1. The Timing and Partnership Context of Becoming a Parent: Childhood Antecedents, Cohort and Gender John Hobcraft University of York

2. Main Questions Links of Childhood Disadvantage to becoming a parent? How do Childhood Disadvantages play through Timing and Partnership Context? –Role in off-time and off-context first births Do these links vary by Cohort and by Gender?

3. Data sources The British Birth Cohort Studies The National Child Development Study (NCDS) longitudinal study of children born in one week of March 1958: follow-ups at ages 7, 11, 16, 23, 33, and 42 British Cohort Study (BCS70) longitudinal study of children born in one week of April 1970: follow-ups at age 5, 10, 16, 26, and 30 N=22,324

4. First Births by Age 30 Proportions having a first birth by age 30 (%) NCDSBCS70 Males5339 Females6754

5. Cohort changes in exposure and birth context Exposure to risk % First births % Context1958197019581970 Never Partnered69 717 Out of Partnership3513 Cohabiting716730 Married ex-cohab562133 Married directly1646418

6. Crude & standardized rates of first birth (per thousand) Standardized for: CrudeAgeAge & context NCDS Males4746 NCDS Females697248 BCS70 Males333147 BCS70 Females50 51

7. Changing childhood contexts Increasing parental divorce/ separation Move to earlier childbearing among CM parents Increased gender equity Residualisation of social (public) housing

8. Changing contexts of transition to adulthood for 1970 cf 1958 Increased importance of education Better average income But greater income inequality Rising unemployment to age 30 for 1958 cohort Less favourable housing market Shifts in normative partnership contexts for births Delayed transitions to adulthood Greater gender equity –Narrowed education differences by gender –Increased female employment Lower security – employment, welfare state, partnership

9. Childhood Antecedents Socioeconomic status (4 waves) –Class of origin, Fathers class, & Child poverty Housing tenure (3 waves) Parental ages at cohort members birth Family disruption (4 waves) – born out of wedlock, ever in care, parental separation, & widow(er)hood Parental Interest in Schooling (age 10 or 11) Anti-Social Behaviour (3,2, & 1 waves) –Aggression, truancy, & contact with police Academic test scores (3 waves)

10. Timing and Contexts Age-Groups –16-19 –20-22 –23-24 –25-29 Partnership Contexts –Never partnered –Out of partnership –Cohabiting –Married ex-cohabiting –Direct marriage

11. Analytic strategy 1 Episode files & Poisson rate models Basic timing model Timing model with childhood antecedents Basic timing and partnership context model Timing and partnership with childhood antecedents

12. Analytic strategy 2 Interact timing and context measures with gender & cohort and with each other Interact childhood antecedents with timing and with context Further interact all of these with gender and with cohort Total of 301 dummies for timing model And 617 dummies for timing and context model

13. Analytic strategy 3 Repeated blocked stepwise regressions –Get preliminary model –Test for addition of all possible terms –Modify model to include residual extra significant terms –Repeat until stable P<0.001

14. Results – Summary (IRRs) Timing & Context Model Six pervasive childhood disadvantages – all ages to 30, all partnership contexts –IRRs 1.11 to 1.19 Six age-threshold childhood disadvantages –IRRs 1.13 to 2.47 Eight less favourable partnership context terms –IRRs 1.17 to 1.81, (4>=1.40) Parsimony – 20 child antecedent & 12 T&C terms (of 617 dummies!)

15. Pervasive childhood disadvantages – all ages to 30, all contexts, both genders and cohorts –Social housing (1.16), –Any young parent (1.18), –low parental interest (1.29), –fairly ASB (1.11), –<2 high Q tests (1.15) –2/3 Low Q tests (1.11)

16. Age-threshold childhood disadvantages Mainly long reach to age 25; half are gendered –16-24: clear SES (1.13), strong SES (1.20) –16-24 Females: any ASB (1.13), <2 High quartile tests (1.33) –16-22: any Low Q test (1.17) –16-19 Females Very ASB (2.47)

17. Less favourable partnership context terms Main contrasts by married vs not married –Not married: any SES (1.21), no very interested (1.19), any ASB (1.17), <2 High Q test (1.51) any Low Q test (1.36) –Not in partnership: any family disruption (1.49), –Not in partnership Females: Strong SES (1.43) –Never partnered 1970 Cohort: Social housing (1.81)

18. Gender & Cohort terms GENDER – all excess female legacies of disadvantage; predominantly timing –16-24, Females: any ASB (1.13), <2 High quartile tests (1.33) –16-19, Females: Very ASB (2.47) –Not in partnership, Females: Strong SES (1.43) COHORT –Never partnered 1970 Cohort: Social housing (1.81)

19. IRRs for CM Parents ages Father >25 & Mother >23 Either or both parents young 1.001.18

20. Net IRRs - Tenure NCDSBCS70 AllEver Partnered Never Partnered No Local Authority 1.00 Any Local Authority 1.16 2.10

21. Net IRRs – Family Disruption Not in partnership In partnership No Disruption1.00 Any Disruption 1.49 1.00

22. Net IRRs – Parental Interest Not MarriedMarried Any very1.00 No very, but no little or no 1.191.00 Any little or no 1.53 1.29

23. Net IRRs for SES SES Deprivation 16-24 Not Marr 25-29 Not Marr 16-24 Marr 25-29 Marr No evidence1.00 Slight/ Some1.21 1.00 Clear 1.37 1.211.131.00 Strong 1.64 1.21 1.35 1.00 16-24 Not Part 25-29 Not Part Strong Female 2.351.74

24. Net IRRs for ASB ASBNot MarriedMarried 16-19 Fem 20-24 Fem Men 25+ F 16-19 Fem 20-24 Fem Men 25+ F None1.00 Slight1.33 1.171.13 1.00 Fairly1.47 1.301.25 1.11 Very 3.63 1.471.30 3.10 1.251.11

25. Net IRRs - Test Scores Not MarriedMarried 16-2223-2425-2916-2223-2425-29 2/3 Hi1.00 No Lo1.74 1.15 Any L2.772.371.351.15 2/3 Lo3.072.631.491.28 No Lo2.321.741.531.15 Any L3.693.161.791.15 2/3 Lo4.083.501.981.28

26. Summary 1 CONSISTENCY of legacies of childhood disadvantage Childhood antecedents play through partnership context slightly more often and more strongly than through age Childhood antecedents generally have long age reach covering 16-24 or 16-29 Childhood disadvantage especially associated with excess first birth rates outside of marriage and only slightly more out of co-residential partnership

27. Gender Most child disadvantages apply equally to men & womens first birth rates (16) Excess legacies of disadvantage only for women and link more to timing (3) than context (1) Four (of 12) structural parameters capture remaining gender differences

28. Cohort Remarkably only one interplay of childhood disadvantage with cohort identified – social housing There is also only one structural element for cohort, with an IRR of 1.31 for the not married group in the 1970 cohort, reflecting the rise in first births outside marriage (both cohabiting and not in partnership)

29. Limitations Further paper needed to explore links of childhood disadvantages, gender and cohort to partnership contexts Also correlated errors and multistate multiprocess models?

30. Conclusion Childhood disadvantages are drivers of risky demographic behaviours: –out-of-wedlock (or out-of-partnership) –Youthful parenthood? Important consequences (not documented here): –Partnership instability –Less father involvement –Socioeconomic disadvantage –Poorer mental health –Gender inequities – penalties of risky parenthood greater for mothers than fathers