Mother has a disabilitya Yes 17.3 14.9 No 32.3 12.5 At least one child has a disabilitya Yes 24.0 18.7 No 32.2 12.3 Another household member has a disabilitya Yes 20.9 20.0 No 32.3 12.4 Remoteness Major cities 30.5 12.1 Inner regional 34.5 13.0 Outer regional 32.8 13.4 Remote or very remote 42.3 13.6 Local area disadvantage Least disadvantaged 35.0 10.1 Middle 60% 32.7 12.8 Most disadvantaged 27.9 14.3 Sample size 9,230 15,778 Note: ‘Employed’ includes those on leave. There is a gap of approximately two years between time 1 and time 2 (the time between waves of LSAC). Transitions include those between Wave 1 and 2, Wave 2 and 3 and Wave 3 and 4. Characteristics are measured at time 2. aAnalyses of disability items uses Waves 2 to 4 only. Source: LSAC Waves 1–4, B and K cohorts. Before we go on to describe the other findings in Table 26, we examine in Figure 8 the employment transitions by family type as well as age of youngest child. This figure includes mothers with youngest children aged up to 7 years, as sample sizes become smaller and estimates less reliable as children grow older. The left panel shows the percentage entering employment and the right panel the percentage leaving employment. The higher rates of entering employment by mothers with self-employed partners are especially apparent for mothers with younger children. Also, for single mothers, higher rates of exiting employment are most apparent for those with younger children. Figure 8: Cross-wave employment transitions by relationship status and age of youngest child Notes: ‘Employed’ includes those on leave. There is a gap of approximately two years between time 1 and time 2 (the time between waves of LSAC). Transitions include those between Wave 1 and 2, Wave 2 and 3 and Wave 3 and 4.
Ethnicity Australian-born Indigenous (reference) Indigenous Australian 0.90 0.49 0.38 0.65 English-speaking overseas-born 1.05 0.72* 0.61 0.64** Poor English language proficiency overseas-born 1.92** 0.35** 0.62 0.20** Remoteness (ref: major cities) Inner regional 0.79* 0.94 0.73 0.91 Outer regional 0.93 0.98 1.11 0.88 Remote or very remote 1.17 1.20 0.50 0.39* Local area disadvantage (ref: least disadvantaged) Middle 60% 0.74* 0.88 0.99 0.84 Most disadvantaged 0.84 0.72 1.19 0.57** Constant 44.83*** 0.12*** 0.01*** 0.08*** Rho 0.32 0.24 0.26 0.31 No suitable child care No jobs that are suitable/of Other Odds ratio Age of youngest child (years) 0.94 1.24*** 1.30*** Family type (ref: mother with partner in permanent/casual job) Single mother 1.68* 2.13*** 2.12*** Mother with not-employed partner 0.5 1.39 1.91*** Mother with self-employed partner 1.22 0.57** 0.67** Educational attainment (ref: Bachelor degree or higher) Incomplete secondary only 0.68 0.87 0.70* Secondary and/or certificate/diploma 0.54* 1.05 1.01 Number of children (ref: 3 or more)
Table A21: Multivariate analyses of positive and negative work–family spillover according to employment and sociodemographic characteristics, Waves 2 to 4 showing disability indicators only 1 2 3 1 2 3 0.02 0.02 0.02 –0.04 –0.03 –0.04 –0.11** –0.09* –0.09* 0.14** 0.13** 0.13** –0.05 –0.05 –0.05 0.16** 0.15** 0.16** 13,262 12,355 12,371 13,260 12,347 12,361 6,608 6,450 6,454 6,611 6,451 6,455 Note: All models include sociodemographic controls. Model 1 also has key employment characteristics. Model 2 adds in job conditions but excludes Wave 1, as working time intensity was not captured at this wave. Model 3 is the same as 2 but excludes working time intensity so includes Wave 1. Random effects regression models were estimated. Excludes mothers who were not employed or employed but away from work and mothers who did not respond to the relevant questions. * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001. Source: LSAC Waves 2–4, B and K cohorts.