The role of fathers in the Growing Up in Scotland Study Louise Marryat.

The role of fathers in the Growing Up in Scotland

Study

Louise Marryat

Aims of the presentation

• To provide a brief overview of GUS including:• Research objectives• Study design• Study content• Available data

• To give an insight into the sweep 2 ‘partner’ interview with resident partners

• To provide an outline of the scoping paper on following-up non-resident fathers

Overview of GUS BC1/CC1/BC2

Research objectivesTo provide data and information

• Characteristics, circumstances and experiences of children in Scotland aged between 0 and 5

• Longer-term outcomes across a range of key domains• Levels of awareness and use of key services• Nature and extent of informal sources of help, advice and

support for parents

To document differences • Characteristics, circumstances and experiences of children

from different backgrounds• Longer-term outcomes for children from different

backgrounds

To identify key predictors• E.g. of adverse longer-term outcomes • With particular reference to the role of early years

Study design (2): Ages and StagesAge at interview

SweepLaunch year

0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6

12005

BC1(5217)

CC(2858)

22006

BC1(4512)

CC(2500)

32007

BC1(4191)

CC(2331)

42008

BC1(3995)

CC(2199)

52009

BC1 = Birth cohort 1CC = Child cohort

BC1

62010

BC1

Study design• National sample capable of analysis by

urban/rural, deprived/non-deprived and other sub-groups of interest

• Sample drawn from Child Benefit records• Two cohorts - at sweep 3:

• Birth cohort: 4191 children aged 34.5 months

• Child cohort: 2331 children aged 58.5 months

• Face-to-face (CAPI) survey of parents annually until child reaches five (almost six) years of age then at selected stages of interest

GUS1 GUS2 GUS3 GUS4 GUS5(2005/6) (2006/7) (2007/8) (2008/9) (2009/10)

BC only

Main carer Main carer Main carer Main carer Main carer

Partner

Child height & weight

Child height & weight

Cognitive assessments

Cognitive assessments

Health

records

Health records

Health

records

Health records

Health records

Sources of information

Study

Child’s age in years

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 16

GUS BC (2005)

GUS CC (2005)

GUS BC2 (2011)

NCDS (1958)

BCS (1970)

ALSPAC (1991)

MCS (2000)

How does/will GUS compare?

Study content: Core topics of the main interview

• Household composition and family demographics• Non-resident parents• Parental support• Parenting styles• Childcare• Child health and development• Activities• Education and employment • Income and benefits• Accommodation and transport

Study content: Other topics covered in the interview

• Parental health and well-being• Early experiences of pre-school• Early experiences of primary school• Pregnancy and birth• Involvement of grandparents• Material deprivation• Food and nutrition• Housing and neighbourhood• Social networks and social capital

Using GUS data

• Data availability•Data deposited with UK Data Archive•Sweep 1 to 3 data currently available•Sweep 4 deposited summer 2010•Documentation also available from study

website

• Data workshops •An ‘introduction to the data’•Handouts and slides are available from the

study website

Recent developments

• Competitive tender issued in Spring 2008• Proposals for the continuation of the study from

2009 to 2013• Contract awarded to ScotCen in September

2008• Project will be undertaken in collaboration with

• Centre for Research on Families and Relationships (University of Edinburgh)

• MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit (University of Glasgow)

Overview of proposed design

• Agreed design entails four further annual waves of fieldwork:• 2009/10 – Existing birth cohort (age 4-5)• 2010/11 – Existing birth cohort (age 5-6)• 2011/12 – New birth cohort (age 0-1)• 2012/13 – Existing birth cohort (age 7-8)

• Decisions on further follow-up of the child cohort have not yet been taken

• At a minimum, data collection will involve face-to-face CAPI interview with child’s main carer

• Likely to be supplemented by further cognitive assessments and continued anthropometric measurements

The new birth cohort

• First wave of data collection in 2011• To be slightly larger than existing birth cohort –

nearer 6000 than 5000• Currently, sample design and fieldwork

approach to match that of existing cohorts

Where do resident fathers fit in?

Respondents

• Sweep 1 - actively looked to interview mothers• Following sweeps followed up same respondent• By sweep 4 (out of 6194 respondents across 2

cohorts)• 97.7% = natural mother• 1.8% = natural father

• Very small remainder = adoptive parents or grandparents

Proxy data

• Collected/updated every sweep:• Household Grid data• Employment• Educational qualifications

• When a new partner enters the household• Religion• Ethnicity

GUS1 GUS2 GUS3 GUS4 GUS5(2005/6) (2006/7) (2007/8) (2008/9) (2009/10)

BC only

Main carer Main carer Main carer Main carer Main carer

Partner

Child height & weight

Child height & weight

Cognitive assessments

Cognitive assessments

Health

records

Health records

Health

records

Health records

Health records

Sources of information

Birth Child All sample

No. of main interviews achieved 4512 2500 7012

No. of eligible partners 3745 1975 5720

No. of partner interviews achieved

2978 1542 4520

Response rate: As % of all cases with a main interview and eligible partner 80% 79% 79%

Sample size and response rates @ sweep 2: Partners’ interview

The Partner’s Interview

• Parenting• Transition to Pre-school (Child only)• Neighbourhood and community (Birth only)• Self-completion• Work, employment and income

Key reasons for partner interview

1. Accurate factual information• Employment, education, etc.

2. Gauge different attitudes in the household• Parenting styles, child readiness for school

Approaches to disciplineBirth cohort (22.5 mths) Child cohort (46.5 mths)

Respondents Partners Respondents Partners

Ignoring bad behaviour 67% 57% 68% 59%

Raising voice or shouting 63% 66% 76% 80%

Time out or ‘naughty step 56% 48% 79% 78%

Removing treats/ privileges 29% 40% 74% 76%

Smacking 16% 16% 34% 37%

Reward system/sticker chart 8% 14% 56% 54%

None of these 8% 9% 1% 1%Bases (all households with resident partner at sweep 2)

Weighted 3614 2974 1916 1542

Unweighted 3765 2978 1998 1543

Division of parenting responsibilities-BC1Respondents Partners

Getting up in the night if he/she cries or needs to be comforted

I do most of it 50.4 15.9

My husband/wife/partner does most of it

11.8 45.5

We share more or less equally 37.2 37.8

Generally being with and looking after the child

I do most of it 67.1 3.4

My husband/wife/partner does most of it

1.4 53.7

We share more or less equally 30.6 42.3

Unweighted bases 3616 2978

How has the data been used?

• Sweep 2 overview report• No sign of policy use

• Current PhD on ‘Collaboration within Households’• Looking at ‘collaboration’ with regards to:

– A common understanding of the child and their needs

– Common aims for raising the child

– Joint involvement in raising the child

– Supportive relationship between the parents

Should we collect future partner data?

• Between the Birth cohort and Child cohort the appeared to be a difference in ‘closeness’ of parents in attitudes

• Future data would: • Allow us to track changes

– Is this an academic exercise?

• Allow us to ‘dig deeper’ – attitudes and perceptions?

Where do non-resident fathers fit in?

Why has GUS not collected data from NRPs?

• Study has received much criticism for not including non-resident fathers (NRPs)

• 20-25% of each cohort has a non-resident father at each sweep

• Data collected from resident mother on contact, maintenance, parent relationship, father involvement in decision making and on making arrangements

• No data directly from NRP

GUS Scoping paper

Number of problems identified• UK – no record of NRPs• RRs – 20-30% and heavily biased• Only those ‘in contact’• Mothers as gatekeepers

• Many refuse to give information (US PSID – 31%)

• Likely to get those with better relationships with NRP

• Co-operation of NRP themselves (lower than general population)

• Concluded – qualitative follow-up would be of more value

More information

Website:

www.growingupinscotland.org.uk

E-mail:

[email protected]