Notes on The Means to and Meaning of 'Being There' in Responsible Fatherhood Programming

Objective

Understand how low-income men’s views of paternal responsibility shape engagement with fatherhood program messages and services.

Background and Theoretical Framework

Fathering is shaped by social and symbolic contexts; programs influence how men construct and enact fatherhood scripts.
A situated understanding of fatherhood emphasizes how physical, social, and symbolic spaces shape scripts and behaviors.
Ecological theory and identity theory: contextual factors (education, employment, race, poverty) influence paternal identity and involvement; provision includes money and care, not just financial support.
Federal framing: responsible fathering includes establishing paternity, coparenting, and financially and emotionally supporting children.
Prior research shows programs can help shape positive paternal identities but must address structural barriers (economic opportunities, racism, stigma).

Methods

Design: qualitative study using in-depth interviews and focus groups.
Sample: $64$ primarily Black and Latino low-income fathers enrolled in a federally funded responsible fatherhood program (pseudonym: DADS).
Data collection: interviews (n= $50$ ) and focus groups (n= $21$ ) across four sites; programs included high school completion, vocational training, and parenting classes.
Analysis: inductive coding with grounded theory; three coding categories: paternal identity, paternal involvement, and program elements; axial coding to compare themes; analytic memos for integration.

Participants

Ages: $18–44$ (mean $= 26$ ).
Race/ethnicity: $32$ Black, $23$ Hispanic/Latino, $8$ multiracial, $1$ Native American.
Education: $47$ without a high school diploma; $44$ employed, $20$ unemployed; $44$ pursuing high school diploma at WEP.
Family: most had 1–3 children; some lived part-time with all or some children; $31$ did not reside with any children at time of research.
Enrollment: participants enrolled through WEP (primary site) or other program sites; rolling enrollment with varied durations (mean around $6$ months in program).

Data Collection

Interviews and focus groups conducted in private rooms; durations $60–90$ minutes.
Incentives: $25 per interview/focus group participant; seven participants did both interview and focus group with double compensation.
Safeguards: informed consent, confidentiality of responses, but researcher acknowledged potential social desirability bias and positionality (White, middle-class woman; pregnant during data collection).

Data Analysis

Grounded theory approach with three stages:
- Open coding to develop themes (e.g., “being there,” experiences with services).
- Axial coding to compare references across transcripts and identify major themes.
- Analytic memos to document integration of codes and concepts.
Sample and data used to assess prevalence of themes (e.g., whether participants used “being there”).

Findings

Use of “being there”: $38/50$ interviewees (76%) used phrases like “being there” to define responsible fatherhood; others used “being around” or “showing up.”
DADS as a situated space: program validated diverse meanings of paternal involvement and provided means to realize involvement goals; criticisms centered on desire for more/longer-term opportunities.
Why men enrolled (primary motivator): balance of work and schooling; emphasis on obtaining legal employment to support involvement and deter criminal activity.
- Example incentives: vocational training enabling earnings of $200–$ 600 $per month, enabling safer engagement with children.</li><li>Key quotes reflect priority on diplomas and stable work to support families.</li></ul></li><li>Reconstructing the provider role: breadwinning plus care framework.<ul><li>Breadwinning redefined to include money, time, and caregiving; program reinforced that being there means both financial support and emotional presence.</li><li>Fathers described learning childcare, coparenting, discipline, and communication to support their children.</li></ul></li><li>Challenging the deadbeat dad label: DADS helped counter stereotypes by providing structure, resources, and respected status as parents and workers.<ul><li>Free father–child activities, on-site gardens, and support services reduced stigma and facilitated contact with children.</li><li>Financial provisions (e.g., diapers, formula, transportation support) aided ongoing involvement.</li></ul></li><li>Ongoing obstacles: structural constraints limit long-term impact.<ul><li>Some participants felt work and school opportunities were not fully realized; scheduling conflicts and low wages remained challenges.</li><li>For many, the$ 200–$$600 monthly wages were not enough to fully support families, prompting strategies such as second jobs or temporary housing changes.
- Despite shortcomings, many viewed DADS as preferable to riskier/illegal income sources and as a pathway to a more stable provider identity.

Discussion

DADS demonstrates that a comprehensive program (work, school, parenting education) can nurture a positive, flexible “breadwinning-plus” fathering script among marginalized men.
Findings align with ecological and identity theories: paternal involvement is shaped by context; programs should create opportunity structures rather than try to reshape identities in isolation.
Emphasizing time and care as central components of provision helps reframe the provider role beyond monetary support.
Limitations of fatherhood programs in isolation: persistent structural inequalities require broader policy changes (education access, living wages, fair child support policies, and fair criminal justice approaches).

Implications

Implication 1: Commitment to fathering motivates participation; ecological context matters more than solely motivation or knowledge.
Implication 2: School and work opportunities are crucial; wage gains help reduce stigma and support sustained involvement.
Implication 3: Programs should be replicated with a similar integrative model, but must be accompanied by broader policies (quality education, living wages, fair criminal justice, supportive child-support options) to sustain impact.
Implication 4: Move away from deficit framing of low-income fathers; design programs that acknowledge and address structural barriers.

Limitations

Nonrandom, single-program sample limits generalizability; findings may transfer to similar programs but not all contexts.
Cross-sectional, retrospective design cannot establish causality or measure long-term program effects.
Researcher positionality and potential social desirability bias may influence responses; limited observational data.

Conclusion

A comprehensive, situated fatherhood program can enable marginalized men to actively construct and enact responsible fatherhood identities by providing resources for financial provisioning and caregiving.
The “breadwinning-plus” script, supported by social resources and practical incentives, helps men demonstrate responsible parenting despite economic and structural constraints.
Long-term impact likely depends on broader policy improvements that increase educational attainment, employment opportunities, and stable supports for families.