Abstract

This study exploits data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a birth cohort study of a diverse sample of children from twenty U.S. cities (N = 3,676), to examine how cognitive, behavioural, and health outcomes of five-year old children differ according to their family structure and family stability. We define three models: one that measures family structure at birth only, a second that measures current family structure at year five conditional on family structure at birth, and a third that measures changes in family structure from birth to age five. We find that while family structure has persistent links to child outcomes, the effects are significantly altered by stability of the family structure over time. These findings remain robust even after addressing selection.

Introduction

The American family is rapidly changing. No change is more striking than the increase in the share of children who are born to unmarried parents. Indeed, this type of family has become so common that it now has a distinct label – the fragile family. Children born into fragile families are of critical concern because research has found that they tend to have a higher risk of family instability, fewer parental resources, and poorer outcomes relative to children born to married parents (Kalil and Ryan, 2010; Waldfogel, Craigie, and Brooks-Gunn, 2010). Moreover, studies that have focused on the child’s current family structure also found that children living with single parents or unmarried parents do not fare as well as children living with married biological parents (e.g. Acs, 2007; Manning and Brown, 2006; Brown, 2004; Carlson and Corcoran, 2001; McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994; Schmeer, 2011). These findings raise the question, as to which of these family processes are really at work: family structure at the time of birth, the current family structure in which the child resides, or cumulative changes in family structure over time. Consequently, we exploit U.S. data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS) to distinguish the effects of family structure (at-birth and current) from the effects of family instability on the wellbeing of five-year-old children.

Our study centres on family structure and stability effects on a wide array of child outcomes from the cognitive, behavioural, and health domains. Research has significantly linked early childhood experiences to human capital accumulation and later success. As such, our analysis of the family structure, stability, and outcomes of five-year-old children have important ramifications for their subsequent adolescent and adult outcomes (Cavanagh and Huston, 2008; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn and Klebanov, 1994; Ruhm, 2004).

Theory and Background

A substantial body of research in the United States confirms that the structure of the family into which a child is born and raised affects child wellbeing. The seminal study by McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) showed that children born to two-parent families had the lowest risk of being a high school dropout, pregnant teen, and idle; these children even had better adult outcomes. However, not all two-parent families are created equal. The children of cohabiting families are shown to have worse outcomes relative to children of married parents (Brown, 2004; Manning and Brown, 2006; Manning and Lichter, 1996; Schmeer, 2011; Waldfogel, Craigie and Brooks-Gunn, 2010). Unmarried cohabiting parents have lower incomes, and less education than married parents (Carlson and Corcoran, 2001; Hanson, McLanahan and Thomson, 1997; McLahanan and Sandefur, 1994; Brown, 2004), and cohabiting mothers usually have higher levels of depression relative to married mothers (Brown, 2000, 2002, 2004; Demo and Acock, 1996; Friedlander, Weiss and Traylor, 1986; Waldfogel, Craigie, and Brooks-Gunn, 2010). Compared to cohabiting families, step-families have higher average economic resources, but this advantage is potentially offset by the adverse effects of instability (Cavanagh and Huston, 2006).

Like children in cohabiting families, children of single-parent households typically have worse outcomes relative to children of married or cohabiting unions (Biblarz and Gottainer, 2000; Magnuson and Berger, 2009; McLanahan, 1985; Carlson and Corcoran, 2001; Brown, 2004; Bzostek and Beck, 2008; Harknett, 2005). However, paternal absence not only leaves the custodial mother with less time to spend with children (due to the onus of household and parental responsibilities), but non-resident fathers also tend to spend less time with their children than do resident fathers (Carlson, McLanahan, and Brooks-Gunn, 2008; Tach, Mincy and Edin, 2010). Parenting in single-parent families may also be less effective because often the custodial parent must be both provider and supervisor. Non-resident fathers are usually less involved than resident fathers, and even if they are involved, they do not play as strong a role in the discipline and shaping of their children’s lives (Hetherington, 1999; Kelly and Emery, 2003). In addition, children of single mothers are at a unique disadvantage since only approximately one-third of noncustodial fathers pay any child support (Carlson and Corcoran, 2001; Sorenson, 1997; Freeman and Waldfogel, 2001).

At-Birth versus Contemporaneous (current) Family Structure

The literature has clearly illustrated that resources differ significantly by family structure, with married biological parents typically having a premium on income, education, and other child investments (Manning and Brown, 2006; McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994). While studies have presented overwhelming evidence that being born to married parents is associated with improved child wellbeing, it is unclear whether living with married parents is linked to better child outcomes even if parents were not married at the outset (Heiland and Liu, 2006; Schmeer, 2011). This is an important distinction for two main reasons: (1) Marriage at birth potentially provides children with an initial boost to their development regardless of their later family settings. (2) Children currently living with married parents are also likely to have been born to married parents. Consequently, the marriage premium may be from the initial boost at the time of birth rather than subsequent marriage. Understanding this process is imperative to informing the debate on the importance of marriage given that children born to unwed parents might not experience improved wellbeing if their biological parents marry.

Conversely, being born to cohabiting parents or single parents may yield relative disadvantages to children. However, is this disadvantage persistent or is the current family structure responsible? The past literature has not distinguished between at-birth and contemporaneous family structures partly because they are highly correlated (Osborne, Manning and Smock, 2007; Raley and Wildsmith, 2004). This study will examine at-birth and contemporaneous (current) family structures to determine their differential effects on the outcomes of five-year-old children.

The Importance of Family Stability

Recently, more studies have begun to examine family structure changes over the course of a child’s life (Acs, 2007; Cavanagh and Huston, 2006, 2008; Fomby and Cherlin, 2007; Steele, Sigle-Rushton and Kravdal, 2008; Waldfogel, Craigie & Brooks-Gunn, 2010). These studies have specifically focused on the issue of family stability i.e. whether the parent(s) with whom a child lives changed over time. Marriage at birth has been linked to a lower risk of later instability relative to at-birth cohabitation and single parenthood (Amato, 1993; Carlson and Corcoran, 2001; Fomby and Cherlin, 2007; Osborne and McLahanan, 2007; Wu and Martinson, 1993). Subsequently, the marriage premium may be in part due to family stability rather than family structure per se.

Why would family stability affect child well-being? The main theory brought to bear is social stress theory (George, 1989, 1993; Holmes and Rahle, 1967; Osborne and McLanahan, 2007). Changes in family structure are typically accompanied by changes in economic, time, and parental resources; this subsequently leads to stress on families and adverse child outcomes. Family instability is also linked to residential instability (Amato, 2000; Cavanagh and Huston, 2006; Kelly and Emery, 2003; Osborne and McLanahan, 2007; Magnuson and Berger, 2009; Waldfogel, Craigie, and Brooks-Gunn, 2010), changes in social networks and socio-emotional adjustments (Cooper, McLanahan, Meadows, and Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Hogan and Kitagawa, 1985; Astone and McLanahan, 1994) all likely to affect parents’ mental health and early child wellbeing (Cooper McLanahan, Meadows, and Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Meadows, McLanahan, and Brooks-Gunn, 2008; McLahanan and Sandefur, 1994).

Prior empirical studies illustrate that family instability is associated with lower child cognitive scores, increased behavioural problems, and poorer health (Carlson and Corcoran (2001); Cavanagh and Huston, 2006; Fomby and Cherlin, 2007; Osborne and McLanahan, 2007; Magnuson and Berger, 2009). This study will therefore explore the effect of family stability on early child wellbeing. However, unlike the previous studies, we will explore the wellbeing of five-year-old children from all three domains – cognitive ability, behavioural problems, and health.