Changes in Post-Separation Parenting Over Time: Recent Australian Data
Journal of Family Studies - Volume 14 Issue 1 - 2008
Bruce M. Smyth
Associate Professor, Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute,
Australian National University, Canberra
Ruth Weston
Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne
Lawrie Moloney
School of Public Health, La Trobe University, Victoria; Australian Institute of Family
Studies, Melbourne
Nick Richardson
Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne
Jeromey Temple
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, Australian National
University, Canberra ACT
Abstract
This article examines continuity and change in post-separation patterns of parenting
across a three-year time span.
We analyse longitudinal data from two recent Australian studies: the Household,
Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey; and the Caring for
Children after Parental Separation (CFC) Project. Mother–residence was found to be
the most common and the most stable pattern. Though far less common, father–
residence also appeared to be reasonably stable. By contrast, shared care was found to
be the most fluid of these three parenting configurations.
Keywords
divorce, parental separation, children, children’s living arrangements, joint custody
Article Text
Significant changes to the family law system were introduced in Australia on 1 July
2006, as embodied by changes to relationship support services, the law, legal process,
and child support. In essence, the reform package encourages a default starting
position of cooperative shared parenting and shared parental responsibility after
separation – though strictly from the perspective of time, the sharing of care has been
an arrangement entered into by only a small minority of separated parents in
Australia. There is emerging evidence, however, that shared care is on the rise (see
Smyth & Moloney 2008) along with interest in the boundary conditions for which
families can make it work, and how and when it can work well – or might work badly
for children (see McIntosh & Chisholm 2008). In this context, it is important to note
that little is known in Australia about the long-term outcomes for children with
respect to shared arrangements or indeed other patterns of post-separation parenting
(such as traditional weekly or fortnightly arrangements, daytime-only care, holidayonly care, or little or no parent–child contact).
Moreover, little is known about the stability of different arrangements. Are some
patterns of care more fluid than others? Are some patterns (such as daytime-only
contact) stepping-stones to or from other patterns? Prior studies of stability and
change in parenting arrangements are illuminating, as the companion article by Smyth
and Moloney (2008) in this issue has described. However, there is a need for
contemporary Australian data; this article presents these data. While far from
definitive, these data certainly point to the need to go beyond static frames when
thinking about different patterns of care after separation.
Methods
This article draws on longitudinal data from two sources:
(a) unit record data from Waves 1 and 4 of the Household, Income and Labour
Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey; and
(b) data collected by the Australian Institute of Family Studies for the Caring for
Children after Parental Separation (CFC) Project.
Unlike HILDA, the CFC study was not set-up as a longitudinal design. As a
consequence, there is high sample attrition (65%) in the CFC sample over the threeyear data collection period. Because of the smaller sample size (and thus greater
potential for sampling error), and the relatively high sample loss across CFC waves,
we treat the HILDA data as the primary dataset, and use the CFC data as
supplementary data to assess the level of consistency of trends. Both datasets are now
described in detail.
Primary dataset: HILDA
The HILDA Survey is a national household-based panel survey that focuses on
employment, income and the family. The first wave of the survey was conducted in
the latter half of 2001, and examined a range of issues, including marital history,
family (re)formation, and patterns of parental care for children under 18 years whose
parents live apart. Subsequent waves of data have been collected each year thereafter,
with special question modules included in each wave. The first panel comprised 7,682
households (19,914 individuals). All adult members of each household are
interviewed in HILDA, and panel members are followed over time. Currently six
waves of data are available for analysis.
We analyse data from Wave 1 and Wave 4 in order to provide a three-year
comparison timeframe. This time frame was selected for two reasons:
(a) for consistency with the supplementary CFC dataset; and
(b) for consistency with prior studies (eg Brown, Joung & Berger 2006; Krecker et al
2003; Maccoby & Mnookin 1992).
The power of the HILDA dataset for research into post-separation patterns of
parenting is that it enables national estimates to be obtained across the spectrum of the
separated parent population (including parents who have never married or never lived
together). Unlike most other longitudinal datasets, it also contains detailed data on
parent–child contact.
Four methodological issues nonetheless warrant brief mention. First, the samples of
separated men and women in HILDA Wave 1 are independent. That is, the men and
women had not been married to each other. Our analysis thus focuses on the reports
by one parent – the parent who was interviewed – in examining post-separating
parenting arrangements. Second, in relation to the parent–child contact questions, for
reasons of economy, where respondents had more than one child under 18 potentially
in their care, the HILDA methodology required respondents to focus on the youngest
natural or adopted child from their most recent union that ended. Third, the HILDA
data collections are roughly one year apart. Arrangements that changed in between
data collection points and reverted back could thus not be detected. Finally, recent
unpublished work by Brandon (2007) on changes in family structure among young
partnered couples, with and without children, suggests that the attrition rates for
certain groups (eg young partnered couples) are substantially higher compared with
the average attrition rates currently reported for the HILDA survey (Melbourne
Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research 2006). More sophisticated
analyses that take account of the differential attrition of certain subgroups within
HILDA – as suggested by the work of Brandon (2007) – are needed. For all these
reasons, we would encourage others to view our findings as a considered tentative
beginning.
Sample selection
The HILDA sample on which this article is based comprises 589 separated / divorced
parents. These parents had at least one natural or adopted child under 18 years at the
time of interview at Wave 1 (2001) and Wave 4 (2004).
The initial sample for Wave 1 comprised 12,252 households from around Australia, of
which 11,693 were identified as in-scope. Interviews were successfully conducted
with 13,969 members of 7,682 households – yielding a household response rate of
66%. See Watson and Wooden (2002, 2006) for more detailed information on
sampling issues and response rates for other waves.
Of the original 13,969 household members interviewed, we selected a sample of
1,251 separated parents who
(a) had at least one child under 18 years in their care for at least 50% of the time (ie
resident parents), and that child’s other parent lived elsewhere (n=736: 86 men, 650
women), and/or
(b) had at least one child under 18 years in their care for less than 50% of the time (ie
non-resident parents), and that child usually lived with their other parent (n = 442:
400 men, 42 women); and/or
(c) had at least one child in their care and another child in the care of that child’s other
parent (ie 'split residence’) (n = 73: 38 men, 35 women).
Of the 1,251 parents identified in Wave 1 with a child under18 with a parent living
elsewhere, 719 parents who still had a child under 18 were interviewed at Wave 4. To
examine changes in post-separation parenting arrangements over time, only cases that
had data available on the variables of interest at both Waves 1 and 4 are included in
the following analyses. The final useable sample thus comprised 589 respondents
(243 males, 346 females).
The average age of separated respondents was 37 years, five months (SD=8 years, 8
months). Respondents had been separated, on average, for around 4 to 5 years
(median = 4 years; M = 5 years 8 months; SD = 5 years 6 months). The average age
of the youngest biological or adopted child of each respondent was 9 years (SD = 4
years, 10 months) (range 0 to17 years).
Measures
Four different survey instruments were used to collect information in the first wave of
the HILDA survey. These were:
(a) the Household Form
(b) the Household Questionnaire
(c) the Person Questionnaire, and
(d) the Self-Completion Questionnaire
Much of the information used in the following analysis derives from the Person
Questionnaire – Family Formation, which was administered by way of face-to-face
interview.
Six broad patterns of care were operationalised as follows:
(a) equal (or near-equal) shared care referred to each parent having children in their
care for at least 30% of nights each year;
(b) weekly, fortnightly or monthly arrangements referred to weekly, fortnightly or
monthly overnight stays;
(c) daytime-only contact referred to contact that involved no overnight stays;
(d) holiday-only contact referred to blocks of contact involving overnight stays that
occurred every three to six months, and where the parents lived more than 200
kilometres from each other;
(e) sporadic or intermittent contact referred to contact that occurred several times a
year (occasionally involving single overnight stays); and
(f) little or no parent-child contact referred to face-to-face parent–child contact that
occurred less than once a year or never.
Supplementary dataset: Caring for Children after Parental Separation
The CFC Project was funded by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. It sought
to map detailed patterns of parent–child contact and financial support after separation,
and any nexus between contact and child support. Nine hundred and seventy four
separated parents with at least one child under 18 were interviewed by telephone in
late 2003 about their parenting arrangements. Computer-assisted telephone
interviewing (CATI) was used to collect the survey data. Interviews averaged about
45 minutes in duration. The original sample was obtained through random digit
dialling, and was stratified by gender and geographical location from the population
of Australian households with landline telephones. To obtain this sample, more than
163,000 telephone calls were made around Australia, leading to the identification of
nearly 70,000 households (43%). Of these households, 77% did not contain a person
in scope, while for 15%, the person who answered the telephone refused participation
without revealing whether there was a person in scope. The most favourable response
rate (where interviews achieved are calculated as a percentage of interviews plus
refusals by a person known to be in scope) is 44%. A more likely estimate, however,
is around 26% – assuming that 15% of households where refusal occurred before
eligibility could be determined were in scope.
A second wave of interviews was conducted early in 2005. Respondents were
interviewed for about 15 minutes on their attitudes to child support. Respondents were
selected through attempts to re-contact the 896 (of the original 971) participants in the
CFC Project who agreed to be re-contacted at a later date. Of these, 678 were
contactable, and 92% (n = 623) were interviewed, 4% refused, and 4% were away
during the survey period
A third wave of interviews took place mid-2006. Respondents were interviewed for
about 20 minutes about any disputes that involved the use of relationship support
services around the time they separated. Data on the extent to which their parenting
arrangements had changed were also collected in order to identify changes in patterns
of care over time.
Respondents were selected through attempts to re-contact the 555 (of the original 971)
participants who, at Wave 2, agreed to be re-contacted. Of these, 438 were
contactable, 93% (n = 406) were interviewed, 5% refused and 2% were away during
the survey period; 123 respondents were not included in the call back for a range of
reasons, including that the target child had turned 18, respondents declined further
contact after Wave 2.
To examine changes in post-separation parenting arrangements over time, only cases
that had data available on the variables of interest at both Waves 1 and 3 are included
in the following analyses. The final useable sample thus comprised 330 respondents
(147 males, 183 females).
Demographic profile
Key demographic characteristics of the two samples are presented in Table 1. Given
that the samples were recruited using very different sampling frames and methods of
data collection, they are likely to differ in important ways. This issue should be borne
in mind when interpreting the results.
Since both samples were stratified by geographical location (state/territory,
city/country), similar patterns of relative proportions in the different localities
emerged for each group. Respondents in both samples were most likely to be aged 35
to 44 (45 to 59%), with the HILDA sample slightly younger than respondents in the
CFC sample. The target youngest child in both samples was most likely to be aged 5
to 11 years (57 to 62%). Mothers and fathers in the CFC sample were slightly more
likely than those in the HILDA sample to have a degree. Mothers were more likely
than fathers to be single. Labour force participation differed along gender lines: the
two groups of men tended to be in full-time work; most women were working fulltime or part-time, with part-time work being the most common situation for mothers
in the CFC sample; in the HILDA sample, the most common situation for mothers
was to not be in the labour force.
Findings
Findings are presented in two parts:
(a) the stability of children’s living arrangements; and
(b) the stability of parent–child contact. Both datasets track a three-year period: the
HILDA data (Waves 1 and 4) were collected in 2001 and 2004; data from the CFC
Project (Waves 1 and 3) were collected two years later – in 2003 and 2006.
Children’s living arrangements
Table 2 presents the proportion of households in which the children lived primarily
with their mother after separation (mother–residence), with their father (father–
residence), in each parent’s house for at least 30% of the time (in this article called
‘dual residence’ or ‘shared care’) and with each parent (at least one child primarily
lived with the mother, and at least one child primarily lived with the father – ‘split
residence’). The ‘other residence’ category refers to more complex or unusual
arrangements.
Table 2 shows that children lived primarily with their mother after separation (79–
83%), with much smaller proportions in the care of their father (5 to 6%), or both
parents – either in a shared care arrangement (6 to 12%) or with different siblings
living in each household (3 to 4%). The HILDA data suggest remarkable consistency
in these patterns for the two temporal snapshots examined, while the CFC data
suggest a slight decline in dual–residence, and a slight increase in mother–residence
across the three year period examined (dual–residence: from 12% to 7%; mother–
residence: from 79 to 84%).
The above cross-sectional snapshot comparisons, however, may be masking
considerable internal shifting by some children moving from one kind of arrangement
to another in compensating numbers – as described in the US context, for example, by
Maccoby and Mnookin (1992). To explore this possibility, the proportion of
households in which the target child remained in the same living arrangement
between waves was derived (see the emboldened diagonal in Table 3 for HILDA, and
in Table 4 for CFC). It is important to note that the number of cases in each
arrangement other than ‘mother–residence’ is quite small.
Table 3 suggests that mother– and father–residence, according to the HILDA data,
represented highly stable arrangements over the thre-year period examined: 93 to 96%
of mother– and father–residence households at Wave 1 were still in the same
arrangement three years on. On the other hand, the smaller CFC dataset (Table 4)
suggests that father–residence may be less stable than mother–residence. Both
datasets, however, indicate that dual-residence is more fluid than mother– or father–
residence. This is perhaps not surprising given the many logistical challenges faced by
children and parents within shared care arrangements.
Although informative, these descriptive results may potentially mask the effect of the
child’s age increasing across HILDA waves. To test this hypothesis, we used a
complementary log-log regression in conjunction with Wessie’s (1999) Seemingly
Unrelated Estimation and the Cluster-Adjusted Sandwich Estimator to ensure that the
effect of the children’s age on living arrangements remained constant over time.1
Results indicate that the effect of the children’s age on living arrangements remains
constant over time (p>.10). This result underscores the apparent fluidity of dual
residence over time, even with controls for the child’s age.
Tables 3 and 4 also show the nature of any changes in children’s living arrangements
in the 3-year time window. As Table 3 suggests, the 6% of mother–residence
arrangements in Wave 1 that subsequently changed by Wave 4 entered diverse
arrangements in the three-year period examined. By contrast, most or all of the cases
in the other arrangements that subsequently changed converted to mother–residence
arrangements. (Some of these conversions may represent reversions to arrangements
that were in place prior to Wave 1). This included father–residence arrangements that
changed, 40% of all dual residence arrangements in Wave 1, and one-third of all split
residence arrangements in Wave 1. Taken together, these data point to the dominance
of mother–residence – both as the most common arrangement but also as the pattern
to which other less common arrangements gravitate (ie ‘maternal drift’ as described
by Brown et al 2006). A similar pattern of change emerged in the CFC data (Table 4).
Parent–child contact
This section focuses on continuity and change over the three-year time frame in
relation to parent–child contact. Table 5 sets out the broad parent–child contact
patterns apparent in Wave 1 and three years later for the separated parents who
participated in the HILDA or CFC surveys.
The HILDA data presented in Table 5 as cross-sectional slices indicate that patterns
of parent–child contact were very similar for the two points examined. The two most
common patterns for both periods were weekly/fortnightly/monthly arrangements
involving overnight stays, and little or no contact. Much the same proportions of
children experienced these contact patterns during both survey waves
(weekly/fortnightly/monthly arrangements involving overnight stays: 35 to 36%; little
or no contact: 30 to 31%). The other patterns were also similar in the two survey
waves. The patterns of parent–child contact in the two waves examined were less
consistent in the CFC dataset than in the HILDA dataset. Nevertheless, the greatest
differences between waves in the CFC dataset amounted to only six percentage points
(14% vs 20%).
Table 6 shows the detail of continuity and change in parent–child contact across the
three-year time frame for the HILDA sample. It is important to point out that in Wave
1, there were only 28 children experiencing ‘sporadic’ contact, and only 41 in shared
care arrangements. Of these two groups, the percentages with the same or different
arrangements three years later will be less reliable than the percentages derived for the
larger groups with other types of arrangements in Wave 1. It is also worth pointing
out that arrangements that are at each extreme (ie little or no contact, and shared care)
can only change in the direction of becoming less extreme, whereas other
arrangements can move in either direction (eg sporadic can change to little or no
contact, or to more frequent contact).
To sum up, Table 6 suggests that most children who experienced the two most
common arrangements in Wave 1 (little or no contact or weekly/fortnightly/monthly
overnight stays) had the same arrangements three years later (69 to 74%). These two
patterns seemed to be the most stable of the six patterns examined.1 The remaining
patterns appeared to be far more fluid: 50 to 51% of households in which shared care
or holiday-only contact was occurring in Wave 1 still had this pattern three years
later. In addition, only one third of households where daytime-only contact was
occurring, and one quarter of households where sporadic contact was occurring in
Wave 1, continued to exercise these patterns of care three years on.
Once again, to ensure these results are robust, regressions were estimated to take
account of the fact that children’s age increased. Results from the ordinal
complementary log-log regression models indicate that the age effect is constant
between Wave 1 and Wave 4, underscoring the validity of the results displayed in
Table 6 (p>0.10). Table 7 shows the detail of continuity and change in parent–child
contact across the three-year timeframe for the CFC sample. It shows a similar pattern
of results to the HILDA data in the preceding table.
Discussion
This article has sought to map patterns of parenting after separation and to explore
whether some patterns are more fluid than others. Data from Waves 1 and 4 of the
HILDA Survey were analysed, while data from Waves 1 and 3 of the CFC Project
were used to supplement the HILDA analysis. Both datasets covered a three-year time
span.Several clear findings emerged. Cross-sectional snapshot comparisons using
HILDA data suggested remarkable consistency in children’s living arrangements for
the two time points examined (2001 and 2004), while similar comparisons with the
CFC data suggested a slight decline in dual–residence (ie shared care) and a slight
increase in mother–residence across the three-year period examined.
From the vantage of the Australian longitudinal data, the most common and stable
pattern was typically mother–residence. Though far less common, father–residence
also appeared to be reasonably stable. Dual–residence, on the other hand, seemed to
be the most fluid of these three parenting configurations. In summary, the data point
to the dominance of mother–residence, not only as the most common arrangement but
also as the pattern to which other less common arrangements gravitate, especially
dual–residence. These findings are consistent with those reported by Maccoby and
Mnookin (1992) in the US context.
In addition, cross-sectional snapshot comparisons of parent–child contact using
HILDA data suggested a high degree of consistency for the two time points examined.
The two most common patterns at both periods were weekly/fortnightly/monthly
arrangements involving overnight stays (35 to 36%), and little or no contact (30 to
31%). These patterns also seemed the most stable (69% and 74% respectively). The
remaining patterns were found to be far more fluid: approximately only half the
households in which shared care or holiday-only contact was occurring had this
pattern three years on. Only one-third of households where daytime-only contact was
occurring, and one quarter of households where children saw their non-resident parent
sporadically, had these patterns of care three years later.
Finally, it was found that shared care often transformed into more traditional
arrangements (that is, weekly/fortnightly/monthly overnight stays), while daytimeonly contact and sporadic contact appeared to be stepping stones either to increased
parent–child contact, or to little or no contact. Stepping back from the detail of these
findings, it is striking that, while little or no contact and shared care represent the two
extremes on the post-separation parenting continuum, shared care often seems to shift
down, whereas little or no contact tends to persist.These findings are far from
definitive, and we would encourage others to view them as a considered tentative
beginning. The number of cases in each arrangement other than mother–residence is
quite small and more sophisticated analysis is required that takes account of the
apparent differential attrition of certain subgroups within HILDA.
Future research
The longitudinal data presented in this article raise many interesting questions about
post-separation parenting of children. There are questions about what is meant by
shared care, how it might develop, and the conditions under which it is most likely to
serve the interests of children. There are questions about traditional care, about when
and how it conforms with what children want and need and about how it can take
place without reducing the other parent to the status of mere visitor. There are
questions about post-separation care, but especially shared care, in the context of
ongoing inter-parental conflict or a past or present history of violence, abuse or
neglect. Finally there are questions about opportunities for parents and children to reconnect. Examples of these questions are:
With the apparent rise in interest in shared care after separation, and especially in the
context of legislative support, how high will the rates of shared care go in the next
decade?
Are the characteristics of the group who exercise this pattern of care changing?
To what extent, if any, do separated parents with equal (50% time splits) or unequal
shared care diverge in their characteristics?
Why might shared care be less stable than other patterns of care?
Is it useful to distinguish between ‘good stability’ (eg settled arrangements) and ‘bad
stability’ (eg rigid arrangements)?
Is it useful to distinguish between ‘good fluidity’ (eg child-responsive arrangements)
and ‘bad fluidity’ (eg chaotic and/or conflict-driven arrangements)?
Under what conditions are court-mandated shared care arrangements working in the
interests of children?
Under what conditions are post-separation dispute resolution services that assist in
facilitating shared care, working in the interests of children?
Furthermore, in terms of more traditional patterns of care (such as every other
weekend):
What does it take in terms of variables such as time, encouragement from the resident
parent, and willingness and desire on the part of the child and the other parent for that
parent to feel his or her role to be more than that of mere visitor?
What sort of arrangements in the traditional care category are seen by the resident
parent as supportive of (usually her) efforts?
How closely (or otherwise) do traditional care regimes align with the aspirations of
the children in such arrangements? How often do highly conflicted parents decide
upon forms of shared care, perhaps as a way of settling their otherwise intractable
dispute over the children?
Is high conflict shared care on the rise? Does ongoing conflict which parents manage
to encapsulate and keep away from their children necessarily militate against shared
care arrangements?
Is conflicted shared care more problematic when children are young?2 Is it the more
conflicted shared care cases that are more likely to break down or change frequently,
or are they more inclined to remain ‘rigidly stable’?
Are there any circumstances in which shared care arrangements can be viable when
one parent is fearful of the other?
At the other end of the spectrum:
What psycho-social dynamics are associated with the many disconnections in parent–
child relationships that occur after separation?
What factors and interventions are most likely to promote appropriate re-connection
(how, for instance, might a new partner or a new family structure be a catalyst for
reconnection or continuing disconnection)?
How might a child initiate counselling or mediation (or a similar process) that could
assist him or her to re-connect with an absent parent?
What does it take for a father to build or rebuild a bridge between himself and his
child, so that meaningful parenting might resume?
There is clearly a need for continued investigation of the ways in which parents care
for their children after separation – especially improved understanding of how
patterns of care are negotiated and evolve, and the ways in which stability and fluidity
of arrangements act in or against the interests of the child. Future research may wish
to employ more advanced econometric techniques that can better incorporate issues of
attrition and time-varying dependence to understand this important aspect of
children’s lives.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004) Family Characteristics Survey, Australia,
(Catalogue No. 4442.0). Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1998) Family Characteristics Survey 1997,
(Catalogue No. 4442.0). Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Brandon P (2007) Using relationship matrices to depict aspects of family change in
early adulthood. Seminar presented as part of the Australian Demographic and Social
Research Institute Seminar Series, 11 December, Australian National University,
Canberra.
Brown P, Joung EH and Berger LM (2006) Divorced Wisconsin families with shared
child placement, (Institute for Research on Poverty Report). Institute for Research on
Poverty, University of Wisconsin–Madison. Available at:
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/research/childsup/cspolicy/csprpubs.htm (accessed 13
February 2008).
Krecker ML, Brown P, Melli MS and Wimer L (2003) Children’s living arrangements
in divorced Wisconsin families with shared placement, (Institute for Research on
Poverty Special Report No. 83), Institute for Research on Poverty, University of
Wisconsin–Madison. Available at:
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/research/childsup/cspolicy/csprpubs.htm (accessed 13
February 2008).
Maccoby EE and Mnookin RH (1992) Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas
of custody, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
McIntosh J and Chisholm R (2008) Cautionary notes on the shared care of children in
conflicted parental separation, Journal of Family Studies 14(1): XXX–XXX.
Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (2007), HILDA
Survey: Annual Report 2006, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Smyth B and Moloney L (2008) Changes in patterns of post-separation parenting over
time: Some implications for dispute resolution and decision-making, Journal of
Family Studies 14(1): XXX–XXX.
Watson N and Wooden M (2002) The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in
Australia (HILDA) Survey: Wave 1 Survey Methodology (HILDA Project Technical
Paper Series No. 1/02). Available at:
http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/hdps.html (accessed 13 February 2008).
Watson N and Wooden M (2006) Modelling longitudinal survey response: The
experience of the HILDA Survey (HILDA Discussion paper No. 2/06). Available at:
http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/hdps.html (accessed 13 February 2008).
Wessie J (1999) Seemingly unrelated estimation and the cluster-adjusted sandwich
estimator, Stata Technical Bulletin, 52, 34–47.