1. The role of fathers in the Growing Up in Scotland Study Louise Marryat

2. Aims of the presentation To provide a brief overview of GUS including: Research objectives Study design Study content Available data To give an insight into the sweep 2 partner interview with resident partners To provide an outline of the scoping paper on following-up non-resident fathers

3. Overview of GUS BC1/CC1/BC2

4. Research objectives To provide data and information Characteristics, circumstances and experiences of children in Scotland aged between 0 and 5 Longer-term outcomes across a range of key domains Levels of awareness and use of key services Nature and extent of informal sources of help, advice and support for parents To document differences Characteristics, circumstances and experiences of children from different backgrounds Longer-term outcomes for children from different backgrounds To identify key predictors E.g. of adverse longer-term outcomes With particular reference to the role of early years

5. Study design (2): Ages and Stages Age at interview Sweep Launch year 0-11-22-33-44-55-6 1 2005 BC1 (5217) CC (2858) 2 2006 BC1 (4512) CC (2500) 3 2007 BC1 (4191) CC (2331) 4 2008 BC1 (3995) CC (2199) 5 2009 BC1 = Birth cohort 1 CC = Child cohort BC1 6 2010 BC1

6. Study design National sample capable of analysis by urban/rural, deprived/non-deprived and other sub- groups of interest Sample drawn from Child Benefit records Two cohorts - at sweep 3: Birth cohort: 4191 children aged 34.5 months Child cohort: 2331 children aged 58.5 months Face-to-face (CAPI) survey of parents annually until child reaches five (almost six) years of age then at selected stages of interest

7. GUS1GUS2GUS3GUS4GUS5 (2005/6)(2006/7)(2007/8)(2008/9)(2009/10) BC only Main carer Partner Child height & weight Cognitive assessments Health records Health records Health records Health records Sources of information

8. Study Childs age in years 012345678101116 GUS BC (2005) GUS CC (2005) GUS BC2 (2011) NCDS (1958) BCS (1970) ALSPAC (1991) MCS (2000) How does/will GUS compare?

9. Study content: Core topics of the main interview Household composition and family demographics Non-resident parents Parental support Parenting styles Childcare Child health and development Activities Education and employment Income and benefits Accommodation and transport

10. Study content: Other topics covered in the interview Parental health and well-being Early experiences of pre-school Early experiences of primary school Pregnancy and birth Involvement of grandparents Material deprivation Food and nutrition Housing and neighbourhood Social networks and social capital

11. Using GUS data Data availability Data deposited with UK Data Archive Sweep 1 to 3 data currently available Sweep 4 deposited summer 2010 Documentation also available from study website Data workshops An introduction to the data Handouts and slides are available from the study website

12. Recent developments Competitive tender issued in Spring 2008 Proposals for the continuation of the study from 2009 to 2013 Contract awarded to ScotCen in September 2008 Project will be undertaken in collaboration with Centre for Research on Families and Relationships (University of Edinburgh) MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit (University of Glasgow)

13. Overview of proposed design Agreed design entails four further annual waves of fieldwork: 2009/10 – Existing birth cohort (age 4-5) 2010/11 – Existing birth cohort (age 5-6) 2011/12 – New birth cohort (age 0-1) 2012/13 – Existing birth cohort (age 7-8) Decisions on further follow-up of the child cohort have not yet been taken At a minimum, data collection will involve face- to-face CAPI interview with childs main carer Likely to be supplemented by further cognitive assessments and continued anthropometric measurements

14. The new birth cohort First wave of data collection in 2011 To be slightly larger than existing birth cohort – nearer 6000 than 5000 Currently, sample design and fieldwork approach to match that of existing cohorts

15. Where do resident fathers fit in?

16. Respondents Sweep 1 - actively looked to interview mothers Following sweeps followed up same respondent By sweep 4 (out of 6194 respondents across 2 cohorts) 97.7% = natural mother 1.8% = natural father Very small remainder = adoptive parents or grandparents

17. Proxy data Collected/updated every sweep: Household Grid data Employment Educational qualifications When a new partner enters the household Religion Ethnicity

18. GUS1GUS2GUS3GUS4GUS5 (2005/6)(2006/7)(2007/8)(2008/9)(2009/10) BC only Main carer Partner Child height & weight Cognitive assessments Health records Health records Health records Health records Sources of information

19. Sample size and response rates @ sweep 2: Partners interview

20. The Partners Interview Parenting Transition to Pre-school (Child only) Neighbourhood and community (Birth only) Self-completion Work, employment and income

21. Key reasons for partner interview 1.Accurate factual information Employment, education, etc. 2.Gauge different attitudes in the household Parenting styles, child readiness for school

22. Approaches to discipline Birth cohort (22.5 mths)Child cohort (46.5 mths) RespondentsPartnersRespondentsPartners Ignoring bad behaviour67%57%68%59% Raising voice or shouting63%66%76%80% Time out or naughty step56% 48%79%78% Removing treats/ privileges29%40%74%76% Smacking16% 34%37% Reward system/sticker chart8%14%56%54% None of these8%9%1% Bases (all households with resident partner at sweep 2) Weighted3614297419161542 Unweighted3765297819981543

23. Division of parenting responsibilities-BC1 RespondentsPartners Getting up in the night if he/she cries or needs to be comforted I do most of it50.415.9 My husband/wife/partner does most of it 11.845.5 We share more or less equally37.237.8 Generally being with and looking after the child I do most of it67.13.4 My husband/wife/partner does most of it 1.453.7 We share more or less equally30.642.3 Unweighted bases3616 2978

24. How has the data been used? Sweep 2 overview report No sign of policy use Current PhD on Collaboration within Households Looking at collaboration with regards to: –A common understanding of the child and their needs –Common aims for raising the child –Joint involvement in raising the child –Supportive relationship between the parents

26. Should we collect future partner data? Between the Birth cohort and Child cohort the appeared to be a difference in closeness of parents in attitudes Future data would: Allow us to track changes –Is this an academic exercise? Allow us to dig deeper – attitudes and perceptions?

27. Where do non-resident fathers fit in?

28. Why has GUS not collected data from NRPs? Study has received much criticism for not including non-resident fathers (NRPs) 20-25% of each cohort has a non-resident father at each sweep Data collected from resident mother on contact, maintenance, parent relationship, father involvement in decision making and on making arrangements No data directly from NRP

29. GUS Scoping paper Number of problems identified UK – no record of NRPs RRs – 20-30% and heavily biased Only those in contact Mothers as gatekeepers Many refuse to give information (US PSID – 31%) Likely to get those with better relationships with NRP Co-operation of NRP themselves (lower than general population) Concluded – qualitative follow-up would be of more value

30. More information Website: www.growingupinscotland.org.uk E-mail: Louise.marryat@scotcen.org.uk