1 / 27

Nola du Toit Kate Bachtell Catherine Haggerty

Where Poor Children Live: Household Structure through the Eyes of Children. Nola du Toit Kate Bachtell Catherine Haggerty. Background. Household structure is important for child well-being Married two-parent families are best for child wellbeing = more resources, more stable

philip-moreno
Download Presentation

Nola du Toit Kate Bachtell Catherine Haggerty

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. Where Poor Children Live: Household Structure through the Eyes of Children Nola du Toit Kate Bachtell Catherine Haggerty

  2. Background • Household structure is important for child well-being • Married two-parent families are best for child wellbeing = more resources, more stable • Children in single parent and cohabiting homes do less well (Waldfogel et al 2010, Manning and Brown 2006, Amato 2005, McClanahan and Sandefur1994)

  3. Background • Most examine relationships of parents • Single, two-parent, married, cohabiting, step, etc… • What about other people in the home? • Grandparents, uncles, aunts, roommates, etc.

  4. Overall Research Agenda • Purpose of our research • Zoom in on low-income communities • Determine how many children live with other adults in the home • Who are other adults living with children? • Do they matter for child well-being?

  5. Data • Making Connections Survey • Annie E. Casey Foundation • Households in low-income neighborhoods • 10 US cities • 3 waves of data (7-8 years) • Baseline (2002-2004) • Wave 2 (2005-2007) • Wave 3 (2008-2011, 7 cities)

  6. Previous Findings • du Toit, Bachtell, and Haggerty (2011, 2012) • Among households with children (N=1,964), other adults are not uncommon 12% extended family 12% adult siblings 22% grandparent 6% non-related adult 10% no parent present

  7. Previous Findings (cont’d.) Other adults matter! Compared to two-parent-only households, children in our sample who live with other adults have significantly… • Less income per capita • More economic hardship

  8. Limitations to Previous Findings Limitation #1: Mixing others • Grandparents lumped in with extended and non-related roommates, boarders, etc. • Are there differences for children depending on the type of other adult?

  9. Limitations to Previous Findings Limitation #2: Only one or two waves of data • Defined household structure at one point in time • What if we look at presence of other adults over a longer period of time?

  10. Current Study: RQ1 How many children will ever live with ….? • Other adult? • Grandparent? • Extended family? • Non-related adult? • No parents? Covers longer time period • 3 waves of data, 6 years

  11. Current Study: RQ2 Do outcomes in child well-being vary by type of other adult? • Household income • Economic hardship E.g. Are there long-term effects of children ever living with grandparents compared to never living with grandparents? Are grandparents in household beneficial?

  12. Analytic Sample • Inclusion criteria: • Participated in all 3 waves • Reported relationship of each adult in home to focal child • Same focal child in all three waves • N=672

  13. Dependent Variables • Household income at Wave 3 • Log • Economic hardship at Wave 3 • 5 item scale (0 to 5) • No money for…. • Rent, food, phone, utilities, prescriptions

  14. Control Variables • Respondent race/ethnicity • Non-Hispanic White (contrast) • Non-Hispanic Black • Non-Hispanic Other • Hispanic • Respondent education • Less than HS • HS/GED (contrast) • BA+

  15. Control Variables • Number of adults • Number of children • Public assistance • Sum of 5 types of assistance • Public housing, section 8, food stamps, public assistance, and subsidized rent

  16. Analysis • Regression Models • Linear regression for each type of other adult • Controlled for race, education, number of adults, number of children, public assistance • Weighted to represent households with children in the neighborhoods as of wave 1

  17. Descriptive Results - IVs

  18. Descriptive Results - DVs

  19. How many will ever….? • Over 3 waves of data… • 48% will ever live with some other adult • 20% will ever live with grandparents • 28% will ever live with extended family adult • 12% will ever live with non-related adult • 14% will ever live without parent

  20. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

  21. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

  22. Findings • After controlling for race/ethnicity, education, household size, and public assistance…. • Ever living with extended family adults or without parents  lower household income than never living with extended or without parents • Ever living with extended family adults  lower mean economic hardship than never living with extended

  23. Extended Family Adults *p<0.05 (after controlling for other factors)

  24. Grandparents *p<0.05 (after controlling for other factors)

  25. Limitations • Sample size • Do not know if other adults are living with focal child or focal child is living with other adults • Lacking information about why other adults are present

  26. Conclusions • Many children live with adults who are not their parents • The presence of these other adults matter • Effect can be good, can be bad… • The absence of parents matters • Need more research on differences in types of adults • Economic and non-economic contributions

  27. Nola du Toit: dutoit-nola@norc.org Kate Bachtell: bachtell-kate@norc.org Catherine Haggerty: haggerty-cathy@norc.org

More Related