The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 2 FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES

2.1 Introduction

Childhood circumstances and life chances are not static. Even in the space of a year, important changes can take place in the life of families and the children within them. How have the family circumstances and characteristics of the GUS children changed since the first interview? In this chapter, we look at various areas of possible change, including family structure, the number of children in the household, non-resident parents, patterns of parental employment and household income.

2.1.1 Types of analysis

This chapter presents the following main types of analysis:

• Comparison of the different answers given by respondents in both cohorts at sweep 2 including both straightforward comparisons of the proportions of main respondents giving particular responses, and analysis of the answers by factors that might help explain these answers (for example, the age or educational background of the respondent).
• Where the same questions were asked at sweeps 1 and 2, comparison of the answers given by the main respondent at both sweeps. This includes comparing the proportion of respondents who gave particular responses at each sweep, analysis of whether the answers given by individual respondents changed or not, and comparison of the characteristics of those whose answers did change and those whose did not.

2.2 Family characteristics

2.2.1 Family type

In terms of family type, there was little overall change between the first and second sweeps. At sweep 2, 20% of children in the birth cohort and 23% of children in the child cohort were living in lone parent families. Relatedly, 21% of children in the birth cohort and 26% in the child cohort had a natural parent living outside the household, the same proportions seen at sweep 1. ⁴ At sweep 2, the vast majority of lone parent families in both cohorts (99% birth cohort, 97% child cohort) were headed by the child's natural mother. Not surprisingly, lone parenthood remained considerably more common among younger mothers and those with lower incomes. For example, in both cohorts, a little over three-fifths of mothers in the youngest age group - those aged under 20 at the cohort child's birth - were lone parents (63% birth cohort, 62% child cohort) compared with just one-tenth (9%) of mothers in their thirties. These data therefore demonstrate limited change in family type between sweeps.

Whilst there has been little change in the overall proportions of couple and lone parent families, it is clear that some children (around 6% of the sample as a whole at sweep 2) have witnessed an individual change in family type between sweeps. The partnering of lone parents was considerably more common than couple separation and in most of these partnering cases (81% in the birth cohort, 68% child cohort) it was the child's natural parents forming the couple.

Almost all couple families at sweep 2 were both the child's natural parents; just 1% of children in the birth cohort, and 3% in the child cohort, lived with a step-parent or partner of a natural parent. Fewer than 1% of children in both cohorts had no natural parents in the household.

Table 2.1 Family type at sweep 2 by cohort and family type at sweep 1

Analysis of information on household composition is limited in that it provides the status of the household at the time of the interview. To explore changes in the child's family circumstances and care in the period between the interviews, respondents were asked whether the child had lived elsewhere in the last year, ⁵ and whether or not a parent or carer had been absent from the household for a period of time between the two interviews. Only 1% of children in each cohort had lived elsewhere in the past 12 months. Most of these had lived for some time with a grandparent or with a non-resident parent. Whilst the small numbers involved mean this data should be treated with caution, it is notable that of those who had lived elsewhere, the majority (75% in the birth cohort, 85% in the child cohort) had lived with more than one alternative carer suggesting a lot of movement amongst the small number of children in this group.

Fewer than one in a hundred parents said they, or their partner, had been away from the sample child for three months or more at a time, in almost all of these cases, it was the respondent who had been away. Parental absence in most cases was due to Armed Forces deployment or other employment reasons.

Of those parents who had been away from the child for 3 months or more, only 8% in the birth cohort and 6% in the child cohort also reported that the child had lived somewhere else in the last year. This suggests that these questions are picking up two quite different groups of children, and also that those children who did live somewhere else, did so for a period of less than 3 months.

2.2.2 Number of children in household

The arrival of a new child is, of course, a major event in the lives of children and their families more generally. Being pregnant, and/or having a young baby in the household, can impact on the household in a number of ways related to the household characteristics (such as parental employment and household income), parental physical and mental health, and parental interaction with other children.

As Figure 2-A illustrates, the number of cohort children who were the only child in the household fell in both cohorts, from 47% in the birth cohort at sweep 1 to 41% at sweep 2, and from 34% to 27% in the child cohort. Conversely, the proportions of children in two child households grew in both cohorts, from 35% to 38% in the birth cohort, and from 45% to 51% in the child cohort. There was less change in the proportion of children in households with three or more children. Overall, the figures at sweep 2 present an expected pattern where the vast majority of families (79% in the birth cohort, 78% in the child cohort) have only one or two children.

Figure 2-A Number of children in the household by sweep and cohort

2.2.3 Non-resident parents

We have already seen the extent to which children in each cohort were likely to have a non-resident natural parent at sweep 2. In similarity to sweep 1, a number of questions were also asked exploring contact arrangements between the child and his or her
non-resident parent. For those children who had a non-resident parent at both sweeps, changes in contact were explored. ⁶

Just under two-thirds of children had contact with their non-resident parent at the time of the sweep 2 interview (65% in the birth cohort and 63% in the child cohort), mirroring results at sweep 1. Of those children who had no contact with their non-resident parent at sweep 1, around a fifth had regained contact by sweep 2 (22% in the birth cohort and 19% in the child cohort). Conversely, of those children who did have contact at sweep 1, just over one in ten were not in contact with their non-resident parent at sweep 2. Interestingly, there was no variation in contact stopping or not being regained by age of mother at the birth of the child or socio-economic status.

Overall, 86% of children in the birth cohort and 81% of children on the child cohort with an involved non-resident parent saw that parent at least once a week, including 29% and 19% who saw him every day. There were some changes between sweeps, particularly in the birth cohort where 29% of children who had been seeing their non-resident parent every day now saw him at least once a week. However there was also some more positive change: nearly a fifth of children who saw their non-resident parent at least once a week at sweep 1 now saw him every day, and two-thirds of children who had seen their non-resident parent at least once a month at sweep 1 now saw them at least once a week.

Around four out of five non-resident parents were reported to be very or somewhat interested in the cohort child, while the number of non-resident parents said to be 'not at all interested' in the child fell to 8% in both cohorts from 10% and 17% respectively.

The survey found that around half (48%) of non-resident parents were reported as paying regular maintainence (either through the CSA or through some other arrangement), with a further 8% in the birth cohort and 12% in the child cohort making irregular payments and 44% and 40% making no payments. Overall, in both cohorts, non-resident parents were slightly more likely to be making payments at sweep 2 than at sweep 1, particularly in the child cohort where, at sweep 1, 49% of families with a non-resident parent received no maintenance from that parent. As Table 2.2 illustrates, the majority of those making regular payments at sweep 1 were still making regular payments at sweep 2, although 22% in the birth cohort and 10% in the child cohort had stopped making payments altogether. On the other hand, of those parents not making any maintainence payments at sweep 1, 37% in the birth cohort and 34% in the child cohort were now making payments.

In summary, amongst children with non-resident parents, patterns of contact with that parent were similar to those observed at sweep 1. Again, a small proportion of children witnessed significant individual change however, with some losing contact with their
non-resident parent, some regaining contact or the frequency of contact changing.

Table 2.2 Maintenance payments by non-resident parents at sweep 2 by cohort and maintenance payments by non-resident parents at sweep 1

2.3 Employment and NS-SEC

Information collected at sweep 1 about parental employment was checked and updated where necessary at sweep 2. Data on household income was also collected again. Analysis was undertaken to explore both household and individual level change between sweeps.

2.3.1 Household employment

Around one in six (17%) children in each cohort lived in a household where no parent was employed, although the majority (72% birth cohort, 70% child cohort) were in a household where at least one parent was employed full-time and just 10% in a household where at least one parent was employed part-time. Whereas around 60% of lone parents were unemployed, in contrast, only 5% of couple households had no parent in employment.

The only notable change in overall household level employment status between sweeps was a slight decrease in the proportion of households with no parent in employment (in both cohorts, from 19% at sweep 1 to 17% at sweep 2). Again, change in employment status was more discernible at the individual level, as shown in Table 2.3. In the majority of cases, household employment status had not changed between sweeps. However, in the birth cohort, 29% of households with a parent only working part-time at sweep 1 were full-time households at sweep 2 (slightly less in the child cohort at 25%), and around one quarter (24%) of unemployed households at sweep 1 had a parent in employment at sweep 2 (23% in the child cohort) suggesting a shift towards more employment and longer hours between sweeps.

Table 2.3 Household employment status at sweep 2 by cohort and household employment status at sweep 1

Households with lone parents at sweep 1 were significantly more likely than couple households to become unemployed or to remain unemployed between sweeps. For example, in the birth cohort, 11% of lone parent full-time households at sweep 1 were unemployed at sweep 2, compared with 2% of full-time couple households. Furthermore, 80% of unemployed lone parent households at sweep 1 remained unemployed at sweep 2 compared with 68% of unemployed couple households. In general therefore, whilst the employment status of households had not changed significantly between sweeps and most children had a parent in employment, some children experienced a significant change from having parents employed to unemployed, a change which is likely to have impacted significantly on the child and household, and in many cases is accompanied by other changes such as a drop in income and the departure of a parent from the household.

2.3.2 Maternal employment

A little over half of all mothers in both cohorts were working more than 16 hours per week (52%), 9% were working less than 16 hours and around 40% (40% birth cohort, 38% child cohort) were not working at all. Only 15% of the mothers in the study were working 35 hours or more per week. In both cohorts, mothers in couple families were significantly more likely to be in employment than lone mothers. In the birth cohort, for example, two-thirds (66%) of mothers in couple families were employed compared with a little over one-third (38%) of lone mothers. Furthermore, in around two-thirds of couple households in both cohorts (63% birth cohort, 65% child cohort), both parents were employed.

When asked to describe their activities in the last 7 days, as well as indicating their employment status, a significant proportion of mothers also reported that they were 'looking after the home or family' (Figure 2-B). For around one-third of mothers in both cohorts, a similar proportion to sweep 1, this was an exclusive activity within the list provided.

Figure 2-B Employment status of mothers by sample type

Note: Respondents could choose more than one activity. Thus numbers do not add up to 100%

There was no significant overall change in maternal employment figures between sweeps with very similar proportions not working, working full-time and working part-time at each sweep. However, some small individual-level change was evident (Table 2.4). For example, in the birth cohort, 25% of mothers who worked 16 hours or less at sweep 1 had increased their hours at sweep 2 and 15% had stopped working. Furthermore, a little under 1 in 5 of those mothers who were not working at sweep 1 were in employment at sweep 2.

Table 2.4 Maternal employment status at sweep 2 by cohort and maternal employment status at sweep 1

2.3.3 Socio-economic classification ( NS-SEC)

Figure 2-C illustrates the spread of National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification ( NS-SEC) by household ⁷ and cohort. This variable uses the highest classification in the household whether that is the respondent's or, if relevant, their partner's classification. Around half of all children in both cohorts were in a managerial and professional household, with a further fifth living in a semi-routine or routine household.

There was no change between sweep 1 and 2 in the overall proportions of households in each socio-economic classification nor in overall respondent NS-SEC figures. There was however, a small amount of individual change between sweeps. In all, household level socio-economic classification had changed for around 13% of households in both cohorts. Half of these moves were from a lower to higher position, and half from a higher to lower position. Change in NS-SEC between sweeps was often accompanied by change in family type (Table 2.5).

Figure 2-C Household Socio-Economic Classification ( NS-SEC) by cohort

Households classed as managerial or professional at sweep 1 were those least likely to have changed classification between sweeps. Whereas households classed as lower supervisory or technical at sweep 1 were most likely to have changed classification. Change at household level was more notable than individual change in NS-SEC; there were few differences in the extent to which certain groups changed classification between sweeps on the respondent-level measures.

Thus, whilst for the majority of children there has been no identifiable change in socio-economic classification between sweeps, again, as with changes in employment status, for a small proportion there has been some significant positive or negative developments. It will be interesting to track what impact this has on the child and the family more generally over the long term.

Table 2.5 Change in household NS-SEC by cohort and change in family type

2.4 Income

2.4.1 Household income

At sweep 1, each case was separated into one of four income categories based on annual household income ⁸ - those with up to £14,999, those with between £15,000 and £25,999, those with between £26,000 and £43,999, and those with £44,000 or over.

This trend is supported by examination of the more detailed income scale which shows that for the majority of families in both cohorts (75% birth cohort, 71% child cohort) household income changed between sweeps with income increasing, in the birth cohort, in around 44% of cases, decreasing in 31% of cases and remaining the same in 25% of cases.

As may be expected, and in similarity to findings on changes in employment and NS-SEC seen above, change in income was closely related to change in family type; in the birth cohort, almost three-quarters (73%) of lone parents who had partnered between sweeps reported a higher household income at sweep 2 than at sweep 1. In contrast, three-quarters (74%) of lone parents who had separated between sweeps reported a lower household income at sweep 2 than at sweep 1.

Figure 2-D displays the proportion of families in both cohorts who fell into each category at each sweep. As the graph shows, at sweep 2, around 28% of families in both cohorts were in the lowest income group, and around 21% were in the highest income group. There was little notable change in the overall proportions between sweeps, although in both cohorts there is a slight decrease in the proportion of families in the two lower income groups, and a slight increase in the proportion of families in the two higher income groups suggesting a general trend towards increasing household income overall.

This trend is supported by examination of the more detailed income scale which shows that for the majority of families in both cohorts (75% birth cohort, 71% child cohort) household income changed between sweeps with income increasing, in the birth cohort, in around 44% of cases, decreasing in 31% of cases and remaining the same in 25% of cases.

As may be expected, and in similarity to findings on changes in employment and NS-SEC seen above, change in income was closely related to change in family type; in the birth cohort, almost three-quarters (73%) of lone parents who had partnered between sweeps reported a higher household income at sweep 2 than at sweep 1. In contrast, three-quarters (74%) of lone parents who had separated between sweeps reported a lower household income at sweep 2 than at sweep 1.

Figure 2-D Household income by cohort and sweep

2.4.2 Benefits and tax credits

At sweep 2, around one-quarter of families in both cohorts (25% birth cohort, 24% child cohort) were in receipt of working tax credit. Receipt of child tax credit was more common with 73% of families in the birth cohort and 68% in the child cohort receiving this credit. There was a slight increase in uptake of child tax credit between sweeps (up from 69% in the birth cohort, and 64% in the child cohort) whereas for working tax credit there was no change in uptake.

To examine individual change in receipt of benefits, analysis was limited to the three most common benefits - Council Tax benefit, Housing benefit and Income Support. For each benefit, in both cohorts, around three-quarters of those respondents who received that benefit at sweep 1, continued to receive it at sweep 2.

Figure 2-E illustrates the uptake of selected benefits at sweep 2. Those benefits where receipt was reported by less than 1% of families in each cohort are not included in the graph. Child benefit, for which uptake was almost universal, has also been excluded. After child benefit, benefits for council tax and housing were the two most common which families were in receipt of - both reported by around one in six respondents in each cohort. Income support had a similar, only slightly smaller, prevalence. There were no notable changes in overall benefit receipt between sweeps.

Figure 2-E Receipt of selected benefits by cohort

2.5 Key points

• There was little overall change in family type between the first and second sweeps. The majority of children lived in couple families and lone parenthood remained considerably more common among younger mothers and those with lower incomes.
• Lone parents were more likely to have partnered between sweeps than couple parents were to have separated.
• Overall numbers of children in cohort households generally increased between sweeps. The proportion of singleton cohort children dropped from 47% in the birth cohort at sweep 1 to 41% at sweep 2, and from 33% to 27% in the child cohort.
• For many children with non-resident parents at sweep 1, family circumstances had changed. A small number of non-resident parents had started living with the child between sweeps and many others had initiated or regained contact or saw the cohort child more frequently than at sweep 1.
• Change in family type was often closely related to change in income or socio-economic classification for the family involved. In a large number of cases, parental separation was accompanied by a drop in income and a lower socio-economic classification. In contrast, many households in which a lone parent had partnered between sweeps experienced a simultaneous increase in household income and a higher socio-economic classification.

2.6 Conclusion

It has become a truism to observe the greater fluidity of modern family life and that household transitions are more frequent in children's lives now than in the past (Wasoff and Dey, 2000; Clarke, 1996). Much research has documented and analysed how many children will experience household and family transitions that can encompass a wide range of events, such as parental separation, partnering and repartnering, the arrival of a new sibling, changing parental employment patterns and fluctuations in family income. In sweep 2 of Growing Up in Scotland, we can begin to look at family dynamics at both the individual and aggregate cohort levels, and the extent to which the study children's lives are characterised by continuity and change, even over the fairly short time scale of one year.

The great majority of children in both cohorts (over three-quarters) live in couple households consisting of both their natural parents. Only 1% of the baby cohort and 3% of the child cohort lived in couple families with a step-parent or the partner of their natural parent. The proportion of lone parent families was 20% for the birth cohort and 23% for the child cohort overall, about 98% of which were headed by the child's mother. The likelihood of living in a lone parent family was strongly associated with the mother's age at the child's birth; just under two-thirds of mothers aged under 20 at the child's birth, compared to just under 10% of mothers aged 30 or more at the child's birth, were lone parents. The likelihood of lone parenthood is also higher for mothers on lower incomes.

Household transitions were found to be relatively infrequent over the one year interval measured by changes between sweeps 1 and 2. While the overall proportions of lone parent families and couple families in which the study children live remained about the same as in sweep 1, there were some areas of change in parents' partner status at the individual level. A small proportion of children, 6%, experienced some change in family structure between sweeps 1 and 2. There was a higher likelihood of moving from a lone parent family to a couple family (about 15% of lone parent families) than moving from a couple family to a lone parent family (less than 4% of couple families). The likelihood of separation for married couples was even lower: 2%, perhaps indicating marriage as a marker (if not the cause) of family stability.

It is widely recognised that social class is one of the most significant social determinants of children's life chances. The social class profile, as measured by standard occupational classification, of both cohorts remained unchanged across the two sweeps, with about half of both cohorts living in households classified as belonging to the highest group - managerial and professional occupations. However, there was also some degree of transition at the individual level, in 13% of cases, with about half of those experiencing transition moving up the socio-economic ladder and half moving down. These transitions are mainly associated with a partnership status transition described above; separation typically results in a decline in socio-economic classification and partnering or repartnering an increase. Such transitions are least common amongst those in managerial or professional occupations, as are partnership status transitions.

The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 gives all mothers, and fathers who are married to a child's mother, parental responsibilities and rights. The Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 extended those responsibilities and rights to unmarried fathers who are registered at birth as the child's father. They include the responsibility (and associated right) of a non-resident parent to maintain contact with their child, if that would be in the child's best interests. Thus, if a child does not live with both of its natural parents, it is important to have an understanding of the child's relationship with its non-resident parent, and the extent to which non-resident parents carry out their parental responsibilities. Sweep 2 collected information from the main carer about aspects of non-resident parents and children's relationships. In parallel with rates of lone parenthood and stepfamilies and similarly to sweep 1, it was found that 21% of the baby cohort and 26% of the child cohort had a non-resident natural parent. Similar to sweep 1, about two-thirds of children had contact with their non-resident parent, the great majority of whom (86% of the baby cohort; 81% of the child cohort) had contact at least once a week. Thus one-third of the study children had no contact with their non-resident parent, a finding similar to that for the Scottish sample of the Millennium Cohort Study second sweep. A sizeable minority of non-resident parents who had contact with their child (29% in the baby cohort; 19% in the child cohort) saw that child daily. This is also comparable to MCS findings - that about 25% of non-resident parents with contact had frequent contact of 3 times a week or more. Patterns of contact remain similar for most children, although they had changed for some - in both directions. For example, it was more likely that contact would be regained than lost. About one fifth of children who did not have any contact at sweep 1 were reported to have re-established contact at sweep 2. In contrast, 10% who had contact in sweep 1 were not in contact in sweep 2. These points illustrate the dynamic nature of contact patterns for some children, even over the fairly short interval of one year, and that the dynamics move in all directions. Furthermore the great majority of non-resident parents were reported to be interested in the child, with very few (8%) reported as 'not at all' interested. These data also illustrate that for most, being a non-resident parent does not mean being a non-involved parent.

As far as child support is concerned, about half of non-resident parents were reported by the main carer as paying regular maintenance and around a further one in ten, irregular payments. This payment rate is comparable to that found for the boosted Scottish sample in the report of the second sweep of the Millenium Cohort Study (about 45% making regular payments and a further 10% making irregular payments). The great majority of non-resident parents making regular payments at sweep 1 continued to do so (70% of the birth cohort and 79% of the child cohort). A similar continuity was true of those making no payments (63% of the birth cohort; 66% of the child cohort), but there was also some change in pattern between regular, irregular and no payment of child support, underlining that child support, like contact, shows a mainly stable pattern but is dynamic (in both directions) for some children.

Although the absolute numbers making transitions into and out of non-resident parenthood were about the same for both cohorts, since the number of non-resident parents is lower than that of co-resident parents, the proportion of non resident parents in sweep 1 making the transition to co-resident in sweep 2 was higher (13% of non-resident parents of babies; 9% of child cohort) than the proportion of co-resident parents becoming non-resident (4% of baby cohort; 3% of child cohort).

A commonplace, though major change in the lives of young children is the arrival of a new sibling. Families have become smaller than they were in the past in Scotland and women's fertility has declined in recent years. The total fertility rate in Scotland, a standard demographic measure of population fertility, declined from its recent peak of 3.09 in 1964 to a trough of 1.48 in 2002, rising to 1.67 in 2006 (Registrar General's Annual Review of Demographic Trends 2006 (2007)). Living in small families was typical for both cohorts. Most of the study children in sweep 2 lived in families in which they were either the only child (41% of the baby cohort, and 27% of the child cohort), or with one other child (38% of the baby cohort, and 51% of the child cohort), with only about one in five of the study children in households with 3 or more children. The likelihood of the child's main carer being pregnant either in the year before the sweep 2 interview or at the time of the interview was much higher if the study child was the only child in the household - where a pregnancy was reported for 18% of the baby cohort and 21% of the child cohort - than if there were other children in the household - 8% of the baby cohort and 6% of the child cohort, suggesting that the trend towards smaller families of one or two children seems to apply to both cohorts.

Children's economic circumstances are heavily influenced by their parents' paid employment, income levels and receipt of benefits. Just under three-quarters of children lived in families where at least one parent worked full-time, one in ten where at least one parent worked part-time, and about 17% in families where no parent worked. However this pattern was heavily influenced by whether the child lived in a couple household or a lone parent household. For example, 60% of lone parents were unemployed, compared to 5% of couple households in which no parent was employed. Lone parents were much more likely to become unemployed or remain unemployed. Parents employment status remained largely stable across both sweeps; around nine out of ten of those who worked full time at sweep 1 still worked full-time, and about three-quarters of those who were unemployed at sweep 1 were still unemployed at sweep 2.

One of the most significant recent changes in the labour market has been the increase in the number of mothers in paid work, particularly mothers of young children. In a similar pattern reported for sweep 1, there were high levels of labour market participation by mothers in both cohorts, over half of whom were in paid work of 16 hours per week or more. In contrast, 40% of mothers in the baby cohort and 38% of mothers in the child cohort were not working. However, the typical working pattern for mothers was for less than full-time work; only 15% of mothers worked for 35 hours per week or more. Working patterns remained fairly stable across the two sweeps, with 89% of mothers who worked in sweep 1 for at least 16 hours a week also did so in sweep 2. However there was some movement at the individual level, with 20% of those in full-time work in sweep 1 moving to part-time work in sweep 2, and about 25% of those unemployed in sweep 1 moving into employment by sweep 2. Despite quite high levels of labour market activity, it was striking that about two-thirds of mothers also described themselves as 'looking after home and family', suggesting that combining work and family responsibility is likely to be a big issue for mothers in both cohorts.

Considerable levels of income fluctuation was found; 75% of the birth cohort and 71% of the child cohort reported changes in household income. Where household income changed, it was more likely to have gone up than down. However, it seems that these movements were relatively modest, since changes in income levels in relation to four broad categories occurred for only about one third of families, mainly those in the middle income groups.

Recent government policies have introduced two tax credits to give financial help to families with children on low or moderate incomes, namely the Working Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. Working Tax Credit is available to couples with children whose household incomes are £14,495 or less and to lone parents whose incomes are £14,090 or less. Comparing these figures to the proportion of families in the baby and child cohorts with household incomes of £14,999 or less, most of whom would be eligible for the Working Tax Credit suggests that take-up of this benefit by all eligible families is very high. However, take-up of Child Tax Credit by eligible families may be more problematic. While HM Revenue and Customs estimate that 90% of families with children should qualify for this benefit, only 73% of the baby cohort and 68% of the child cohort reported that they received this benefit, although take-up rates in sweep 2 were higher than in sweep 1.

« Previous | Contents | Next »