complex families: analytic complications and policy conundrums

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


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


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




Both mothers have children only with him

Both mothers have children with 2 fathers

Both mothers have children with 3 fathers


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

28

For more information

Related papers and reports: http://www.irp.wisc.edu

or

[email protected]

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)





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)





Collective-- Father's perspectiveSequential

complex families: analytic complications and policy conundrums

Documents