Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dr Linda CusworthSocial Policy Research Unit, University of York
International Society for Child Indicators Conference
27-29 July 2011
Introduction
Social context
Policy context
Theoretical context
Methodology
Results
Relevance to policy
Conclusions and further research
Starting point More than ‘working mothers’ debate Huge changes in parental employment Child poverty targets and policies Limitations of previous research
Aims Investigate any relationships between patterns of parental
employment and young people’s educational and emotional well-being
Examine the impact of the timing of parental employment Consider the role of other individual, parental and family
factors
Trends in parental employment patterns
Men and women
.
Source: Labour Force Survey - 1901-1961 from Hakim (1996a); 1971-2001 from ONS (2002).
Notes: 1941 - no data available
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001
%
Year
MalesFema…
Trends in parental employment patterns
Men and women
Women by age-group
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
15-24 25-35 35-44 45-54 55 and over
Age
%
1911
1951
1971
2001
Source: 1911-1971, Census data, from Halsey, 1988; 2001 Census and Labour Force Survey, from ONS (2001a)
Trends in parental employment patterns
Men and women
Women by age-group
Women’s part-time employment
The influence of children
Household worklessness
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
%
No employment Some employment All in employment
Trends in parental employment patterns
Men and women
Women by age-group
Women’s part-time employment
The influence of children
Household worklessness
Explaining the trends
Pre-1990s
Voluntary action vs. regulation
New Labour Maternity leave and pay Paternity rights Parental leave National Childcare Strategy Welfare to Work Making Work Pay
Conservative policies?
Meritocracy
Social mobility
Intergenerational transmission
Forms of capital approach
Human/economic
Social
Cultural
Quantitative
Secondary analysis
British Household Panel Survey (BHPS)
British Youth Panel (BYP)
Sample Youth sample (7,347)
During 4 periods Infancy (0-1) Pre-school (1-5) Primary (5-11) Current (when aged 11-15)
Father Employed Not in employment
Mother Employed full-time Employed part-time Not in employment
Parental (dual parent families) Father employed/mother full-time Father employed/mother part-time Father employed/mother not in employment Father not in employment/mother employed Father not in employment/mother not in
employment (workless household)
Parental (lone mother families) Full-time employment Part-time employment Not in employment
Number of earners (at each stage) No earners One earner Two earners
Workless household (at each stage) No Yes
Ever workless No Yes
Low household income (60% median) Family social class At least one car Housing tenure Family type Family conflict Family communication Parental emotional well-being Parental educational qualifications Child age Gender
Uni-variate Frequency tables Measures of central tendency/dispersion
Bi-variate logistic regressions Each indicator/single explanatory variable
Multi-variate logistic regression Forwards stepwise Odds ratio Proportion of variance explained Model of best fit
What is it?
Why is it important?
How is it measured?
What is the evidence? Parental employment Socio-economic factors Family factors Parents’ emotional well-being Parental qualifications Children’s own characteristics
Troubled Feel unhappy or depressed Lose sleep worrying about things
Self-efficacy Feel have a number of good qualities I feel I am a likeable person
Self-esteem Feel useless at times Feel I am a failure Feel I am no good at all
Happiness How feel about family; friends; appearance; school; life as a
whole
Troubled
36.0%
Low self-efficacy
11.2%
Low self-esteem
44.7%
Unhappy
22.2%
Change in odds if unemployed
Troubled Unhappy Low self-efficacy
Low self-esteem
Current
0-1
1-5
5-11
Change in odds compared to full-time
Troubled Unhappy Low self-efficacy
Low self-esteem
Current PT
Not
0-1 PT
Not
1-5 PT
Not
5-11 PT
Not
Change in odds compared to no earners
Troubled Unhappy Low self-efficacy
Low self-esteem
Current One
Two
0-1 One
Two
1-5 One
Two
5-11 One
Two
Statistically significant, butsubstantively small
Troubled Family conflict, mother EWB, gender
Unhappy Family conflict, communication, age
Low self-efficacy Housing tenure, conflict, communication, father
qualifications
Low self-esteem Conflict, gender
Each explained more than 1% of variance
Mother currently not in employment compared with full-time employment ↓ feeling more troubled
High family conflict ↑ Poor mother emotional well-being ↑ Female ↑ Older ↑ Step or lone parent family ↑
Model explains very little of variance
Mother working part-time or not in the labour
market ↓ being unhappy
Mother’s earlier pattern of employment entered
model, but not statistically significant
High family conflict ↑
Poor family communication ↑
Female ↑
Living with 2 earners ↓ being unhappy
High family conflict ↑
Poor family communication ↑
Poor mother emotional well-being ↑
Female ↑
Older ↑
Mother’s employment (current and earlier)
entered model, but not statistically significant
High family conflict ↑
Poor family communication ↑
Not having a car ↑
Number of earners (current and earlier) entered model, but not statistically significant
High family conflict ↑
Poor family communication ↑
Living in rented accommodation ↑
Step family ↑
Poor mother/father emotional well-being ↑
Female ↑
Mother in part-time or not in employment ↓ low
self-esteem
Mother part-time when aged 5-11 ↓ low self-
esteem
High family conflict ↑
Female ↑
Poor mother emotional well-being ↑
No current earners ↑ low self-esteem
Earlier number of earners in model, but not statistically significant
No car ↑
High family conflict ↑
Poor mother emotional well-being ↑
Father lower level qualifications ↑
Female ↑
Age ↑
In general, parental employment positive for emotional well-being Financial capital
Nurturing role of mothers Social capital
Earlier employment generally not significant
Other factors have greater influence Family conflict Mother’s EWB
Policy implications
