APPENDIX

The figures and tables contained in this appendix are referenced throughout the text. Table 1 and map 1 provide demographic data on Camden and on the study neighborhoods in Philadelphia. All were at least 20 percent poor in 2000, though the predominately nonwhite neighborhoods were much higher in poverty than the predominately white neighborhoods of Kensington, Fishtown, Port Richmond, Pennsport, and Whitman.

Table 2 corresponds to the discussion of reactions to pregnancy in chapter 2, while table 3 reports the level of intentionality associated with each pregnancy, also discussed in that chapter. Though ours is a relatively small, nonrepresentative sample, we compare the figures for African Americans to those of whites and find little difference in how black and white men reacted to the news of a pregnancy. We see some differences by race in the degree to which men say the pregnancy was planned, with whites showing somewhat higher levels of intentionality; black men are more likely to say they conceived when they were “just not thinking,” while white men were more likely to say a pregnancy was “semiplanned.” But there are no large differences in degree to which pregnancies are characterized as “planned” or “accidental.” Also following the discussion in chapter 2, table 4 shows that while there is a strong positive relationship between pregnancy intentionality and the relative enthusiasm of men’s response for the sample as a whole and for blacks and whites alike, the correspondence is far from perfect. In particular, happy or accepting responses are the modal response category for all levels of intentionality except those actively avoiding pregnancy at the time (those in the “accidental” category). However, blacks who say they conceived when they were “just not thinking” were less happy about the news of pregnancy than whites who were “just not thinking.”

Table 5 lists all sources of strain fathers cited in their relationships with their children’s mothers, complementing the discussion in chapter 3. We find some quite striking differences by race in this regard. In particular, father’s drug use, severe conflict, and—to a lesser degree—domestic violence, pressure from the mother’s kin, and mental health issues are more common among whites. African Americans are somewhat more prone than whites to say their relationships were strained because they were not in love. The reader should keep in mind that these figures do not represent the incidence of these factors per se. Rather, they are included only if they are named as sources of relationship strain. For example, Amin Jenkins’s exensive incarceration history didn’t pose any strain on his relationship with either of his children’s mothers because he was not in a relationship with either of them during the years he was in and out of prison or jail.

Table 6 complements the discussion in chapter 7 and compares the levels of involvement that fathers in our study report compared to mothers’ reports in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS), a nationally representative sample of urban births. We draw the FFCWS estimates from Edin, Tach, and Mincy (2009), who restrict the FFCWS sample to parents with black and white nonmarital births at each survey wave, conducted at the time of the birth, and when the children reached approximately one, three, and five years of age. Note that the two studies coded father involvement somewhat differently. We have arrayed the table as a continuum, from lowest to highest rates of involvement, as measured by the questions or coding scheme used.

There were also important demographic differences between our sample and the FFCWS. First, all our fathers had earned less in the formal economy in the prior six months (we didn’t count informal wages in our selection criteria) than the poverty threshold for a family of four and lived in neighborhoods of at least moderate poverty, whereas FFCWS had no income cutoff or neighborhood criteria. Second, and relatedly, our respondents were somewhat less likely to live with their noncustodial children than fathers in FFCWS, especially our white respondents. Since our sampling scheme excluded a far greater range of white noncustodial fathers than their black counterparts (who are more likely to earn low wages and live in higher-poverty neighborhoods), these differences probably account for the lower involvement rates of our whites compared to white respondents in FFCWS. The reader should also note that father involvement among blacks in our study is consistently higher than that in the FFCWS, suggesting that our sampling method produced somewhat more highly involved black fathers than one would find in the general population of black men with nonmarital births living in cities.

Table 7 documents barriers to father involvement, as discussed in chapter 6, and finds no large race differences in fathers’ reports. Tables 8 and 9 summarize Lerman and Sorensen’s work, discussed in chapter 7, on “maximum involvement” among men at various ages who have ever had a nonmarital birth. Table 8 reproduces work by Robert Lerman and Elaine Sorensen, drawn from the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth for men as they reach various ages, and table 9 contains revised estimates of maximum father involvement using these same data but excluding men married at the time of interview. Since none of the men in our sample were married and living with a spouse (i.e., not separated) at the time we interviewed them, these estimates are more consistent with what one might expect of men like those we interviewed. Limiting the sample in this way yields a somewhat lower estimate of maximum father involvement.

TABLE 1 Demographic characteristics of Camden, New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and study neighborhoods within Philadelphia

Map 1 Poverty Concentration in Philadelphia, PA, and Camden, NJ, 2000

TABLE 2 Reactions to pregnancy (%) for each live birth reported by 110 Philadelphia/Camden fathers (N = 205)

TABLE 3 Level of pregnancy intentionality (%) for each live birth reported by 110 Philadelphia/Camden fathers (N = 205)

TABLE 4 Level of pregnancy intentionality (%) by reaction to pregnancy for each pregnancy reported by 110 Philadelphia/Camden fathers (N = 205)

TABLE 5 Relationship strains preceding breakup for any partner with whom a father shares a child

TABLE 6 Father involvement by race and age of child, Philadelphia/Camden births (N = 218) and the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (N = 1484)

TABLE 7 Barriers to father involvement for fathers with at least one barrier

TABLE 8 Maximum involvement of a father with any child born outside of marriage by father’s age (%)

TABLE 9 Maximum involvement of a father with any child born outside of marriage, who did not subsequently marry (%)