COVID-19 led to substantial increases in parents’ stress due partially to the challenges of home education. The highly politicized decision to reopen schools in-person in Fall 2020, nevertheless, was not associated with reductions in parents’ stress. Using a stress process perspective, we argue that the association of school modality with parents’ stress in Fall 2020 likely depended on parents’ COVID concerns. Analysis of survey data from November 2020 shows that incompatibility between parents’ COVID concerns and children’s school modalities were associated with greater stress. Parents with no concerns reported the lowest stress when children learned in-person and the highest stress when children were mandated to learn virtually. Among parents with COVID concerns, the opposite was true. Because few parents expressed no COVID concerns, in-person learning was more often associated with higher stress than lower stress, helping explain why school reopening did not markedly improve U.S. parents’ mental health.
more »
« less
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: COVID Concerns and Partnered U.S. Mothers’ Employment during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Shutdowns of in-person school and childcare in spring 2020 in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic were associated with substantial reductions in mothers’ labor force participation (LFP). By fall 2020, in-person school and daycare were more widely available, but mothers’ LFP remained as low as it was in spring. Coincidently, by fall 2020, daily COVID deaths had also began to peak. Using unique panel survey data from partnered U.S. mothers ( n = 263), the authors use structural equation modeling to analyze how mothers’ concerns over COVID shaped their LFP in fall 2020. Findings show that mothers’ COVID concerns were associated with reduced LFP via children’s time at home, perceived stress, and remote work. Concerned mothers were more likely to keep children home, but this resulted in less paid work likely vis-à-vis work-family conflicts. The findings illuminate one reason mothers’ LFP failed to rebound in fall 2020 despite increased access to in-person school and daycare.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10402469
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World
- Volume:
- 8
- ISSN:
- 2378-0231
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 237802312211387
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
COVID-19 led to substantial increases in parents’ stress due partially to the challenges of home education. The highly politicized decision to reopen schools in person in fall 2020, nevertheless, was not associated with reductions in parents’ stress. Using a stress process perspective, we argue that the association of school modality with parents’ stress in fall 2020 likely depended on parents’ COVID concerns. Analysis of survey data from November 2020 shows that incompatibility between parents’ COVID concerns and children’s school modalities were associated with greater stress. Parents with no concerns reported the lowest stress when children learned in person and the highest stress when children were mandated to learn virtually. Among parents with COVID concerns, the opposite was true. Because few parents expressed no COVID concerns, in-person learning was more often associated with higher stress than lower stress, helping explain why school reopening did not markedly improve U.S. parents’ mental health.more » « less
-
Throughout the 2020–2021 school year, families’ access to—and desire to participate in—in-person educational experiences was highly unequal. Concerns about “school hesitancy” in light of COVID-19 have continued into the 2021–2022 school year, driven both by concerns about well-being and concerns about safety. Using a nationally representative sample of families, we tested a messaging intervention aimed at reducing school hesitancy. We found that targeted messaging to address well-being and safety concerns substantially improved parent reports of their likelihood of sending their child back for in-person learning for parents who were previously unsure. The findings suggest the importance of careful COVID-related communication from schools.more » « less
-
Background: Research on parents’ divisions of domestic labor during the COVID-19 pandemic has focused on average changes in housework and childcare during the pandemic’s first year, limiting our understanding of variation in parents’ experiences as well as the long-term consequences of the pandemic for gender inequality. Objective: This study identifies distinct patterns of change in U.S. parents’ divisions of housework and childcare from Spring 2020 to Fall 2023 and factors associated with changes in parents’ divisions of domestic labor. Methods: We use five waves of survey data (2020-2023) from partnered U.S. parents along with group-based trajectory and fixed effects models to identify longitudinal trajectories of parents’ divisions of housework and childcare and key factors that are associated with these trajectories. Results: Most U.S. parents (75-80%) maintained the same division of domestic labor throughout the pandemic. Nonetheless, one-quarter experienced long-term changes. Parents were equally as likely to transition to a nontraditional division of housework as a traditional one (10%), but were four times more likely to transition to a nontraditional division of childcare as a traditional division (21 vs. 5%). Parents were more likely to shift toward a nontraditional division of domestic labor when mothers worked full-time (and earned more income) and fathers worked from home at least sometimes during the pandemic. Contributions: Overall, results suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic affected the long-term division of domestic labor in only a minority of families. Where change has occurred, however, it has been long-lasting, and in the case of childcare, it has tended to reduce gender inequalities rather than exacerbate them.more » « less
-
Clinicians, cooks, and cashiers: Examining health equity and the COVID-19 risks to essential workersnull (Ed.)In Spring/Summer 2020, most individuals living in the United States experienced several months of social distancing and stay-at-home orders because of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Clinicians, restaurant cooks, cashiers, transit operators, and other essential workers (EWs), however, continued to work outside the home during this time in order to keep others alive and maintain a functioning society. In the United States, EWs are often low-income persons of color who are more likely to face socioeconomic vulnerabilities, systemic racism, and health inequities. To assess the various impacts of COVID-19 on EWs, an online survey was distributed to a representative sample of individuals residing in six states during May/June 2020. The sample included 990 individuals who identified as EWs and 736 nonessential workers (NWs). We assessed differences between EW and NW respondents according to three categories related to health equity and social determinants of health: (1) demographics (e.g. race/ethnicity); (2) COVID-19 exposure risk pathways (e.g. ability to social distance); and (3) COVID-19 risk perceptions (e.g. perceived risk of contracting COVID-19). EWs were more likely to be Black or Hispanic than NWs and also had lower incomes and education levels on average. Unsurprisingly, EWs were substantially more likely to report working outside the home and less likely to report social distancing and wearing masks indoors as compared to NWs. EWs also perceived a slightly greater risk of contracting COVID-19. These findings, which we discuss in the context of persistent structural inequalities, systemic racism, and health inequities within the United States, highlight ways in which COVID-19 exacerbates existing socioeconomic vulnerabilities faced by EWs.more » « less