Research into the potential for child support from nonresident parents to reduce poverty has been hindered by a lack of nationally representative data on nonresident parents, about 85 percent of whom are fathers. One approach to overcoming this limitation has been to identify children in a nationally representative survey who have a nonresident father and request contact information from the child's custodian, but these efforts have not been particularly successful. Unfortunately, most custodians do not know or will not reveal the location of the nonresident parent. The latest survey to use this approach was the Child Development Supplement of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, which found only half of the children's nonresident parents.
A second approach to overcoming the lack of nationally representative survey data on nonresident fathers has been to impute the earnings of nonresident fathers based on the characteristics of custodial mothers (Garfinkel and Ollerich 1989). This method, however, uses the relationship between married fathers' earnings and their wives to characterize the relationship between nonresident fathers' earnings and the mothers of their children, an approach which could misrepresent this latter relationship. Furthermore, this approach cannot be used to assess other characteristics of nonresident fathers, such as their labor force attachment or poverty rate.
Our approach has been to use household surveys to identify nonresident fathers through self reports or indirectly based on information reported by men (Sorensen 1997). This approach also has difficulties. Since household surveys rarely ask men if they have minor children living elsewhere, we have to infer this status based on questions regarding fertility, child support payments, and marital history. Male fertility, a key ingredient in our identification process, tends to be underreported in household surveys. In addition, household surveys do not interview people who are incarcerated or military personal who serve overseas or live in barracks, thus they overlook particular subgroups of nonresident fathers. Finally, household surveys miss people who should be identified, a problem referred to as the undercount. Unfortunately, minority men in their twenties and thirties are among the most likely to be undercounted, a high percentage of whom are nonresident fathers.
In our earlier work (Sorensen 1997), we developed a method to overcome these shortcomings using the 1990 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). In our work described here, we have updated this methodology. The basic improvement is the use of information on providing health insurance to children living outside of the household to help identify nonresident fathers. Other changes are noted in the endnotes.
The basic steps for our methodology are: (1) to identify nonresident fathers; (2) to estimate the number of nonresident fathers who are missing from the SIPP; and (3) to develop new weights to apply to identified nonresident fathers in order to represent the total population of nonresident fathers.
[ Go to Contents ]
The SIPP asks men numerous questions about their income and program participation, and also asks them about their fertility, marital history, financial support payments to children outside of the home, and whether they provide health insurance for children outside of the home. We use this information to identify men who we think are likely to be nonresident fathers, whom we call potential nonresident fathers.
We begin by selecting men who are younger than 80 at the start of the survey and who are 18 or older in the wave in which the fertility questions are administered. We eliminate men who are 80 years old or older because it is highly unlikely that they have children under age 18.(1) (Only one father who paid child support under a child support order was in his seventies). We eliminate men under the age of 18 because they are not asked about their fertility.
We next restrict the sample of men to potential nonresident fathers. A man is considered a potential nonresident father if he has fathered more children than currently live with him or if he reports providing financial support or health insurance for a child under 21 who lives outside of the household.(2) Using these criteria, we identify 5,910 men who we consider to be potential nonresident fathers, representing 32.8 million men between the ages of 18 and 79 (table 1).
| Unweighted Number |
Weighted Number (thousands) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Men 18-79 years old | 15,352 | 89,413 |
| Potential Nonresident Fathers | 5,910 | 32,770 |
| Identified Nonresident Fathers | 1,285 | 7,994 |
| Source: Authors' analysis of the 1993 Survey of Income and Program Participation. | ||
Since we are primarily interested in fathers with minor children (rather than children under 21), we employ a series of screens to identify a subsample of these potential nonresident fathers who we are highly confident are nonresident fathers of minor children.
One group of potential nonresident fathers, however, is not screened. Those men who report that they provide financial support for a child living elsewhere as part of a child support order are automatically assumed to be nonresident fathers. On the other hand, if a potential nonresident father indicates that he is providing financial support for a child living elsewhere and those payments are not part of a child support order, then we apply the following screen--if he is currently married and has been married for 18 years or more, then he is not considered to be a nonresident father.
Two additional screens are applied to potential nonresident fathers who do not report providing financial support for their children. First, if a potential nonresident father's first marriage was too long ago for him to have children under 18 years old, then we assume he is not a nonresident father. Second, if the potential nonresident father has never been married and is older than 49 and has fathered one child (or is older than 51 and fathered two children, 53 and fathered 3 children, or 56 and fathered four or more children), then we assume he is not a nonresident father. These ages were derived from natality records from the 1985 Vital Statistics. We determined the age at which 80 percent of women had their first, second, third, and fourth (or higher) births. We then added three years to this age to determine the likely age of the father. We added 18 years to this age to determine the father's age when his children would have turned 18 years old.
Applying these screens yields 1,285 men whom we identify as nonresident fathers (table 1). Using the 1993 population weights supplied by the 1993 SIPP, we estimate that there were about 8 million fathers in 1993 who had children under 18 years old with whom they did not live.(3) The 1993 SIPP data show that there are about 10.2 million mothers with children under 18 years of age who have a father living elsewhere (table 2).(4) Thus, assuming an equal number of custodial mothers and nonresident fathers, we identify 78 percent of the nonresident father population using the SIPP.
|
Black (thousands) |
Nonblack (thousands) |
Total (thousands) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of Nonresident Fathers identified in the 1993 SIPP (1993 population weighted) |
1,775 | 6,219 | 7,994 |
|
Number of Custodial Mothers Identified in the 1993 SIPP (1993 population weighted) |
3,005 | 7,221 | 10,227 |
| Ratio of Fathers/Mothers | 59% | 86% | 78% |
| Deficit of Dads | 1,230 | 1,002 | 2,233 |
| Source: Authors' analysis of the 1993 Survey of Income and Program Participation. | |||
Black nonresident fathers are more likely to be underrepresented in the SIPP than are nonblack nonresident fathers. Only 59 percent of black nonresident fathers are identified, compared to 86 percent of nonblack nonresident fathers.(5)
[ Go to Contents ]
There are three basic reasons why nonresident fathers are underrepresented in the SIPP. First, the SIPP is a household survey that excludes the institutionalized population (most institutionalized nonresident fathers are incarcerated) and those residing in military barracks or serving in the military overseas. Second, the SIPP reflects the census undercount of certain populations, especially young African American males. Finally, some nonresident fathers are present in the SIPP but not identified as nonresident fathers because they underreport their fertility or are otherwise excluded from our sample through the screens used to identify nonresident fathers.
To estimate the number of nonresident fathers who are excluded from the SIPP as a result of institutionalization, the census undercount, or residence in military barracks or service in the military overseas, we first estimate the total number of men between the ages of 18 and 54 who are missing from the SIPP for these reasons. We choose an upper age of 54 because we expect that nearly all nonresident fathers absent from the SIPP for these reasons would be under the age of 55. We then estimate the percentage of men in each of these groups who are nonresident fathers.
We use the U.S. Census Bureau's 1993 population estimates (Hollman et al. 1998) of the total resident population, civilian population, civilian noninstitutionalized population, and resident population plus military overseas, in order to calculate the number of men aged 18 to 54 who are institutionalized or serving in the military.(6)
Our estimates of the number of men missing from the SIPP as a result of the census undercount are derived from estimates by J. Gregory Robinson et al. (1993) of the percentage of the total population undercounted in the 1990 census. All of the above calculations are performed separately for blacks and nonblacks by five-year age groups.
Once we have estimated the number of men ages 18 to 54 who are excluded from the SIPP for each of the above reasons, we must estimate the percentage of these men who are nonresident fathers. We use data from the Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1991 to estimate the percentage of institutionalized men who are nonresident fathers. In that year, 61 percent of black prison inmates and 52 percent of nonblack prison inmates reported that they had children under 18.
Since there are no data on the fatherhood characteristics of the undercounted population, we assume that they are similar to those of unmarried incarcerated men. According to the 1991 prison inmate survey, 49 percent of unmarried blacks and 36 percent of unmarried nonblacks reported being the father of a child under 18.
We assume that the percentage of excluded military men who are nonresident fathers is the same as the percentage of men ages 18 to 54 in the SIPP who we identify as nonresident fathers. According to our tabulations, 23 percent of black and 10 percent of nonblack men between 18 and 54 are nonresident fathers. We then apply these percentages to the number of men between 18 and 54 who are excluded from the SIPP as a result of residing in military barracks or serving in the military overseas.
Using these procedures, we estimate that 438,000 black and 445,000 nonblack nonresident fathers are excluded from the SIPP as a result of the census undercount (table 3). Another 319,000 black and 287,000 nonblack nonresident fathers are missing as a result of institutionalization. About 38,000 black and 18,000 nonblack nonresident fathers are missing as a result of residing in military barracks or serving in the military overseas. We assume that the remaining 434,000 black and 252,000 nonblack nonresident fathers not identified in the SIPP are actually within the sampling frame of the SIPP but their fertility is underreported or they are otherwise not captured by our decision rules regarding who is a nonresident father.
| Black | Nonblack | |
|---|---|---|
| Men Aged 18-54 in July 1993, including the military overseas | 9,272 | 62,937 |
| Number Present in month 1 of the 1993 SIPP | 7,685 | 60,969 |
| Number Missing from the SIPP | 1,587 | 1,968 |
| Number who are Institutionalized | 525 | 548 |
| % Assumed to be Nonresident Fathers | 61% | 52% |
| Number Assumed to be Nonresident Fathers | 319 | 287 |
| Number who are in Military Barracks/Overseas | 168 | 184 |
| % Assumed to be Nonresident Fathers | 23% | 10% |
| Number Assumed to be Nonresident Fathers | 38 | 18 |
| Number Undercounted | 894 | 1,236 |
| % Assumed to be Nonresident Fathers | 49% | 36% |
| Number Assumed to be Nonresident Fathers | 438 | 445 |
| Deficit of Nonresident Fathers | 1,230 | 1,002 |
| Total who are Institutionalized, Undercounted, or in Military Barracks/Overseas | 795 | 750 |
| Interviewed in the SIPP, but not identifiable as nonresident fathers (residual) | 434 | 252 |
| Source: Authors' tabulations of data from the following sources: 1993 SIPP; U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin; Robinson, J. Gregory et al. "Estimation of Population Coverage in the 1990 United States Census Based on Demographic Analysis"; and the 1991 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice. | ||
[ Go to Contents ]
Once we have identified why nonresident fathers are underrepresented in the SIPP, we then make assumptions about the characteristics of the missing fathers in order to reweight the nonresident fathers identified in the SIPP. We expect the reweighted data to provide a more realistic description of the entire population of nonresident fathers.
We assume that all of the nonresident fathers not identified in the SIPP are between the ages of 18 and 54. Undercounted nonresident fathers are assumed to resemble nonresident fathers who are "impoverished," meaning that they have family income below the official poverty threshold based on family size, and/or have personal income below the poverty threshold for a single individual. We make this assumption because ethnographic research shows that the undercounted tend to be exceedingly poor relative to the counted (de la Puente 1993). Undercounted nonresident fathers are allocated into payers (those who pay at least some child support during the year) and nonpayers in the same proportion as impoverished civilian nonresident fathers identified in the SIPP. Institutionalized nonresident fathers are assumed to resemble nonresident fathers who are impoverished and do not pay child support, except that they have no income and do not work.(7) We assume that nonresident fathers who reside in military barracks or are serving in the military overseas resemble the military nonresident fathers present in the SIPP, and allocate them into payers and nonpayers accordingly.
Taking the assumptions about the undercounted, institutionalized, and military into account, we then estimate the percentage of fathers who are present but not identified in the SIPP who must be paying child support in order for the percentage of nonresident fathers paying child support to match the percentage of custodial mothers receiving child support.(8) Using this percentage, we calculate the number who must be assigned to resemble payers and the number who must be assigned to resemble nonpayers. We then allocate the payers and nonpayers into impoverished and unimpoverished payers and nonpayers, based on the percentages of identified SIPP black and nonblack payers and nonpayers who are impoverished (table 4).
| Black | Nonblack | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Identified Nonresident Fathers | 1,775 | 6,219 | |
| A. |
Percent of Payers who are Impoverished* |
12.9% | 7.0% |
| B. |
Percent of Nonpayers who are Impoverished |
40.9% | 24.9% |
|
Nonresident Fathers Present but not Identified |
434 | 252 | |
| C. |
Percent Required to be Payers** |
70.5% | 100% |
|
Percent to be Impoverished Payers (C * A) |
9.1% | 7.0% | |
|
Percent to be Nonimpoverished Payers (C * (1-A)) |
61.4% | 93.0% | |
| D. |
Percent required to be Nonpayers* |
29.5% | 0% |
|
Percent to be Impoverished Nonpayers (D * B) |
12.0% | 0% | |
|
Percent to be Nonimpoverished Nonpayers (D * (1-B)) |
17.5% | 0% | |
|
* "Impoverished" is defined as having family income below the
official poverty threshold based on family size, and/or having personal income
below the poverty threshold for a single individual.
** Percentage of nonresident fathers present but not identified who must be payers/nonpayers if the overall percentage of nonresident fathers paying child support is to be the same as the percentage of custodial mothers receiving child support. Source: Authors' analysis of the 1993 Survey of Income and Program Participation. |
|||
Table 5 presents the multiplicative adjustments to the nonresident father weights on the SIPP used in reweighting the data. Since we must change the work status and income variables of impoverished nonpaying nonresident fathers for the purpose of representing the institutionalized, we "clone" the records of impoverished nonpayers, and set the income and work variables to zero. Since there are fewer institutionalized fathers than identified impoverished nonpayers, the adjustments to the weights are less than one. The adjustment to the weights for nonblack military men is also less than one, since it appears that too many men in the SIPP report serving in the military. No adjustment is made to the weights of fathers age 55 or older. The remaining adjustments range from 1.01 for unimpoverished, nonblack, nonpayers to 2.379 for impoverished black payers.
| Black | Nonblack | |
|---|---|---|
| Civilian Nonresident Fathers Under Age 55 | ||
|
Impoverished* Payers |
2.3790 | 1.5583 |
|
Impoverished Nonpayers |
1.9567 | 1.4810 |
|
Non-impoverished Payers |
1.5248 | 1.0942 |
|
Non-impoverished Nonpayers |
1.1247 | 1.0130 |
| Military Nonresident Fathers** | 1.4742 | .6658 |
| Institutionalized Nonresident Fathers*** | .7191 | .4022 |
| Nonresident Fathers Aged 55 and Over | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
|
* "Impoverished" is defined as having family income below the official
poverty threshold based on family size, and/or having personal income below
the poverty threshold for a single individual.
** In comparing SIPP counts of men in the military to Census data, we found too many SIPP men reporting membership in the armed forces. The SIPP finds more non-black military men than actually exist in the entire military, including barracks and overseas. The number of black military men in the SIPP exceeds the number not in barracks or overseas, but is less than the total in the armed forces. The adjusted weights correct for this. *** Since the institutionalized are excluded from the SIPP, we must create dummy records for them. To do this, we duplicate the records of impoverished nonpayers, but set to zero their financial and work data. The institutionalized weight adjustments are then applied to the copied records, and the impoverished nonpayer weight adjustments are applied to the original set of records. Source: Authors' analysis of the 1993 Survey of Income and Program Participation. |
||
1. Our previous methodology limited men to 64 and under. But since there was a father in his seventies that reported that he provided child support through an order in 1993, we decided to increase this age cutoff to 80.
2. Our previous methodology had not taken into account whether a father reported that he had provided health insurance for his minor children living outside of the household. Given that the primary aim of this research project was to examine nonresident fathers' ability to provide health insurance, this was an obvious improvement in our prior methodology.
3. Our previous methodology restricted the sample of noncustodial fathers to those who were present throughout the entire duration of the SIPP, and used the corresponding population weight. This analysis restricts the sample to noncustodial fathers present in all of the first three waves of the SIPP, and uses the 1993 population weight.
4. We deleted those custodial mothers who reported that they had joint custody arrangements since we were attempting to identify mothers with children who had a nonresident father.
5. Although these figures may sound low, they are better than those found by Garfinkel and his colleagues using the National Survey of Families and Households (Garfinkel, McLanahan, Meyer, and Seltzer 1998). They found only 43 black fathers for every 100 black mothers and 70 nonblack fathers for every 100 nonblack mothers.
6. The SIPP includes military personnel as long as their usual residence is a household, but if they reside in military barracks or are residing overseas, they are not included in the SIPP. To calculate the percentage of military men living in barracks in 1990, we use data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the U.S. Department of Defense. We then apply this percentage to 1993 population estimates of the number of military men residing in the United States in order to obtain an estimate of the number of men residing in military barracks. Military personnel living overseas is provided by the U.S. Census. This method represents an improvement over our original method of identifying the military.
7. Our earlier methodology had assumed that the institutionalized had earnings and income similar to impoverished, nonpaying fathers in the SIPP.
8. This step was not performed in the earlier method.
Top of Page
Contents of Chapter
Contents of Report
Home Pages:
HHS Fatherhood Initiative
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)
Last updated: 02/20/01