1. A new look at the housing impacts of partnership dissolution
Rory Coulter, University of Cambridge
Michael Thomas, University of Groningen
Clara H Mulder, University of Groningen
ESRC Centre for Population Change, University of Southampton, 16/02/17

2. Outline Background Research design Results Conclusions and next steps
Theory and previous findings
Research questions
Research design
Data and definitions
Attrition
Results
Conclusions and next steps

3. 1. BACKGROUND

4. 1. Economic impacts of separation
Gendered economic consequences of divorce highlighted by early longitudinal studies
Hoffman (1977); Duncan and Hoffman (1985); Burkhauser et al. (1991); Smock (1993)
Consistent US evidence that women experienced greater falls in living standards
Lower human capital lower incomes (Smock, 1993)
Child custody arrangements erode female and increase male disposable income (not fully counterbalanced by support payments or welfare transfers) (Duncan and Hoffman, 1985)

5. 1. Economic impacts of separation
Similar patterns evident in Britain
Source: Jenkins (2009)
Key points
Gendered impacts last a long time
Some improvements for women in 2000s
Housing and living arrangements matter!
(Fisher and Low, 2009; 2012)
+13% £
-22% £

6. 1. Separation and housing
Separation often a ‘turning point’ in the housing career (Stone et al. 2014)
Alters trajectory and identities (Gotlib and Wheaton, 1997)
Homeowner
Renting
Renting
with partner
Shared housing
Parental
home

7. 1. Impacts on housing careers
Short-term
Longer-term
Trigger constrained moves
(Feijten and van Ham, 2007)
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)
Reduced resources lower odds of homeownership later in life course (Herbers et al. 2014)
Worse for women? (Feijten, 2005)

8. 1. Conditional impacts
Consequences for housing may be less pronounced…
Understanding the conditional impacts of splitting up is therefore important
Homeowner
Homeowner
Homeowner
Homeowner
Renting

9. 1. Conditioning factors INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
Gender, children, income, tenure, housing history (contract status)
Resources & restrictions
Housing consequences
Institutions
LOCAL CONTEXT
Urbanization, tenure structures, housing costs
Opportunities & constraints

10. 1. Research gaps
Existing work neglects ‘time and place’ effects (Elder, 1994)
Place: rarely consider geography
Emphasis on cross-national welfare arrangements, not local geography of housing systems (Dewilde, 2008)

11. 1. Geography of English housing systems
Homeownership
Private rental
Source: National Housing Federation (2014: 24-25)

12. 1. Research gaps
Existing work neglects ‘time and place’ effects (Elder, 1994)
Time: focused on homeownership in 1990s-2000s
Older literature on separation in council housing (Sullivan, 1986)
BUT reduced homeownership and rapid growth in private renting since 2003
Also new Housing Benefit regime (SAR to age 35; LHA at 30% BRMA; benefit caps), constrained access to social sector

13. 1. Homeownership over time
Source: Redfern Review (2016)

14. 1. Accessibility of homeownership
Indicator
Year
‘91
‘96
‘01
‘06
‘07
‘08
‘09
‘10
‘11
‘12
‘13
‘14
Dwelling transactions (000) -
930
1229
1314
1260
642
618
656
654
789
899
Average FTB house price (2015 £000) 78 71
115
183
194
192
206
193
189
202
Average FTB price to income ratio
3.0
2.7
3.1
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.4
Average FTB deposit (%)
13.7
9.9
16.7
16.4
17.2
21.8
27.7
27.4
25.2
23.0
22.0
21.3
Source: Own calculations using DCLG Live Tables and ONS HPSSA. FTB=first time buyer.

15. 1. Tenure change through the GFC
Source:
NHF (2014)

16. 1. Aims and questions
Need to take a fresh look at housing aftermath of separation
Focus on (i) renters and (ii) geographical variations
Research question
“How do the housing outcomes of partnership dissolution vary by tenure and across space in England and Wales?”
Particular interest in how conditioned by gender, children, resources and housing history (contract status)

17. 2. RESEARCH DESIGN

18. 2. Data and sample Understanding Society W1 (2009/10) – W6 (2014/15)
Relationship grid to identify separations, 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 256 cases where partners split but stay in same HH

19. 2. 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

20. 2. Problem B: Break up attrition
Attrition correlates with separation (2.3% couples separate)
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

21. 2. Logit models of attrition
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
May need to adjust
models for selective
dropout
Work ongoing

22. 2. Defining housing outcomes
Short panel so look at t to t+1 transitions (1480 events)
Outcome at t+1 has four categories
Homeownership (39.7%)
Social tenancy (19.1%)
Private tenancy (27.6%)
Parental home/sharing (15.3%)
Range of lagged individual level predictors

23. 2. Defining geography
Match 2011 census LSOA codes onto UKHLS to create custom housing market area geographies (GIS)
34753 LSOAs in England and Wales
Mean 2011 population = 1614 individuals, 672 households
Concentrate on England and Wales as:
Differences in Scottish divorce laws (Fisher and Low, 2009)
Housing market geographies not defined for Scotland/N. Ireland
UKDS SN7248 dataset has no Scottish datazone codes before W6!

24. 2. Housing Market Areas (HMAs)
CURDS project for NHPAU
Use commute and migration patterns to create ‘functional’ areas
Strategic (83) and single tiers (102) defined
We use ‘silver standard’ versions
Blackburn
London
Source: Coombes and Wymer (2010)

25. 2. City Regions Coarser geography (33 units)
Defined from migration patterns
Source: Stillwell et al. (2000)

26. 3. RESULTS

27. 3. Destinations for homeowners

28. 3. Destinations for social tenants

29. 3. Destinations for private tenants

30. 3. Destinations for parental home/sharing

31. 3. Changes in housing position

32. 3. Modelling framework Initial multinomial models of housing outcomes
Interactions of key predictors (kids, lagged status) with gender
Separations nested within geographies so begin with variance components random intercepts logistic regression models
Small n (1480) and sparse cells so use MCMC in MLwiN
Long chains needed to get stable results
12 separate models (4 outcomes x 3 geographies)

33. 3. Variance components models
Single tier HMAs
Strategic tier HMAs
City regions
M1: Homeownership
Constant
(0.059)
(0.059)
(0.059)
L2 variance
0.034 (0.039)
0.034 (0.038)
0.031 (0.033)
M2: Social tenancy
(0.098)
(0.101)
(0.076)
0.129 (0.108)
0.153 (0.105)
0.044 (0.050)
M3: Private tenancy
(0.061)
0.018 (0.027)
0.016 (0.023)
0.013 (0.018)
M4: Parents/sharing
(0.080)
(0.085)
(0.077)
0.061 (0.077)
0.093 (0.096)
0.032 (0.045)
N separations (groups)
1480 (97)
1480 (80)
1480 (33)

34. 3. Multinomial model: Single tier HMA
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 coefficient p<0.05.

35. 3. Predicted probabilities: Owning

36. 3. Predicted probabilities: Social tenancy

37. 3. Predicted probabilities: Private tenancy

38. 3. Predicted probabilities: Parents/sharing

39. 4. Conclusions and next steps

40. 4. Preliminary conclusions
Separation a demographic risk with housing consequences
Reduced homeownership, increase renting/parents/sharing
Gendered impacts, especially if children present
Minor role of local geography
Lower post-split homeownership in costly HMAs
Increased private renting, increased family instability?

41. 4. Next steps Two step models Relational variables Exit decision
Housing contract status
Exit decision
Move out
Stay
Destination
selection
Opportunity structure
Owning
Parental
home/share
Social
rent
Private
rent

42. 4. Next steps Two step models
Test extra geographical variables (eg. tenure diversity)
Examine longer term impact of separation on housing trajectories
objective of PartnerLife project (

43. 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.

44. References
Brewer, M., & Nandi, A. (2014). Partnership dissolution: How does it affect income , employment and well-being ? ISER Working Paper Colchester: ISER. Burkhauser, R. V, Duncan, G. J., Hauser, R., & Berntsen, R. (1991). Wife or Frau, women do worse: A comparison of men and women in the United States and Germany after marital dissolution. Demography, 28(3), pp. 353–360. 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. Duncan, G. J., & Hoffman, S. (1985). Economic consequences of marital instability, in: M. David & T. Smeeding (Eds.), Horizontal equity, uncertainty, and economic well-being, pp. 427–470. London: University of Chicago Press. Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), pp. 4–15. Feijten, P. (2005). Union dissolution, unemployment and moving out of homeownership. European Sociological Review , 21(1), pp. 59–71. Feijten, P., & van Ham, M. (2007). Residential mobility and migration of the separated. Demographic Research, 17, pp. 623–654. 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. Fisher, H., & Low, H. (2009). Who wins, who loses and who recovers from divorce?, in: J. Miles & R. Probert (Eds.), Sharing lives, dividing assets: An inter-disciplinary study, pp. 227–256. Oxford: Hart. Fisher, H., & Low, H. (2012). Financial implications of relationship breakdown: Does marriage matter? IFS Working Paper 12/17. 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.

45. References
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. Hoffman, S. (1977). Marital Instability and the Economic Status of Women. Demography, 14(1), pp. 67–76. 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. Redfern Review. (2016). The Redfern Review into the decline of home ownership. Retrieved from Smock, P. (1993). The economic costs of marital disruption for young women over the past two decades. Demography, 30(3), pp. 353–371. Stillwell, J., Bell, M., Blake, M., Duke-Williams, O. & Rees, P. (2000) Net migration and migration effectiveness: A comparison between Australia and the United Kingdom, Part 1: Total migration patterns. Journal of Population Research 17(1), pp Sullivan, O. (1986). Housing movements of the divorced and separated. Housing Studies, 1(1), pp. 35–48.