complex families: analytic complications and policy conundrums
DESCRIPTION
Complex Families: Analytic complications and policy conundrums. Maria Cancian Madison Chaos and Complex Systems Seminar February 2, 2010. Acknowledgements. Primary results drawn from collaborative research with Daniel R. Meyer and others, including: - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Complex Families: Analytic complications and
policy conundrums
Maria Cancian
Madison Chaos and Complex Systems Seminar
February 2, 2010
2
Acknowledgements
Primary results drawn from collaborative research with Daniel R. Meyer and others, including:
– “Alternative Approaches to Child Support Policy in the Context of Multiple-Partner Fertility” (2009; with Meyer)
– “The Evolution of Family Complexity from the Perspective of Children” (Forthcoming in Demography; with Meyer and Cook)
– “Multiple Partner Fertility: Incidence and Implications for Child Support Policy” (Social Service Review, 2006; with Meyer & Cook)
Research supported by WI DCF/BCS, and US DHHS/ACF
3
Outline
What makes a family complex? Frequency and correlates of MPF
Implications of complex families for social policy: the example of child support– Why are child support guidelines interesting and
important?– Child support guidelines and conceptual issues in
the context of MPF
Conclusions
4
What makes a family complex?
Multiple partner fertility (MPF) refers to parents who have children with multiple partners:– Mothers who have children with more than one
father – Fathers who have children with more than one
mother– Children who share their mother and/or father
with half-siblings
5
Case 1: M=D=S=H
Dad Mom
Kid Kid
1 Mom = 1Dad = 1 Sibship = 1 Household
6
Case 2: M=D=S=H
Dad Mom
Kid Kid
1 Mom = 1Dad = 1 Sibship = 2 Household
7
Case 3: M=D=S=H
MomDad Dad
Kid Kid
1 Mom = 2Dads = 2 Sibships = 3 Households
8
Case 4: M=D=S=H
MomDad Dad
Mom
Kid Kid Kid
1 Mom* = 2Dads = 3 Sibships = 4 Households *1 “focal” mom
9
Implications of Complex Families
MPF raises issues for any social policy– from social security to child support to income taxes– in which costs or benefits depend on family structure
MPF raises a host of measurement and conceptual issues
– Complexity (and implications) varies depending on “perspective” (mother, father, child)
– Difficult to collect information on MPF from standard surveys Complex design issues (asking respondent about former partners’
previous or subsequent partners) Under-reporting (especially by noncustodial parents)
Practical importance depends in large part on incidence
10 10
Measuring the incidence of MPF: Sample and data structure
We rely on longitudinal administrative data from the WI Child Support Enforcement (CSE) system
Primary analysis focuses on nonmarital births– 40% of U.S. births in 2007 to unmarried parents
Analytic sample: 7,169 first-born children of unmarried mothers in Wisconsin in 1997, followed through 2007
– Overall, data capture about 90% of all nonmarital births in WI– Sample excludes:
children with unidentified fathers (N=1,865) children who had full siblings also born in 1997 (N=151)
11 11
Data: Advantages & Limitations
Advantages:– Administrative records capture nearly all subsequent
nonmarital births to either parent, regardless of parents’ intensity of contact
– Complete and accurate record of formal child support, earnings, and benefits in Wisconsin over 10 years
– Large sample Limitations:
– Subsequent marital births only measured if parents divorce within timeframe
– Excludes births and income outside Wisconsin (>80% still in WI records in 2007)
– Excludes informal child support and earnings, “social” siblings and parents
– Captures new partnerships only if a birth results
12 12
Results: Frequency of family complexity for first-born nonmarital children
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
At Birth At Age 1 At Age 2 At Age 3 At Age 4 At Age 5 At Age 6 At Age 7 At Age 8 At Age 9 At Age10
No siblings
Only Full Sibs
Mom half sibs
Mom & Dad half sibs
Dad half sibs
13 13
Parents’ additional partners
At Age 10
Father: Number of Other Partners
None One Two Three + Total
Mother: Number of Other Partners
None 38.8 14.8 5.0 3.1 61.7
One 13.9 8.1 3.8 2.7 28.6
Two 3.4 2.5 1.2 1.1 8.1
Three + 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.6
Total 56.7 25.9 10.3 7.1 100.0
14
Number of Father’s Partners by Number of Mother’s Partners
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4
Number of Mother's Partners
4
3
2
1
Nu
mb
er of F
ather’s P
artners
15
Why are child support guidelines interesting and important?
Most children will spend some time living apart from one of their biological parents
Child support guidelines are of interest because they:– have direct consequences for the economic well-being of
children and their resident & nonresident parents– embody a set of values (and incentives) regarding parental
responsibility, co-residence, etc Numeric CS guidelines in the U.S. are designed to:
– provide adequate support for children living apart from a biological parent (improving child well-being and reducing need for public support of children);
– improve horizontal equity, reduce uncertainty and litigation
16
How are child support order amounts determined in the U.S.?
U.S. Federal law requires “presumptive” child support guidelines in each state.
State guidelines generally build on “continuity–of-expenditures” approach and aim to replicate expenditures in intact families
– Parents with larger families spend more in total (less per child)– Parents with higher incomes spend more for given number of
children For “simple” families, the resulting guidelines are also
consistent with principles of:– Manageable burdens– Economies of scale
But, for complicated families there is no straightforward point of comparison (“intact” counterfactual) and “simple” approaches are often have unintended consequences
17
Wisconsin guidelines for “simple” families
The proportion of the nonresident father’s income due to a resident mother who has had children with one father is :– 17% for one child– 25% for two children– 29% for three children– 31% for four children– 34% for five or more children
18
Example: child support paid/received for a simple family
Example: a father earning $10,000/year has two children with one mother. The children live with their mother.
Child support guideline: 25% income– The father should pay $2500/year
(25% of $10,000).– The mother should receive $2500/year
19
Wisconsin guidelines for “complicated” families
Each couple considered individually and sequentially (i.e. first marriage/partnership first)
If all children live with their mother:– CS owed to mother invariant to number of other
children/sibships in her household– CS owed by father adjusted only to account for
father’s lower income net of previous orders.
20
Example: Child support paid/received for a complicated family
Example: a father earning $10,000/year has two children, one with each of two mothers. Each mother previously had one child with another father with the same earnings and no other CS obligations. All children live with their mother.
Child support guideline: 17% income per child– The father should pay $1700/year in child support to the
first mother, and $1411/year to the second mother (17% of the $8300 remaining after he’s paid the first mother) for a total of $3111.
– The first mother should receive a total of $3400 from both fathers; the second should receive $3111.
21
Child support guidelines and conceptual issues given MPF
What is the appropriate unit of analysis?– Couple– Resident parent (“mother-focused”)– Nonresident parent (“father-focused”)
How should birth ordering be treated? Distinguish implications for resident mothers
(and children) and nonresident fathers
22
Alternative approaches: family unit
In determining total amounts due/owed couple-specificcouple-specific=> consider each simple family
separately collective mother-focused=> consider all children
living with the resident mother in setting total CS due to mother
collective father-focused=> consider all children for whom the nonresident father owes support in setting total CS owed by father
23
Alternative approaches: Birth ordering
In distributing rights to claim support, or obligations to pay support
SequentialSequential=> consider each sibship in birth order; this holds sibship harmless with respect to parents’ subsequent partnerships/fertility
Average=> provides each sibship with “average” amounts; does not distinguish by birth order
24
Simulating alternative approaches to CS given MPF
Hypothetical orders using WI guidelines and given:– three children per mother (or per father)– All fathers (mothers) have single child with any other
partners– All fathers have identical incomes ($10,000) – For sequential approaches show results for first and last
families Paper (Cancian and Meyer, 2009) includes
estimates of alternative policy regimes – “hypothetical” results – simulations based on observed family structure and
incomes of Wisconsin families
Figure 3.1 (Last): Child Support Due To Mother With Three Children
All Children in Fathers' Last Sibship
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Couple-specific Collective-Mother's perspective
Collective-Father's perspective
Method of Calculation
$
Mother has children with one father
Father has children only with her
Father has children with 2 mothers
Father has children with 3 mothers
Mother has children with 2 fathers
Both fathers have children only with her
Both fathers have children with 2 mothers
Both fathers have children with 3 mothers
Mother has children with 3 fathers
All 3 fathers have children only with her
All 3 fathers have children with 2 mothers
All 3 fathers have children with 3 mothers
Figure 4.1 (Last): Child Support Owed By Father With Three Children
All Children in Mothers' Last Sibship
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Couple-specific Collective-Mother's perspective
Collective-Father's perspective
Method of Calculation
$
Father has children with one mother
Mother has children only with him
Mother has children with 2 fathers
Mother has children with 3 fathers
Father has children with 2 mothers
Both mothers have children only with him
Both mothers have children with 2 fathers
Both mothers have children with 3 fathers
Father has children with 3 mothers
All 3 mothers have a child only with him
All 3 mothers have children with 2 fathers
All 3 mothers have children with 3 fathers
27
Conclusions
Too many children in families with MPF to ignore implications for CS and other policy
Alternative policies lead to very different outcomes with important implications for family well being
Difficult (and interesting) policy problem:– Conflicting principles=> inevitable tradeoffs– Given multiple relevant units of analysis, need to consider
outcomes from different perspectives – In addition to providing differential support to current
families, policies create different incentives for future births by MPF status
29
Hypothetical CS owed to mother with 3 children; couple-specific(Table 3b, 1-3; every father has single child with any other mothers)
Averagedfirst last first/last
Mother has children with one father Father has children only with her 2900 2900 2900 Father has children with 2 mothers 2900 2407 2589 Father has children with 3 mothers 2900 1998 2352
Mother has children with 2 fathers Both fathers have children only with her 4200 4200 4200 Both fathers have children with 2 mothers 4200 3486 3803 Both fathers have children with 3 mothers 4200 2893 3475
Mother has children with 3 fathers All 3 fathers have children only with her 5100 5100 5100 All 3 fathers have children with 2 mothers 5100 4233 4667 All 3 fathers have children with 3 mothers 5100 3513 4282
Couple-specificSequential
30
Hypothetical CS owed to mother with 3 children; collective mother-focused(Table 3b, 4-6; every father has single child with any other mothers)
Averagedfirst last first/last
Mother has children with one father Father has children only with her 2900 2900 2900 Father has children with 2 mothers 2900 2900 2900 Father has children with 3 mothers 2900 2900 2900
Mother has children with 2 fathers Both fathers have children only with her 2900 2900 2900 Both fathers have children with 2 mothers 2900 2900 2900 Both fathers have children with 3 mothers 2900 2900 2900
Mother has children with 3 fathers All 3 fathers have children only with her 2900 2900 2900 All 3 fathers have children with 2 mothers 2900 2900 2900 All 3 fathers have children with 3 mothers 2900 2900 2900
Collective- Mother's perspectiveSequential
31
Hypothetical CS owed to mother with 3 children; collective father-focused(Table 3b, 7-9; every father has single child with any other mothers)
Averagedfirst last first/last
Mother has children with one father Father has children only with her 2900 2900 2900 Father has children with 2 mothers 2900 1400 1954 Father has children with 3 mothers 2900 900 1826
Mother has children with 2 fathers Both fathers have children only with her 4200 4200 4200 Both fathers have children with 2 mothers 4200 2000 2976 Both fathers have children with 3 mothers 4200 1000 2724
Mother has children with 3 fathers All 3 fathers have children only with her 5100 5100 5100 All 3 fathers have children with 2 mothers 5100 2400 3750 All 3 fathers have children with 3 mothers 5100 1200 2900
Collective-- Father's perspectiveSequential