Which Developmental Period Matters Most? Housing Insecurity and Positive Adolescent Functioning

Introduction and Purpose:

Existing studies on the consequences of housing insecurity for adolescents have largely focused on associations with negative outcomes, such as emotional and behavioral problems and health deterioration. Comparatively little is known about how exposure to housing insecurity at different developmental stages relates to adolescents’ positive functioning. To address this gap, we analyze how the association with positive functioning varies depending on when exposure to housing insecurity was experienced, whether in early childhood, middle childhood, or adolescence. We aim to identify which developmental period of exposure shows the strongest association, deepen our understanding of how housing insecurity acts differently across developmental periods, and provide an empirical basis for more effective timing and intervention strategies.

Methods:

We used longitudinal data from birth to age 15 (waves 1–6) of the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study (N=3,335). Using mother-reported utility arrears, rent or mortgage arrears, eviction, cohabiting, and homelessness at each wave, we constructed aggregate housing insecurity indicators for three developmental periods: early childhood (ages 0-5), middle childhood (age 9), and adolescence (age 15). Using OLS regression, we analyzed the association of housing insecurity across developmental periods with adolescent positive functioning at age 15, using a stepwise modeling approach and Wald tests to compare the independent effects of each period and their relative importance. Adolescent positive functioning was measured using the EPOCH scale as an integrated indicator of engagement, perseverance, optimism, connectedness, and happiness. To address issues of measurement proximity, we also examined models excluding adolescent housing insecurity.

Results:

Housing insecurity in early and middle childhood showed significant negative associations with adolescent positive functioning (p<.05; p<.01), whereas housing insecurity in adolescence did not. These patterns of significance persisted in the sensitive period model, which considered all periods simultaneously. Comparing the relative importance across developmental periods, housing insecurity in middle childhood showed the largest effect size, but the difference from early childhood was not statistically significant, while both early and middle childhood differed significantly from adolescence (p<.05; p<.01). Further analyses indicated that the association of early childhood reflected a conditional relationship, appearing significant in combination with adolescent housing insecurity but not alone, whereas the association of middle childhood with positive function was consistent and robust across models (p<.05).

Conclusions and Implications:

Results of this study expand our understanding of the impacts of housing insecurity by showing that it relates to adolescent positive functioning. Moreover, results suggest that housing insecurity may be associated differently with positive functioning across developmental periods, and, in particular, exposure during middle childhood shows a more consistent and robust relationship than exposure during other periods. In contrast, the effects of early childhood appeared conditional, seeming to reflect particular risks of cumulative exposure. These results suggest that the consequences of housing insecurity may manifest differently across developmental stages and may particularly accumulate over time. These findings suggest potential implications for housing policy and intervention strategies, particularly suggesting the need for targeted interventions during middle childhood, while also emphasizing the importance of establishing a continuous housing support system.