Exploring the Role of Childhood Adversity In a Responsible Fatherhood Program: A Mixed Methods Study

Background and Purpose: Responsible fatherhood programs focus on improving father-child bonds and relationships with co-parents. Childhood adversity, including exposure to household and/or community violence and experiences of abuse and/or neglect, is associated with negative outcomes in adulthood. Parents with a history of childhood adversity are more likely to use authoritarian parenting practices, be less emotionally available, have harsh parenting attitudes, engage in parent-to-child aggression, and perpetrate child maltreatment. Examining fathers’ history of childhood adversity is important in addressing intergenerational adversity and improving outcomes for children. The current study explores the following research questions: (1) What types of childhood adversity did fathers experience in their homes and communities? (2) How did the fatherhood program affect their understanding of these experiences and their perception of their current fathering? (3) Was the level of childhood adversity associated with successful outcomes in the responsible fatherhood program?

Methods: This study used a qual-quant convergent design. Participants in a fatherhood program (N=607) completed questionnaires before and after a 6-week evidence-based curriculum. Spearman's rank correlations with FDR correction examined whether household and community violence exposure, measured via the Adverse Childhood Experiences questionnaire (ACE-Q) and Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ-R2), were associated with participant-reported outcomes at program completion. In-depth interviews with a subsample (n=31) explored childhood adversity, its perceived effects on parenting and relationships, and experiences in the fatherhood program. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically.

Results: The average ACEs score was 3.13 (range 0-10; SD: 2.57). Only 17.5% reported 0 ACEs, compared to 39% in a CDC national sample; 38% reported 4 or more ACEs, compared to 16% nationally. ACEs and JVQ scores were not significantly associated with most program outcomes. However, higher JVQ scores trended toward greater self-reported improvements in emotional and relational outcomes, including being a better father, improvement in co-parenting relationships, and being emotionally present for their children. Qualitative findings help contextualize these findings. Fathers described compounding adverse experiences in childhood with lasting effects on their parenting, the most common of which was difficulty regulating emotions, particularly anger. Skills learned in the program helped them navigate these challenges, including communicating more effectively with their children and co-parents, seeing situations from their children’s perspective, and regulating their emotions.

Conclusions: Fathers reported higher rates of adverse childhood experiences than the national average. Measures of childhood adversity were not significantly associated with program outcomes; however, the trend in higher scores in emotional/relational outcomes among fathers with childhood community violence exposure warrants further investigation. Qualitative interview data suggested that participation in the fatherhood program helped fathers better-understand how their own histories of childhood adversity affected their parenting and learn specific strategies to regulate their emotions and communicate with their children and co-parents. These findings suggest that responsible fatherhood programs have the potential to interrupt cycles of intergenerational adversity by targeting emotional regulation and empathy.