The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children
Annual statistical report 2010

2 Characteristics of the children and their families

Brigit Maguire, Australian Institute of Family Studies

Throughout this report, comparisons are made between different subpopulation groups on the various aspects of children's environments and development that are explored using the data from Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). For example, Chapter 5 examines how reported parenting behaviours differ for mothers of different ages. The subpopulations used in the comparisons are those identified as priority groups for policy interventions or those that are expected (based on previous research) to differ in terms of their experiences or outcomes.

This chapter includes a description of how each of these subpopulation groups is defined, and reports the percentages of children in each subpopulation group for the two cohorts. The chapter also includes some additional details about the children and their families to further describe the study sample. Table 2.1 lists all the characteristics studied in this report, with those that are only discussed in this chapter marked with an asterisk.

Table 2.1 Characteristics and categories of subpopulation groups
Characteristics Categories
Children  
Age*  
Gender male; female
Parents  
Biological mother's age at the birth of the study child under 25; 25-29; 30-34; 35-39; 40 or older
Biological father's age at the birth of the study child* under 25; 25-29; 30-34; 35-39; 40 or older
Parents' education for:  
Mother lower than Year 12; lower than Year 12 and diploma/certificate/other; Year 12; Year 12 and diploma/certificate/other; tertiary
Parents highest level of education between Parent 1 and Parent 2
Parents' working hours for:  
Mother employed full-time; employed part-time; not currently working
Father
Family  
Type of family** two-parent family; lone-mother family
Where families live (geographic location): states/territories* metropolitan areas, regional areas
Family socio-economic position (SEP) bottom 25%; middle 50%; top 25%; or quintiles
Number of children in the household number of siblings in the household: none, one, two, three (or more) number of children in the household: one, two, three or more
Family cultural and language background  
Country of birth and arrival in Australia*  
Mother  
Father  
Child  
Main language spoken at home for:  
Mother English; not English
Father*
Child
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background*  

Notes: * These characteristics are discussed in this chapter but not in the rest of the report. ** There are very few lone father families in the study (less than 1% for each cohort), so comparisons are not made with these families. All data presented are weighted to represent the general population and to account for sample attrition.

2.1 The children

Between 7% and 9% of B cohort children were born in each of the months between March 2003 and February 2004. Between 8% and 9% of K cohort children were born in each of the months between March 1999 and February 2000.

Roughly equal numbers of boys (51% for both cohorts) and girls (49% for both cohorts) took part in the first wave of the study. At the first wave of the study, B cohort infants ranged in age from 3 to 19 months, as shown in Figure 2.1 (the median age was 9 months).1 Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of ages for the K cohort children; ages ranged from 51 months (4 years, 3 months) to 67 months (5 years, 7 months), with a median age of 57 months (4 years, 9 months).

Figure 2.1 Distribution of B cohort, by child's age, Wave 1

Figure 2.1 Distribution of B cohort, by child's age, Wave 1 - as described in text

Figure 2.2 Distribution of K cohort, by child's age, Wave 1

Figure 2.2 Distribution of K cohort, by child's age, Wave 1 - as described in text

2.2 Parent characteristics

How old were the parents when their study child was born?

This section looks at the ages of the parents when the study child was born. Parents' ages were derived using details of the mother's and father's relationship to the child and the reported dates of birth for the mother/father and the child. Only parents who were the biological mother/father of the study child, and who lived in the household with the study child at Wave 1 are included in these results (5,087 mothers and 4,600 fathers in the B cohort, and 4,912 mothers and 4,166 fathers in the K cohort).

Figure 2.3 shows the percentages of biological mothers in each of five age groups (which are then compared in other chapters in the report). The figure shows that the most common age for mothers to have their child was at 30-34 years (37% of B cohort mothers, 33% of K cohort mothers). B cohort mothers tended to be slightly older when they had their child compared to K cohort mothers.

Figure 2.3 Distribution of age of biological mothers at birth of study child, B and K cohorts

Figure 2.3 Distribution of age of biological mothers at birth of study child, B and K cohorts - as described in text

Figure 2.4 shows the percentages of biological fathers in each of five age groups. The figure shows that while the 30-34 age group was again the largest, fathers tended to be older than mothers when their child was born. Seven per cent were under 25 when the child was born, compared to 17% of mothers. Between 12% and 14% of fathers were 40 or older, compared to 3-4% of mothers. As for mothers, the B cohort fathers tended to be slightly older than K cohort fathers when their child was born.

Figure 2.4 Distribution of age of biological fathers at birth of study child, B and K cohorts

Figure 2.4 Distribution of age of biological fathers at birth of study child, B and K cohorts - as described in text

Parents' education

Parents were asked to report their highest level of schooling and their highest qualification (certificate, advanced diploma/diploma, bachelor degree, graduate diploma/certificate, postgraduate degree, other). Five education categories were constructed from these responses:

  • lower than Year 12;
  • lower than Year 12 and diploma/certificate/other;
  • Year 12;
  • Year 12 and diploma/certificate/other; and
  • tertiary.

Education data from only the first wave of the study were used for comparisons in this report, although some parents increased their educational qualifications during the three waves (between 8% and 13% of mothers and fathers were studying at each of the waves for both cohorts).

Figure 2.5 shows the percentage of children's mothers in each of the five education categories at the first wave of the study, for the two cohorts (for 5,098 mothers in the B cohort, and 4,940 mothers in the K cohort). For the B and K cohorts respectively, 22% and 27% of mothers had not completed Year 12 or any further education at Wave 1, and 24% and 29% of mothers were tertiary-educated. B cohort mothers were slightly more likely to be tertiary-educated.

Figure 2.5 Education levels of children's mothers, B and K cohorts, Wave 1

Figure 2.5 Education levels of children's mothers, B and K cohorts, Wave 1 - as described in text

Parents' education was also classified according to the highest level of education between the child's two parents (i.e., Parent 1 and Parent 2) (5,104 observations in the B cohort, 4,979 observations in the K cohort).2 Figure 2.6 shows that when the education of both parents is taken into account, the percentage who had not completed Year 12 or any further education was, for the B and K cohorts respectively, 10% and 13%, and the percentage who were tertiary-educated was 38% and 34%. Again, B cohort parents were more likely to be tertiary-educated than K cohort parents.

Figure 2.6 Highest level of education between children's parents, B and K cohort, Wave 1

Figure 2.6 Highest level of education between children's parents, B and K cohort, Wave 1 - as described in text

Parents' working hours

Information about parents' current working hours were summarised into three categories:

  • full-time (35 or more hours per week);
  • part-time (fewer than 35 hours per week); and
  • not currently working (includes those on maternity leave, unemployed and looking for work, and not in the labour force).

Table 2.2 shows that fathers' working hours were consistent regardless of the age of the child (between 82% and 85% of fathers worked full-time across all waves and both cohorts). The percentage of mothers who worked (full-time or part-time) increased with the age of the child. Over sixty per cent of mothers were not working when their child was 0-1 years old (B cohort), but this declined to 35% by the time the K cohort children were 8-9 years old.

Table 2.2 Distribution of mothers and fathers working full-time, part-time or not currently working, B and K cohorts, Waves 1-3
  B cohort K cohort
Wave 1 % Wave 2 % Wave 3 % Wave 1 % Wave 2 % Wave 3 %
Father  
Full-time (35+ hours/week) 82.2 82.6 82.9 82.4 82.8 84.7
Part-time (< 35 hours/week) 6.5 6.1 6.1 6.2 5.9 5.3
Not currently working 11.3 11.3 10.9 11.4 11.3 10.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No. of observations 4,578 4,106 3,896 4,286 3,834 3,738
Mother  
Full-time (35+ hours/week) 7.3 11.8 14.6 14.0 17.0 21.4
Part-time (< 35 hours/week) 28.5 36.6 40.5 37.1 41.0 44.1
Not currently working 64.2 51.6 44.9 48.9 41.9 34.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No. of observations 5,085 4,589 4,372 4,926 4,423 4,286

Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

2.3 Family characteristics

Types of families

Information about the parents with whom the children lived was used to derive a measure of the family type:

  • Two-parent family - child lived with two parents in their primary household. This includes children living with biological and/or non-biological parents, children living with same-sex couple parents, and children living in other two-parent family types (e.g., with their mother and their grandmother).
  • Lone-mother family - child lived with one female parent only (who is not necessarily the child's biological mother). Where children had shared parenting arrangements, the family type was defined according to the child's primary household, as identified by the study family.

There were very few lone-father families (less than 1% for each cohort) so these were excluded from analyses comparing different family types.

Table 2.3 shows that the percentages of children in two-parent families declined as children got older. Just under 90% of B cohort children were in two-parent families in Wave 1, and this declined to 86% by Wave 3. Of the K cohort children, 86% were in two-parent families in Wave 1, declining to 84% in Waves 2 and 3. Further details about the range of different family arrangements, and how they change, are included in Chapter 3.

Table 2.3 Distribution of children, by whether living in two-parent or lone-mother families, B and K cohorts, Waves 1-3
  B cohort K cohort
Wave 1 % Wave 2 % Wave 3 % Wave 1 % Wave 2 % Wave 3 %
Two-parent family 89.5 87.0 86.0 85.6 83.9 84.0
Lone-mother family 10.5 13.0 14.0 14.4 16.1 16.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No. of observations 5,104 4,593 4,375 4,946 4,426 4,288

Where do families live?

Table 2.4 shows the percentage of children living in each of the states and territories. Because of the study design and the use of sample weights, these roughly reflect the percentages in the Australian population; New South Wales had the highest proportion of children in the study, and the Northern Territory had the lowest.

Table 2.4 Distribution of children by Australian state/territory, B and K cohorts, Waves 1-3
  B cohort K cohort
Wave 1 % Wave 2 % Wave 3 % Wave 1 % Wave 2 % Wave 3 %
New South Wales 33.7 33.4 32.7 34.2 33.5 33.5
Victoria 25.4 24.6 25.4 24.5 25.1 24.1
Queensland 19.1 20.8 20.2 19.6 19.7 20.6
Western Australia 9.6 9.9 9.7 9.6 9.8 9.8
South Australia 7.0 6.5 6.9 7.1 6.7 7.0
Tasmania 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.7
Australian Capital Territory 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.7
Northern Territory 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Families' postcodes were used to link to ABS Census data, which identified whether they lived in metropolitan (capital city statistical divisions) or regional areas (the rest of the state outside the capital city statistical divisions). The percentages of families living in each area are shown in Table 2.5. Approximately two-thirds of LSAC families lived in metropolitan areas, and one-third lived in regional areas.

Table 2.5 Distribution of children, by metropolitan and regional areas, B and K cohorts, Waves 1-3
  B cohort K cohort
Wave 1 % Wave 2 % Wave 3 % Wave 1 % Wave 2 % Wave 3 %
Metropolitan 66.5 62.6 64.9 63.7 65.9 62.9
Regional 33.5 37.4 35.1 36.3 34.1 37.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Family socio-economic position

Blakemore, Strazdins, and Gibbings (2009) developed a measure of socio-economic position (SEP) for families in LSAC. This measure uses information about combined annual family income, educational attainment of parents and parent occupational status to summarise the social and economic resources to which families have access. Previous literature has shown that family SEP has an important influence on the health, safety and development of children (Blakemore et al., 2009).

For the purposes of this report, the standardised socio-economic position scores have been divided into groups as follows:

  • five groups based on quintiles (lowest 20%, second lowest 20%, middle 20%, etc.); and
  • three groups based on quartiles (lowest 25%, middle 50%, top 25%).

These categories were derived using unweighted data, and sample weights are applied to the analyses presented throughout this report. Because the percentages of respondents in each category change when the weights are used, the weighted distributions are shown in Table 2.6. The sample weights are designed to give greater weight to groups that had low response rates to the survey. Low levels of school completion among parents was one of the factors found to be related to low response rates (Soloff, Lawrence, Misson, & Johnstone, 2006). As education level is a key component of the measure of SEP, the weighting increases the proportion of respondents in the lower SEP categories and decreases the proportion in the higher SEP categories.

Table 2.6 Distribution of weighted data across SEP categories, B and K cohorts, Waves 1-3
  B cohort K cohort
Wave 1 % Wave 2 % Wave 3 % Wave 1 % Wave 2 % Wave 3 %
Quartiles  
Lowest 25% 28.6 31.2 31.5 28.6 30.3 31.5
Middle 50% 48.9 47.9 47.8 50.0 48.8 48.8
Highest 25% 22.5 20.9 20.7 21.4 20.9 19.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Quintiles  
Lowest 20% 23.2 25.5 26.2 23.1 24.8 25.8
Second lowest 20% 20.8 21.0 20.9 21.5 21.0 21.5
Middle 20% 19.4 19.2 19.2 19.9 19.5 19.3
Second highest 20% 18.6 17.5 17.1 18.6 18.2 17.8
Highest 20% 18.0 16.7 16.5 17.0 16.5 15.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No. of observations 5,092 4,602 4,382 4,965 4,458 4,327

Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Number of siblings in the household

The number of siblings of the study child (including biological, adopted, step- and half-siblings) in the child's main household (Parent 1's residence) were summarised into four categories, as shown in Table 2.7.3 As expected, older children were more likely to have one or more siblings.

Table 2.7 Distribution of children with no, one, two or three or more siblings in the home, B and K cohorts, Waves 1-3
  B cohort K cohort
Wave 1 % Wave 2 % Wave 3 % Wave 1 % Wave 2 % Wave 3 %
None 39.1 19.9 11.4 11.5 9.6 8.6
One 36.4 47.3 46.3 47.5 43.9 42.5
Two 16.4 22.5 28.7 26.8 30.2 30.7
Three or more 8.1 10.3 13.6 14.2 16.3 18.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No. of observations 5,107 4,606 4,386 4,983 4,464 4,331

2.4 Family cultural and language background

Study participants (usually the primary parent in the face-to-face interview) were asked to report details of all household members, including details about their country of birth, arrival in Australia, languages spoken at home, and identification as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

Country of birth and arrival in Australia

Study participants' country of birth details are coded according to the Standard Australian Classification of Countries (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2008). Table 2.8 shows the percentages of children, mothers and fathers (not necessarily biological parents) born in each of the broad groups (with Australia removed from the Oceania and Antarctica group and reported separately).

The table shows that fathers were slightly more likely to have been born overseas compared to mothers and children. The higher percentage of K cohort children, mothers and fathers born overseas is expected because these children were 4-5 years old when the study began (compared to the B cohort, who were 0-1 years old) and therefore had more time to immigrate to Australia.

Table 2.8 Distribution of country/region of birth, by study child, their mother and their father, B and K cohorts
  Child Mother Father
B cohort % K cohort % B cohort % K cohort % B cohort % K cohort %
Australia 99.6 95.8 76.7 74.0 74.4 72.1
Oceania and Antarctica (excluding Australia) - 0.8 4.4 3.8 4.5 4.3
North-west Europe - 0.6 4.9 6.4 6.7 8.0
Southern and eastern Europe - - 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.7
North Africa and the Middle East - - 2.0 2.1 2.9 2.3
South-east Asia - 0.2 4.0 3.9 2.8 2.7
North-east Asia - 0.2 1.4 2.1 1.1 1.8
Southern and central Asia - 0.2 1.8 2.0 1.9 2.3
Americas - 0.2 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.9
Sub-Saharan Africa - 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.2
Other (confidentialised) a 0.4 1.6 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No. of observations 5,107 4,983 5,104 4,945 4,626 4,318

Notes: a The "Other (confidentialised)" category includes those countries for which there were fewer than 5 responses. These responses are not identified in the dataset so cannot be assigned to the broader regions. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Table 2.9 shows the ten most common countries of birth for mothers and fathers in the two cohorts. The two most common countries after Australia were the United Kingdom (including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) and New Zealand.

Table 2.9 Ten most common countries of birth, by mothers and fathers, B and K cohorts
  Mothers Fathers
Country of birth % Country of birth %
B
cohort
Australia 76.7 Australia 74.4
United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man 3.8 United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man 5.9
New Zealand 3.2 New Zealand 3.3
Vietnam 1.5 Vietnam 1.4
Philippines 1.1 Lebanon 1.1
Chinese Asia (includes Mongolia) 1.0 India 1.0
India 0.9 Chinese Asia (includes Mongolia) 0.9
Lebanon 0.6 South Africa 0.7
Iraq 0.5 Iraq 0.6
South Africa 0.5 Philippines 0.6
  No. of observations a 5,104 No. of observations a 4,626
K
cohort
Australia 74.0 Australia 72.1
United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man 5.2 United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man 6.3
New Zealand 2.5 New Zealand 2.9
Chinese Asia (includes Mongolia) 1.6 Chinese Asia (includes Mongolia) 1.6
Vietnam 1.4 Lebanon 1.3
Lebanon 1.3 Vietnam 1.2
Philippines 1.1 India 1.1
India 0.9 Sri Lanka 0.8
Sri Lanka 1.7 Malaysia 0.6
Malaysia 0.5 South Africa 0.6
  No. of observations a 4,945 No. of observations a 4,318

Note: a Includes parents from countries not listed in this table.

Table 2.10 shows the ages at which mothers and fathers who were born overseas arrived in Australia. Both mothers and fathers were most likely to have arrived in Australia while in their 20s.

Table 2.10 Distribution of age on arrival in Australia, children's parents, B and K cohorts
  Mothers % Fathers %
B cohort K cohort B cohort K cohort
Under 10 years 25.8 24.9 24.3 22.6
10-19 years 22.4 17.2 18.8 18.8
20-29 years 37.6 38.6 37.0 33.5
30 years and older 14.3 19.3 19.9 25.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No. of observations 1,100 1,219 1,070 1,128

Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Language spoken at home

Study participants were asked whether each household member mainly spoke a language other than English at home. Languages were classified according to the Australian Standard Classification of Languages (ABS, 2005). Languages spoken are presented in detail for the first wave of the study in Table 2.11 and summarised into English/non-English in Table 2.12 for the waves that followed.

Table 2.11 shows the percentage of children, mothers and fathers who spoke languages in each of the broad language groups (with English removed from the Northern European Languages category and reported separately). The most commonly spoken languages were southern European languages and south-west and central Asian languages.

Table 2.11 Main language spoken at home, by study child, their mother and their father, B and K cohorts, Wave 1
  Child Mother Father
B cohort % K cohort % B cohort % K cohort % B cohort % K cohort %
English 87.2 86.0 83.0 82.4 84.2 82.3
Northern European languages (excluding English) 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8
Southern European languages 2.0 2.5 3.1 3.6 2.8 3.8
Eastern European languages 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.9
South-west and central Asian languages 2.7 2.1 3.1 2.5 3.6 2.8
South Asian languages 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.4 2.0
South-east Asian languages 1.9 1.6 2.9 2.1 2.0 1.7
East Asian languages 1.3 2.4 1.6 2.8 1.6 2.8
Other languages 2.7 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.0 3.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No. of observations 5,104 4,983 5,104 4,946 4,627 4,318

Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Table 2.12 shows the percentage of children, mothers and fathers who spoke English and non-English languages at each of the first three waves of the study. Children were less likely than their parents to mainly speak a language other than English at home.

Table 2.12 Main language spoken at home (English or non-English), by study child, their mother and their father, B and K cohorts, Waves 1-3
  B cohort K cohort
Wave 1 % Wave 2 % Wave 3 % Wave 1 % Wave 2 % Wave 3 %
Child  
English 87.2 87.9 87.0 86.0 85.2 86.1
Not English 12.8 12.1 13.0 14.0 14.8 13.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No. of observations 5,104 4,603 4,384 4,983 4,464 4,331
Mother  
English 83.0 83.7 83.1 82.4 81.4 82.5
Not English 17.0 16.3 16.9 17.6 18.6 17.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No. of observations 5,104 4,593 4,375 4,946 4,426 4,287
Father  
English 84.2 84.9 84.1 82.3 81.0 82.4
Not English 15.8 15.1 15.9 17.7 19.0 17.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No. of observations 4,627 4,106 3,884 4,318 3,834 3,731

Identification as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Study participants were asked whether the study child and/or their parent(s) identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. There were 5,107 child observations, 5,104 mother observations and 4,627 father observations in the B cohort. There were 4,981 child observations, 4,944 mother observations and 4,316 father observations in the K cohort. Figure 2.7 shows that B cohort families were slightly more likely to identify as Indigenous. For the B and K cohort respectively, 5% and 4% of children identified as Indigenous, and 4% and 3% of mothers did so, as did 2% of fathers in both cohorts.

Figure 2.7 Distribution of children, mothers and fathers who identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, B and K cohorts, Wave 1

Figure 2.7 Distribution of children, mothers and fathers who identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, B and K cohorts, Wave 1 - as described in text

Families who identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders were not used as a comparison subpopulation throughout the report due to the small size of this subpopulation, and because of concerns about the representativeness of the group (Hunter, 2008).

2.5 Further reading

  • Gray, M., & Sanson, A. (2005). Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Family Matters, 72, 4-9.
  • Qu, L., Soriano, G., & Weston, R. (2006). Starting early, starting late: Socio-demographic characteristics and parenting of new mothers of different ages. Family Matters, 73, 52-59.
  • Sanson, A., Johnstone, R., LSAC Research Consortium, & FaCS LSAC Project Team. (2004). Growing Up in Australia takes its first steps. Family Matters, 67, 46-52.
  • Soloff, C., Lawrence, D., & Johnstone, D. (2005) LSAC sample design (Technical Paper No. 1). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

2.6 References

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Australian Standard Classification of Languages (ASCL) 2005-06 (Cat. No. 1267.0). Canberra: ABS.
  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Standard Australian Classification of Countries (SACC) (2nd Ed.) (Cat No. 1269.0). Canberra: ABS.
  • Blakemore, T., Strazdins, L., & Gibbings, J. (2009). Measuring family socioeconomic position. Australian Social Policy, 8, 121-168.
  • Hunter, B. (2008). Benchmarking the Indigenous sub-sample of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Australian Social Policy, 7, 61-84.
  • Soloff, C., Lawrence, D., Misson, S., & Johnstone, R. (2006). Wave 1 weighting and non-response (Technical Paper No. 3). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Footnote(s)

1 Note that children within each cohort were interviewed over a period of approximately 9 months, so the distribution of ages at the time of interview is different to the distribution of ages within the cohort.

2 If there was no Parent 2 present, Parent 1's level of education was used. Note that these are not necessarily the child's biological parents, and may include parents who have only recently started living with the child (e.g., step-parents).

3 In some chapters, comparisons are made based on the number of children in the household (one, two, three or more), because of the particular focus of those chapters (e.g., how child care arrangements used by parents vary with the number of children in the family). This is equivalent to the data shown here, as the number of siblings of the study child plus the study child.

Top