EDUCATIONAL AND LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION OF AUSTRALIAN YOUNG PEOPLE LIVING IN TWO- AND ONE-PAR~FAMILIES

Christine Kilmartin and Maryann G. Wulff

Introduction

This paper falls within a growing body of Australian and overseas research concerned with the educational and labour force transitions of youth. A major objective of this study is to analyse how the immediate family of origin affects a young person's decision to remain in school or education, join the work-force, or in some way combine both activities. A crucial question related to these decisions is: What difference does it make to young people if their launching into the adult world is done from the base of a one-parent or two-parent family?

Young people are defined in this paper as between the ages of 15 and 24 years, in that period when choices are made concerning education, workforce participation, marriage, the bearing of children, sexuality and living arrangements. As Kamerman has observed about this age group: "We're talking about a group which experiences the most significant social and personal transitions of any age group in society within a very limited period of time" (1981: 104-5).

The major data source employed in this paper is the 1981 House- hold Sample File (HSF), a one per cent sample of households and non- private dwelling members drawn by the Australian Bureau of Statistics from the 1981 Census. The major advantage of this sample for our research is that census information is stored within aggregates (households) which enable the characteristics of both household and family members to be determined in relation to other members. As in many countries, Australian official statistics have classified families as those comprising one or two parents plus one or more dependent children. But once the last dependent child moves from a state of dependency to a state of non-dependence (for instance, by leaving full-time education), these parent-child families, by definition, cease to exist. Using the one per cent HSF, we were able to identify families containing non-dependent children and link the characteristics of those children with the characteristics of their parent(s).

The HSF, however, has some limitations: for instance, we do not know the duration of one-parent family experience, either for those now living in them or for those remarried. Neither do we have data on the number of times males have married, nor any information about whether they have ever had children. The missing remarriage data contaminate our family types to an unknown degree while the information about children, although not used in this paper, has a similar effect, not allowing refined categorisation and confining such analysis to females. In an era of high divorce and remarriage, data for female partners cannot necessarily be translated to males.

Because of limitations of other data collections we were unable to calculate the rate of formation of one-parent families via death

121

or divorce for families with children in this age range. Neither can we calculate the rate of departure from a one-parent family via remarriage. Hence observations about the numbers of offspring living with one or two parents at different ages cannot be separated into components to allow analyses of factors which might affect retention rate of the child within the home.

The analysis focuses on the large group of young people residing with their family of origin. The total size of the one per cent sample aged 15 to 24 residing with one or both parents is 14,142. Table i presents a profile of the living arrangements of all 15 to 24 year olds. Within the two-parent family category in this table we also included a number of young people (about 2.8 per cent of the sample) who were recorded as living with only one parent on census night. These are families where the parent stated his or her marital status as married. Other surveys (OCPS, 1982; ABS, 1984a) suggest that the vast majority of such households are really two-parent house- holds in which one parent was, usually temporarily, absent.

For young people aged 15 to 19 years, living in families is by far the most common pattern. Almost 90 per cent of males and 82 per cent of females in this age group still reside with one or more parents (not necessarily both of them being biological parents). Fourteen per cent of this age group, both males and females, are residing with one parent only. The experience of those who have left home differs for males and females. The majority of males who have left home are either living alone or with other non-family members, whereas a larger proportion of females who have left home have already formed a family of their own.

By the age of 20-24 years, over half the males and nearly three- quarters of the females have left the parental residence either to form a family of their own or live in different circumstances.

This table reflects the trends observed in both American and Australian data on the leaving home or splitting off process. Duncan and Morgan (1976) observed that most children in their study of 5,000 American families split off from the parental household between the ages of 18 and 25 years. Christabel Young (1984), in analysing the data from the Institute of Family Studies' Family Formation Survey, has found that the median age of leaving home for all 18-34 year-olds interviewed in late 1981 was 20.7 for males and 19.5 for females. While both the American and Australian research has found that marriage is a main reason for leaving home, Young has noted the growth in the importance of a period of independent living before creating a new family. This trend is borne out in the 1981 HSF data where over half the males aged 20-24 who have left home and one-third of the females of a similar age are living independently of family. Moreover, Young has found that returning home is part of the process of establishing independence for some young people, with males more likely to return home than females. The family form which we are analysing contain an unknown number of returnees.

At this stage in the research, it is difficult to state confi- dently whether our sample of 15 to 24 year-olds still living in their family of origin is either representative or distinctly different,

122

TABLE 1 Distribution of Household Living Arrangements of Young People Aged 15-24 years, by Age and Sex,

Australia, 1981

Household Living Arrangements 15-19

M

Age Group

20-24

F M F

Livin 8 in Families

In Family of Origin

Living with two parents

Living with one parent

Total in Family of Origin

In Family of Creation

Living with spouse/partner, no children

Living with spouse/partner, plus children

Living with children, no spouse/partner

Total in Family of Creation

Not Living in Fmmilies

Living alone or with other non-family members

HSF sample

Living in non-private dwellings*

74.7 67.7 40.0 22.6

14.7 14.1 10.2 6.1

89.4 81 . 8 50.2 28.7

0.4 2.8 14.5 23.4

0.3 2.0 9.2 21.8

O.1 1.2 0.3 4.8

0.8 6.0 24.0 50.0

9.8 12.1 25.9 21.3

lO0.O lO0.O lO0.0 lO0.0

5,900 5,600 5,870 5,800

390 300 480 280

* Excluded from all family analysis

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1981, Census of Population and Housing. Households Sample File, Canberra.

123

in educational and labour force participation, from all youth of that age group. There may well be differential retention rates in the household for different family types and genders. For instance, Duncan and Morgan (1976) found that, for the early 1970s, American parents were more likely to offer their sons continued accommodation within the households when their sons had fulfilled the parental educational aspirations and while their sons were still earning a low income. Remaining at home for daughters was largely related to family income: female daughters from well-to-do families were more likely to remain at home than those from poorer families (p.148). More recently, Weiss's data on the income of one and two-parent families have led him to raise the question of whether the employment of older children in a one-parent family is more likely to cause them to leave home than children in a two-parent family (Weiss, 1984: 119-120). On the other hand, rising youth unemployment in Australia has led at least one Australian analyst to question whether unemploy- ment, in fact, leads to youth being "kicked out" of the family home (Windschuttle, 1980: 86). An Australian study on homeless young people who have been evicted from the family home and were seeking emergency accommodation, showed that a higher percent from single- parent or blended families were evicted from home than were those from families with both natural parents living together (Burke e t al., 1984). To confuse the pattern further, Young (1984) has found that unemployment is a frequently stated reason for returning home. This is an area of research that requires further exploration.

For those young people still living with their family of origin, Table 2 shows the forms of two-parent or one-parent families within which they reside. In order not to contaminate parent-based variables such as family income, this table excludes those youth who were living with one parent on Census night where that parent stated his or her current marital status as married. The majority of youth still living at home are residing with two parents. This does not necessarily imply, however, that they have not at some point during their child- hood experienced a one-parent family. Between 6 and 8 per cent of these youth live in a family where the mother has been married more than once. Of course, this marriage may have occurred prior to the child's birth and thus, in a strict sense, is not a reconstituted family and may overstate the numbers experiencing a one-parent family as they are growing up. No data are available about the remarriage of fathers, and, hence, the intact families may include an unspecified number of reconstituted families where the father has been married more than once.

The most frequent form of one-parent family is the female-headed family. Sons are slightly more likely than daughters to live with a widowed parent while daughters are slightly more likely than sons to live with a divorced or separated parent. By the age of 20-24, however, more than half of all those living with one parent are living with a widowed parent. The information on average annual family income presented in Table 2 shows, firstly, the disparity in family income between two-parent and one-parent families, and, secondly, within the one-parent family form, the obvious differences in family income between female-headed and male-headed families.

124

TABLE 2 Living Arrangements of Youth 15-24 years by Age and Gender of Youth and Marital Status of Parent(s)

and Average Annual Family Income, Australia, 1981.

Living Arrangements

Average Annual Family Income

Males Females

15-19 20-24 15-19 20-24

Living with Two Parents

Mother, married once only 18,400

Other 17,700

77.6 77.6 78.1 77.9

8.4 6.4 7.9 5.9

Living with One Parent

Female Parent, Separated or Divorced 7,800

Female Parent, Widowed 5,900

Male Parent, Separated or Divorced 12,100

Male Parent, Widowed 13,200

Total

n

7.6 5.6 7.9 6.8

3.5 7.2 3.6 6.6

2.3 1.4 1.9 1.4

0.7 1.9 0.6 1.4

lO0.O lO0.O lO0.O 100.O

5,058 2,585 4,552 1,549

For the purpose of this paper, the "intact" two-parent family (mother married once) and the female-headed one-parent family have been selected for the analysis.

The Context of Youth Educational and Labour Force Participation

Early studies of education and labour force patterns of youth assumed that a young person completed his or her education before entering the labour market (Michael and Tuma, 1982). This may have been a legitimate assumption up to the early 1970s: according to the 1971 Australian Census, only 4 per cent of those still at school full-time were also in the labour force. Gregory and Stricker (1981) note that during the 1970s there was more than a two-fold increase in the number of part-time jobs filled by teenagers; most of these jobs were filled by those still at school. Gregory and Stricker point

125

out further than school retention rates were declining amongst teen- agers during this period and unemployment was increasing. For those aged 15 to 19 years, the unemployment rate had risen from 2.5 per cent for males in 1966 to approximately 23 per cent in 1983, and for females from 4 per cent to approximately 22 per cent, respectively. For 20-24 year-olds, the unemployment rate rose from around 2 per cent in 1966 to over ii per cent in 1983 for both males and females (ABS, 1984b). Gregory and Stricker offer two main explanations for the increase in part-time labour force participation for youth in school and simultaneous increase in unemployment among this age group: firstly, that a new type of job is being created to suit those still at school, incorporating short hours and after-school work; secondly, that unemployed young people are disproportionately disadvantaged by taking part-time jobs because of the low wages and insecurity of many of these positions. Hence, they remain on unemployment benefits.

Within education and labour market options available to young people, the research suggests several trends that seem to offer distinct advantages in terms of future employment. First, staying on at school improves labour market success more than having to leave early to join the workforce (Gregory and Stricker, 1981; Keeves, 1981). Secondly, obtaining post-school qualifications is related to higher labour force participation rates and lower unemployment (ABS, 1982). Thirdly, gaining part-time employment while still attending an educational institution appears to be an opportunity available to those in middle and upper income families. American research (Michael and Tuma, 1982) has shown that those from higher income families are significantly more likely to be employed while in school than those from lower income families. Analysing the 1976 data for Australian young people, Gregory and Stricker (1982) found that, contrary to the American research, the labour force partici- pation rates of those at school did not differ greatly across income classes, although there was a tendency for participation rates to be highest at each end of the income range. It is this range of education and labour force patterns that we will examine.

In this study, youth education and labour force activities take into account the overlapping patterns of education and labour force participation.

The data in Table 3 show the education and labour force partici- pation of young Australians by age group, sex and family type. In considering the total proportions attending an educational institution or those proportions not attending an educational institution but in the labour force, differences appear between young people in one and two-parent families. Those from two-parent families are more likely to be attending an educational institution, although the magnitude of the difference between the groups lessens in the older age category. Those from one-parent families, on the other hand, are more likely to be in the labour force. If staying on in education is an advantage for future employment prospects, then clearly those young people from two-parent families have the advantage on their side.

The concept of "marginal labour force" is introduced in this table as a means of summarizing the different labour force situations

126

TABLE 3 Education and Labour Force Participation of

Australian Youth Living with Parent(s) by

Age, Sex and F.m41y Type, 1981 [i]

Males Females Males Females

15-19 15-19 20-24 20-24

Education and Labour Two- One- Two- One- Two- One- Two- One-

Force Participation Parent Parent Parent Parent Parent Parent Parent Parent

Total Attending

Educational Institution 60.8 51.6 58.8 46.0 22.9 16.6 18.2 18.0

Secondary, not working 31.0 28.6 31.9 26.3 * * * *

Secondary, working 3.9 3.1 8.2 3.9 * * * *

Full-time, Post-

Secondary, not working 10.7 10.5 13.6 ll.3 7.8 5.2 7.8 7.0

Full-time, Post-

Secondary, working 2.4 1.4 3.2 3.1 2.8 1.3 4.5 4.0

Part-time, Post-

Secondary, working 2 12.8 8.0 3.8 1.4 12.3 lO.1 5.9 5.0

Total not attending

Educational Institution 39.1 48.5 41.0 53.9 75.8 82.7 81.0 84.0

Labour force, full-time 29.4 30.2 28.2 29.2 60.1 59.7 60.8 60.0

Labour force, part-time 2.B 4.1 3.8 6.6 5.8 8.1 8.4 8.0

Unemployed 4.7 ll.5 8.3 12.5 6.1 10.7 7.8 9.5

Not in the Labour Force 2.2 2.7 2.7 5.6 3.8 4.2 4.0 5.5

Total Marginal

Labour Force 9.7 18.3 12.8 24.7 15.7 23.0 20.2 23.0

n 3,678 514 3,361 486 1,912 308 1,161 200

Total Per Cent lO0.O lO0.O lO0.O i00.0 i00.0 I00.0 i00.0 lO0.O

* Cell numbers too small to permit analysis. For further details on standard errors

for this and subsequent tables, readers are alerted to the issue of cell sizes in

the interpretation of tables and may consult ABS (1983) Catalogue 2165.0.

1 Two-parent families used in this and subsequent tables are those where the mother

has been married once only. One-parent families used in this and subsequent tables

are female-headed families.

2 This includes a very small proportion who are not working.

127

of those in one and two-parent families. Marginal labour force includes part-time employees, the unemployed, and those young people neither attending an educational institution nor in the labour force. A sharp contrast appears between those in the two family types, with sex differences appearing in the younger group of 15-19 year-olds. Whereas 18 per cent of 15-19 year-old sons in a one-parent family are characterised as having marginal labour force experience, only 9.7 per cent of sons in a two-parent family are in this category. A similar two-to-one disadvantage is found between daughters in two and one-parent families in this age group, although teenage females have higher proportions of marginal labour force participation than teenage males. The differences in the proportions experiencing marginal labour force participation continue to appear for the 20-24 year-old males, but are not as pronounced for the females in that age category. The extent to which all this may be a consequence of the dissimilar levels of income in one and two-parent families will be discussed later.

The Impact of FAmily on Educational and Labour Force Outcomes of Youth

Behind the comparison of one and two-parent families is the argument that family form places different expectations and con- straints upon, and may produce different patterns of, education and labour force participation for young people. In general, family research shows that, regardless of family type, certain factors affect educational and occupational outcomes for youth. For example, sex differences in socialization produce different educational and occupational aspirations (Marini and Greenberger, 1978); birth order and family size may affect educational attainment and employment while still in school (Michael and Tuma, 1982); and family socio-economic status has been classified as the single most important predictor of an individual's occupational outcome (Schulenberg, 1984).

The effect of socio-economic status on different family types has been well documented by Weiss (1984), who found that marital dissolution not only sent average household income plummeting but held it at a constantly lower level over time. Meanwhile, the house- hold income of married families continued to increase over time, even for those on the lowest level of income. Thus, a low-income one- parent family was likely, at the end of five years of separation or divorce, to be confined to approximately half of what it would have expected to be receiving had the parents remained married. Weiss also noted that, in a low-income married couple family, mother's earned income contributed only around one-quarter of household income, compared with a contribution of around three-fifths of total household income in a low-income one-parent family.

Despite the importance of mother's earned income in household income, however, the passage of time produced no marked change in the proportion of low-income mothers who worked, or in the amount their work contributed to their household income. Middle, and especially higher, income level families did show some tendency for the mother's own earnings to become more important, although overall the trend was not particularly marked (Weiss, op.cit.).

128

Weiss was also somewhat perplexed by the finding that, whereas the proportion of households in which children contributed from their earnings was no greater among the separated and divorced than among the married, in the middle and higher income categories fewer house- holds of the separated and divorced contained earning children. He offered as a possible explanation the notion that children in higher income one-parent families may be more likely to leave home than those in two-parent families.

While Weiss's research offers only indirect measures of labour force participation within different family types, a now classic study (Blau and Duncan, 1967) found that, even when family socio-economic status was held constant, males from one-parent families tended to attain less education and consequently lower occupational status. This finding held true regardless of whether the parent was the mother or father, or whether the departure was due to separation, divorce or death. Shaw (1982), studying females only, found that controlling for level of income eliminated differences in the high school completion rates for females.

With respect to Australia, Cass and Garde (1984) have noted that labour force disadvantage, particularly with respect to unemployment, is concentrated within families. That is, a wife or a child is far more likely to be unemployed when the father is also unemployed. This study does not, however, differentiate between family types. Henderson and Hough (1984) have decried the lack of longitudinal data in Australia which would allow the consequences of raising children in the poverty surrounding one-parent families to be studied. Citing American research, they conclude that children who drop out of high school are more likely to suffer prolonged periods of poverty later; that children of single parents are much more likely to drop out, and that the main reason they do so is the low level of family income.

Overwhelmingly, the research suggests that family income is a critical variable in predicting outcomes for youth. This research, therefore, focuses on family income and its effects upon the labour force and educational choices and constraints of young people living with one or both parents.

The Analysis of Education and Labour Force Participation by FRm~ly Income

The overall educational participation rate for sons in two-parent families is higher than that for sons in one-parent families (46.0 per cent compared with 36.0 per cent); the percentage of students from two-parent families working is also higher than that of students from one-parent families (36.1 per cent compared with 30.2 per cent).

These differences, however, disappear or even reverse slightly when level of family income is introduced as a control. When that occurs, the general pattern is for both educational participation and labour force participation to increase as family income increases in both two and one-parent families. One exception to this pattern is post-secondary education: in middle income families, a higher

129

TABLE 4 Sons Aged 15-24, Living with Parent(s):

Proportion Still Studying According to Level of Study,

Employment Status, F~m~ly Type and Family Income

Level of Study

and Family Income

Family Income Educational % of Students Distribution Participation Rate 2 Working

Two-parent One-parent Two-parent One-parent Two-parent One-parent

Secondary n = 1,240 n = 161

Low i1.5 73.3 47.2 45.4 3.5 6.8

Medium 33.7 21.7 50.8 53.8 lO.O 20.0

High 54.8 5.0 56.4 * 14.6 *

Total lO0.O lO0.O 54.2 47.9 ll.6 9.9

Post-Secondary

Full-time n = 653 n = 79

Low 12.1 75.9 14.2 14.5 12.7 10.3

Medium 28.0 15.2 16.0 12.5 18.6 33.3

High 59.g 8.9 25.2 * 23.0 *

Total lO0.O I00.0 20.I 15.0 20.5 13.9

Post-secondary

Part-time n = 658 n = 71

Low 10.2 63.4 12.0 10.9 66.6 93.3

Medium 30.5 32.4 17.5 24.0 98.5 95.7

High 59.3 4.2 25.1 * 96.7 *

Total i00.0 lOO.O 20.2 13.5 96.0 94.4

Total Still

Studying n = 2,551 n = 311

Low ll.3 71.7 33.6 33.1 26.6 25.1

Medium 31.4 22.5 40.7 43.5 33.7 35.7

High 57.2 5.8 53.8 64.3 39.4 33.3

Total lO0.O lO0.O 46.6 36.0 36.1 30.2

i Family income categories (sum of the gross incomes of sources):

low - less than $I0,000

medium - $i0,001 - $18,000

high - $18,001 and more

130

TABLE 5 Daughters Aged 15-24, Living with Parent(s) : Proportion S t i l l Studying According to Level of Study,

Employment Status, Family Type and Family Income

Level of Study

and Family Income

Family Income

Distribution

Two-parent One-parent

Educational % of Students Participation Rate 2 Working

Two-parent One-parent Two-parent One-parent

Secondary n = 1,207 n = 148

Low ll.6 88.8 48.4 38.2 14.3 13.7

Medium 32.8 25.0 50.8 51.4 15.5 8.1

High 55.8 5.4 58.9 * 17.8 *

Total lO0.O lO0.O 54.8 42.4 16.7 12.2

Post-Secondary

Full-time n = 678 n = 90

Low 11.2 63.3 22.7 21.7 17.1 17.5

Medium 28.0 32.2 23.8 34.1 16.4 34.5

High 60.8 4.4 38.7 * 25.8 *

Total i00.0 i00.0 30.0 25.4 22.2 25.6

Post-Secondary

Part-time n = 188 n = 17

Low 12.7 64.7 7.2 4.2 87.5 *

Medium 28.8 28.4 8.8 5.8 80.7 *

High 58.7 5.g 8.8 * 83.7 *

Total lO0.O lO0.O 8.4 4.8 82.1 88.2

Total Still

Studying n = 2,072 n = 255

Low ll.6 67.1 37.7 32.5 22.5 19.3

Medium 30.7 27.8 40.5 45.2 22.1 25.4

High 57.7 5.1 53.3 61.8 27.8 *

Total i00.0 lO0.O 48.5 38.2 25.3 22.0

2 The educational participation rate for secondary schools is defined as the number of

sons/daughters in each family category and income level who are still in secondary

school divided by all sons/daughters aged 15-17 years in the same family type and

income level.

The educational participation rate for post-secondary schools is defined as the number

of sons/daughters in each family category and income level who are in post-secondary

school (calculated separately for full-time and part-time students) divided by all

sons/daughters aged 18-24 years old in the same family type and income level.

The educational participation rate for the total population of sons/daughters still

studying is defined as the number of sons/daughters in each family type and income

level divided by all sons/daughters aged 15-24 years old in the same family type and

income level.

131

proportion of sons from two-parent than from one-parent families is attending post-secondary education full-time, while in part-time post- secondary education, a higher proportion of sons from one-parent families is enrolled compared with sons from two-parent families (24.0 per cent contrasted with 17.5 per cent). Most of this post-secondary part-time education is found within the TAFE system. From this data, it appears that, in middle income families, the TAFE system attracts more sons from one-parent than from two-parent families.

In considering the percentage of students who are also employed, differences are observed in the student working rate for those in secondary and full-time post-secondary education, where a higher proportion of sons in one-parent families are working while studying. For part-time, post-secondary students, the differences in the working rate of students in one and two-parent families are less pronounced.

Daughters in two-parent families have higher educational partici- pation and labour force participation rates than do daughters in one- parent familes (Table 5). Most, but not all, of this difference is eliminated or even reversed when income is introduced. In low-income families, the proportion of daughters still studying (32.5 per cent) is lower than the proportion of daughters still studying in two-parent families (37.7 per cent). At each level of education, there is less likelihood that daughters in low-income one-parent families will be studying than daughters in low-income two-parent families. These differences in educational participation for daughters in two and one-parent families disappear at the middle-income family range.

The main sex differences appear when comparing the data in Tables 4 and 5. First, educational participation rates for daughters in full-time post-secondary education are substantially higher in both family types than the rates for males, while their part-time post- secondary educational participation rates are substantially lower than for males. This latter part-time participation difference is largely a reflection of the TAFE system which attracts far greater numbers of males into traditional apprenticeships. Second, the over- all proportion of female students working is lower than the proportion of male students working, even when income and family type are taken into account, but not when level of education is examined. With the exception of post-secondary part-time education (where working is most often part of the course of study), daughters are more likely to be working than sons.

Table 6 examines the labour force participation of those who no longer attend school. For sons in one-parent families, the overall labour force participation rate is about ten percentage points higher than for sons in two-parent families (61.4 per cent compared with 51.5 per cent). Nonetheless, these differences in the overall labour force participation rate almost completely disappear once the level of family income is introduced. When examining the labour force status of sons in two and one-parent families, however, some differences in the nature of labour force participation are retained despite the control for family income. In considering full-time employment status, for example, the proportion employed full-time

132

increases with family income for sons in two-parent families. Both part-time labour force participation and unemployment decrease with rising family income.

This is not the pattern for sons from one-parent families. Family income does not explain their labour force participation rates. As family income rises, the full-time labour force participation of sons in one-parent families remains constant at 67 per cent. Also, their part-time labour force participation actually increases with family income and their unemployment remains at a fairly high 19 per cent for middle income sons in one-parent families. These findings raise the question whether unemployed sons in middle-income one-parent families stay at home (or return home) more than unemployed sons in two-parent families.

Table 7 presents the labour force participation of daughters who are no longer studying. The overall labour force participation pattern is similar to that found for sons. Daughters in one-parent families have a labour force participation rate about ten percentage points higher than the rate for daughters in two-parent families (61.9 per cent compared with 51.2 per cent). Not all of this difference disappears when family income is taken into account. The labour force participation rate for daughters in low-income families continues to be higher for those from one-parent families. Most of the differences in the nature of employment, however, disappear with family income. Interestingly, daughters in one-parent families have the highest proportion outside the labour force (8.9 per cent compared with 5.7 per cent for daughters in two-parent families). This may well reflect either hidden unemployment or discouraged job seekers. Why this seems to affect daughters from one-parent families more than daughters from two-parent families, even when level of family income is considered, is unknown at this point in the research.

Three major sex differences emerge: non-student daughters are more likely to be out of the labour force than sons. In addition, daughters in low and middle income two-parent families have higher rates of unemployment than sons in two-parent families. Sons and daughters in low income one-parent families have quite similar rates of unemployment. Thirdly, daughters in both one and two-parent families have lower rates of full-time employment and higher rates of marginal participation than do sons. Daughters in one-parent families have the highest marginal participation rates of all groups, with almost four out of ten experiencing less than full-time work.

The last two columns of data in Tables 6 and 7 encapsulate the impact of family income on the labour force activities of young people who are not attending an educational institution. Overall, three out of ten sons in both one and two-parent families, and four out of ten daughters, are not in full-time jobs. The most important contributor to this pattern in unemployment. The striking effects of increasing family income which have been noted in educational participation are also apparent in labour force participation. Yet, exceptions to this relationship appear for daughters in low income one-parent families as well as for sons in middle-income one-parent families. These latter findings require further explanation.

133

TABLE 6 Proportion of Sons 15-24 No Longer Studying, Living with Parents, by Labour Force Participation,

Family Type and Family Income

Level of Family Income

SONS IN TWO-PARENT FAMILIES

Labour Force Labour Force Status Total Marginal Participation Labour Force

Rate Employed Employed Unemployed Not in Participation Full time Part-time Labour

Force

Low 18.9 63.9 67.0 8.4 17.0 7.6 33.0

Medium 39.2 57.0 78.2 7.2 9.9 4.7 21.8

High 41.9 43.8 81.4 6.8 7.4 4.5 18.7

Total lO0.O 51.5 77.4 7.3 10.2 5.2 27.2

n 2,713

SONS IN ONE-PARENT FAMILIES

Level of Labour Force Labour Force Status Total Marginal

Family Income Participation Labour Force (%) Rate Employed Employed Unemployed Not in Participation

Full-time Part-time Labour

Force

Low 82.0 64.5 67.7 8.4 18.0 5.9 33.2

Medium 16.0 53.0 67.1 ll.4 19.0 * 32.9

High 2.0 * * * * * *

Total lO0.O 81.4 69.8 9.2 18.5 5.4 32.2

n 494

Note: Labour Force Participation is calculated as a percentage of all 15-24 year- olds living at home within each family type.

134

TABLE 7 Proportion of Daughters 15-24 No Longer Studying, Living with Parents, by Labour Force Participation,

Family Type and Family Income

DAUGHTERS IN TWO-PARENT FAMILIES

Level of Labour Force Labour Force Status Total Marginal Family Income Participation Labour Force

(%) Rate Employed Employed Unemployed Not in Participation Full-time Part-time Labour

Force

Low 16.7 60.3 59.9 8.0 24.2 8.0 40.2

Medium 39.4 57.4 70.7 i0.6 13.9 4.8 29.3

High 43.9 44.4 77.6 9.5 7.2 5.6 22.3

Total lO0.O 51.2 71.9 9.7 12.7 5.7 28.1

n 2,177

DAUGHTERS IN ONE-PARENT FAMILIES

Level of Labour Force Labour Force Status Total Marginal Family Income Participation Labour Force

(%) Rate Employed Employed Unemployed Not in Participation Full-time Part-time Labour

Force

Low 79.7 65.9 60.3 ii.2 19.4 9.1 39.7

Medium 18.6 52.0 70.i 13.0 7.8 9.1 29.9

High 1.4 * * * * * *

Total lO0.O 61.9 62.1 11.4 17.6 8.9 37.9

n 414

Note: Labour Force Participation is calculated as a percentage of all 15-24 year- olds living at home within each family type.

135

Summary and Conclusions

At first glance, those young people who are launching themselves from a one-parent family are disadvantaged, at least in the immediate term. They are less likely to remain in secondary school or in post- secondary education than their peers in two-parent families. More- over, once out of school, their participation in the labour force is far more marginal than that of those in two-parent families. Generally, though, these overall differences vanish once family income is taken into account. It is low income more than family type which explains restricted education and labour force opportunity. Henderson and Hough (1984: 8) concluded from US data that the incomes of one-parent families must be raised. If this is the case, the question is, how? Remarriage is an obvious way of raising family income. The data on average family income in Table 2 suggest that for women moving from a one-parent to a two-parent family, family income more than doubles. However, counterbalancing this is evidence that older women are less likely to remarry (Leete and Anthony, 1979) - and the parents of the youth in this study are, by and large, over forty years old. Therefore, low income may be a long-term prospect rather than a short-term experience.

Policy options for raising the incomes of one-parent families may include increased government assistance in the short term, as well as considering ways, in the long run, of improving the earning capacity of females with offspring in their care. The Participation and Equity Program, which has been implemented since the 1981 census, has been designed specifically to provide opportunities for financially disadvantaged students. Whether these opportunities translate into equal outcomes will be a matter for further exploration following the release of the 1986 Census. In the meantime, the Matrimonial and Property Enquiry, which has been designed to investi- gate the distribution of assets following marital break-up, might also consider the implications of low income female-headed families for the young people in those families.

Although income bears a strong relationship to the immediate participation of youth, there is still the question as to whether income is itself a mediator of other closely linked factors within the family. Two exceptions to the overall effects of family income emerged from the data which warrant further exploration: firstly, daughters in lower-income one-parent families retain a lower educational participation rate than daughters in two-parent families. This holds for every level of education. Consequently, the labour force participation rate for daughters in low-income one-parent families is higher. For sons, it is in the middle-income range that the expected patterns are not found. Sons have a lower participation rate in full-time post-secondary education and a considerably higher rate of part-time post-secondary education. Also, for those in the labour force, their full-time participation is substantially lower than that of their peers in two-parent families, and their marginal labour force substantially higher. While family income itself would appear to be a mediator of disadvantage, these latter findings suggest that family income is not the only contributor to the educational and labour force position of youth in one-parent families.

136

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research was supported in part by a Seeding Grant from Swinburne Institute of Technology. The authors acknowledge the help given by John Pidgeon, George Ooi, Leigh Baker, Eileen Doubtfire in the preparation of this paper.

REFERENCES

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (1980) General Social Survey: Australian Families (May 1975). Canberra: Catalogue No. 4107.0.

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTCS (1982) Labour Force Status and Educational Attainment~ Australia~ February 1982 (Preliminary). Canberra: Catalogue No. 6240.0.

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (1983) Census 81 - Sample Files on Magnetic Tape. Canberra: Catalogue No. 2165.0.

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (1984a) Australian Families~ 1982. Canberra: Catalogue No. 4408.0.

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (1984b) and Unemployment~ 1966-1983~ Australia. 6246.0.

Employment~ Underemployment Canberra: Catalogue No.

BLAU, P.M. and O.D. DUNCAN (1967) Structure. Wiley, New York.

The American Occupational

BURKE, T., L. HANCOCK and P. NEWTON (1984) A Roof Over Their Heads: Housing Issues and Families in Australia. Institute of Family Studies Monograph No. 4, Melbourne.

CASS, B. and P. GARDE (1984) "Unemployment in the Western Region of Sydney: Job Seeking in a Local Labour Market". In R. HOOKE (ed.), 54th ANZAAS Congress: SWRC Papers, 47: 5-56. The University of New South Wales, Social Welfare Research Centre, Kensington, NSW.

EDGAR, D. and F. MAAS (1984) "Adolescent Competence, Leaving Homes and Changing Family Patterns". Paper presented to the XXth Inter- national Comparative Family Research Seminar on Social Change and Family Policies, Melbourne, 19-24 August.

GREENBERGER, E. and L.D. STEINBERG (1983) "Sex Differences in Early Labour Force Experience: Harbinger of Things to Come". Social Forces: 62 (2).

137

GREGORY, R.G. and P. STRICKER (1981) "Teenage Employment and Unemployment in the 1970's". In C.E. BAIRD, R.G. GREGORY and F.H. GRUEN (eds), Youth Employment I Education and Training. Canberra.

HENDERSON, R. and D. HOUGH (1984) "Sydney's Poor Get Squeezed". Australian Society, 3 (5).

KAMERMAN, S. (1981) "Young People as Individuals and as Family Members: The Implications for Public Policy". In A.C. EURICH (ed.), Major Transitions in the Human Life Cycle: lOl-ll3. Lexington Books, D.C., Heath and Co., Lexington, Mass.

KEEVES, J.P. (1981) "The Transition from School to Work, to Further Training and to a Constructive Adult Life". In C.E. BAIRD, R.G. GREGORY and F.H. GRUEN (eds), Youth Employment, Education and Training: 2.0-2.29. Conference Papers, Canberra.

LEETE, R. and S. ANTHONY (1979) "Divorce and Remarriage: a Record- Linkage Study'. Population Trends, 16: 5-11.

MARINI, M.M. (1978) "Sex Differences in the Determination of Adoles- cent Aspirations: A Decade of Research". Sex Roles, 4 (5).

MARINI, M.M. and E. GREENBERGER (1978) "Sex Differences in Eduational Aspirations and Expections". American Educational Research Journal, 15 (1).

MICHAEL, R.T. and N.B. TUMA (1982) "Employment, Unemployment, Schooling, Marriage and Fertility Patterns of American Youths". Discussion Paper 82-5. National Opinion Research Center, Economics Research Center, Chicago, Illinois.

NOCK, S.L. (1982) "Enduring Effects of Marital Disruption and Subsequent Living Arrangements". Journal of Family Issues, 3 (i).

OFFICE OF POPULATION CENSUS AND SURVEYS (1982) General Household Survey, 1980. HMSO, London.

PARISH, T.S. (1981) Adolescence, 16 (63).

"The Impact of Divorce on the Family".

PARISH, T.S et al. (1981) "Evaluations of Self and Parents as a Function of Intactness of Family and Family Happiness". Adolescence, 16 (61).

PARISH, J. and T.S. PARISH (1983) "Children's Self-Concepts as Related to Family Structure and Family Concept". Adolescence, 18 (71).

SCHULENBERG, J.E., F.W. VONDRACEK and A.C. CROUTER (1984) "The Influence of Family on Vocational Development". Journal of Marriage and the Family, (February).

SHAW, L.B. (1982) "High School Completion for Young Women". Journal of Family Issues, 3 (2).

138

SLATER, E.J. et al. (1983) "The Effects of Family Disruption on Adolescent Males and Females". Adolescence, 18 (72).

WARE, H. (1982) "The Status of Women in Australia". Population of Australia, 2 (21). Country Monograph Series No.9. United Nations, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, New York.

WEISS, R.S. (1984) "The Impact of Marital Dissolution on Income and Consumption in Single-Parent Households". Journal of Marriase and the Family, (February).

WlNDSCHUTTLE, K. (1980) Unemployment: A Social and Political Analysis of the Economic Crisis in Australia. Penguin Books, Ringwood, Victoria.

YOUNG, C., (1984) "Leaving Home and Returning Home: A Demographic Study of Young Adults in Australia". Australian Family Research Conference, Proceedings, vol.l. Family Formation I Structure r Values: 53-98. Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.

139