Nola du Toit Kate Bachtell Cathy Haggerty
description
Transcript of Nola du Toit Kate Bachtell Cathy Haggerty
Nola du Toit
Kate Bachtell
Cathy Haggerty
Coming and Going: The Effect of Household Composition on the Economic Wellbeing of Families and Children
2
Current Literature
• Household structure and wellbeing of children• Economic measures (poverty, material hardship)
• Family structure matters for child wellbeing• Single v. cohabiting v. married
• Instability matters for child wellbeing• Union formation or dissolution
• Focus on parents• Anyone missing?
3
Example: Erin
4
Research Questions
• Are there different types of household composition beyond the traditional?
• Do complex household compositions matter?
• Is there change in these complex household compositions over time?
• Does this change matter?
• Are some households more affected by change than others?
5
Data
• Making Connections survey
• Annie E. Casey Foundation
• Community initiatives
• 10 sites
• Low income households
• Longitudinal
• Baseline 2002-2004
• Wave 2 2005-2007
• Wave 3 2008-2011
6
Data
• Information on variety of topics• People in household, age, gender, employment• Relationships to one another• Children • Economic wellbeing
• Roster matching across waves• People coming and going in households
• Waves 2 and 3 for 6 sites
• Focus on households with children at Wave 2 (n=1964)
7
Focus Variable:Household Type
• Relationship of adult (18+) to focus child + number of adults
• Single parents
• Two parents
• Parent/grandparent only
• Parent/any combination
• Non-parent households
8
Dependent Variables:Economic Measures
• Income Per Capita• Household income/number of people in household
(log)
• Public Assistance Usage (none/any)• Food stamps, rent subsidies, section 8, public housing
• Economic hardship (none/any)• No money for food, not pay rent, phone cut off, not fill
prescriptions
• Home Ownership (not own/own)• Owned by someone in household
9
Dependent Variables:Instability
• Change in household type
• e.g. Two parent -> parent/grandparent only
• Decrease in income per capita
• Same or less than at Wave 2
• Increase in public assistance usage
• Increase in economic hardship
• Decrease in home ownership
10
Controls
• Income per capita
• Public assistance
• Average age of adults
• All female household
• Race (proxy)
• Hispanic
• At least one employed adult
11
Findings
• Are there different types of household composition beyond the traditional?
• Do complex household compositions matter?
• Is there change in these complex household compositions over time?
• Does this change matter?
• Are some households more affected by change than others?
12
Findings
• Are there different types of household composition beyond the traditional? YES!
• Do complex household compositions matter? YES!
• Is there change in these complex household compositions over time? YES!
• Does this change matter? YES!
• Are some households more affected by change than others? YES!
13In “Header and Footer”, Insert Presentation Title and Any Confidentiality Information
TYPES OF RELATIONSHIP OF ADULTS TO CHILDREN
UNWEIGHTED N
WEIGHTED %
Total 1964 100%
Husband/wife 1 <1%
Parent 1800 90%
Extended family 194 12%
Sibling 212 12%
Grandparent 333 22%
Non-related 119 6%
Are there types of composition beyond the traditional?
14
Unweighted Frequency
Weighted Percentage
1964 100
535 21
652 34
166 10
447 25
164 10
Types of Household
Total
Single parent only
Non-parent households
Two parents only
Parent and grandparent only
Parent and any other combination
Are there types of composition beyond the traditional?
15
Do complex households matter? Economic Measures
ECONOMIC MEASURES
Unweighted n 535 652 166 447 164Income per capita
Mean $5,582.38 $8,332.75 $5,826.98 $6,228.48 $5,842.24Std dev $24,155.99 $32,191.50 $30,210.04 $29,364.12 $21,863.27Median $3,500.00 $6,428.57 $3,750.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Income per capita (log) Mean 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.0 8.4
Std dev 4.5 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.0Median 8.2 8.8 8.2 8.5 8.5
Public assistance % no assistance 29 71 41 55 48
% one or more assistance 71 29 59 45 52Economic hardship
% no economic hardship 35 50 39 42 45% one or more hardship 65 50 61 58 55
Home ownership% not own home 83 52 40 51 48
% own home 17 48 60 49 52
Single parent only
Two parents only
Parent/ grandparent
only
Parent/any other combi-
nation
Non-parent households
16
Is there change over time in complex households?
% EXPERIENCED CHANGE IN COMPOSITION BETWEEN WAVES
Household composition at Wave 2
Total (1964) (535) (652) (166) (447) (164)
50 38 39 63*** 58*** 83***
Single parent only
Two parents only (ref)
Parent/ grandparent
only
Parent/any other combi-
nationNon-parent households
17
Does change matter? Decrease in income per capita
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Intercept -0.12** -0.92*** -0.34*** 1.27*** -0.31*** 1.70*** -0.19*** 1.57*** 0.59 1.31***
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0.41*** 0.40*** 0.22*** 0.29*** 0.18* 0.05 -0.27*** -0.23*** -0.36 -0.26*
-2 log likelihood 9609.8 9089.2 14535.9 14044.1 4111.1 3517.7 10603.3 9967.1 4128.9 3603.3df 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9Model 2 includes control variables
DECREASE IN INCOME PER CAPITA (log)
Single parent only (535)
Two parents only (652)
Parent and grand-parent
only (166)
Parent and any other
combination (447)
Non-parent households (164)
No change in composition (ref)
Change in composition
p<0.05, **p<0.01, p<0.001
18
Findings
• Many more types of households than accounted for in current research
• Many people coming and going
• Mixed results – no pattern
• 10% are non-parent households
• Introduction of another adult for single parent households is not a good idea
• Need more research on non-traditional households
19
Limitations
• Data not representative of nation's poor
• No higher income cases
• Missing a lot of variation within groups
• Expand control groups
• Interaction effects
20
Conclusions
• Look at big picture, not just parents
• Need more research
Thank You!
Nola du Toit: [email protected]
Kate Bachtell: [email protected]
Cathy Haggerty: [email protected]
Insert Presentation Title and Any Confidentiality Information