Childrens Movement in and out of Parental Household in the - - PDF document

1

Children’s Movement in and out of Parental Household in the United-States: An Overview

Inbar Weiss, R. Kelly Raley, and Robert Reynolds University of Texas-Population Research Center The rise in divorce, cohabitation, non-marital fertility and other changes in the traditional family structure in the second half of the 20th century (Cherlin 2004) led to an extensive exploration on the effect of changes in family structure and family instability on children’s well-being (e.g. Coleman, Ganong, and Fine 2000; Fomby and Cherlin 2007). Almost three decades of research conclude that children who experience family instability in childhood are at higher risk of behavior problems, low academic achievement and health issues. Recent studies suggest that these effects and their strength differ by the type of transitions and that some changes have a stronger effect than others (Magnuson and Berger 2009; Lee and McLanahan 2015). Two changes in family structure that have been mostly ignored and are likely to have a strong effect on children’s well-being are the movements of children in and out of their parents’ home. Most studies of family instability measure children’s family instability by using the marital and cohabitation histories of their mothers, assuming that children live with their mothers through their childhood and

• adolescence. This assumption and the structure of data that are typically in use do not allow us to

measure the number and the effect of moving in and out of parental household. Using the 2008 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), which is a longitudinal household roster dataset, we aim to overcome this problem and to estimate the movement of children in and out of their parental household. The goal of this paper is to test how often children leave their parents’ household, how long it takes them to reenter a parental household and how these transitions differ by sex, race, and household structure. Background Family instability and children well-being Parental divorce, remarriage and cohabitation are family disruptions that destabilize the family system and cause stress among children and their parents (Cooper et al. 2009; Fomby and Osborne 2017). Moving to new residence, adapting to new household members and to new household routine

2 and activities are changes that cause stress and are associated with both parental union instability and children well-being (Coleman, Ganong, and Fine 2000). Beside stress, children who face family disruption also experienced reduction in time parents spend monitoring them and a reduction in parent-child communication (Astone and McLanahan 1991). These poorer outcomes can be exacerbated when stepparents are involved, as remarriage disrupts the ability of parents to raise their children due to time and energy investment in the new partner over childrearing. Biological mothers who remarried, for example, were found to be less involved in their children education than parents in both parents households (Bogenschneider 1997). In addition, stepparents invest less in their interaction with stepchildren, show less affection and are less involved in their activities and problems (Coleman, Ganong, and Fine 2000). At the same time, stepchildren may not be willing to accept the resources that stepparents are providing (Downey 1995). The stress, reduction in parent-child time and the changes in norms and routines affect children’s well-being. Recent studies find that maternal union instability is negatively associated with children’s emotional development, behavior problems, academic achievement and health. Osborne and McLanahan (2007) for example, find that the number of partnership transitions has a positive effect on anxious, depressed and aggressive behaviors of children at age 3. A similar effect was also found to be significant at older ages (Cavanagh and Huston 2006; Fomby and Osborne 2017; Lee and McLanahan 2015). In addition, drug use among adolescent was found to be especially high among children in single father or father and step-mother households and the stress related to changes in family structure are one of the explanations to these findings (Hoffmann and Johnson 1998). Family instability also negatively affects children performance in school as measured by self- reported GPA (Heard 2007) and high-school graduation rates(Zill, Ruane Morrison, and Coiro 1993; Cavanagh, Schiller, and Riegle-Crumb 2006). In terms of health, children in unstable families are at higher risk of asthma and obesity than children in stable families with similar family structure at birth (Bzostek and Beck 2011) and young adults who experience parental divorce during childhood are more likely to experience mental health problem (Chase-Lansdale, Cherlin, and Kiernan 1995). The effect of family instability on health has even further implication as adults who experienced as children changes in family structure are found to be less likely to reach medical and mental help when in need (Evans et

• al. 2017).

3 Measuring family instability Most studies that focus on children’s family instability measure it using mothers’ partnership

• history. Researchers usually use data collected from women on their fertility, marital, and cohabitation

histories and rearrange these data to create measurements of children’s family instability (e.g. Raley and Wildsmith 2004; Fomby and Cherlin 2007; Schoon et al. 2012). These analyses usually rely on one

• f two assumptions: that children live with their mother throughout childhood and therefore the

mothers’ union instability reflects the instability that children experience. Or that the union instability

• f mothers and fathers is the same so children who live with their fathers experience the same family

instability as children who live with their mothers. In this paper, using the case study of leaving and entering parental household we show that these two assumptions are problematic and lead to misestimating family instability among children. Assuming that children live with their mothers ignores types of transitions that are understudied- for example, the movement of children in and out of their parents’ households- and, focusing on mothers’ partnership instability does not allow us to test the transitions that children in fathers’ households experience. Moving in and out of parental households Our motivation in understanding transition between in and out of parental households related to the potential effect that these transitions have on children well-being, to the children who are at risk and to the potential bias in the current family instability estimates. First, the effect of leaving parental household might have a stronger effect on children’s well-being than an absent of one parent. Lee and McLanahan (2015) found that different types of transitions have affected children’s development differently, and that transitions out of two-parent families have a stronger negative effect than transitions into two-parent families. Based on this logic, moving to a nonfamily household might have an even stronger effect on children well-being. Second, it is possible that children who are already at a disadvantage are at higher risk of leaving parental household and the effect of these movements may exacerbate social disparities (McLanahan 2004). Studies found that children in disrupted families have poorer relationship with

4 their parents than children who grew up in traditional families (Zill, Ruane Morrison, and Coiro 1993) and the quality of the relationship may affect their risk of leaving home. Studies among adolescents and young adults found that their likelihood of leavening a parental household is higher in non- traditional families and especially higher in step-families households (Goldscheider and Goldscheider 1998; Aquilino 1991; Buck and Scott 1993). Young adults who left their parental household early were more likely to explain their decision as a result of friction at home rather than other explanations when they came from step-families’ households (Kiernan 1992). Stepparents also report more family problems involving children that in some cases are resolved when the stepchildren leave the household (Cherlin and Furstenberg 1994). Third, as mentioned above ignoring the transition that children are experiencing when moving in and out of their parents’ household create biased estimates of family instability. When children are not living with their parents, the number of union transitions their parents experience is not relevant for them. Moreover, the entrance of a parent’s partner to the household might trigger the movement

• f children out of the household, which lead to an underestimation of family instability using the

common measurement. To address these concerns, we ask how often children leave their parents households and move to a non-parental household? Are children living with step-parents more likely than those in single- parent families to transition out of their parental household? And how quickly do children return to a parental household? Based on previous finding regarding parents-children relations we expect that children who live in households with one biological or adopted parent will be more likely to move out

• f their parental households than children in households where both parents are present. In addition,

we expect that children in step-families will be more likely to leave parental households than children in single parent or two parents households. Method Data We analyze transitions in and out of parental household for more than 36,000 children using data from the 2008 Survey of Income and Program participation (SIPP). The SIPP is a nationally representative sample of households interviewed in 15 waves of interviews every four months for five

5 years, between September 2008 and August 2013.1 The first wave of the survey included 105,663 individuals from 42,030 households and over the course of the panel, the survey collected data on around 25,000 additional respondents that joined the original households or were part of other joined- sampled households. Alongside general demographic variables, the data contain identification of mothers and fathers who are members of the households, and additional variables that identify mothers and fathers by type (biological, step, and adoptive). In addition, the short periods of time between interviews and the structure of the data- household roster data- make this dataset ideal for this type of study. One limitation of the data is that children less than age 15 are not followed when they no longer live with a SIPP member who is 15 years or older. However, comparing household compositions and links between children and parents allow us to identify movements of children in and out of parental households even when some of the children are no longer followed. Overall our sample consists of 315,642 observations of children between birth and exact age 18. Measure We created a four-category measure of household composition: (1) Two-parent household, which indicates whether the child lives with his/her two biological or adoptive parents; (2) Mother households, which indicates whether the child live in a household in which his/her biological or adoptive mother is present, but not the biological or adoptive father; (3) Father household, which indicates whether the child live in a household in which his/her biological or adoptive father is present, but not the biological or adoptive mother; and (4) Non-parental household, which indicates that the child lives in a household that does not include a biological or adopted parent. Some of the analyses look more closely at these categories and compare sub categories: (1a) Household with two biological parents; (1b) Household with two adopted parents; (1c) Household with

• ne biological parent and one adopted parent; (2a) Single mother household; (2b) Household with

biological or adopted mother and a step-father; (3a) Single father household; (3b) Household with biological or adopted father and a step-mother; and (4) Non-parental household. Our two main variables of interest are leaving and entering parental household. Leaving

1 The survey itself contains 16 waves, but due to high levels of attrition in the last wave we only use the first 15 waves.

6 parental household indicates whether the child left a parental household. We define leaving if a child move between one of the parental household categories (1 to 3) to a non-parental household (category 4) or if a child was living in a parental household and was not in the sample the following wave, although his/her parents remain in the sample. Entering parental household refers to children who left parental household in previous waves and move back to one of the parental household categories. Analysis To estimate transitions between parental household to non-parental household we create age- specific estimates of the probability that a child in each household moves to a non-parental household

• ver the next four months. We multiply this by three to get the probability of moving out of the

household over a year (since there are four months intervals between interviews). Using the age- specific probabilities, life tables were created by race and sex to test the survivorship of children in parental households between birth and exact age 18. The probabilities that were used in the creation

• f the life tables are for first transition between parental to non-parental household.

The second part of the analysis test the survivorship of children, who left parental households, in non-parental households. The life tables in this section refer to the duration of children in non- parental household using the number of waves between leaving and returning to a parental

• household. This analysis also includes a comparison by race and sex.

Results As mentioned above we analyze the transitions of children from birth to exact age 18 between parental and non-parental households. Table 1 describes the distribution of household types in our sample using five time points- at birth and at exact ages 5, 10, 15 and 18. The household distributions are for the entire sample and for each race/ethnicity category. Although there are significant differences in the distribution of household between race categories- White children are more likely to live in a two parents’ household, while black children are more likely to live in a household without the biological or adopted father- the trends by age are similar among groups. The percentage of children living with both parents decreases with age and the percentage of children living with one biological or

7 adopted parent increases. In contrast, the percentage of children in non-parental households remains quite stable until exact age 15. Most of the change in this household category occurs between ages 15 to 18, when a substantial increase in the percentage of children living in a non-parental household is

• bserved- from 5.5 percent in the general population at exact age 15 to 8.2 percent at exact age 18.

This rise is especially salient among black children and more than 17 percent of them live in households that do not include a biological or adopted parent at age 18. [Table 1] Age-specific estimates of the probability that a child leaves parental household to a non- parental household were used to calculate the survivorship of children in parental households. Figure 1A presents survivorship curves for children in parental households for the total sample and by race. 82.6 percent of children do not experience a movement to a household with no biological or adopted parents by age 18. The risk of leaving a parental household is quite stable across ages but it increases after age 16 across all groups. Non-Hispanic white children have the highest survivorship in all ages and the gap in survivorship between them to non-Hispanic black and Hispanic children increases over time. The survivorship of Hispanic children is the lowest in the first two years of life, but later non-Hispanic black children have the lowest survivorship in all ages. In sum, while 10 percent of non-Hispanic white children experience a transition between parental household to non-parental household by age 15, 10 percent of Hispanic children will experience this transition by age 7 and non-Hispanic black children by age 6. [Figure 1A] Figure 1B presents a similar analysis but with a comparison between male and female children. While the survivorship of females in parental households is lower in all ages than the survivorship of males, the gap is minor and only seems to increase later in life, at age 17. By age 18, 83.4 percent of males and 81.7 percent of females do not experience a transition to a non-parental household. 10 percent of males experience transition between parental to non-parental household by age 11, and 10 percent of females by age 10.

8 [Figure 1B] The risk of leaving a parental household is especially high among children who live with one biological or adopted parent, and particularly for children who live with a biological or adoptive father (Figure 2). While the probabilities of leaving a parental household are less than 0.01 across all ages for children who live with both their parents, the age-specific probabilities are much higher in non- traditional households. In comparison, the probabilities of moving to a non-parental household for children in mother households are between 2.5 and 19 times higher than children at the same age in two biological or adopted parents households and between 4.8 and 30.1 times higher for children in father household. In all household types the age-specific probabilities are in a u-shape with higher risk

• f leaving parental household at younger and older ages.

[Figure 2] Table 2 tests whether the probability of leaving parental households differ when non-biological parents are living in the households. The table presents the probability of leaving the household to a non-parental household between interviews and includes a chi-square test to test whether the difference between sub-categories of households are statistically significant. Similar to our previous results, the probability of leaving a parental household is the lowest among children in two parents household and highest among children who live in a father household. Within these categories there are significant differences between sub-categories. Among children in both parents households the probability of leaving to a non-parental household is the lowest when the child lives with both biological parents and is the highest when the child was adopted by both parents. For children in mother and father households the probability of leaving is higher when a step parent lives in the

• household. In general, the probability of leaving a parental household is the lowest for children in two

biological parents household (0.002) and highest for children who live in a household with a biological

• r adopted father and a step mother (0.024).

9 [Table 2] Using the relationship of the child to the householder, we can identify some of the non- parental household types that children are moving to. However, since the survey did not follow children who are less than 15, over 25 percent of the cases are unknown. From the cases that are known 62.6 percent of the children moved to relative household (i.e. the householder is a grandparent, a sibling or other relative), 25.7 percent moved to a step-parent household and 1 percent to foster

• household. This means that the vast majority of children move to households that allow them to

maintain some interaction with their parents and are considered more protective than non-relative households. Next we test the duration children spent in non-parental household after leaving a parental

• household. Figure 3A presents a survivorship curve for children in non-parental household by race. The

duration is measured by the number of months that have passed since the child left to a non-parental household until s/he reenters a parental household. Although significant racial differences were

• bserved in survivorship for children in parental households, these differences are less salient then the
• nes observed in Figure 1A. After four years the percentage of children who remain in a non-parental

household range between 18.4 for Hispanics to 24.3 for non-Hispanic blacks. Non-Hispanic white children reenter parental household faster than others but the gap in survivorship narrows over time. In general, most children reenter a parental household in less than a year since they left. Within a year 69.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites reenter a parental household, 56.2 percent of non-Hispanic blacks reenter and 56 percent of Hispanic children. [Figure 3A] In contrast, the sex differences are more notable in the survivorship of children in non-parental household than in the survivorship in parental household (Figure 3B). Females are more likely to reenter a parental household than males and after four years the gap between them is of 6.9%. Within a year since leaving a parental household 58.6 percent of males reenter a parental household and 65.3 percent of females.

10 [Figure 3B] Lastly, we are interested to know from what type of parental household children who left are more like to reenter. Table 3 describes the percentage of children who reenter a parental household by the type of the household they left. The table includes the percentage of children who reenter within a year and the percentage of the total reentries. Both measurements describe similar patterns- children who left a two parents household have the highest percentage of reentries- 58.3 percent of the children returned within a year and in total 63 percent of these children reenter during the survey

• years. Children who left a household with a step-parent had higher percentage of reentries than

children in single parent households, and the gap between the two is especially higher among children who left father households. [Table 3] Conclusion Recent studies found that some transitions are more noteworthy to children’s well-being than

• thers- for example the absent of a parent. Although we can expect that moving in and out of parents’

home will have a more significant impact on children than other types of transition, these changes have been mostly ignored by scholars. This lack of attention can be attributed to the assumption that these transitions are rare (in 2016 for example, only 0.7% of children in the United-States under age 18 lived in a non-parental household) or to data restriction- most researchers measure family instability using the partnership histories of mothers, which do not allow them to measure transition of children in and out of maternal household. Our paper overcomes this problem by using the 2008 SIPP, a household roster sample that follow households every four months for five years (2008-2013). This dataset allows us to measure different types of family instability that retrospective data on mothers’ partnership cannot measure, such as movement of children between household types and instability among children who live with their fathers. Another advantage of the SIPP is the short intervals between interviews that allow us to

11 capture short-term movements that might not be reported in retrospective survey or longitudinal survey that are conducted annually. Our results suggest that the two main assumptions that researchers who use mothers’ union histories are making are problematic. First, the phenomenon of leaving parental household is not esoteric as we might expect- 17.4 percent of children leave home at least once before age 18 and among minority children the numbers are much higher. Moreover, the transition of children out of parental household can be related to changes in parents’ marriage or cohabitation status, as children in step-parent families are more likely to move out of their parents’ household to a non-parental

• household. In this scenario, current estimates of family instability are likely to be underestimated since

in addition to the movement of a new person into the household, children might experience additional transitions that are related to their own movement. The second assumption that current studies rely on is that the number of transitions that children experience in fathers’ and mothers’ household is similar. We find that in terms of leaving a parental household, children who live with their father are at a much higher risk than children who live with their mother and the risk is especially high when a step-mother is in the household. Previous papers also found that children in step families tend to leave parental household at a younger age. While these studies focus on adolescent and young adults, we find that the risk of leaving home for children in step-parents households are higher across all ages. Another advantage of the SIPP is its short intervals between interviews. Our results indicate that most of the transitions out of parental household are short term movement- most children who left their parents household reenter a parental household within several months. In addition to retrospective surveys who ignores changes in children household composition, longitudinal surveys that are conducted annually might also misestimate these transitions due to their temporary nature.

12

0.76 0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Age

Figure 1A. Survivorship curve for children in parental households, by race

total white black hispanic

13

0.76 0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Age

Figure 1B. Survivorship curve for children in parental households, by sex

Male Female

14

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Figure 2. Age-specific probabillity of leaving a parental household, by household type

All Both parents HH Mom household Dad household

15

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48

Months since leaving parental housheold

Figure 3A. Survivorship curve for children in non-parental households after leaving a parental housheold, by race

Total White Black Hispanic

16

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48

Months since leaving parental household

Figure 3B. Survivorship curve for children in non-parental households aftre leaving parental housheolds, by sex

Male Female

17 Table 1. Household type distribution at birth and at exact ages 5, 10, 15 and 18. Age Both parents’ household Mother household Father household Non-parental household At birth 71.4% 20.7% 2.5% 5.4% 5 66.6% 24.8% 4.0% 4.6% Total: 10 59.2% 30.0% 5.6% 5.1% 15 53.8% 33.5% 7.2% 5.5% 18 50.9% 33.3% 7.6% 8.2% At birth 79.7% 13.2% 2.3% 4.8% Non- 5 75.0% 16.7% 4.4% 4.0% Hispanic 10 66.0% 23.7% 6.4% 3.8% Whites: 15 60.1% 27.4% 8.8% 3.7% 18 56.0% 28.6% 9.5% 5.9% At birth 33.2% 55.8% 1.7% 9.3% Non- 5 34.3% 52.8% 4.9% 8.1% Hispanic 10 29.0% 57.2% 4.7% 9.1% Blacks: 15 25.2% 58.7% 4.8% 11.3% 18 25.1% 52.5% 5.1% 17.2% At birth 68.6% 22.1% 3.9% 5.4% 5 66.2% 26.2% 3.4% 4.3% Hispanic: 10 61.1% 29.4% 4.3% 5.2% 15 54.6% 35.0% 4.9% 5.5% 18 54.3% 32.8% 5.5% 7.5%

The total sample also includes Asian and children from other races, however, the small size of these categories does not allow a separate analysis.

18 Table 2. Probability of moving to a non-parental household by sub-categories of parental households Household type Probability of leaving Chi-square Both parents’ Both biological parents 0.002 p<0.001 household Both adopted parents 0.008 One biological parent and one adopted parent 0.005 Mother household Single mother 0.008 p<0.001 Biological/adopted mother and a step-father 0.013 Father household Single father 0.012 p<0.001 Biological/adopted father and a step-mother 0.024

19 Table 3. Percentage of reentries by household type and duration of return Household type Percentage of reentries within a year Percentage of reentries in total Both parents’ Biological or adopted 58.3% 63.0% Mother household Single mother 36.5% 41.7% Biological/adopted mother and a step-father 40.7% 44.1% Father household Single father 33.3% 37.4% Biological/adopted father and a step-mother 50.0% 50.0%

20 References Aquilino, William S. 1991. “Family Structure and Home-Leaving: A Further Specification of the Relationship.” Journal of Marriage and Family 53 (4):999–1010. https://doi.org/10.2307/353003. Astone, Nan Marie, and Sara S. McLanahan. 1991. “Family Structure, Parental Practices and High School Completion.” American Sociological Review 56 (3):309–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096106. Bogenschneider, Karen. 1997. “Parental Involvement in Adolescent Schooling: A Proximal Process with Transcontextual Validity.” Journal of Marriage and Family 59 (3):718–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/353956. Buck, Nicholas, and Jacqueline Scott. 1993. “She’s Leaving Home: But Why? An Analysis of Young People Leaving the Parental Home.” Journal of Marriage and Family 55 (4):863–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/352768. Bzostek, Sharon H., and Audrey N. Beck. 2011. “Familial Instability and Young Children’s Physical Health.” Social Science & Medicine 73 (2):282–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.04.014. Cavanagh, Shannon E., and Aletha C. Huston. 2006. “Family Instability and Children’s Early Problem Behavior.” Social Forces 85 (1):551–81. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0120. Cavanagh, Shannon E., Kathryn S. Schiller, and Catherine Riegle-Crumb. 2006. “Marital Transitions, Parenting, and Schooling: Exploring the Link Between Family-Structure History and Adolescents’ Academic Status.” Sociology of Education 79 (4):329–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070607900403. Chase-Lansdale, P. Lindsay, Andrew J. Cherlin, and Kathleen E. Kiernan. 1995. “The Long-Term Effects

• f Parental Divorce on the Mental Health of Young Adults: A Developmental Perspective.” Child

Development 66 (6):1614–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131900. Cherlin, Andrew J. 2004. “The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (4):848–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00058.x. Cherlin, Andrew J., and Frank F. Furstenberg. 1994. “Stepfamilies in the United States: A Reconsideration.” Annual Review of Sociology 20 (1):359–81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.20.080194.002043. Coleman, Marilyn, Lawrence Ganong, and Mark Fine. 2000. “Reinvestigating Remarriage: Another Decade of Progress.” Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (4):1288–1307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01288.x. Cooper, Carey E., Sara S. McLanahan, Sarah O. Meadows, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 2009. “Family Structure Transitions and Maternal Parenting Stress.” Journal of Marriage and Family 71 (3):558–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00619.x. Downey, Douglas B. 1995. “Understanding Academic Achievement among Children in Stephouseholds: The Role of Parental Resources, Sex of Stepparent, and Sex of Child.” Social Forces 73 (3):875–

• 94. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/73.3.875.

Evans, Ethan J., Bill McCarthy, Cecilia Benoit, and Mikael Jansson. 2017. “Early Trouble, Long-Term Consequences: Does Family Instability Keep People from Doctors?*.” Social Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12448.

21 Fomby, Paula, and Andrew J. Cherlin. 2007. “Family Instability and Child Well-Being.” American Sociological Review 72 (2):181–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200203. Fomby, Paula, and Cynthia Osborne. 2017. “Family Instability, Multipartner Fertility, and Behavior in Middle Childhood.” Journal of Marriage and Family 79 (1):75–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12349. Goldscheider, Frances K., and Calvin Goldscheider. 1998. “The Effects of Childhood Family Structure on Leaving and Returning Home.” Journal of Marriage and Family 60 (3):745–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/353543. Heard, Holly E. 2007. “The Family Structure Trajectory and Adolescent School Performance: Differential Effects by Race and Ethnicity.” Journal of Family Issues 28 (3):319–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X06296307. Hoffmann, John P., and Robert A. Johnson. 1998. “A National Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use.” Journal of Marriage and Family 60 (3):633–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/353534. Kiernan, Kathleen E. 1992. “The Impact of Family Disruption in Childhood on Transitions Made in Young Adult Life.” Population Studies 46 (2):213–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000146206. Lee, Dohoon, and Sara McLanahan. 2015. “Family Structure Transitions and Child Development: Instability, Selection, and Population Heterogeneity.” American Sociological Review 80 (4):738–

• 63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415592129.

Magnuson, Katherine, and Lawrence M. Berger. 2009. “Family Structure States and Transitions: Associations With Children’s Well-Being During Middle Childhood.” Journal of Marriage and Family 71 (3):575–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00620.x. McLanahan, S. 2004. “Diverging Destinies: How Children Are Faring under the Second Demographic Transition.” Demography 41 (4):607–27. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2004.0033. Osborne, Cynthia, and Sara McLanahan. 2007. “Partnership Instability and Child Well-Being.” Journal of Marriage and Family 69 (4):1065–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00431.x. Raley, R. Kelly, and Elizabeth Wildsmith. 2004. “Cohabitation and Children’s Family Instability.” Journal

• f Marriage and Family 66 (1):210–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00014.x-i1.

Schoon, Ingrid, Elizabeth Jones, Helen Cheng, and Barbara Maughan. 2012. “Family Hardship, Family Instability, and Cognitive Development.” J Epidemiol Community Health 66 (8):716–22. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2010.121228. Zill, N., D. Ruane Morrison, and M. J. Coiro. 1993. “Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent- Child Relationships, Adjustment, and Achievement in Young Adulthood : Families in Transition.” Journal of Family Psychology 7 (1):91–103.