinct pieces of information: one is an indicator
of serious problems (suspension or expulsion) and the other represents a positive outcome
(enjoyment of school). Parent involvement in school-based activities is indicated by
attendance at school meetings, events, and conferences, and volunteering and fundraising
for the school. The measurement of each indicator of well-being is further described in the
Appendix.
Table 2 shows that living without a biological father in the household is associated with
many disadvantages. By every indicator presented except parent attendance at a teacher
conference, children living without their fathers are at a disadvantage in comparison to
children living with their fathers. Children without a resident father are reported by their
parent or guardian to be less healthy than children with a resident father (54% in excellent
Table 2 Percentage of school-age children with selected characteristics, by status of child living with or
without biological father in 2003 (n = 12,426)
Child characteristics

Child with father

SE

Child without father

SE

64

0.6

54

1.0

0.3

11

0.6

Health
Excellent health
Has ADHD
Academic achievement
Ever repeated a grade
Grades mostly As

0.4

16

0.8

49

0.7

34

1.0

Educational experiences
Ever suspended or expelled

0.3

18

0.6

92

0.4

86

0.7

A parent attends school meetings

90

0.4

84

0.7

A parent attends teacher conference

78

0.5

76

0.8

A parent attends school events

73

0.5

65

1.0

A parent has done school fundraising

64

0.8

58

1.0

A parent volunteers at school

47

0.7

32

1.0

Enjoys school
Parent involvement in school

Note: Data source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and
Family Involvement in Education Survey of the 2003 National Household Education Surveys Program

123

Children Living Without Their Fathers

433

health compared to 64%) and are more likely to have ADHD (11% compared to 6%). They
receive lower grades (34% compared to 49% mostly As) and are more likely to have
repeated a grade (16% compared to 7%) and to have been suspended or expelled (18% vs.
7%). Consistent with these school experiences, children with no resident father are
somewhat less likely to enjoy school (86% compared to 92%). Children with a resident
father are more likely to have at least one parent involved in school activities such as
attending a school meeting (90% compared to 84%), volunteering at the school or serving
on a committee (47% compared to 32%), attending a sporting event, play, or other event at
school (73% compared to 65%), or fundraising for the school (64% compared to 58%).

4 Multivariate Analyses
When students characteristics are controlled, is not having a resident father associated
with poorer health, poorer school performance, less parental involvement at school, and
other indicators of diminished well-being? The NHES data are from a survey conducted at
a single point in time and thus cannot be used to establish causality, but they can be used to
examine statistical associations that may either highlight patterns for further study or
establish that a strong causal relationship is unlikely because covariation is weak. Table 1
showed bivariate relationships between resident birth father status and child characteristics,
and Table 2 examined bivariate relationships between resident father status and indicators
of child well-being. Many of the indicators of child well-being presented in Table 2 are
associated with child characteristics. For example, childrens academic achievement is
related to parental education and to income (Nord and West 2001). In order to study how
the characteristics identified in Table 1 are related to outcomes such as those examined in
Table 2 when the characteristics are examined simultaneously, multiple regression analyses are presented. The regression analyses answer the question, If one controls for the
characteristics in Table 1sex, grade, race/ethnicity, income, parent education, and
mothers age at the childs birthhow strongly is the childs fathers residence status (and
the control variables) associated with the different indicators of child well-being?
Tables 36 present a total of seven regression analyses in which indicators of child wellbeing are the dependent variables and child characteristics, including childrens fathers
residence status, are the independent variables.
Regression analyses of child health indicators are presented in Table 3. The analysis of
general health does not show an association between fathers residence status and the
childs health being reported as excellent, when controlling for child and household
characteristics. The second analysis shows that when controlling for child and household
characteristicssex, grade, race/ethnicity, income, parental education, and mothers age at
childs birthfather absence remains associated with the child having ADHD.
Odds ratios presented for the logistic regression analyses show that the odds of a child
having ADHD are 2.25 times greater when the child does not live with the father. (Odds
are the probability of an occurrence divided by the probability of non-occurrence. The odds
ratio is the odds of one occurrence divided by the odds of another.) This effect sizes is
small (Chinn 2000; Cohen 1992). In these analyses, other variables are more strongly
associated with measures of child well-being than is the fathers residence status. For
example, children in higher grades are more likely to have been diagnosed with ADHD
than those in kindergarten, and Black children are less likely to have been diagnosed with

123

434

M. DeBell

Table 3 Logistic regression analysis of child health indicators (n = 12,422)

Independent variables

Child in excellent health

B

SE

Child has ADHD

e

eB

SE

Father not living with child

0.1

0.05

0.91

0.8**

0.09

2.25

Child is female

0.1

0.04

0.95

1.2***

0.09

0.31

Grade
15

0.2

0.10

0.86

0.9**

0.26

2.35

68

0.2*

0.11

0.80

1.0***

0.28

2.66

912

0.3**

0.11

0.72

1.0***

0.28

2.58

Hispanic

0.2**

0.08

0.79

0.6**

0.15

0.56

Black

0.4***

0.06

0.69

1.1***

0.17

0.32

Other

0.4***

0.10

0.65

0.6**

0.20

0.56

$25,001$40,000

0.3**

0.09

1.29

0.1

0.16

0.94

$40,001$75,000

0.4***

0.07

1.52

0.1

0.15

1.10

$75,001 or more

0.7***

0.09

1.98

0.1

0.16

1.05

High school credential/equiv.

0.4**

0.13

1.54

0.2

0.26

0.84

Some college

0.5**

0.14

1.61

0.3

0.26

0.78

Bachelors degree

0.8***

0.15

2.30

0.5

0.29

0.60

Graduate education

0.8***

0.15

2.12

0.5

0.29

0.60

1824

0.1

0.09

1.14

0.1

0.15

0.87

2529

0.1

0.08

1.05

0.2

0.17

0.86

30 or older

0.1

0.09

1.07

0.1

0.15

0.92

0.2

0.17

0.86

2.7

0.39

0.70

Race/ethnicity

Household income

Parent education attainment

Mothers age at childs birth

Intercept
R2
% excellent health/ADHD
n

0.06
60.24
12,422

0.04
7.22
12,422

Note: Reference categories (omitted from the table) are father living with the child, child is male, child grade
Kindergarten, White race/ethnicity, household income $25,000 or less, parent education less than a high
school credential, mothers age at childs birth less than 18. All variables are dichotomous, coded 1 for yes
and 0 for no. eB = exponentiated B, also known as the odds ratio. Data source: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey of
the 2003 National Household Education Surveys Program
* p < 0.05.**, p < 0.01.***, p < 0.001

ADHD than are White childrenand these differences are larger than the difference for
fathers residence status.
Table 4 presents regression analyses of academic achievement indicators, which show
that father absence is associated with the child having repeated a grade in school and with
the childs grades. The odds of having ever repeated a grade are greater for students
beyond kindergarten and lower for students from households with the highest incomes and
highest levels of education (among other differences); these differences are larger than the
difference for fathers residence status.

123

Children Living Without Their Fathers

435

Table 4 Regression analysis of child academic achievement indicators

Independent variables

Child ever repeated a gradea

B

Childs gradesb
eB

SE

Std. B

SE

Father not living with child

0.5***

0.09

1.59

0.1***

0.02

0.09

Child is female

0.5***

0.09

0.59

0.3***

0.02

0.18

15

1.3***

0.27

3.51

0.4***

0.06

0.21

68

1.4***

0.29

4.11

0.5***

0.06

0.29

912

1.7***

0.28

5.33

0.7***

0.06

0.37

Hispanic

0.3*

0.12

1.30

0.1*

0.04

0.03

Black

0.3*

0.12

0.78

0.1*

0.03

0.04

Other

0.1

0.19

1.07

0.0

0.05

0.01
0.00

Grade

Race/ethnicity

Household income
$25,001$40,000

0.3*

0.12

0.76

0.0

0.04

$40,001$75,000

0.6***

0.11

0.55

0.1

0.03

0.03

$75,001 or more

0.8***

0.15

0.46

0.1**

0.04

0.06

Parent education attainment

High school credential/equiv.

0.2

0.14

0.84

0.1

0.05

0.03

Some college

0.6***

0.16

0.53

0.2**

0.06

0.10

Bachelors degree

0.9***

0.20

0.39

0.3***

0.06

0.15

Graduate education

1.0***

0.23

0.37

0.4***

0.06

0.20

1824

0.2

0.15

0.82

0.1*

0.04

0.04

2529

0.2

0.13

0.81

0.1**

0.04

0.07

30 or older

0.4*

0.15

0.70

0.1**

0.04

0.07

0.33

0.09

3.3***

Mothers age at childs birth

Intercept

2.5***

R2

0.06c

% ever repeated a grade

n

0.08
0.13

10.08
12,324

9,776

Note: Reference categories (omitted from the table) are father living with the child, child is male, child grade
Kindergarten, White race/ethnicity, household income $25,000 or less, parent education less than a high
school credential, mothers age at childs birth less than 18. All independent variables are dichotomous,
coded 1 for yes and 0 for no. eB = exponentiated B, also known as the odds ratio. Data source: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in
Education Survey of the 2003 National Household Education Surveys Program
a

Logistic regression analysis is presented

Ordinary least squares regression analysis is presented

Cox and Snells R2 for logistic regression is presented

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

The second analysis presented in Table 4 is an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression
analysis of childrens grades. Children being home-schooled (about 2%) and children who
did not do graded work (about 20%) are excluded from this analysis because data were not
collected concerning their letter grades. Odds ratios are not computed for OLS regression,

123

436

M. DeBell

and the interpretation of the results proceeds a bit differently. The grade data indicate
whether the child receives mostly As, mostly Bs, mostly Cs, or mostly Ds or below. In the
regression analysis, grades are coded 4, 3, 2, or 1 to correspond to typical grades of A, B,
C, or D or below. This allows an interpretation of the regression coefficients in terms of the
same intervals on which grade point averages are usually reported.
Table 4 shows that fathers residence status is statistically significantly associated with
the childs grades: when the father does not live with the child, this is associated with
slightly lower grades (effect size 0.09). The unstandardized parameter estimate of 0.1 on
the 14 grade scale corresponds to 10% of the difference between grades (e.g. A = 4, B = 3,
the difference is 1, and 0.1/1 = 10%). This difference is enough to change some students
grades by half a grade (e.g. from B to B-minus), so this could be considered a meaningful difference.
Table 5 presents the results of logistic regression analyses of the indicators of school
experiences: whether the child has ever been suspended or expelled from school, and
whether the child enjoys school. In both analyses, not having a resident father is associated
with the less desirable outcome, but the effect sizes are small.
Looking at suspension or expulsion, the father not living with the child has an odds ratio
of 1.96, indicating a small effect. Large effects are seen for grade level, with older students
being much more likely to have been disciplined this way than are kindergarteners (odds
ratios of 5.86 for grades 15, 16.27 for grades 68, and 32.23 for grades 912); other odds
ratios reflect moderate or small differences.
Children living without their father are 0.61 times as likely (in terms of odds, not
probability) to enjoy school, as reported by a parent or guardian. Other factors are also
associated with school enjoyment: girls are moderately more likely than boys to enjoy
school (odds ratio of 2.16), and high-school and middle-school students are less likely than
the youngest students to enjoy school (odds ratios of 0.21 and 0.35, respectively), but most
other effect sizes are small or negligible (odds ratios from 0.65 to 1.63).
Table 6 presents an OLS regression analysis of an index of parent involvement in
activities at or for the childs school. Indexes are often used to measure complex
phenomena that are not adequately described by a single survey item. This parent
involvement index is a count of the number of activities that at least one of the childs
parents has participated in that constitute involvement with the childs school: attending a
general school meeting; going to a parentteacher conference; attending a school event
such as a play, sports event, or science fair; volunteering at the school or serving on a
committee; or participating in fundraising for the school. The values of the resulting
variable range from 0 to 5, with a median of 4.0, a mean of 3.4, SD = 1.6, and Cronbachs
a = 0.62. In a bivariate comparison, children with no resident father have parents involved
in fewer school-related activities than do children with a resident father, but the difference
is small (B = 0.38; Cohens d = 0.13; not shown in tables).
It is important to consider that there are many ways to measure parental involvement in
a childs education, and that the index examined here does not account for many potentially important aspects of parental involvement with schools, such as the frequency of
involvement, the amount of time spent, the relative importance of the activities to the
childs well-being, or whether the father, mother, or both are participants. There may also
be benefits to a multidimensional measure (see e.g., Grolnick and Slowiaczek 1994). The
data presently analyzed address only the number of activities in which one or both parents
participate.

123

Children Living Without Their Fathers

437

Table 5 Logistic regression analysis of educational experience indicators: child ever suspended or
expelled, and child enjoys school
Independent variables

Child ever suspended or expelled

B

SE

Child enjoys school

B

eB

SE

Father not living with child

0.7***

0.07

1.96

0.5***

0.08

0.61

Child is female

1.0***

0.08

0.35

0.8***

0.07

2.16

15

1.8***

0.44

5.77

0.4

0.27

0.65

68

2.8***

0.43

15.80

1.1***

0.27

0.35

912

3.5***

0.44

31.39

1.5***

0.27

0.21

Grade

Race/ethnicity
Hispanic

0.6***

0.12

1.75

0.3**

0.12

1.40

Black

0.1

0.11

0.87

0.5***

0.11

1.63

Other

0.1

0.19

1.09

0.4*

0.17

1.51

$25,001$40,000

0.2

0.13

0.83

0.1

0.11

0.89

$40,001$75,000

0.3*

0.11

0.76

0.2

0.11

1.23

$75,001 or more

0.5***

0.13

0.61

0.2

0.14

1.22

High school credential/equiv.

0.3

0.15

0.78

0.2

0.21

0.86

Some college

0.3*

0.14

0.74

0.2

0.2

0.83

Bachelors degree

0.8***

0.16

0.47

0.1

0.22

1.05

Graduate education

0.8***

0.20

0.43

0.4

0.25

1.44

1824

0.4**

0.13

0.67

0.1

0.12

0.93

2529

0.6***

0.13

0.57

0.2

0.13

1.24

0.6***

0.11

0.58

0.1

0.13

0.89

3.7***

0.45

0.03

2.9***

0.30

17.30

Household income

Parent education attainment

Mothers age at childs birth

30 or older
Intercept
Cox & Snell R2
% suspended-expelled/enjoy
n

0.11

0.05

11.05

89.69

12,422

12,177

Note: Reference categories (omitted from the table) are father living with the child, child sex is male, child
grade Kindergarten, White race/ethnicity, household income $25,000 or less, parent education less than a
high school credential, mothers age at childs birth less than 18. All independent variables are dichotomous,
coded 1 for yes and 0 for no. eB = exponentiated B, also known as the odds ratio. Data source: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in
Education Survey of the 2003 National Household Education Surveys Program
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

The data show that, when controlling for variables such as income and parental education, living without a resident father is not associated with any substantial variation in the
number of types of school-related activities that parents participate in. All of the other
variables in this analysis, except Hispanic ethnicity compared to White, are associated with
differences in parent involvement.

123

438

M. DeBell

Table 6 Ordinary least squares regression analysis of parent involvement index (n = 12,177)
Independent variables

Parent involvement index

B

SE

Std. B

Father not living with child

0.0

0.04

0.01

Child is female

0.1***

0.03

0.04

Grade
15

0.1**

0.05

0.05

68

0.4***

0.05

0.13

912

0.1***

0.06

0.31

Race/ethnicity
Hispanic

0.0

0.06

0.01

Black

0.3***

0.05

0.07

Other

0.3***

0.08

0.05

$25,001$40,000

0.1*

0.05

0.03

$40,001$75,000

0.3***

0.06

0.09

$75,001 or more

0.5***

0.06

0.15

High school credential/equiv.

0.6***

0.08

0.19

Some college

0.8***

0.08

0.26

Bachelors degree

1.0***

0.09

0.29

Graduate education

1.1***

0.09

0.29

1824

0.2*

0.06

0.05

2529

0.2***

0.06

0.07

30 or older

0.2***

0.06

0.08

2.5***

0.10

Household income

Parent education attainment

Mothers age at childs birth

Intercept
R2

0.22

Note: The parent involvement index ranges from 0 to 5 and is a count of the number of activities that the
childs parent has participated in at or for the childs school, counting attending a general meeting, attending
an event, volunteering at the school, attending a parentteacher conference, and participating in school
fundraising. All independent variables in the model are dichotomous, coded 1 for yes and 0 for no.
Reference categories (omitted from the table) are father living with the child, child is male, child grade is
Kindergarten, White race/ethnicity, household income $25,000 or less, parent education less than a high
school credential, mothers age at childs birth less than 18. Data source: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey of the 2003
National Household Education Surveys Program
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

5 Discussion
Many children live without their biological fathers. Although bivariate comparisons
indicate these children are at a disadvantage, the picture changes when income, education,
and other factors are taken into account. In multivariate analysis, some differences in
well-being disappear. Of those that remain, most are not very large. Thus, these data are
not consistent with public alarm and theoretical perspectives that predict strong, harmful,

123

Children Living Without Their Fathers

439

direct effects on children raised without their fathers at home. To the contrary, father
residence status is not strongly associated with child well-being and is but one of many
variables associated with the outcomes studied here.
These data provide some support for the perspective that in the absence of fathers,
children still receive substantially similar care in at least some areas; generally excellent health (Table 3) and parent involvement in school (Table 6) are not related to father
absence in the regression analyses. (With respect to parent involvement in school, it is
relevant that in two-parent families, mother involvement is generally high and father
involvement is relatively low (Nord and West 2001), so maintaining the overall level of
parent involvement in school when the father is absent may not require much change in a
mothers involvement. In terms of physical care and time spent with children, mothers in
two-parent families are also more involved than fathers (Aldous et al. 1998).) However,
some of the data are also consistent with the contrasting gender perspective that fathers
provide better discipline than mothers; children not living with their father are more likely
to have been suspended or expelled from school, suggesting greater disciplinary problems
(Table 5). Similarly, children living with single fathers are less likely to be suspended or
expelled than children living with single mothers, even when controlling for the independent variables analyzed in this report (multiple logistic regression not shown in tables;
b = 0.81, s.e. = 0.37, odds ratio = 0.44).
These data also buttress arguments that resources such as parental education and income
are important. Because several aspects of childrens well-being are associated with income,
parental education, or both, yet father absence is not strongly associated with the measures
of well-being studied here, these data are consistent with the perspective that parental
resources account for part of the variability in child well-being that is associated with
father absence at the bivariate level. For example, although bivariate analysis shows that
children living with their fathers are more likely than children living without their fathers
to be in excellent health (Table 2), multivariate analysis shows no association between
fathers residence status and excellent health (Table 3). The bivariate differences are
accounted for by other variables, including parental education and income.
Continued research on this topic should examine family structure in more depth. One
avenue is continued examination of family structure among households where fathers are
present (following, e.g., Nord and West 2001). The presence of biological fathers may have
different effects on child well-being than the presence of stepfathers or foster fathers, and
the role of fathers may differ in married and cohabiting families. Continued research
should also examine other aspects of well-being.
An important issue that the present data do not speak to is the role of selection in family
structure. Whether children live with or without their fathers is not determined randomly.
Rather, parents usually select this status (though it may also be imposed by imprisonment,
a call to military service, or involuntary death), and characteristics that affect family
structure may independently affect child development and child well-being. For example,
when a parent (or both parents) displays many disagreeable traits such as neuroticism or
poor impulse control, the relationship between the parents is more likely to dissolve (Kelly
and Conley 1987). This diminishes the likelihood that the father will live with the child,
because mothers take custody of children more often than fathers do. The same characteristics that reduce the likelihood of the father living with the child may also affect child
development and child well-being; the characteristics that contribute to the dissolution of
adult relationships may also impede the development of close relationships between fathers
and children, which in turn are related to adolescent well-being (Manning and Lamb 2003).
For instance, a fathers abusive behavior could diminish his childs well-being and lead to

123

440

M. DeBell

a change in family structure if the mother throws him out, but in this scenario the fathers
absence is not responsible for diminished child well-being. Therefore, lower child wellbeing among children living without fathers could be a result of factors that contributed to
the family structure, rather than a result of father absence. Furthermore, it is even likely
that childrens well-being affects their fathers residence status to some degree. Reichman
et al. (2003) report that having a child with poor health decreases the level of commitment in the parents relationship, increasing the risk of single-parenthood. These complexities of selection for family structure should be borne in mind when considering
associations between child well-being and family living arrangements. They imply that any
detrimental effect of father absence on child well-being may be even smaller than the
association observed in this papers analyses.
It is not the intent of this paper to suggest that fathers are not important to their children,
but the multivariate analyses suggest that children can, and often do, develop successfully
in spite of father absence, provided that they are not otherwise disadvantaged. Of course,
being otherwise disadvantaged in a fathers absence is common; many families are poor
because of a fathers absence. But this does not mean that father absence per se harms
children. It means, instead, that father absence is one of many factors that sometimes put
children at a disadvantage, often indirectly by causing other problems such as poverty. By
the indicators of well-being studied here, the absence of a father, per se, is associated with
some disadvantages, but not with strong ones. In these data, father absence appears no
more harmful than other factors such as low income or low levels of parental education,
suggesting a degree of exaggeration in public discourse about father absence.
Acknowledgements This project was funded in part by the U.S. Department of Education under contracts
RN95127001 and ED-05-CO-0044. The content of this article does not necessarily reflect the views or
policies of the U.S. Department of Education. The paper was written while the author was employed by the
American Institutes for Research. A version was presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Research
on Child Development, Atlanta, GA, in 2005. Acknowledgements are due to Sandy Eyster, Jerry West, and
Kristin Flanagan for helpful comments on an earlier draft and to Alexa Van Brunt for research assistance.

Appendix: Variables in the Analysis

Resident father status. The adult respondent indicated whether there is a biological-, step-,
adoptive-, or foster-father living in the childs household.
Sex. The childs sex.
Grade. Grade level in school from kindergarten to grade 12. Home-schooled and
ungraded students are included if a grade equivalent was reported.
Race/ethnicity. Race is reported as White, Black, or other categories. Hispanic ethnicity
is reported separately. The race/ethnicity variable is derived from these items and indicates
whether the child is White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, other non-Hispanic, or
Hispanic. Hispanics may be of any race.
Household income. Annual household income was reported in categories.
Parents educational attainment. This is the highest level of education achieved by any
parent in the household. Some college includes vocational/technical programs after
high school. Graduate education includes any education after the completion of a
bachelors degree; it does not necessarily include a graduate degree.

123

Children Living Without Their Fathers

441

Mothers age at childs birth. The childs mothers age when the child was born. This is
calculated by taking the difference of the childs age in years and the mothers age in years
at the time of the interview and is therefore subject to rounding error. Also, in some cases
the mother is not the biological mother.
Child has ADHD. The respondent was asked, Does [child] have attention deficit
disorder, ADD, or ADHD?
Child ever repeated a grade. The respondent indicated whether or not the child ever
repeated a grade level (was held back) in school.
Child enjoys school. This is based on the respondents answer to the question, Please
tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following
statements. [Child] enjoys school.
Child ever suspended or expelled from school. This is derived from the respondents
answers to three yes-or-no questions. It is coded yes if the answer to any question was
affirmative, and otherwise coded no. Has [child] had an out-of-school suspension?
Has [child] had an in-school suspension, not counting detentions? Has [child] ever
been expelled?
A parent attends school meetings. This is based on the respondents report. It indicates
whether a parent has Attended a general school meeting, for example, an open house, a
back-to-school night or a meeting of a parent-teacher organization?
A parent attends school events. This is based on the respondents report. It indicates
whether any parent has Attended a school or class event, such as a play, sports event, or
science fair because of (child)?
A parent volunteers at school. The respondents report indicates whether any parent has
Acted as a volunteer at the school or served on a committee?
A parent attends teacher conference. The respondents report indicates if a parent has
Gone to a regularly scheduled parent-teacher conference with (childs) teacher?
A parent has done school fundraising. The respondents report indicates if a parent has
Participated in fundraising for the school?
Childs grades. The respondent indicated whether the child receives mostly As, mostly
Bs, mostly Cs, or mostly Ds or below.
Involvement index. See main text.
References
Aldous, J., Mulligan, G. M., & Bjarnason, T. (1998). Fathering over time: what makes the difference?
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 809820.
Andersson, G. (2002). Childrens experience of family disruption and family formation: evidence from 16
FFS countries. Demographic Research, 7(7), 343364. Available at http://www.demographic-research.org.
Asmussen, L., & Larson, R. (1991). The quality of family time among young adolescents in single-parent
and married-parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 10211030.
Bankston, C. L., & Caldas, S. J. (1998). Family structure, schoolmates, and racial inequalities in school
achievement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 715723.
Bisnairs, L. M. C., Fireston, P., & Rynard, D. (1990). Factors associated with academic achievement in
children following parental separation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60, 6776.
Bush, G. W. (2001). Speech at the 4th Annual National Summit on Fatherhood, Washington DC, June 7,
(2001). Cited in Horn and Sylvester (2002).
Carlsmith, L. (1964). Effect of early father absence on scholastic aptitude. Harvard Educational Review, 34,
321.
Chinn, S. (2000). A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis.
Statistics in Medicine, 19, 31273131.

123

442

M. DeBell

Clinton, W. J. (1995). Speech at the University of Texas, Austin, October 16, 1995. Cited in Horn and
Sylvester (2002).
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155159.
Coiro, M. J., Zill, N., & Bloom, B. (1994). Health of our nations children. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 10, No. 191.
Cooksey, E. C., & Fondell, M. M. (1996). Spending time with his kids: effects of family structure on fathers
and childrens lives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 693707.
Dawson, D. A. (1991). Family structure and childrens health and well-being: data from the 1998 National
Health Interview Survey. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(4), 573574.
DeLeire, T., & Kalil, A. (2002). Good things come in threes: single-parent multi-generational family
structure and adolescent adjustment. Demography, 39, 393413.
Downey, D. B., Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W., & Dufur, M. (1998). Sex of parent and childrens well-being in
single-parent households. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 878893.
Downey, D. B., & Powell, B. (1993). Do children in single-parent households fare better living with samesex parents? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 5571.
Duncan, G., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds.). (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Sage.
Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1995). A parents economic shadow: family structure versus family
resources as influences on early school achievement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 399
409.
Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1996). Family type and childrens growth in reading and math over the
primary grades. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 341355.
Flewelling, R. L., & Bauman, K. E. (1990). Family structure as predictor of initial substance use and sexual
intercourse in early adolescence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 171181.
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parentsinvolvement in children schooling: a multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65(1), 237252.
Hagedorn, M., Montaquila, J., Vaden-Kiernan, N., Kim, K., & Chapman, C. (2004). National Household
Education Surveys Program of 2003: data file users manual (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2004-101.
Horn, W., & Bush, A. (2003). Fathers, marriage, and the next phase of welfare reform. Acton Institute Policy
Forum, 3, retrieved May 15, 2006, from http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/forum/no3_full.html.
Horn, W., & Sylvester, T. (2002). Father facts (4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: National Fatherhood Initiative.
Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: a prospective analysis of marital stability
and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 2740.
Lee, S. (1993). Family structure effects on student outcomes. In B. Schneider, & J. S. Coleman (Eds.),
Parents, their children, and schools (pp. 4375). Boulder: Westview Press.
Lowry, R. (2005). Father is the best. National Review, June 17. Avaliable at http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200506170745.asp
Luster, T., & McAdoo, H. P. (1994). Factors related to achievement and adjustment of young AfricanAmerican children. Child Development, 65, 10801094.
Manning, W. D., & Lamb, K. A. (2003). Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married, and single-parent
families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 876893.
McLanahan, S. S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: what hurts, what helps?
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
National Center for Fathering. (1999). Fathering in America [Poll]. Kansas City, MO: Author.
Nord, C. W., Brimhall, D., & West, J. (1997). Fathers involvement in their childrens schools. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 98091.
Nord, C. W., & West, J. (2001). Fathers and mothers involvement in their childrens schools by family
type and resident status. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, NCES 2001032.
Pong, S., Dronkers, J., & Hampden-Thompson, G. (2003). Family policies and childrens school achievement in single- versus two-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 681699.
Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father. New York: Free Press.
Powell, B., & Downey, D. B. (1997). Living in single-parent households: the case of the same-sex
hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 62, 521539.
Reichman, N. E., Corman, H., & Noonan, K. (2003). Child health and parents relationship status.
Demography, 41(3), 569584.
Ricciuti, H. N. (2004). Single parenthood, achievement, and problem behavior in white, black, and Hispanic
children. Journal of Education Research, 97(4), 196206.

123

Children Living Without Their Fathers

443

Sigle-Rushton, W., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Father absence and child well-being: a critical review. In D.
Moynihan, L. Rainwater, & T. Smeeding (Eds.), The future of the family (pp. 116155). New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Smith, T. E. (1995). What a difference a measure makes: parental separation effect on school grades, not
academic achievement. Journal of Marriage and Divorce, 23, 151164.
Sorensen, E. (1997). A national profile of nonresident fathers and their ability to pay child support. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 59, 785797.
Sylvester, K, & Reich, K. (2002). Making fathers count. Washington, DC: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Thompson, E., McLanahan, S. S., & Curtin, R. B. (1992). Family structure, gender, and parental socialization. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52(4), 368378.
Tucker, C. J., Marx, J., & Long, L. (1998). Moving on: residential mobility and childrens school lives.
Sociology of Education, 71, 111129.
U.S. Department of Education (2003). National Center for Education Statistics, National Household
Education Surveys Program (NHES), NHES 200103 Electronic Codebook. Washington, DC: Author.
Zill, N. (1994). Understanding why children in stepfamilies have more learning, behavior problems than
children in nuclear families. In A. Booth, & J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies: who benefits? Who does not?
(pp. 97106). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Zill, N. (1996). Family change in student achievement: what we have learned, what it means for schools. In
A. Booth, & J. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: how do they affect educational outcomes?
(pp. 139174). Mahwah, NH: Earlbaum.

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.