Housing Composition
and Child Wellbeing:
Constructing Narratives
to Inform a Research
Agenda
Catherine Haggerty
Kate Bachtell
Nola du Toit
Ned English
Introduction to Session
• Long, ongoing process of discovery
• Using Making Connections Survey data
• Research interests
• Low income families
• Child wellbeing
2
Introduction to Session
• Outline of Session
• Overview of Making Connections Survey
• Brief presentation of previous findings
• Discuss current project
• Explore future research ideas
3
Making Connections Survey
• Annie E. Casey Foundation
• Evaluation of community initiatives
• Low income households
• 10 sites
• Longitudinal
• Baseline  2002-2004
• Wave 2  2005-2007
• Wave 3  2008-2011
4
Making Connections Survey
• Information on variety of topics
• People in household, age, gender, employment
• Relationships to respondent and focal child
• Children
• Economic wellbeing
• Services and amenities
• Family hardship
• Neighborhood connections
• Linking individuals over time
5
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
6
Problems with Current
Research
• Focus on parents and relationships of parents
• Ignores diversity of different family types
• Especially among low income households
• Does not depict reality of children’s lives
• Changes in household occupants; multitude of
people coming and going
7
Example: Household 1
WAVE 1
WAVE 2
Example: Household 1
WAVE 1
WAVE 2
9
Our Previous Research
Coming and Going: The Effect of Household
Composition on the Economic Wellbeing of
Families and Children
10
Previous Research: 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?
11
Previous Research Focus
Variable: Household Type
• Relationship of adult (18+) to focus child
• Typology
• Single parents
• Two parents
• Parent and grandparent only
• Parent and any combination
• Non-parent households
12
Previous Research 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
13
Previous Research Dependent
Variables: Instability
• Change in household type
• e.g. Two parent -> parent and 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
14
Previous Research:
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?
15
Previous Research:
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!
16
Previous Research:
Findings
TYPES OF RELATIONSHIP OF
ADULTS TO CHILDREN
UNWEIGHTED
FREQUENCY
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%
17
Previous Research:
Findings
TYPES OF HOUSEHOLDS AT
WAVE 2
UNWEIGHTED
FREQUENCY
WEIGHTED %
Total
1964
100%
Single parents only
535
21%
Two parents only
652
34%
Parent and grandparent only
166
10%
Parent and any other combination
447
25%
Non-parent households
164
10%
18
Previous Research:
Findings
ECONOMIC MEASURES
Unweighted n
Income per capita
Mean
Std dev
Median
Income per capita (log)
Mean
Std dev
Median
Public assistance
% no assistance
% one or more assistance
Economic hardship
% no economic hardship
% one or more hardship
Home ownership
% not own home
% own home
Single parent
only
535
Parent/
Parent/any
Non-parent
grandparent other combihouseholds
only
nation
652
166
447
164
Two parents
only
$5,582.38
$24,155.99
$3,500.00
$8,332.75
$32,191.50
$6,428.57
$5,826.98
$30,210.04
$3,750.00
$6,228.48
$29,364.12
$5,000.00
$5,842.24
$21,863.27
$5,000.00
8.2
4.5
8.2
8.7
4.5
8.8
8.3
4.8
8.2
8.0
4.8
8.5
8.4
4.0
8.5
29
71
71
29
41
59
55
45
48
52
35
65
50
50
39
61
42
58
45
55
83
17
52
48
40
60
51
49
48
52
19
Previous Research:
Findings
% EXPERIENCED CHANGE IN COMPOSITION BETWEEN WAVES
Household composition at Wave 2
Total
(1964)
50
Parent/
Parent/any
Single
Two parents grandparent other combi- Non-parent
parent only only (ref)
only
nation
households
(535)
(652)
(166)
(447)
(164)
38
39
63***
58***
83***
20
Previous Research:
Findings
DECREASE IN
INCOME PER
CAPITA (log)
Single parent Two parents only
only (535)
(652)
Parent and
grand-parent
only (166)
Parent and any
other
Non-parent
combination households (164)
(447)
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***
No change in
~
~
composition (ref)
Change in
0.41*** 0.40***
composition
-2 log likelihood 9609.8 9089.2
df
1
9
Model 2 includes control variables
p<0.05, **p<0.01, p<0.001
~
0.22***
~
~
~
0.29*** 0.18*
0.05
14535.9 14044.1 4111.1
1
9
1
~
~
0.59
1.31***
~
~
-0.27*** -0.23*** -0.36
-0.26*
3517.7 10603.3 9967.1
9
1
9
4128.9 3603.3
1
9
21
Summary of Previous
Research Findings
• Many more types of households than accounted
for in current research
• 10% are non-parent households
• Many people coming and going
• Mixed results – no pattern
• Introduction of another adult for single parent
households is not a good idea
• Need more research on non-traditional
households
22
Previous Research: Limitations
• Examined only economic measures
• Need in-depth look at different types of families
• Typologies of families too narrow
23
Our Current Research
Housing Composition and Child
Wellbeing: Constructing Narratives to
Inform a Research Agenda
24
Current Study
• Case studies of randomly selected households
• Provide in-depth understanding
• Acknowledge “messiness” of real lives
25
Research Questions
• What are the characteristics of these
households?
• How much instability is really present? What are
the moving parts?
• What is gained or lost by having additional people
in the home?
26
Data for this Research
• 3 waves of data
• 6 sites
• Household adult and child roster, linked personal
identifiers, household and child data
• Limited set of comments and open-ended
responses
• Iterative process
• Sample selection
•
•
•
•
Same respondent in all 3 waves
Same focal child in Waves 2 and 3
Determination of household type required
n=230
27
Selection for Narratives
• Typologies at Wave 2
1. Single parent
2. Two parent only (contrast group)
3. Extended family (vertical and horizontal)
4. Non-parent families
• Random sample of 15 for each typology
• Non-parent only had 15 cases
• n=60
28
Focus Area: Family Instability
• Family instability and disruption
• People coming and going
• Adults
• Children
• Relationships to the focal child
• Child welfare
• Anyone in home been in prison
29
Focus Area: Family Hardship
• Income and change in income
• Employment and ratio of employed adults to
number of people
• Economic hardship
• Trouble paying bills, no money for food,
delaying/not filling prescriptions, phone cut off
• Home ownership, renting, etc.
30
Focus Area: Public Assistance
• Public assistance
• Food stamps
• Housing
• Income from assistance
31
Focus Area: Social Integration
• Formal
•
Speak to religious leader, politician, or neighbors about
neighborhood problem; volunteer in community or serve on local
committee
• Informal
•
Attend local religious services or neighborhood get-togethers;
get non-financial help from friends/family in neighborhood
• Services and amenities
•
Use library, recreational center, counseling services, park,
community college
• Social network outside of neighborhood
•
Send remittances, get non-financial help from family and friends
outside neighborhood
32
Focus Area: Neighborhood
• Reasons for moving from past and to current
address
• Disorder
• Graffiti, drugs dealers, prostitution, litter, etc.
• Safety
• Neighborhood is good for raising children
• Feel safe at night, crime committed by outsiders,
etc.
• Social Cohesion
• Neighbors can be trusted, share same values,
willing to help others, etc.
33
Narrative Process: Why
By reducing individuals to a set of social
variables, “Social actors are treated as if
they had little or no individual history, no
feelings or ambivalences, no selfknowledge – in short, no individuality.”
Maynes et al (2008, 16)
34
Narrative Process: How
1. Examined data for each household over time
2. Developed worksheet
•
Focus on 7 areas of interest: family stability,
family disruption, social support, public
assistance, family hardship, family economics,
attitudes about neighborhood
3. Constructed narrative for each household
4. Reviewed narratives across household types
35
Worksheet
Insert Presentation Title and Any Confidentiality Information
36
21116090,
Des Moines, Hispanic (“South American”), U.S.-born, Penacostal
Narrative Example
This is a female-headed household that got bigger over time. In wave 1 we
found just the respondent, a single working mom, with one child, age 7. In
wave 2 the respondent had become a grandmother and her adult daughter, age
24, had moved in. Both were employed. A new focal child was selected in
wave 2, age 4, and that was the child of the adult daughter. The daughter also
had a 6-year-old living in the household. This meant that the respondent had
one child and two grandchildren living in the home. At wave 3 the children
stayed the same, but another adult daughter came to live with them. She was
27 and the aunt of the focus child, now age 7. All the children are boys.
The respondent has a GED. In wave 1 (when she was the only adult in the HH)
she indicated that she had been with her employer for 3 years and that
household income was between $10,000 and $14,999. She said that she did
not have a checking account because “I deal with cash.” In waves 2 and 3 the
household income stayed around $30,000 despite the addition of the two
working adult daughters. The family received food stamps in waves 1 and 2 but
not 3. They reported economic hardships in all three waves, with at least one
instance in three of the four categories (prescriptions, monthly bills, food).
37
Limitations
1. Not representative of “typical” low income
family in the U.S.
2. Relied mainly on fixed numerical data
3. Cannot answer “why” questions
4. Narratives are subjective
38
Managing Limitations
• Teamwork!
• Developed tools collaboratively
• Discussed findings (repeatedly)
• Forthcoming about holes in data
• Avoiding speculation
• Monitoring subjectivity
39
Findings: Two Parent Families
• Characteristics:
• Mostly non-Hispanic White or Black
• Two subgroups:
• No change in composition (9 out of 15)
• Change in composition (6 out of 15)
40
Findings: Two Parent Families
• No change (9 out of 15)
• Adults are consistently employed
• Know “most” of focal child’s friends
• Change (6 out of 15)
• 1 incoming grandparent, 2 outgoing husbands,
3 incoming misc. adults
• Incoming adults are employed
• Some know “most;” others know “some” of
focal child’s friends
41
Findings: Two Parent Families
• Common themes in HH with change:
• Only adults changed. Children are stable
• Most incoming adults are employed
• In all two parent families:
• No public assistance
• No economic hardship
• No more or less socially engaged
42
Findings: Single Parent
Families (cont’d.)
• Characteristics:
• All women
• Various racial/ethnic backgrounds and origins
• Four subgroups:
• Lost adults to become a single mom at W2 (4)
• Single mom at W1 and W2, but gained adults in
W3 (2)
• Changes in all waves (1)
• No changes in household structure - single in all
waves (8)
43
Findings: Single Parent
Families (cont’d.)
• Common themes:
• Half experienced no household changes
• Few boyfriends or new babies
• Addition of adults associated with strain
• Loss of father not always economically bad
• Adult children can be helpful
44
Findings: Single Parent
Families (cont’d.)
• Education matters
• Employment matters
• Other people affect integration of home
45
Findings: Extended Families
• Characteristics:
• Vertically extended – grandparent (9)
• Horizontally extended – aunt/uncle, unrelated,
etc. (9)
• Immigrant (8)
• Mostly Hispanic/Latino (6)
• 2 subgroups:
• Single parents (6)
• Two parents (9)
46
Findings: Extended Families
(cont’d.)
• Single parents (6)
• Reliance on grandmothers (5)
• Low incomes - $30,000 or less (4)
• Some family disruption and child health
conditions (4)
• Two parents (9)
• Providing shelter at tough times
• Wider mix of grandparents, aunts/uncles,
unrelated persons
• Homeowners (8)
• Sending remittances (5)
47
Findings: Extended Families
• Common themes:
• Lots of change in household composition (14)
• Majority changed once
• No clear chronological pattern
48
Findings: Non-Parent Families
• Characteristics:
• Typically grandparent(s)
• Subgroups:
• 2 grandparents (6)
• 1 grandparent (4)
• No grandparent (5)
49
Findings: Non-Parent Families
• Common themes:
• Grandparents not employed
• Receive some form of public assistance
• Experience economic hardship
• 2 grandparent households most stable
• Non-grandparent more unstable than
grandparent groups
50
Conclusions
• Family instability and disruption
• Two-parent and two-grandparent families are most
stable over time
• Single mothers also pretty stable in composition
• Mixed trajectories for the rest – no clear patterns
• Seems to be a condition, not a type
• Economic wellbeing, hardship, public assistance
• All these families are poor
• Assistance and hardship not consistently used and not
tied to income
51
Conclusions (cont’d.)
• Social integration and social supports
• No clear patterns
• Attitude toward neighborhood
• Mixed feelings
52
Lessons Learned
• Quantitative data misses a lot of depth
• Need more comments, explanations to help
understand responses
• Challenge social scientists to prepare interviewers
to collect quantitative and qualitative data
• High value in constructing narratives from
quantitative data from longitudinal surveys to
inform questionnaire design
53
Future Research
• Focused analysis of comments about
neighborhood
• “Schools are close, hospitals and stores. It’s just nice.” (Two
parent)
• “I’ve had problems with my next door neighbors for years.
They don’t work, [he’s] not the father of the sons. They are
home all day drinking and taking drugs. They have other
vagabonds there day and night.” (Extended)
• “I come from a poor country. This neighborhood suits my
family. We are all of average income.” (Single parent)
• “There’s trouble. Not crime, but there’s kids down the block
have loud parties …” (Single parent)
• “…People mind their own business.” (Non-parent)
54
Future Research (cont’d.)
• What should we add for future data collection?
• Psychological measures
• Custom-tailored questions for scientifically
selected subgroups to help explain differences?
• In-depth interviews
• Future quantitative analysis
• Create more typologies? What would they be?
• Differences by race & origin?
55
Cathy Haggerty: haggerty-cathy@norc.org
Kate Bachtell: bachtell-kate@norc.org
Nola du Toit: dutoit-nola@norc.org
Ned English: english-edward@norc.org
Thank You!
References
Elliott, Jane. 2008. “The Narrative Potential of the British Birth Cohort
Studies.” Qualitative Research 8: pp 411-421.
Maynes, Mary Jo, Jennifer L. Pierce, and Barbara Laslett. 2008. Telling
Stories: The Use of Personal Narratives in the Social Sciences and
History. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
57