The Kids Are Alright? Children's Well-Being and the Rise in Cohabitation
|
Publication Date: July 31, 2002 Permanent Link: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310544 Share:       Number B-48 in Series, "New Federalism: National Survey of America's Families" The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. During the late 1990s, the share of children living in single-mother families declined significantly (Acs and Nelson 2001; Cherlin and Fomby 2002; Dupree and Primus 2001). Rather than a concomitant rise in the share of children living with married parents however, the data show an increase in cohabitation (Acs and Nelson 2001). This is a source of concern for policymakers and analysts because previous research demonstrates that living with cohabitors is not as beneficial to children as living with married parents and, in some cases, no better than living with a single parent (Nelson, Clark, and Acs 2001; Manning and Lichter 1996). Indeed, many policymakers, including President Bush, believe that when Congress reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant (welfare), it must include funding aimed at promoting marriage. Implicit in this view is the idea that couples should marry before having children and cohabiting couples that already have children should marry. This brief re-examines the relationship between children's living arrangements and their well-being. Further, it investigates whether the well-being of children in cohabiting families is changing for the better (or worse) as this living arrangement becomes more common. This brief begins by discussing previous research on how living arrangements in general and cohabitation in particular can affect children's material well-being and socioeconomic outcomes. Next, it documents how poverty rates and food insecurity differ across living arrangements, using data from the 1999 National Survey of America's Families (NSAF).1 Similarly, it also examines how other measures of child well-being, such as the share of young children (age 0-5) who are read to infrequently and the share of older children (age 6-11) and teens who exhibit behavioral problems, vary by living arrangements. Finally, it focuses on how and why the relationship between cohabitation and well-being is changing compared with overall trends using data from both the 1997 and 1999 NSAFs. We find that children living with cohabitors are more likely to be poor, food insecure, read to infrequently, and exhibit behavioral problems than children living with married couples but less likely to be poor and food insecure than those living with a single mother. Between 1997 and 1999, there is some evidence to suggest that the well-being of children living with both their unmarried biological parents (i.e., cohabiting parent families) improved relative to children in general. However, this is not the case for children living with one parent and that parent's boyfriend/girlfriend who is not the child's father/mother (i.e., cohabiting partner families). Finally, we find that the changing characteristics of cohabiting parents account for about one-third of the decline in poverty among children living with unmarried parents. BackgroundA considerable volume of research documents that children living with single parents are materially worse off than children living with married parents, and that children with single parents have worse socioeconomic outcomes than their counterparts with married parents even after income differences are taken into account. Children living with stepparents generally have outcomes that fall between those of children in single- and married-parent families (McLanahan and Sandefur 1994). Considerably less is known about children living in cohabiting families. While there is a burgeoning literature on cohabitation, most of it does not focus on cohabitors with children. Yet it is becoming more common for children to live in cohabiting families. Acs and Nelson (2001) note that the share of children living in cohabiting families (either with both parents—"cohabiting parents"—or with one parent and that parent's current partner—"cohabiting partners") rose from 4.6 to 6.0 percent between 1997 and 1999.2 Bumpass and Lu (1999) estimate that more than one out of every ten births occurs to cohabiting couples and that 40 percent of all children will spend some time in a cohabiting family. Consequently, it is becoming increasingly important to understand the impact of living with cohabitors on children. Although there is some research on the status of children living in cohabiting families, it is hard to anticipate cohabitation's impact in the future because cohabiting with children has historically been a rare event and it has not always been possible to distinguish between children living with both their unmarried biological parents and those living with one parent and that parent's current partner. Ultimately, the effects on children likely vary by race, age, and sex of the child as well as on the amount of time the child spends in a cohabiting family and the stability of cohabiting families. Earlier work on the material well-being of children living with cohabitors by Manning and Lichter (1996) shows that 31.1 percent of children in cohabiting households were poor in 1989 compared with 9.1 percent of children living with married couples and 45.2 percent of children living with a single mother. Manning and Lichter, however, do not draw a distinction between unmarried parents and other cohabiting families. Nelson, Clark, and Acs (2001) examine the well-being of teens living with their mothers and their mother's boyfriend who is not their biological father and find that white and Hispanic teens are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems and be suspended or expelled from school than even teens living with a single mother alone. Blacks are no better off in such cohabiting families than they would be living with a single mother. The authors use data from the 1997 NSAF and take income differences into account. Thus, cohabiting, at best, is no substitute for living with married biological parents; at worst, under some circumstances, it may lead to even poorer outcomes for children than living with a single mother. However, one must be careful about attributing children's outcomes to their parents' choice of living arrangements. Given how rare it has been for children to live with cohabitors, it may be that cohabitors differ in both observable and unobservable ways from other parents. As cohabitors with children become a more common and less "select" group, the status and outcomes for children in these families may change.3 Living Arrangements and Children's Well-BeingWe begin by examining the material wellbeing of children in cohabiting families and comparing it with the well-being of children in other living arrangements using recent data—the 1999 NSAF. Table 1 shows that about one in five children living in cohabiting families is poor, with poverty rates slightly higher among those living with cohabiting parents than those living with cohabiting partners.4 These poverty rates are more than twice as high as those for children living with married biological or adoptive parents. In contrast, the poverty rate for children in single-mother families is 43.5 percent—double the poverty rate for children living with cohabitors.
Poverty is an income-based measure of well-being and assumes that all family income is available to address the needs of the children. An alternative measure of material well-being is food insecurity— whether a child lives in a family that has some difficulty providing sufficient food.5 In general, food insecurity rates are higher than poverty rates. Table 1 shows that more than two out of five children in cohabiting families live in food-insecure families compared with one out of five children with two married biological or adoptive parents. Finally, more than half of all children in single-mother families experience some food insecurity, the highest proportion among the living arrangements considered. Turning to other measures of wellbeing, we examine whether young children (age 0 to 5) are read to infrequently (fewer than three times per week)6 and whether older children (age 6 to 11) and teens (age 12 to 17) exhibit behavioral problems.7 As table 1 shows, about one out of four young children living in cohabiting families is read to infrequently, virtually identical to the share among children living in single-mother families. Among young children living with married parents, the share read to infrequently is significantly lower (18 percent). Differences in behavioral problems across living arrangements are more pronounced. For older children, the share exhibiting behavioral problems is much higher among those living in cohabiting families (15.7 percent) than among those living with married parents (3.5 percent) and somewhat higher than among those living with a single parent (9.0 percent), although this last difference is not statistically significant. For teens, the shares exhibiting behavioral problems are similar for those living in cohabiting and single-mother families (approximately 11.5 percent) but much higher than the share for teens living with married parents (4.3 percent). These tabulations show that, in terms of material well-being, children in cohabiting families are better off than children living with a single mother but they are much worse off than children living with two married biological or adoptive parents. On other well-being measures, children in cohabiting families are similar to children living with single mothers and are more likely to be read to infrequently and exhibit behavioral problems than children living with their married parents. Trends in Children's Well-Being by Living ArrangementsBetween 1997 and 1999, the well-being of children improved on several fronts. For example, the poverty rate for all children fell from 19.6 to 16.4 percent. Similarly, the rate of food insecurity declined from 31.9 to 29.2 percent and the share of teens with behavioral problems dropped from 8.8 to 7.4 percent. For younger children, there were no statistically significant changes in the share of very young children who are read to infrequently or the share of young children exhibiting behavioral problems. Figure 1 compares changes in these measures for all children with changes for children living with cohabiting parents.8 Focusing first on poverty, we see that children living with cohabiting parents experienced an 11.2 percentage point decline in poverty—a far greater decline than the 3.2 point drop overall. Food insecurity rates dropped by 3.0 percentage points for children in cohabiting parent families; this is similar to the 2.7 point decline for all children and is not statistically significant.  Among very young children living with cohabiting parents, the share who are read to infrequently fell by 9.1 percentage points compared with virtually no change among all children. Among young school-age children, there is no significant change in the share with behavioral problems, although these problems appear to have increased among children with cohabiting parents. Finally, among teens living with cohabiting parents, the share exhibiting behavioral problems fell by a statistically insignificant 2.2 percentage points compared with a 1.4 point decline among all teens. Thus, on some measures, the well-being of children living with their cohabiting parents improved relative to all children between 1997 and 1999. Why is the Poverty Rate for Children in Cohabiting Parent Families Declining?At least some of the decline in poverty among children living with their unmarried biological parents can be attributed to the changing characteristics of cohabiting parents. If cohabiting adults with children are becoming more educated and working more, we would expect that their children would benefit. Table 2 shows how the characteristics of cohabiting parents have changed between 1997 and 1999.9 The single most noticeable change is the rise in work among mothers. In 1997, 40.0 percent of children in cohabiting parent families lived with nonworking mothers; by 1999, the share had fallen to 27.1 percent. Among fathers, there was a rise in the share working full-time, full-year but a decline in the share working part-time or part-year. Interestingly, cohabiting fathers have lower levels of educational attainment in 1999 than in 1997 while cohabiting mothers are more likely to be high school graduates; this rise, however, is accompanied by decreases in both the share of cohabiting mothers with less than a high school degree and in the share that have some postsecondary schooling. Finally, the share of cohabiting mothers under age 25 is growing.
To assess how these changes in the observable characteristics of cohabiting parents affect children's poverty rates, we simulate poverty rates for 1999 assuming that the characteristics of cohabiting parents remained as they were in 1997.10 The difference between the actual rates and the simulated rates is the amount of the change that can be attributed to changes in the characteristics of cohabiting parents. Further, this technique allows us to distinguish between the roles played by mothers' and fathers' characteristics. Table 3 shows the results of the simulation exercise. Changes in the characteristics of cohabiting parents account for more than one-third of the drop in poverty among children in cohabiting parent families—4.0 percentage points out of an 11.2 percentage point drop. Changes in mothers' and fathers' characteristics account for 2.9 and 0.9 points of the decline while other changes (such as the number of children in the household) account for 0.2 percentage points. Increases in work effort, particularly among mothers, is the most significant factor behind the reduction in child poverty among children living in cohabiting parent families. General improvements in income across all family types and cohabitors as well as unobserved changes among cohabitors account for the remaining 7.2 percentage points of the decline in poverty among children living in cohabiting parent families.
DiscussionAlthough the recent decline in the share of children living with single mothers is universally viewed as good news, the rise in cohabitation (rather than marriage) is not. Indeed, policy analysts and policymakers have expressed concerns that children in cohabiting families fare no better than those in single-parent families. Yet much of this concern is based on research that does not necessarily distinguish between children living with cohabiting parents as opposed to those living with cohabiting partners. Further, because only a very small proportion of children lived in cohabiting families until recently and that proportion is now growing rapidly, inferences drawn from data collected even five years ago may present a dated picture of the status and outcomes of children in such families. Nevertheless, we find that in 1999, children are far less likely to be poor, food insecure, read to infrequently, and exhibit behavioral problems if they live in a married-couple family rather than with cohabitors; children living with cohabitors, in turn, are at the very least, materially better off than children living with single mothers. However, our examination of trends in the well-being of children by living arrangement provides some indication that the past is not necessarily prologue: as a greater proportion of children live in cohabiting parent families (i.e., with their two unmarried parents), the proportion who are poor is not only declining but declining at a faster rate than that for children in other living arrangements. Most of this decline is due to increases in work effort among cohabiting parents, especially mothers. If the share of children living with cohabiting parents continues to increase, their well-being and outcomes are likely to differ from those observed in earlier cohorts, and they may well improve. Ultimately, the extent to which the children living with cohabitors would benefit if their adult caregivers were to marry is an important and very much open question for future research. Notes
1. The NSAF is nationally representative of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population under age 65, with data on over 44,000 households. For more information on the NSAF, see Kenney, Scheuren, and Wang (1999). ReferencesAcs, Gregory, and Sandi Nelson. 2001. "'Honey I'm Home.' Changes in Living Arrangements in the Late 1990s." Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief B-38. About the AuthorsGregory Acs is a senior research associate in the Urban Institute's Income and Benefits Policy Center. His research focuses on social insurance, social welfare, and worker compensation. Currently, he is studying trends in family living arrangements, as well as the status of families that have left welfare. Sandi Nelson is a research associate in the Urban Institute's Income and Benefits Policy Center, where she currently focuses on changes in the living arrangements of children and families. Her research interests include measuring the well-being of children and families, as well as the effects of welfare policy on family structure. About the SeriesThis series presents findings from the 1997 and 1999 rounds of the National Survey of America's Families (NSAF). Information on more than 100,000 people was gathered in each round from more than 42,000 households with and without telephones that are representative of the nation as a whole and of 13 selected states (Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin). As in all surveys, the data are subject to sampling variability and other sources of error. Additional information on the NSAF can be obtained at http://newfederalism.urban.org. The NSAF is part of Assessing the New Federalism, a multiyear project to monitor and assess the devolution of social programs from the federal to the state and local levels. Alan Weil is the project director. The project analyzes changes in income support, social services, and health programs. In collaboration with Child Trends, the project studies child and family well-being. This analysis and paper were funded by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The ANF project has also received funding from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, The Ford Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, The Commonwealth Fund, the Stuart Foundation, the Weingart Foundation, The Fund for New Jersey, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and The Rockefeller Foundation. The authors would like to thank Heather Koball, Alan Weil, and Sheila Zedlewski for their thoughtful comments and suggestions. Related Publications
Other Publications by the AuthorsThe nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site: Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required. Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org. If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PDF
Printer-friendly summary