Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Felicia Yang DeLeone, Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness
Dona Anderson, Homes for the Homeless
November 7, 2011
Child Care Use in Homeless Families: An Examination of Fragile Families Data
“Profiles of Risk” - Project Overview
Objective:
Investigate characteristics of homeless families with young children to understand how they differ from similar poor families who are stably housed to help policymakers and those invested in ending homelessness better target policy efforts.
Series Topics:
1) Introduction 2) Education3) Marriage & Relationships4) Fertility5) Sources of Income6) Maternal Health & Well-being7) Father Characteristics8) Child Care
Fragile Families: Background
Birth cohort longitudinal dataset Children born between 1998-2000 Four waves available (fifth forthcoming):
birth, age 1, 3 & 5 Moms and most dads
Oversample of unmarried mothers
Data collected in 20 large (pop > 200,000) U.S. cities
Nationally representative (when weighted)
Detailed variables at each wave Demographics Family composition Labor market behavior Fertility Relationships Health & well-being Housing status
Fragile Families Sample Cities
Analysis N
2,260
1,954
1,893
1,836
Wave
Baseline
Year 1
Year 3
Year 5
Year
1998-2000
1999-2002
2001-2003
2003-2006
Child Age
Birth
Age 1
Age 3
Age 5
Original N
4,898
4,364
4,213
4,139
Fragile Families: Sample Size
Exclusions:
•Average lifetime income to poverty ratio > 1.25•Child does not live with mom at least 50% of the time•No valid sample weights
Homelessness in Fragile Families DataHomeless or Doubled
UpAt Risk of
HomelessnessStably Housed
• Identified as homeless• Lived in temporary housing,
shelter, or motel• Lived in a place not meant for
regular housing• Lived with others while paying no
rent
• Not homeless• Evicted• Did not pay full amount of bills
(rent/mortgage, utilities) or borrowed money to pay bills
• Moved more than twice in last year
• Not homeless and not at risk of homelessness
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in each year’s survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at each survey, do not have valid sample weights, or report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25.
BASIC CHARACTERISTICSProfiles of Risk:
Educational attainment at baseline (by housing status years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 1,836. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, or report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25. Differences in rates of high school completion are significant at 10% for ever homeless vs ever at risk or always stably housed women. Differences in GED completion are statistically significant at 10% for always stably housed vs ever at risk or ever homeless women. Differences in rates of educational attainment beyond high school are significant at 10% for all groups.
40% 52%
51%
Relationship status at baseline (by housing status years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 1,836. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, or report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25. Differences in rates of marriage are significant at 10% for all groups; differences in rates of cohabitation are statistically significant at 10% for ever homeless vs ever at risk women.
Relationship stability years 1-5(by housing status years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 1,836. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, or report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25. Differences in rates of “unstable” relationships are statistically significant at 10% for always stably housed women vs ever homeless or at risk women. Differences in rates of “stably single” relationships are significant at 10% for ever homeless vs ever at risk or always stably housed women. Differences in rates of stable cohabitation are significant at 10% for all groups.
Age at first birth(by housing status years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 1,836. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, or report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25. Differences in age at first birth are statistically significant at 10% for all always stably housed vs ever homeless or ever at risk women.
Multiple partner fertility by year 5(by housing status years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 1,836. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, or report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25. Differences in rates of multiple partner fertility are statistically significant at 10% for all always stably housed vs ever homeless or ever at risk women.
Sources of income at year 5(unmarried mothers by housing status years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 1,552. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25, or were married at year five. Differences in earnings and child support are statistically significant at 10% for ever-homeless vs. ever-at-risk and always stably housed women. Differences in kin support and unemployment/disability/SSI receipt are statistically significant at 10% for always stably housed vs. ever-homeless and ever-at-risk women. Differences in total welfare receipt, TANF receipt, and SNAP receipt are statistically significant at 10% for all groups.
EMPLOYMENT & CHILD CARE
Profiles of Risk:
Weeks worked per year at years 3, and 5
(unmarried and employed mothers by housing status years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 1,552. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25, were married at year five. Differences in weeks worked per year are statistically significant at 10% for ever-homeless vs. ever-at-risk or always stably housed women for all years.
Weekend work at years 3 and 5(unmarried and employed mothers by housing status
years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 1,552. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25, or were married at year five. Differences in weekend work are statistically significant at 10% for all housing groups n year 3 and for ever-homeless vs. ever-at-risk or always stably housed women in year 5.
Child care use at years 1, 3, and 5(unmarried and employed mothers by housing status
years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 1,552. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25, or were married at year five. Differences in child care use by housing status are not statistically significant at 10% for any year.
CHILD CARE USE AT YEAR 3
Profiles of Risk:
Child care characteristics at year 3(unmarried and employed mothers using child care at
year 3by housing status years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 660. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25, were married at year five or unemployed at year three, or who did not use child care at year 3. Differences in hours per week in child care at year 3 by housing status are not statistically significant at 10%. Differences in multiple child care arrangements at year 3 are statistically significant at 10% for all housing groups.
Child care reliability at year 3(unmarried and employed mothers using child care at
year 3by housing status years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 660. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25, were married at year five or unemployed at year three, or who did not use child care at year 3. Differences in unreliable child care at year 3 are statistically significant at 10% for all housing groups. Differences in quitting work or school due to child care problems at year 3 are statistically significant at 10% for ever-homeless vs. ever-at-risk or always stably housed women.
Primary type of child care used at year 3
(unmarried and employed mothers using child care at year 3
by housing status years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 660. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25, were married at year five or unemployed at year three, or who did not use child care at year 3. Differences in use of center-based care are statistically significant at 10% for ever-at risk vs. always stably housed or ever-homeless women. Differences in use of relative care are statistically significant at 10% for ever-homeless vs. ever-at-risk or always stably housed women. Differences in use of Head Start are statistically significant at 10% for always stably housed vs. ever-homeless or ever-at-risk women.
Child care subsidies at year 3(unmarried and employed mothers using child care at
year 3 by housing status years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 660. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25, were married at year five or unemployed at year three, or who did not use child care at year 3. Differences in type child care subsidy receipt at year 3 are statistically significant at 10% for all housing groups.
CHILD CARE USE AT YEAR 5
Profiles of Risk:
Program or child care enrollment at year 5
(unmarried and employed mothers by housing status years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 1,083. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25, or were married or unemployed at year five. Differences in program or child care enrollment at year 5 are statistically significant at 10% for ever-homeless vs. ever-at-risk women.
Children’s programs and child care at year 5
(unmarried and employed mothers using child care at year 5
by housing status years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 949. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25, were married or unemployed at year five, or did not use child care in year 5. Differences in program type at year 5 are statistically significant at 10% for ever-at-risk vs. always stably housed women.
EXTRA SLIDESProfiles of Risk:
Fragile Families: Sample Basics
Mother’s Characteristics
Entire Sample
n = 1,836
Ever Homeless or Doubled Up
n = 716
Ever At Risk of Homelessness
n = 795
Always Stably Housedn = 325
% Black 44% 55% 46% 28%
% Hispanic 42% 34% 45% 49%
% White/other 14% 11% 9% 23%
% Foreign born 30% 20% 31% 42%
Age (at baseline) 24.9 23.2 25.7 26.1
% High school degree at baseline
37% 29% 40% 44%
% Married (at baseline) 29% 15% 25% 53%
Age at first birth 20.5 20.4 20.1 21.3
Average income (years 1-5) $14,500 $13,300 $13,900 $16,900
Basic Weighted Descriptive Characteristics
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 1,836. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, or report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25. Comparisons to stably house women are statistically significant at 10%.
Additional education pursued at year 5(by housing status years 1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 1,836. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, or report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25. Differences in rates of returns to school are statistically significant at 10% for all always stably housed vs ever homeless or ever at risk women.
Relationship status at year 1 for single mothers at baseline (by housing status years
1-5)
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 1,836. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, or report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25. Differences in rates of “unstable” relationships are statistically significant at 10% for always stably housed women vs ever homeless or at risk women. Differences in “Single at year 1” and “Cohabiting at year 1” are significant at 10% for ever homeless vs ever at risk women.
Source: ICPH analysis of Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data. n = 1,552. Excluded are mothers who did not participate in the year-five survey, do not live with the focal child at least half of the time at year five, do not have valid sample weights, report an average (baseline to year five) income-to-poverty ratio greater than 1.25, or were married at year 5. Differences in the availability of loans and childcare help are statistically significant at 10% for always stably housed vs. ever-homeless and ever-at-risk women. Differences in help from fathers are statistically significant at 10% for all groups.
Social support at year 5(unmarried mothers by housing status years 1-5)
