1 / 21

Promoting Family Stability for Ohio’s Children

Anastasia R. Snyder Associate Professor of HDFS Extension Specialist The Ohio State University Snyder.893@osu.edu. Promoting Family Stability for Ohio’s Children. Outline and Goals. Family Trends and the Educational Divide Family Structure vs. Family Stability

kenna
Télécharger la présentation

Promoting Family Stability for Ohio’s Children

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Anastasia R. Snyder Associate Professor of HDFS Extension Specialist The Ohio State University Snyder.893@osu.edu Promoting Family Stability for Ohio’s Children

  2. Outline and Goals • Family Trends and the Educational Divide • Family Structure vs. Family Stability • How is family stability important for child well-being? • Role of extension programs • Goal: To understand family trends in the U.S. and Ohio, what family stability is, why its important, and how education programs can help

  3. Recent Family Change • American families experienced significant family change in recent decades: • Divorce and remarriage, cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing • Focus has been on structure (single vs. two parents) • Shift to number of transitions, instability and change • Result in worse outcomes for children (lower income, less parenting time)

  4. Children’s Family Contexts • Decline in two parent families in the U.S. and Ohio • Corresponding rise in single parent families, most female-headed • Family poverty is high among female-headed families with children • Female-headed family poverty is slightly higher in Ohio • Depends on type of female-headed family

  5. Percent of women with a nonmarital birth in the past 12 months by educational attainment, 2009 Source: 2009 ACS

  6. Trends in Family Contexts for Children in US and Ohio: 1990-2009 Source: U.S. Census

  7. Trends in Poverty for Families with Children in the U.S. and Ohio: 1990-2009 Source: U.S. Census

  8. Types of Female-Headed Families with Children • 2009 ACS provided new information about types of female-headed families • Cohabiting • Headed by a grandmother • Make up over 25% of female-headed families with children (26.5% in Ohio, 27% in U.S.) • Poverty varies a lot depending on type of female-headed family.

  9. Children’s Living Arrangements: Cohabiting Households in 2009 Source: 2009 ACS

  10. Children’s Living Arrangements: Grandparent-Headed Households in 2009

  11. Percent Poverty Among Different Types of Female-Headed Families Source: Snyder et al., 2006 (U.S. Census Data)

  12. Educational Attainment and Implications for Family Behaviors • In the past 20 years, women’s educational attainment has risen while men’s has declined • Educational/SES Divide: Large differences in family behavior between women with college educations and those without • Nonmarital births • Timing of marriage • Divorce

  13. College education in 2009 by ageand sex, U.S. Source: 2009 ACS, analyses are weighted (n=7,738,348)

  14. College education in 2009 by age, sex, Ohio Source: 2009 American Community Survey

  15. Educational Attainment of Married Couples in 1970 and 2007 (2009 Pew Research Report) 1970: 4% of husbands had wives with higher income

  16. Percent of women divorced within 10 years of first marriage: life table estimates by education

  17. Theoretical Explanations for Impact of Family Instablity • Stress • Family transitions require adjustments that can be stressful • Substantial cumulative effects • Family Systems Theory—boundary ambiguity • Socioeconomic stress hypothesis—poverty, unemployment, economic stress overwhelm the effects of instability; will explain racial/ethnic differences • Selection • Parental (maternal) characteristics related to both diminished parenting and relationship skills

  18. Racial Differences • Non-Hispanic Black children • More extended kin involvement • More exposure to regular family and neighborhood stress • More exposure to socioeconomic stress • Results in less susceptibility than Non-Hispanic White children to effects of instability, other stress overwhelms instability stress

  19. Research Results • Both maternal characteristics and number of transitions (not type) influence child outcomes, only for NH Whites (Fomby & Cherlin, 2007). • Children born to unmarried mothers experience more transitions, and have mothers with less favorable characteristics, both contributes to their worse outcomes (Osborne & McLanahan, 2007).

  20. Research Results (con’t) • Children who experience poor union quality of their mother and partner have worse outcomes, regardless of number of union transitions • Relationship quality matters (Fomby & Osborne, 2010) • Social protection (child’s relationship with people and institutions) attenuates the effect of instability on adolescent outcomes for all. Socioeconomic stress exacerbated the effect of instability on adolescent outcomes for NH Blacks (sexual initiation) • Economic disadvantage has more impact than instability on outcomes for NH Blacks (Fomby et al., 2010)

  21. Educator’s Role • Family structure is important, but keep other factors in mind: • Instability • Family of origin for children • Parental characteristics • Children’s context, implications for racial/ethnic differences • Focus educational efforts in additional directions: • General parenting education (tough sell) • Relationship education • Programs that target ‘fragile’ families • Reduce drop out rate and increase educational attainment • Other ideas?

More Related