What happens when grandma isn't around?

I often get calls from researchers, reporters, etc. regarding the common forms of child care. It is often quickly apparent that the standard definition of child care and the perceived and maybe even more "public" definition of child care very different.

I analyze child care used by both working and non-working mothers and broadly define child care providers under two groups: relative or nonrelative. Relatives includes mothers, fathers, siblings, grandparents, etc. Whereas nonrelatives includes babysitters, neighbors/friends, child care centers, nursery schools, etc.

I find the "public" perception of child care is usually limited to nonrelative care, namely organized child care such as centers and nursery/preschools. Certainly organized child care use has grown over the last twenty years, but relatives still play a vital role in helping working mothers. Grandparents prehaps play the biggest role. In 2005, 4.6 million preschoolers were cared for by their grandparents (Who's Minding the Kids: Spring 2005).

This brings me to Allison Gilbert's recent book, Parentless Parents. Gilbert examines how the lack of grandparents impacts families. Changes in fertility and mobility have made it increasingly likely that parents may not have access to their own parents to help look after their children or pass on family traditions. It's an interesting and often ignored issue. I suggest checking the book out, plus I think Gilbert cites me but I can't promise what I said was any near brilliant ;)

Comparing Measures: Child care costs, CPS, and SIPP

As part of the Census Bureau's mission to develop a supplemental poverty measure, a colleague and I recently completed a working paper comparing child care costs between the 2010 Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC) and the 2004 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) Child Care topical module.

The CPS ASEC is one of the main surveys used by the Census Bureau (and the bench mark for much of the federal government) to measure poverty. Child care expenses are an important part of the supplemental poverty measure and it is important that accurate data is collected. New questions regarding child care costs were added to the 2010 CPS ASEC. Our paper compare those results with SIPP (the best source of child care related expenses).

We found that costs estimates collected by CPS ASEC were similar to SIPP, with a few limitations.

The full paper can be found here.

Census Data Release Schedule 2010-2011

The folks over at Data Detectives complied a schedule for data and statistical releases for the next year for the 2010 Census, the American Community Survey (ACS), and other Census products. So, instead of reinventing the wheel, I will just share their handy information for all you data geeks.

Late September 2010
2009 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates for areas with a population of 65,000 or more.

Mid-December 2010
2005-9 5-years estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS) for geographies down to the block group level.

December 2010
2010 demographic analysis estimates of national population by age, sex, and race (Black and nonblack). Not from the 2010 Census, but estimates based on historical data on births and deaths and estimates of immigration and emigration. This information is used, in part, to estimate the accuracy of the 2010 Census.

By December 31, 2010
The apportionment counts will be delivered to the President will be delivered to the President within nine months of Census Day (on or before December 31, 2010), as required by law. This report will show the apportionment population counts, by state, and the number of seats in the US House of Representatives apportioned to each state.

February-March 2011
2010 Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File - redistricting data to the 50 states consisting of small-area data the states will need to redraw districts for the state legislature:
* State population counts for race and Hispanic or Latino categories
* State housing unit counts by occupancy status (occupied units, vacant units)
Media: Internet tables, DVD, download capability
Lowest level of geography: Blocks

April 2011
National Summary File of Redistricting Data:
* Population and housing unit counts for the United States, regions, divisions, and American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Areas
Media: Internet tables, download capability
Lowest level of geography: American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian areas

May 2011
Demographic Profile:
* Selected population and housing characteristics
* Includes Congressional Districts of the 111th Congress
Media: Internet quick tables, download capability
Lowest level of geography: Places/Functioning Minor Civil Divisions

June-August 2011
Summary File 1 (SF 1) for States:
* Population counts for 63 race categories and Hispanic or Latino down to block level.
* Population counts for many detailed race and Hispanic or Latino categories, and American Indian and Alaska Native tribes down to Census tracts.
* Selected population and housing characteristics down to blocks/Census tracts.

November 2011
Summary File 1 (SF 1) National Update:
* Counts for the United States, regions, divisions, and geographic areas that cross state lines such as American Indian Areas and Core-Based Statistical Areas.

December 2011-April 2012
Summary File 2 (SF 2):
* Population and housing characteristics iterated for many detailed race and Hispanic or Latino categories, and American Indian and Alaska Native tribes down to Census tracts.

Dates To Be Determined
Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) Files
* Includes age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, household type and relationship, and tenure data with identifying information removed, down to PUMAs of 100,000+ population.
Media: DVD, download capability

Summer child care arrangements vary

At last! My report is now public. From the press release:

Children are less likely to have regular child care arrangements during the school break in the summer — about 55 percent of preschoolers and 58 percent of grade-schoolers were not in a regular child care placement during the summer of 2006. According to a new U.S. Census Bureau report, those children who do have regular arrangements typically spend more hours in child care during the summer than the rest of the year.

Relatives continued to play an important role in child care during the summer with half of preschoolers and nearly half of all grade-schoolers of employed mothers receiving child care from relatives. These findings are in a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau based on the 2005-2006 Survey of Income and Program Participation.

The report, Who's Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Spring 2005/Summer 2006 [PDF], provides an analysis of data released in February 2008. These data show the number and characteristics of children in different types of child care arrangements, the differences between child care for preschoolers and older children and the extent of self-care. Information is also provided about the cost of child care arrangements and the number of fathers providing care for their children. Additionally, the report examines new topics such as summer child care arrangements for both preschoolers and grade-schoolers.

“The most recent data provide us with a unique opportunity to examine child care arrangements during summer months and shed light on how families manage the gap between the school year and summer,” said Lynda Laughlin, a family demographer with the Census Bureau.

Several factors can explain the difference between child care in the summer and the rest of the year. For example, school itself is an important source of child care; children are not typically enrolled in school during the summer. Other factors include the closing of child care facilities, the irregularity of work schedules and the occurrence of vacations.

The amount of time spent in organized care for grade-schoolers increased from three hours per week in spring 2005 to 13 hours per week in summer 2006.

Overall, employed mothers were more likely to have regular child care arrangements than nonemployed mothers. In summer 2006, of the 23.7 million grade school-age children whose mothers were employed, 52 percent were in a regular arrangement, compared with 20 percent of the 12.3 million grade school-age children of nonemployed mothers.

Other highlights:

• In spring 2005, 23 percent of preschoolers were regularly cared for by a grandparent and 16 percent were cared for by their father.
• Self-care was much more prevalent among middle school-age children than among those in elementary school: 6 percent of children ages 5 to 11, and 37 percent of ages 12 to 14, regularly cared for themselves. Among all children, the average time spent in self-care was six hours per week.
• Families with an employed mother and children younger than age 15 paid an average of $6,000 a year for child care, an increase of more than $1,000 from a generation ago.
• Families in poverty who paid for child care in 2005 spent a greater portion of their monthly income on child care than did families at or above the poverty level (29 percent compared with 7 percent).
• The percent of the family monthly income spent on child care stayed relatively constant between 1997 and 2005, at around 7 percent.

More child care information can be found on the Census Child Care webpage.

Children are "economically worthless but emotionally priceless"

Maybe it just me, but it seems like interwebs are full of pieces about the hassle of children and the growth of childless couples. I used to think I wanted children, but that was when I was in a different relationship status. Now, I don't know what I think about this whole baby thing. Does it make me selfish? Would having children make me happy? Maybe, maybe not. According to a recent article in the New York Magazine...children are making my generation miserable. Oh, the torture of modern life.

From the article:
"From the perspective of the species, it’s perfectly unmysterious why people have children. From the perspective of the individual, however, it’s more of a mystery than one might think. Most people assume that having children will make them happier. Yet a wide variety of academic research shows that parents are not happier than their childless peers, and in many cases are less so. This finding is surprisingly consistent, showing up across a range of disciplines."

The whole article reminds of the brilliant book, The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz. We continue hold up the family of the past as this relic and something to be admired and achieved. Yet, there are benefits and disadvantages to every new generation of families and it's time that researchers, especially demographers and sociologists, push to examine and define families in a new light. Children don't serve as workers anymore for the family farm, but have became an emotional investment. For some, the emotional investment is just not worth the time or money...but it certainly doesn't make childless people any less worthy or interesting than those with children. It just means that we are forming different types of families and need new definitions and policies to support all groups appropriately. In the mean time, try not to be sad about the children that you do or don't have.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

It seems like everyday a new study comes out regarding the new challenges of modern fertility for American women. If you want too long to have a baby, then you risk having twins, a child with a disability, or just being an old mom. Now new research suggests that women who wait until their 30s to have children fare better economically than women who have their first child in their 20s.

From USA Today:

"Researchers at the University of Maryland in College Park and the University of California at Los Angeles reviewed 35 years of data from some 2,200 women born between 1944 and 1954, and found that women who had kids in the early- to mid-20s or even younger didn't fare as well economically as those who delayed."

One of the authors of the study, Joan Kahn goes on to explain:

"The point, she says, is that women who are younger when they have kids and attempt to get back into the workforce later may not have that up-front investment in education and training, which those who have kids later benefit from. They earned equivalent wages and had higher status occupations just like women who were childless.

"Women get trapped, based on their early decisions," Kahn says."

As I see it, women are trapped either way. Should women challenge their biological clocks and wait to have children, or have children when it biological easier and safer. The biology of child bearing has not evolved with the changing labor force participation of women or even with the fact that women and men are living longer. I hope the take away message from this study is not that women should wait until their mid-30s to have children, but we as a nation need comprehensive work and family policies to support workers and their families.

Economists are not the only social scientists

A recent piece in the Wall Street Journal highlights how the social sciences are experiencing a rebirth. Part of this rebirth is due to popular books such as The Tipping Point or Freakonomics.

It's not entirely surprising to me that the article focuses primarily on the gaining popularity of economists. There is little mention of sociology. While much of the research performed by sociologists is easily applicable to everyday issues, sociology still struggles to become more public. Certainly part of blame rests on sociologists themselves. When I was in graduate school the only viable job option was to become a professor. However, I quickly realized that was easier said than done and started to broaden my job search outside of the academy. Sociology departments need to be realistic about the "real" job market available to sociology students. While I don't always agree with economic theory and methods, it always seems easier for the public (and employers) to embrace economists. Sociologists are lovable too, we're just a bit judgmental until we get to know you.