Gendered Living Arrangements Among Children with Disabilities: Evidence from the 2000 Census

Philip N. Cohen Miruna Petrescu-Prahova

Department of Sociology University of California, Irvine

cohenp@uci.edu Phone: (949) 824-5041 Fax: (949) 824-4717

1

Gendered Living Arrangements Among Children with Disabilities: Evidence from the 2000 Census

Abstract Previous research shows that mothers are largely responsible for the care of children with disabilities in married couples. But many children with disabilities do not live with married couples. Using data on disabilities from the 2000 Census, we find a consistent pattern of living arrangements that leaves children with disabilities disproportionately under the roofs of their mothers or other women. Children with disabilities are more likely to live with single parents, and especially their mothers, than are other children. Further, those who do not live with either parent are more likely to live in households headed by women than are other children. We argue that gendered living arrangements among children with disabilities are a neglected aspect of inequality in caring labor, which is an underpinning of gender inequality in general.

2

Carework and gender inequality

The deinstitutionalization of people with disabilities stands as one of the major

civil rights achievements of the twentieth century in the United States (Fleischer and

Zames 2001). The vast majority of children with disabilities now lives in family

households and attends mainstream schools. However, care for children with disabilities

– like other carework (Cancian and Oliker 2000; Folbre 2001) – continues to reflect

gender inequality because much of it is performed at home where carework is largely

women’s work (Cook 1988; Marcenko and Meyers 1991; Seltzer 1994; Traustadottir

1991), or by paid workers in female-dominated occupations (England and Folbre 2002).

The unpaid carework mothers perform at home restricts their access to the labor market

and reinforces the devaluation of their labor, contributing to gender inequality in general

(Budig and England 2001; London, Scott, and Hunter 2002; Lundberg and Rose 2000).

Thus, the gender division of labor in the care for children with disabilities is one

mechanism for the reproduction of gender inequality more broadly, but one that is not yet

clearly understood.

Most previous research on family-based care for children with disabilities has

focused on the division of labor between resident parents (e.g., Heller, Hsieh, and Rowitz

1997; Lewis, Kagan, and Heaton 2000). However, research on marital dissolution has

shown that parents of children with disabilities are less likely to marry (Reichman,

Corman, and Noonan 2004) and more likely to divorce (e.g., Joesch and Smith 1997;

Mauldon 1992). Further, we will show that these children also are more likely to live

apart from their parents altogether. Therefore, research on married couples may

understate the total gender division of unpaid carework for children with disabilities.

3

In this paper we offer the first description of living arrangements for children with

disabilities using the 2000 Census. We test whether children with disabilities are more

likely than other children to live with single parents (especially their mothers), and

whether they are more likely to live in the households of women when not living with

their parents. In addition to the implications for gender and unpaid work, this analysis is

important for understanding the well being of children with disabilities, who suffer the

consequences of a greater tendency for parents to separate and the economic hardships

associated with living as the dependents of women (Seltzer 1994).

Deinstitutionalization and the family

The civil rights movement for people with disabilities first achieved high

visibility during the 1970s, culminating in the United Nations’ International Year of

Disabled People in 1981. Persistent pressure and cumulative reforms eventually led to the

more comprehensive Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. The movement brought

about a paradigmatic change in perceptions about the rights of, and the principles of care

for, people with disabilities. One of these principles was the right of children to grow up

in their families of origin when possible. The reforms thus promoted a greater role for the

family in providing care for people with disabilities, aided by the increased provision of

public services (Fleischer and Zames 2001; Glendinning 1983; Oliver 1990; Stroman

2003; Traustadottir 2000).

For children with disabilities, public schools now play a much larger role than

they did prior to the period of reform. In the 25 years after 1976, the percentage of

students enrolled in federally funded programs for children with disabilities increased

from 8.3 to 13.2 (U.S. Department of Education 2001), while the number of special

4

education teachers doubled (authors’ analysis of Current Population Survey). As a result,

by 2000 our data show that 97% of children ages 5 to 15 with disabilities were attending

school. However, schools do not eliminate the carework burden for the family members

(mostly mothers) or other caregivers (mostly women) of children with disabilities. Thus,

in the absence of adequate support systems – and with care for children dominated by

women – the right of children with disabilities to live with their families may have

exacerbated gender inequality in carework (Hooyman and Gonyea 1995). This tension

underscores the importance of asking, with whom do children with disabilities live? The

research literatures on both children with disabilities and gender inequality generally

have not yet examined this question.

Who cares for children with disabilities?

Whether it is performed for pay in private settings, in public schools or in

households, caring for children with disabilities is highly gendered.1 Our focus here is on

households, where women shoulder a disproportionate share of the unpaid carework for

children with disabilities, as shown by a series of small, qualitative studies (Cook 1988;

Heller et al. 1997; Lewis et al. 2000; Litt 2004; Marcenko and Meyers 1991;

Traustadottir 1991). This research also shows that mothers of children with disabilities

often perceive a lack of institutional, community and family support for this work

(Gottlieb 1997; Lewis et al. 2000; Marcenko and Meyers 1991), and that caring burdens

are compounded by poverty and inadequate welfare programs (Litt 2004).

1 Although gender segregation is generally less pronounced in the paid labor market than it is within families (author citation; Jackson 1998), caring occupations remain female-dominated (England and Folbre 2002); special education teachers, for example, are overwhelmingly female (86% in 2000), according to the March Current Population Survey.

5

However, with some notable exceptions (London et al. 2002; Marcenko and

Meyers 1991; Porterfield 2002), most studies of gender inequality in family care for

children with disabilities include married couples exclusively (Breslau, Salkever, and

Staruch 1982; Heller et al. 1997; Lewis et al. 2000) or almost exclusively (Booth and

Kelly 1999; Cook 1988; Traustadottir 1991). Further, none that we are aware of examines

how children with disabilities come to be living with either married or single parents, or

in some other living arrangement.

Because parents who spend less time in the paid labor force generally spend more

time with their children, paid work patterns may be suggestive of the unpaid carework

distribution (Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, and Robinson 2000; Sayer, Bianchi, and Robinson

2004). However, given the absence of detailed data on time spent in unpaid care, we

believe that living arrangements represent an important and neglected indicator of

carework burdens. We assume that adults who live with children spend more time and

effort caring for them than adults who live elsewhere. Thus, if children with disabilities

are more likely to live with their mothers – or other women – then some carework

burdens are disproportionately falling on women. Of course, children in general are more

likely to live with women. Therefore, for our argument to hold children with disabilities

must be even more likely to live with women than are children in general.

Why would children with disabilities be more likely to live with their mothers or

other women? Divorce studies in the economics tradition offer a partial explanation

(Joesch and Smith 1997). First, children’s disabilities increase uncertainty about the

future, and therefore increase the motivation for either parent to leave the marriage

(Friedman, Hechter, and Kanazawa 1994; Mauldon 1992). Second, if children represent

6

“stock of capital” that is “marital-specific” (Becker, Landes, and Michael 1977:1157),

then children with disabilities decrease the value of the marriage to the couple, which

increases the odds of divorce.

Empirical evidence for the effects of child health on family structure supports this

argument. Poor child health increases the odds of mothers getting divorced or living

singly (Corman and Kaestner 1992; Joesch and Smith 1997; Mauldon 1992). And a new

study finds that (mostly single) mothers in urban centers are less likely to live with – or

be more involved with – the fathers of their children a year after birth when the infants

are in poor health (Reichman et al. 2004). These findings pose a challenge to earlier

explanations of the effect of children on marriage, which focused on care demands as a

source of bonds between mothers and fathers. Central to this argument was Cherlin’s

(1977:265) assertion that “the high costs of child care for preschool children, in terms of

time, money, and effort, act as a deterrent to marital dissolution” (see also Waite and

Lillard 1991).

Why would young children in general deter divorce but children with disabilities

increase the odds of divorce? Young children and children with disabilities are similar in

that they require more intensive care than other children. However, children with

disabilities may not be expected to grow out of their care-intensive condition. If children

are perceived as less valuable investments, parents may show less commitment to the

family. And given the tendency of children to live with their mothers after divorce

(Cancian and Meyer 1998), any material benefits of leaving the marriage are more likely

to accrue to fathers (Bianchi, Subaiya, and Kahn 1999; 1992). The less callous

description of this process may be that children with disabilities produce “stress” within

7

parental relationships. However, for our purposes, the effect is still a set of living

arrangements that allocates more carework to women.

Note that most research on children with disabilities and marriage outcomes has

not addressed the formation of households. Children with disabilities also may live with

single mothers because their parents never marry in the first place (Reichman et al. 2004).

Even if children’s health conditions do not make marriage less likely, the two outcomes

may be codetermined by such factors as parents’ own health status, class, race/ethnicity,

or local area characteristics, all of which affect the odds of women marrying (McLanahan

and Casper 1995; Qian 1998; Raley 1996).

Next, when parents do not live together, we need to understand the process by

which children come to live with one parent or the other. Clearly, in most of these cases

children live with their mothers (Cancian and Meyer 1998; Hogan and Lichter 1995).

However, if the reason for this pattern is that caring for children is considered women’s

responsibility, it might follow that children who require more care – children with

disabilities – will be more likely to live with their single mothers than their single fathers.

After divorce, children’s health status would increase the odds that children live with

their mothers if divorce in part reflects reduced commitment to caring for children on the

part of some fathers, as economic theory would predict. Further, Traustadottir (2000)

reports that service providers for children expect more intensive parenting from mothers

than from fathers of children with disabilities, which might be an indicator of greater

social pressure for mothers to stay with these children.

Finally, we know little about the process of determining with whom children will

live when they do not live with their biological parents (Brandon and Fisher 2001). This

8

includes diverse situations such as adoptive and foster parenting (Swartz 2004), as well as

children living with grandparents, other relatives, or non-relatives. If these patterns also

reflect the tendency for carework to fall to women, or for men to be more likely to opt out

of intensive carework situations, then we may expect that children with disabilities are

even more likely to live with women. Although this is a small proportion of children, the

outcome may help us understand the gender mechanisms for determining who cares for

children generally.

Data and methods

The 2000 Census included six new questions on disabilities, four of them

appropriate for children: sensory disability, physical limitations, mental disability and

self-care disability (Adler, Clark, DeMaio, Miller, and Saluter 1999; Waldrop and Stern

2003). We use the 5% Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) to analyze children ages 5

to 15, the childhood age group used by the Census Bureau in their reports on disabilities.

Children under age 5 are excluded from these questions, and we exclude those over age

15 because these older children may be reported to have “employment disabilities”

instead of childhood disabilities. We also exclude those children living in group quarters

(1.8% of children with disabilities and 0.2% of children without disabilities).

Previous research in this area has relied on smaller surveys such as the National

Health Interview Survey, the Survey of Income and Program Participation or the Fragile

Families data, which include more detailed health information but are much smaller or

have other limitations. The chief advantage of the PUMS is its size, providing a sample

that is large enough to examine, for example, children who do not live with their own

parents, and those in foster care or grandparent-headed households. (It is also large

9

enough to examine variation across states or local areas, which although not the focus of

this paper might prove valuable.) Although the disability information collected in the

Census is sparse, for our purposes a relatively simple measure of disability is adequate

(DeMaio and Wellens 2003). We assume that children identified as having any of the

four disabilities in the Census data require more care than other children.

The PUMS data show approximately 2.6 million children ages 5 to 15 with

disabilities nationally, representing 7.1% of boys and 4.3% of girls. Mental disabilities

are the most common, and a small proportion of children are reported to have multiple

disabilities. The pattern of disabilities for boys and girls is shown in Table 1. This

disability rate is comparable to the percentage of children reported to have long-term,

health-related activity limitations in the 1992-1994 National Health Interview Survey

(Newachek and Halfon 1998), and the Fragile Families data, which show 5% of infants

born below 4 pounds birth weight, with a congenital disability identifiable at birth, or

were severe developmental delay at 12-18 months of age (Reichman et al. 2004).

However, the PUMS number is only about half that reported by the Survey of Income

and Program Participation for 1997(McNeil 2001), and lower than the 5.7 million

reported served under the Individuals with Disabilities Act in 2000, although 1 million of

those school children have speech impairments, which Census 2000 did not ask about

(U.S. Census Bureau 2002:table 241). Thus, the parental reports in the Census data

appear to yield conservative estimates of the presence of disabilities in the population.

Our ability to model the determinants of living arrangements among children is

limited by the structure of the data. The PUMS is cross-sectional, and does not include

information about any past or present family members who live outside the household, or

10

marital or health histories. It is therefore much better suited to describing living

arrangements than their causes. Thus, we cannot test for effects of family income,

parental education, or other variables used in longitudinal studies, because any of these

may be the result of living arrangements and children’s health status, rather than the

reverse.

We use information at the level of the household, family, and subfamily (families

within the households of others). For example, if a child is living with a single mother in

a house belonging to a grandparent, we code that child as living with a single parent with

other adults present. Note, however, that some detailed relationship categories are not

available for subfamilies (a small proportion of children). For example, adopted children

of householders are reported as such, but adopted children in subfamilies cannot be

differentiated from biological children. The PUMS data also allow us to identify children

living in families with unmarried cohabiting parents, but only when those couples include

the household reference person. 2

Our analysis includes two parts. First, we test for differences in detailed living

arrangements between children with and without disabilities. We test for the likelihood of

living with married parents, cohabiting parents, single mothers and fathers (with and

without other adults present), stepparents (male or female), adoptive parents, foster

parents, or other non-relatives. This follows the suggestion that examining more complex

household structures is important for understanding the determinants of child well-being

(Brandon and Bumpass 2001; Manning and Smock 1997; Winkler 1993).

2 The PUMS cohabitation variable is comparable to that used by the Current Population Survey (author citation). We also note that Census data inevitably simplifies living arrangements when children live in shared custody arrangements, some of whom may have been counted twice in 2000 (Lin, Schaeffer, Seltzer, and Tuschen 2004).

11

Second, we offer simple logistic regression models of the major gender

distinctions in living arrangements, using as controls only variables that relate to children,

and only those that are determined at birth: age, sex, race/ethnicity and nativity. These are

known to affect children’s living arrangements (Brandon 2002; McDaniel 1994). There

are three sets of logistic regression models, each predicting living arrangements for a

different subsample of children.

Living with a single parent. These models include children who live with one or

more of their own parents, testing whether disability affects the odds of living with a

single parent (not cohabiting or married). Children with disabilities would be more likely

to live with single parents if disability increased the odds of couples separating, lowered

the odds of union formation, or if disability were positively associated with parents’

mortality.

Living with a single mother. Among those children who do live with a single

parent, we test whether that parent is female. If children with disabilities – even among

those who live with single parents – are more likely to live with single mothers, then

disability is associated with the gendered nature of living arrangements after divorce or

separation, or in the event parents never marry. In any of these situations, fathers may be

less likely to provide homes for children with disabilities.

Living in female-headed households. The final set of models includes only

children who do not live with their own parents, and tests whether they live in male- or

female-headed households. Although the Census Bureau no longer uses the concept of

household “head” (Presser 1998), the form still asks each household to designate a

reference person who is “the person, or one of the people living here who owns, is

12

buying, or rents this house, apartment, or mobile home” (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). The

gender of this person is a useful proxy for household type (author citation). In married-

couple households, 90% of respondents identified husbands as the householder. In single-

adult households this will differentiate men’s versus women’s homes. And in more

complex households it may identify the person who formed the household or moved into

the residence first. In the case of children living without their own parents, the adults in

these households may be grandparents, other relatives, or non-relatives. We assume that

children in households with female householders are more likely to be cared for by

women. (In an alternative specification, we modeled the percentage of adults in the

household who are female, producing similar results.)

Results

Table 2 presents the distribution of children with and without disabilities across

detailed, mutually exclusive living arrangements, with tests for the significance of the

differences (presented as ratios). The most striking finding is that less than half (45.8%)

of children with disabilities live with their own, married parents, compared to 62.3% of

children without disabilities. Much of this difference is accounted for by the greater

tendency of children with disabilities to live with single mothers, whether alone or with

other adults (24.5% versus 17.4%). However, children with disabilities are more likely to

live in every type of relationship except with their own married parents.

Although all children are more likely to live with their mothers, the gender

implication of the disability pattern is substantial. For example, children with disabilities

are more than five times as likely to live with single mothers as they are to live with

single fathers ([19.33 + 5.17] / [3.77 + .81] = 5.3). For children without disabilities, the

13

ratio is 4-to-1. Thus, the gender imbalance in parental care for children with disabilities is

even more skewed than it is for other children – at least regarding which parents live with

the children.

Table 3 shows the results of three pairs of nested logistic regression models for

children’s living arrangements. In each pair of models, we first introduce variables for

children’s disability only, and then add simple demographic controls for children’s

gender, age, race/ethnicity and nativity. To test for effects of multiple disabilities, we

enter one dummy variable for children with only one disability, and a second for those

with two or more reported disabilities. (Separate models with different variables for each

disability did not produce substantially different results.) For interpretation, we will

translate the predicted probabilities into percentages for children at the intercept – that is,

5-year-old non-Latino White, U.S.-born females – with control variables.

The first pair of models predicts which children live with any of their own

parents. The results here are consistent with Table 2, which showed that children with

disabilities are less likely to live with the ir parents than are other children. Even though

gender, age, race/ethnicity and nativity do affect living with parents, the disability effects

are not changed by the introduction of our controls. The model predicts that 95% of

children with no disability live with their own parents, compared with 89% of children

with one or more disabilities.

The second pair of models predicts which of those children who do live with their

own parents live with single parents. These models show that children with disabilities

are much more likely to live with single parents, and the controls do not significantly

affect the odds ratios. Among children without disabilities, 17% are predicted to live with

14

single parents, compared with 25% of children with one or more disabilities. These

models are consistent with prior research showing that parents of children with

disabilities are less likely to marry and more likely to divorce.

The third pair of models shows that, among children who live with single parents,

those with disabilities are significantly more likely to live with their mothers than are

other children. The effects are not reduced by the introduction of these controls: 82% of

those children with no disabilities who live with single parents are predicted to live with

their mothers, compared with 87% of those with one disability, and 86% of those with

two or more disabilities.

Finally, the last pair of models tests whether children with disabilities are more

likely to live in households with a female reference person. Again, the effects of

disabilities are positive and significant, and they are not reduced by the introduction of

these controls. When children live away from their own parents, those with disabilities

are significantly more likely to live in households with female reference people than are

other children: 23% of children without disabilities are predicted to live in women’s

households, compared to 27% of those with one disability and 28% of those with two or

more disabilities. Together, these models are consistent with our core argument: the care

for children with disabilities is gendered not just in the division of labor between resident

parents, but also in the determination of with whom they live.

What are the gender implications of these findings for adults? A simple

illustration is presented in Table 4, which shows the number and percentage of men and

women in families with children ages 5-15 who live with children who have disabilities.

The table shows that 1.97 million men, and 2.50 million women, live in families with

15

children with disabilities, a ratio of 1.27-to-. Among adults living with children, women

are 9% more likely to live in families with children who have disabilities. This difference

rises to 11% when we limit the population to adults in the prime working ages of 25 to

54. Finally, when we look only at single parents in this age group, we find that although

there are 4.92 times more single mothers than single fathers overall, there are 6.96 times

as many single mothers who have children with disabilities, and single mothers are 42%

more likely to live with children who have disabilities than are single fathers.

Conclusions

We have presented the first description of living arrangements for children with

disabilities using the 2000 Census. If one reason that children most often live with

women is that caring for children is women’s work – its lower value eschewed by men,

its burdens borne by those with less power and authority – then it stands to reason that

children with disabilities, who require more care than other children, will be even more

likely to live with women. The results of our analysis are consistent with this

interpretation. We find that children with disabilities are more likely to live with single

parents, and especially with their mothers, than are other children. And, when children do

not live with their parents, those with disabilities are more likely to live in the households

of women. Although researchers have begun to examine the gender dynamics within the

families of children with disabilities, the gender pattern of their living arrangements have

not yet come under scrutiny.

It may be tempting to think of deinstitutionalization as “returning” the care for

children with disabilities to “the family.” However, several important historical changes

undermine such an interpretation. First, it is now more normative for fathers to leave the

16

households of their children – or for mothers to leave with their children – in the process

separating fathers from their care-giving roles (Seltzer 1994:237). If in family matters it

is true that “the individual no longer takes externally supplied norms and morality for

granted, and instead stresses his or her own freedom of choice” (Lesthaeghe 1995:22-23),

then we should expect the presence of children with disabilities to affect the choices

parents make. Our results suggest this is indeed the case, and the resulting living

arrangements concentrate the care for children with disabilities under the roofs of

women.

Second, partly as a result of these changes and partly because of the greater

economic independence of women, children now live in a much greater diversity of

living arrangements (Hogan and Lichter 1995). So we cannot assume a unitary model of

family support for these children. Given the large proportion of children with disabilities

we find not living in married-couple families – or with either parent – studies of carework

regarding these children need to take into account the diversity of living arrangements,

and the determination of those living arrangements, for this population. Thus we need to

broaden the focus of research about these households – and of policy responses to their

needs.

Of course, some women actively choose to fulfill care-giving roles as they

construct or display their gender identities (West and Zimmerman 1987). But while these

decisions may reflect gender socialization, Traustadottir (2000:253) argues that “the

processes that recruit women for care work are continuing and may be equally powerful

in later years long after early personality formation.” Thus, we need to examine “the

ongoing recruitment processes that draw women into activities of caring.” One such

17

process may occur in the determination of living arrangements, the point at which adults

commit to providing primary care for children.

Our analysis suggests the need to address a number of important related issues.

First, we should not preclude important contributions – in terms of carework or other

support – by fathers who do not coreside with these children (Manning and Smock 1999;

Manning, Stewart, and Smock 2003). Second, we do not consider here the effects of

welfare programs and payments, or changes in the structure of state support for children

with disabilities and their families. This is especially important after the 1990s welfare

reforms, which made it more difficult for some parents of children with disabilities to

receive benefits, and required employment of more mothers (Litt 2004; London et al.

2002). Finally, the dynamics of carework for children with disabilities increasingly

include market-based services – which presumably contributes to inequality between

families along class lines – and also promotes the growth of female-dominated caring

occupations, with its own implications for gender inequality. Each of these issues

deserves attention in future research.

18

References

Adler, Michele C., Robert F. Clark, Theresa J. DeMaio, Louisa F. Miller, and Arlene F.

Saluter. 1999. "Collecting Information on Disability in the 2000 Census: An

Example of Interagency Cooperation." Social Security Bulletin 62(4):21-30.

Becker, Gary S., Elisabeth M. Landes, and Robert T. Michael. 1977. "An Economic

Analysis of Marital Instability." The Journal of Political Economy 85(6):1141-88.

Bianchi, S. M., M. A. Milkie, L. C. Sayer, and J. P. Robinson. 2000. "Is Anyone Doing

the Housework? Trends in the Gender Division of Household Labor." Social

Forces 79(1):191-228.

Bianchi, Suzanne M., Lekha Subaiya, and Joan R. Kahn. 1999. "The Gender Gap in the

Economic Well-Being of Nonresident Fathers and Custodial Mothers."

Demography 36(2):195-203.

Booth C.L. and Kelly J.F. 1999. "Child Care and Employment in Relation to Infants’

Disabilities and Risk Factors." American Journal on Mental Retardation

104(2):117-30.

Brandon, P. D. 2002. "The Living Arrangements of Children in Immigrant Families in

the United States." International Migration Review 36(2):416-36.

Brandon, P. D. and L. Bumpass. 2001. "Children's Living Arrangements, Coresidence of

Unmarried Fathers, and Welfare Receipt." Journal of Family Issues 22(1):3-26.

Brandon, P. D. and G. A. Fisher. 2001. "The Dissolution of Joint Living Arrangements

Among Single Parents and Children: Does Welfare Make a Difference?" Social

Science Quarterly 82(1):1-19.

Breslau, N., D. Salkever, and KS Staruch. 1982. "Women’s Labor-Force Activity and

19

Responsibilities for Disabled Dependents: A Study of Families With Disabled

Children." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 23(2 ):169-83.

Budig, M. J. and P. England. 2001. "The Wage Penalty for Motherhood." American

Sociological Review 66(2):204-25.

Cancian, Francesca M. and Stacey J. Oliker. 2000. Caring and Gender. Thousand Oaks,

CA : Pine Forge Press.

Cancian, M. and D. R. Meyer. 1998. "Who Gets Custody?" Demography 35(2):147-57.

Cherlin, Andrew. 1977. " Effect of Children on Marital Dissolution." Demography

14(3):265-72.

Cook, J. A. 1988. "Who 'Mothers' the Chronically Mentally Ill?" Family Relations

37(1):42-49.

Corman, H. and R. Kaestner. 1992. "The Effects of Child Health on Marital-Status and

Family-Structure." Demography 29(3):389-408.

DeMaio, Theresa and Tracy Wellens. 2003. "Cognitive Evaluation of Proposed Disability

Questions for the 1998 Dress Rehearsal." Survey Methodology Study Series

2003(4).

England, Paula and Nancy Folbre. 2002. "Care, Inequality, and Policy." Pp. 133-44 in

Child Care and Inequality: Rethinking Carework for Children and Youth, Editors

Francesca M. Cancian, Demie Kurz, Andrew S. London, Rebecca Reviere, and

Mary C. Tuominen. New York: Routledge.

Fleischer, Doris Z. and Frieda Zames. 2001. The Disability Rights Movement: From

Charity to Confrontation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Folbre, Nancy. 2001. The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values. New York :

20

New Press.

Friedman, D., M. Hechter, and S. Kanazawa. 1994. "A Theory of the Value of Children."

Demography 31(3):375-401.

Glendinning, Caroline. 1983. Unshared Care: Parents and Their Disabled Children.

London: Routledge & K. Paul.

Gottlieb, A. S. 1997. "Single Mothers of Children With Developmental Disabilities: the

Impact of Multiple Roles." Family Relations 46(1):5-12.

Heller, T., K. Hsieh, and L. Rowitz. 1997. "Maternal and Paternal Caregiving of Persons

With Mental Retardation Across the Lifespan." Family Relations 46(4):407-15.

Hogan, Dennis P. and Daniel T. Lichter. 1995. "Children and Youth: Living

Arrangements and Welfare." Pp. 93-139 in State of the Union: America in the

1990s, Volume II: Social Trends, Editor Reynolds Farley. New York: Russell

Sage Foundation.

Hooyman, Nancy R. and Judith Gonyea. 1995. Feminist Perspectives on Family Care:

Policies for Gender Justice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Pubications.

Jackson, Robert M. 1998. Destined for Equality: the Inevitable Rise of Women's Status.

Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press.

Joesch, J. M. and K. R. Smith. 1997. "Children's Health and Their Mothers' Risk of

Divorce or Separation." Social Biology 44(3-4):159-69.

Lesthaeghe, Ron. 1995. " The Second Demographic Transition in Western Countries: An

Interpretation." Gender and Family Change in Industrialized Countries, Editors

Karen Oppenheim Mason and An-Magritt Jensen. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Lewis, S., C. Kagan, and P. Heaton. 2000. "Dual-Earner Parents With Disabled Children:

21

Family Patterns for Working and Caring." Journal of Family Issues 21(8):1031-

60.

Lin, I. F., N. C. Schaeffer, J. A. Seltzer, and K. L. Tuschen. 2004. "Divorced Parents'

Qualitative and Quantitative Reports of Children's Living Arrangements." Journal

of Marriage and the Family 66(2):385-97.

Litt, Jacqueline. 2004. "Women’s Carework in Low-Income Households: The Special

Case of Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder." Gender &

Society 18(5):625-44.

London, Andrew S., Ellen K. Scott, and Vicki Hunter. 2002. "Children and Chronic

Health Conditions: Welfare Reform and Health-Related Carework." Pp. 99-112 in

Child Care and Inequality: Rethinking Carework for Children and Youth, Editors

Francesca M. Cancian, Demie Kurz, Andrew S. London, Rebecca Reviere, and

Mary C. Tuominen. New York : Routledge.

Lundberg, S. and E. Rose. 2000. "Parenthood and the Earnings of Married Men and

Women." Labour Economics 7(6):689-710.

Manning, W. D. and P. J. Smock. 1997. "Children's Living Arrangements in Unmarried-

Mother Families." Journal of Family Issues 18(5):526-44.

———. 1999. "New Families and Nonresident Father-Child Visitation." Social Forces

78(1):87-116.

Manning, W. D., S. D. Stewart, and P. J. Smock. 2003. "The Complexity of Fathers'

Parenting Responsibilities and Involvement With Nonresident Children." Journal

of Family Issues 24(5):645-67.

Marcenko, M. O. and J. C. Meyers. 1991. "Mothers of Children With Developmental-

22

Disabilities: Who Shares the Burden?" Family Relations 40(2):186-90.

Mauldon, J. 1992. "Childrens Risks of Experiencing Divorce and Remarriage - Do

Disabled-Children Destabilize Marriages." Population Studies-a Journal of

Demography 46(2):349-62.

McDaniel, Antonio. 1994. "Historical Racial-Differences in Living Arrangements of

Children." Journal of Family History 19(1):57-77.

McLanahan, Sara and Lynne M. Casper. 1995. "Growing Diversity and Inequality in the

American Family." Pp. 1-46 in State of the Union, Volume Two, Editor Reynolds

Farley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

McNeil, Jack. 2001. "Americans With Disabilities, 1997." U.S. Census Bureau Current

Population Reports P-70(73).

Newachek, Paul W. and Neal Halfon. 1998. "Prevalence and Impact of Disabling

Chronic Conditions in Childhood ." American Journal of Public Health

88(4):610-617.

Oliver, Michael. 1990. The Politics of Disablement. London : Macmillan Education.

Porterfield, S. L. 2002. "Work Choices of Mothers in Families With Children With

Disabilities." Journal of Marriage and the Family 64(4):972-81.

Presser, Harriet B. 1998. "Decapitating the Us Census Bureau's "Head of Household":

Feminist Mobilization in the 1970s." Feminist Economics 4(3):145-58.

Qian, Z. C. 1998. "Changes in Assortative Mating: the Impact of Age and Education,

1970-1990." Demography 35(3):279-92.

Raley, R. K. 1996. "A Shortage of Marriageable Men? A Note on the Role of

Cohabitation in Black-White Differences in Marriage Rates." American

23

Sociological Review 61(6):973-83.

Reichman, N. E., H. Corman, and K. Noonan. 2004. "Effects of Child Health on Parents'

Relationship Status." Demography 41(3):569-84.

Sayer, Liana C., Suzanne M. Bianchi, and John P. Robinson. 2004. "Are Parents

Investing Less in Children? Trends in Mothers' and Fathers' Time With Children."

American Journal of Sociology 110(1):1-43.

Seltzer, J. A. 1994. "Consequences of Marital Dissolution for Children." Annual Review

of Sociology 20:235-66.

Stroman, Duane F. 2003. The Disability Rights Movement: From Deinstitutionalization

to Self-Determination. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.

Swartz, Teresa T. 2004. "Mothering for the State: Foster Parenting and the Challenges of

Government-Contracted Carework." Gender & Society 18(5):567-87.

Traustadottir, Rannveig. 1991. "Mothers Who Care: Gender, Disability, and Family

Life." Journal of Family Issues 12(2):211-28.

———. 2000. "Disability Reform and Women’s Caring Work." Pp. 249-69 in Care

Work: Gender, Class and the Welfare State, Editor Madonna H. Meyer. New

York: Routledge.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2002. Washington,

D.C..

U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. "Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), Technical

Documentation." Washington, D.C..

U.S. Department of Education. 2001. "Digest of Education Statistics." Washington, D.C..

Waite, L. J. and L. A. Lillard. 1991. "Children and Marital Disruption." American

24

Journal of Sociology 96(4):930-953.

Waldrop, Judith and Sharon M. Stern. 2003. Disability Status: 2000. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Census Bureau.

West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. "Doing Gender." Gender & Society

1(2):125-51.

Winkler, A. E. 1993. "The Living Arrangements of Single Mothers With Dependent

Children - an Added Perspective." American Journal of Economics and Sociology

52(1):1-18.

25

Table 1. Pattern of disabilities for children age 5-15, by gender Percent with

Any disability Mental Sensory Self-care Physical All girls 4.3 3.1 .9 .8 .9 Among girls with Any disability -- 72.7 21.3 18.2 21.0 Mental -- -- 10.7 16.6 13.9 Sensory -- 36.3 -- 16.8 20.2 Self-care -- 66.5 19.7 -- 49.1 Physical -- 48.3 20.5 42.6 -- All boys 7.1 5.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 Among boys with Any disability -- 83.0 14.5 14.5 15.3 Mental -- -- 7.8 12.8 10.0 Sensory -- 44.4 -- 17.7 21.0 Self-care -- 73.4 17.7 -- 45.3 Physical -- 54.2 20.0 43.0 --

26

Table 2. Distribution of children's living arrangements, by disability status and genderLiving arrangement (percent) With disability Without disability

Married parents 45.77 62.30 .73 *

Cohabiting parents 4.74 3.65 1.30 *

Mother alone 19.33 13.77 1.40 *

Mother with other adults 5.17 3.60 1.44 *

Father alone 3.77 3.44 1.10

Father with other adults .81 .77 1.05

Adopted 5.01 2.26 2.22 *

Step child, with mother 6.43 5.20 1.24 *

Step child, with father .43 .31 1.39

Grandchild 3.43 1.97 1.74 *

Other relative 1.81 1.19 1.52 *

Foster child 1.54 .33 4.67 *

Other non-relative 1.76 1.22 1.44 *

Total 100 100* = Difference significant at p <.05 level (two-tailed tests).Note: Includes only children ages 5-15.

Ratio

27

Table 3. Nested logistic regression models for children's living arrangements (odds ratios)

Variables Female reference person 4

One disability .48 *** .48 *** 1.66 *** 1.64 *** 1.30 *** 1.45 *** 1.18 *** 1.22 ***

Two or more disabilities .47 *** .49 *** 1.77 *** 1.69 *** 1.29 *** 1.36 *** 1.37 *** 1.34 ***

Male -- 1.09 *** -- .98 *** -- .50 *** -- .93 ***

Age 6 -- 1.11 *** -- .95 *** -- 1.02 -- 1.00

Age 7 -- 1.06 *** -- .96 *** -- 1.04 * -- .98

Age 8 -- 1.04 *** -- .99 * -- 1.05 ** -- 1.00

Age 9 -- 1.05 *** -- .99 -- 1.08 *** -- 1.00

Age 10 -- 1.03 ** -- 1.00 -- 1.07 *** -- .97

Age 11 -- 1.04 *** -- 1.02 * -- 1.12 *** -- .97

Age 12 -- 1.01 -- 1.03 *** -- 1.08 *** -- 1.01

Age 13 -- 1.01 -- 1.04 *** -- 1.08 *** -- 1.02

Age 14 -- .97 ** -- 1.09 *** -- 1.06 *** -- 1.04

Black -- .40 *** -- 5.62 *** -- 2.09 *** -- 5.31 ***

Latino -- .73 *** -- 1.70 *** -- 1.41 *** -- 1.94 ***

Asian / Pacific Islander -- .87 *** -- .85 *** -- .91 *** -- 1.24 ***

American Indian -- .46 *** -- 2.17 *** -- 1.00 -- 2.59 ***

Other race/ethnicity -- .64 *** -- 1.79 *** -- 1.90 *** -- 1.86 ***

Foreign-born -- .53 *** -- .72 *** -- .73 *** -- .67 ***

-2 Log Likelihood

Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square 6,472*** 33,807*** 5,968*** 175,833*** 328*** 17,198*** 161*** 20,046***

N

Note: Children ages 5-15. Reference categories are no disability, female, age 5, non-Latino White, and U.S.-born.* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 (two-tailed tests)

1. Sample includes all children.

2. Sample includes those living with at least one own parent.

3. Sample includes those living with single parent.

4. Sample includes those not living with own parents.

202,720

170,977

Own parent 1 Single parent 2 Single mother 3

222,605

2,272,869 2,101,892 495,960

1,186,667 467,9551,159,332 2,298,246 2,128,381 484,825

28

Table 4. Adults in families with children ages 5-15

Total

All AdultsMen 26,204 1,965 7.50Women 30,527 2,499 8.19Ratio 1.16 1.27 1.09

Ages 25-54Men 22,111 1,634 7.39Women 26,500 2,164 8.17Ratio 1.20 1.32 1.11

Single Parents1

Men 1,038 83 8.02Women 5,103 580 11.36Ratio 4.92 6.96 1.42

1. Parents of children ages 5-15, not married or cohabiting.

Child with disabilityThousands Thousands Percent of total