1 / 40

Transmission of Socio-economic Inequalities Paul Gregg, Carol Propper and Liz Waskbrook

ALSPAC User Group. Transmission of Socio-economic Inequalities Paul Gregg, Carol Propper and Liz Waskbrook. Transmission of Socio-economic Inequalities.

kenton
Download Presentation

Transmission of Socio-economic Inequalities Paul Gregg, Carol Propper and Liz Waskbrook

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ALSPAC User Group Transmission of Socio-economic Inequalities Paul Gregg, Carol Propper and Liz Waskbrook

  2. Transmission of Socio-economic Inequalities • Growing evidence that children of poorer families suffer penalties not just in terms of schooling but also health and behaviour (e.g. Propper and Rigg CP105, CP 125). • How does low income translate into these poorer outcomes? • Do the mediating influences differ across outcomes?

  3. Overview • Aim: to compare and contrast the importance of different risk factors including income in accounting for the gaps between low and higher income children • Examine range of different middle childhood outcomes • IQ, School performance, locus of control, self esteem, behavioral problems, risk of obesity (age 9) • Use ALSPAC cohort (c 9000 children born in 1991/2 in Avon)

  4. Research questions Which aspects of the environments of low income children matter for each outcome? [Proximal factors] Which types of low income family do worst in fostering each outcome? [Distal factors] Are the adverse environments that matter related to particular family characteristics? Estimate a model which decomposes the association of income with these factors on the outcomes Unified model across range of outcomes and large set of distal and proximal factors

  5. Modelling framework θ Proximal factors (P) (e.g. parental psychological functioning, health behaviors, home learning environment, school choice) Distal factors or family characteristics (C) (e.g. household composition, parental education) Child outcome at age 7, 8 or 9 (O) (Ln) family income at age 3 & 4 (Y) γ α β λ π

  6. Proximal factors Factors that capture the environment, or lived experience, of the child and that vary with family income: • Parental psychological functioning: Anxiety/ depression, weighted life events, financial difficulties, parental relationship, frequency of smacking, social networks, locus of control • Preschool childcare: Type and intensity, between birth and age 3, between age 3 and school entry • Health at birth and health behaviours: Birth weight and gestation, parental smoking, breastfeeding, diet at age 3 • Home learning environment: Books and toys, maternal teaching, educational outings, mother’s and partner’s reading and singing with child • Physical home environment: Car ownership, garden, noise, crowding, damp/mould • School peer quality: Fixed effects

  7. Family characteristics Factors associated with income that independently influence the proximate environment of the child, but that do not impact on children directly (distal factors): • Family structure and life cycle: Single parenthood, siblings, mother’s age • Parental labour market status: Mother’s and partner’s employment and occupational class • Family education: Mother’s, partner’s and maternal grandparents’ qualifications • Local environment: Local deprivation, social (public) housing

  8. Decomposition I Proximal factors (P) (e.g. parental psychological functioning, health behaviors, home learning environment, school choice) Family characteristics (C) (e.g. household composition, parental education) Child outcome at age 7, 8 or 9 (O) (Ln) family income at age 3 & 4 (Y)

  9. Decomposition II Proximal factors (P) (e.g. parental psychological functioning, health behaviors, home learning environment, school choice) Family characteristics (C) (e.g. household composition, parental education) Child outcome at age 7, 8 or 9 (O) (Ln) family income at age 3 & 4 (Y)

  10. Decomposition III Proximal factors (P) (e.g. parental psychological functioning, health behaviors, home learning environment, school choice) Family characteristics (C) (e.g. household composition, parental education) Child outcome at age 7, 8 or 9 (O) (Ln) family income at age 3 & 4 (Y)

  11. The income gradient Child outcome at age 7, 8 or 9 (O) (Ln) family income at age 3 & 4 (Y) δ Oij = cons + δj Yi + eij for the jth outcome of the ith child

  12. The income gradient Low income children are cognitively, emotionally and physically disadvantaged compared with their better off counterparts Gradients steeper for cognitive than other outcomes Childs Locos of Control has an intermediate gradient

  13. p < 0.01 for all gradients Outcomes standardized to mean 100, SD 10. Coefficients on adverse outcomes reversed, such that higher scores = more favourable outcomes.

  14. Decomposition I Proximal factors (P) (e.g. parental psychological functioning, health behaviors, home learning environment, school choice) Family characteristics (C) (e.g. household composition, parental education) Child outcome at age 7, 8 or 9 (O) (Ln) family income at age 3 & 4 (Y)

  15. Table 1: Income, proximal factors and child outcomes Numbers are % of total income gradient. Stars relate to test of significance of underlying coefficient.

  16. Table 2: Income, health behaviors and child outcomes Numbers are % of total income gradient. Stars relate to test of significance of underlying coefficient.

  17. Table 3: Income, preschool childcare and child outcomes Numbers are % of total income gradient. Stars relate to test of significance of underlying coefficient.

  18. Table 4: Income, the physical home environment and child outcomes Numbers are % of total income gradient. Stars relate to test of significance of underlying coefficient.

  19. Decomposition II Proximal factors (P) (e.g. parental psychological functioning, health behaviors, home learning environment, school choice) Family characteristics (C) (e.g. household composition, parental education) Child outcome at age 7, 8 or 9 (O) (Ln) family income at age 3 & 4 (Y)

  20. Income, family education and child outcomes

  21. Decomposition III Proximal factors (P) (e.g. parental psychological functioning, health behaviors, home learning environment, school choice) Family characteristics (C) (e.g. household composition, parental education) Child outcome at age 7, 8 or 9 (O) (Ln) family income at age 3 & 4 (Y)

  22. Findings I Multiple aspects of the environments in which low income children are raised are associated differentially with poorer outcomes – no ‘magic bullet’ Lack of income is only one of a number of disadvantages faced by poor children. The association of low education of parents with outcomes for low income children is particularly important Observed proximal factors are more strongly associated with the income gaps in socio-emotional and health outcomes than in cognitive outcomes

  23. Findings II The role of non-home environments such as child care and schools in generating inequality is very minor compared with the family environment The psychological stresses associated with raising a child on a low income are important in generating greater behavioral problems among poor children, but are also associated with a higher risk of obesity and poorer scholastic outcomes Poorer health behaviors (smoking, diet fed to children) among low income parents are an important pathway through which poorer health, behaviour and scholastic outcomes are transmitted. Determinants of IQ and school performance are not the same: IQ deficits are explained more by parental education (proxying inherited ability?), while local neighbourhood matters more for academic outcomes (peer effects?)

  24. Findings III Not everything about higher income lifestyles is beneficial for children. Full time maternal employment/early child care are associated with poorer behavioural outcomes, car ownership and educationally-oriented home environments are associated with greater risk of obesity

  25. Additional slides

  26. Table 5: Income, family characteristics and child outcomes Numbers are % of total income gradient. Stars relate to test of significance of underlying coefficient.

  27. Table 6: Income, family structure and child outcomes Numbers are % of total income gradient. Stars relate to test of significance of underlying coefficient.

  28. Table 7: The residual income gradient, proximal factors and child outcomes Numbers are % of total income gradient. Stars relate to test of significance of underlying coefficient.

  29. Table 8: Income, family education, proximal factors and child outcomes Numbers are % of total income gradient. Stars relate to test of significance of underlying coefficient.

  30. Table 9: Income, the local environment, proximal factors and child outcomes Numbers are % of total income gradient. Stars relate to test of significance of underlying coefficient.

  31. Appendix

  32. Income, maternal psychological functioning and child outcomes

  33. Income, the home learning environment and child outcomes

  34. Income, parental labour market status and child outcomes

  35. Income, family education and child outcomes

  36. Income, local environment and child outcomes

  37. Income, family structure, proximal factors and child outcomes

  38. Income, parental labour market status, proximal factors and child outcomes

More Related