1. A new look at the housing consequences of partnership dissolution
Rory Coulter, University College London
Michael Thomas, University of Groningen
Clara H Mulder, University of Groningen
Understanding Society Conference, Colchester, 13th July 2017

2. Separation and housing
Separation often a ‘turning point’ in the housing career
Alters trajectory and identities (Gotlib and Wheaton, 1997)
Intensely gendered patterns and processes
Homeowner
Renting
Renting
with partner
Shared housing
Parental
home

3. Known housing impacts Short-term Longer-term
Triggers moves constrained by time, finances and spatially ‘linked lives’ (Cooke et al., 2016)
Suboptimal initial moves, reduced resources and new preferences elevate risk of moving
(Feijten and van Ham, 2010)
Exits from homeownership, returns to the parental home and reduced housing quality
(Dewilde, 2008; Feijten and van Ham 2010)
Lower odds of homeownership later in life course
(Herbers et al. 2014)

4. Theoretical framework
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
Gender, children, income, tenure, housing history (contract status)
Resources & restrictions
HOUSING OUTCOMES
Institutions
LOCAL CONTEXT
Urbanization, tenure structures, housing costs
Opportunities & constraints

5. Motivations for the study
Place: rarely consider geography
Emphasis on cross-national not local geographies
Time: focused on homeownership in 1990s-2000s
Reduced homeownership and rapid growth in private renting
Also new housing benefit regime (SAR to age 35; LHA at 30% BRMA; benefit caps), constrained access to social sector, housing affordability pressures (vary spatially)
Research question: How do the housing outcomes of partnership dissolution vary by tenure and across space in England and Wales?

6. Research design
Household relationship grid to identify separations in W1-W6, defined as:
“a transition from a legal marriage or cohabiting union observed at the wave t interview to living apart from the wave t spouse or partner at the wave t+1 interview” (Jenkins, 2009)
Discard TSMs, same-sex couples, widowed and a small number of cases where partners split but stay in same HH
Short panel so look at t to t+1 transitions (n=1480)
Four outcomes (own, social rent, private rent, parents/sharing)

7. Housing Market Areas (HMAs)
CURDS project for short-lived NHPAU
Use commute and migration patterns to create ‘functional’ geography using 2001 census
We use silver standard and single tier version
In practice, choice of HMA definition seems to have very little impact on results
Blackburn
London
Source: Coombes and Wymer (2010)

8. Changes in housing position with separation

9. Destinations of homeowners

10. Destinations of social tenants

11. Destinations of private tenants

12. Outcome (ref=ownership)
Multinomial model
Variable (measured at t)
Outcome (ref=ownership)
Social tenancy
Private tenancy
Parents/sharing
Social tenant
5.319
2.632
2.985
Private tenant
3.131
3.690
2.814
2.073
0.741
2.593
Female
-0.375
0.066
-0.025
social tenant # female
2.249
0.535
0.759
private tenant # female
2.246
1.440
1.444
parent/sharing # female
1.815
0.890
1.457
Lives with children
0.573
0.983
0.495
lives with children # female
-0.265
-1.070
-1.786
Age
0.017
-0.068
Cohabiting
-0.176
-0.344
-0.347
Repartnered at t+1
0.721
0.473
-0.872
Degree level qualifications
-0.414
-0.012
-0.457
Income (£1000)
-0.428
-0.174
-0.105
Ln population density of HMA
-0.129
-0.128
0.075
% homeowners in HMA
-0.065
-0.018
-0.006
Ln terraced house prices in HMA
-0.260
0.459
0.262 N
1480
Notes: Extra controls for wave, housing contract status and survey origin. Bold indicates significant at 5% level.

13. Predicted probability of owning at t+1

14. Predicted probability of social tenancy at t+1

15. Predicted probability of private tenancy

16. Initial conclusions
Separation a demographic risk with housing consequences
Reduced homeownership, increased renting/parents/sharing
Gendered impacts, especially if children present
Relatively minor role of local housing geography
Slightly reduced post-split homeownership in costly HMAs
Next step: Two-stage models

17. Two step models Relational variables Housing contract status
Exit decision
Move out
Stay
Destination
selection
Opportunity structure (HMAs)
Owning
Parental
home/share
Social
rent
Private
rent

18. Acknowledgements
Rory Coulter’s contribution to this research is supported by an Economic and Social Research Council Future Research Leaders award [ES/L009498/1]. Financial support from the Isaac Newton Trust is also gratefully acknowledged.
Michael Thomas and Clara Mulder’s work on this paper is part of the project ‘Partner relationships, residential relocations and housing in the life course’ (PartnerLife). Principal investigators: Clara H. Mulder (University of Groningen), Michael Wagner (University of Cologne) and Hill Kulu (University of St Andrews). PartnerLife is supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research [NOW, grant number ], the Deutsche ForschungsGemeinschaſt [DFG, grant number WA1502/6-1] and the Economic and Social Research Council [ESRC, grant number ES/L0166X/1] in the Open Research Area Plus scheme.
Understanding Society (UKHLS) is an initiative funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and various Government Departments, with scientific leadership by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, and survey delivery by NatCen Social Research and Kantar Public. The research data are distributed by the UK Data Service. The authors are solely responsible for all analyses and interpretations of the data.
Census statistics are adapted from data from the Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v.3.0.
We are grateful to Mike Coombes for supplying the HMA shapefiles used in this project.

19. References
Cooke, T. J., Mulder, C. H., & Thomas, M. (2016). Union dissolution and migration. Demographic Research, 34(26), pp. 741–760.
Coombes M., & Wymer, C. (2010) Geography of Housing Market Areas (HMAs) in England: Stage 2 Report from CURDS.
Dewilde, C. (2008). Divorce and the housing movements of owner-occupiers: A European comparison. Housing Studies, 23(6), pp. 809–832.
Feijten, P., & van Ham, M. (2010). The Impact of Splitting Up and Divorce on Housing Careers in the UK. Housing Studies, 25(4), pp. 483–507.
Gotlib, I. H. & Wheaton, B. (1997). Trajectories and turning points over the life course: Concepts and themes, in I.H. Gotlib & B. Wheaton (Eds.) Stress and adversity over the life course: Trajectories and turning points. Cambridge: CUP.
Herbers, D. J., Mulder, C. H., & Mòdenes, J. A. (2014). Moving out of home ownership in later life: The influence of the family and housing careers. Housing Studies, 29(7), pp. 910–936.
Jenkins, S. P. (2009). Marital splits and income changes over the longer term, in: M. Brynin & J. Ermisch (Eds.), Changing Relationships, pp. 217–236. Abingdon: Routledge.

20. Appendix: Problem A: ‘Family attrition’
Attribute at t
(col % or mean)
Men
Women
Tracked
Attrition
Age
51.0
48.6
48.5
46.0
UKHLS sample
71.6
71.9
71.8
72.0
BHPS sample
18.8
12.7
18.7
EMB sample
9.6
15.4
9.5
15.3
Wave 1
19.6
32.0
31.9
Cohabiting
18.0
21.1
17.9
21.0
Lives with own child
53.8
55.9
54.6
57.0
Homeowner
78.7
69.0
68.9
London
11.2
16.3
11.1
16.2
Fully interviewed
81.0
66.2
91.4
80.8
White British
82.8
73.8
82.0
75.0
Low education (<=GCSE)
41.3
46.1
45.0
50.4
Personal income (£)
2420
2283
1436
1357
14% of enumerated couples at t lost completely t+1
12% of interviewed cases (8% in BHPS, Brewer and Nandi 2014: 8)
Cannot know if split up

21. Problem B: ‘Break up attrition’
Attrition also correlates with separation (2.3% couples separate/wave)
By using both partners’ records we can identify cases where separation occurs but one partner is lost
641 of 977 separating men tracked (66%)
1070 of 1214 separating women tracked (88%)
Equivalents 78% and 94% in BHPS (Brewer and Nandi, 2014: 9)
Potential problem if loss is selective

22. Modelling break up attrition (probit)
Variable (measured at t)
Men (coeff.)
Women (coeff.)
Age
-0.001
Survey origin (ref=UKHLS)
BHPS
-0.256
-0.346
EMB
0.234
-0.945*
Wave (ref=1) 2
-0.692**
0.101 3
-0.350 4
-0.994***
-0.404 5
-0.526*
-0.358
Cohabiting (ref=married)
-0.475**
-0.793***
Lives with child (ref=no)
0.797***
-1.023***
Housing tenure (ref=ownership)
Social rent
0.342+
-0.083
Private rent
0.379+
-0.081
In housing contract (ref=no)
-0.712***
-0.950***
Constant
0.231
0.914+
McFadden's pseudo-r2
0.085
0.097
Notes:
***=p<0.001
**=p<0.01
*=p<0.05
+=p<0.1
Insignificant controls
not shown (London,
education, employment,
income)
Implication
Need to adjust
models for selective
dropout
(Heckman?)
Challenge=
identifying movers!
Work ongoing