Continuity & Change in the American Family
Publication Year: 2002
Continuity and Change in the American Family engages students with issues they see every day in the news, providing them with a comprehensive description of the social demography of the American family. Understanding ever-changing family systems and patterns requires taking the pulse of contemporary family life from time to time. This book paints a portrait of family continuity and change in the later half of the 20th century, with a focus on data from the 1970’s to present. The authors explore such topics as the growth in cohabitation, changes in childbearing, and how these trends affect family life. Other topics include the changing lives of single mothers, fathers, and grandparents and increasing economic disparities among families; child care and child well-being; and combining paid work ...
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: Changing Families in a Changing Society
- A Changing Society
- Changing Households and Families
- Racial Differences in Household and Family Structure
- Delayed Marriage and Living Arrangements of Young Adults
- Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage
- Living Arrangements of the Elderly
- Intergenerational Ties and Multigenerational Living
- Chapter 2: Cohabitation
- Who Cohabits and How Has This Changed over Time?
- A Note on Gay and Lesbian Cohabiting Households
- Cohabitation and Marriage
- Are Cohabiting and Married Individuals Becoming More Alike?
- Cohabitation and Single Life
- Different Purposes, Different Cohabitors
- Race and the Meaning of Cohabitation
- Premarital Cohabitation and Risk of Divorce
- Chapter 3: Childbearing
- Entering Motherhood: Childbearing Among Cohorts of Women
- Number of Children and Childlessness
- Generational Differences in Childbearing
- Nonmarital Childbearing
- Employment Patterns before and after Pregnancy
- Birth Expectations
- Fertility in Men's Lives
- Chapter 4: Single-Mother Families
- Who is a Single Mother?
- Trends in Single Motherhood
- Cohabitation and Single Parenting
- Cohort Change in Lifetime Experience of Single Mothering
- Changing Socioeconomic Characteristics of Single Mothers
- Variation Among Single Mothers
- Single Mothers and Welfare Reform
- Chapter 5: Fathering
- Beliefs About Father Involvement: Ideals and Realities
- Declining Fatherhood: Long-Term Trends in Men's Coresidential Parenting
- Lifetime Estimates of Parenthood
- Father-Only Families and Cohabitation
- Characteristics of Single and Married Fathers
- Child Custody
- Contact between Nonresident Fathers and Their Children
- Child Support Among Nonresident Fathers
- Married Fathers' Time and Activities with Children
- Fathers' and Mothers' Views on Father Involvement
- Chapter 6: Grandparenting
- How Has Grandparenthood Changed Over the Years?
- Grandparents and Single Parenting
- Multigenerational Families with Grandparents
- Heterogeneity in Multigenerational Families with Grandparents
- Characteristics of Grandparents in Multigenerational Families
- Economic Well-Being of Grandparents in Multigenerational Families
- Racial Differences in Multigenerational Families with Grandparents
- Economic Well-Being of Grandchildren in Multigenerational Families
- Chapter 7: Child Care
- Growth in Nonparental Child Care
- How Do Parents Choose Child Care?
- Complexity of Child-Care Arrangements
- Child Care and Child Well-Being
- Chapter 8: Child Well-Being
- Changing Numbers of U.S. Children
- A Transformation of Family Life
- Foster Children and Adopted Children
- Children in Gay and Lesbian Families
- Children's Economic Security
- Parents and Children
- How Do Children Spend Their Time?
- Children's Health
- Teens, Mortality, and Risky Behaviors
- Chapter 9: Economic Causes and Consequences of Changing Family Structure
- Trends in Household and per Capita Income
- Poverty Trends
- Racial Differences in Income and Poverty
- The Feminization of Poverty
- Changing Employment and Earnings of Women
- Declining Male Wages
- The Juvenilization of Poverty
- Family Income Inequality and Relative Economic Well-Being
- Components of Rising Household Income Inequality
- Changing Economics and Family Formation and Dissolution
- Consequences of Marital Disruption in Families with Children
- The Gender Gap in Income after Marital Disruption
- Chapter 10: Combining Work and Family
- The Increase in Mothers' Labor Force Participation
- Attitudes About Women's Work
- Women's and Men's Nonmarket Work
- When Do Men Do More Housework?
- Perceived Success at Work-Family Balance
- Dual Earning and Family Well-Being
To Larry Long and Martin O'Connell, our Census Bureau mentors and longtime colleagues, who showed us how to discern and write about demographic trends
Copyright © 2002 by Sage Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Sage Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
Sage Publications Ltd.
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
Greater Kailash I
New Delhi 110 048 India
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Casper, Lynne M.
Continuity and change in the American family / by Lynne M. Casper and Suzanne M. Bianchi.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-7619-2008-0 (cloth: alk. paper)
ISBN 0-7619-2009-9 (pbk.: alk. paper)
1. Family—United States. 2. Social change—United States. I.
Bianchi, Suzanne M. II. Title.
HQ536 .C386 2002
Acquiring Editor: Jim Brace-Thompson
Editorial Assistant: Karen Ehrmann
Production Editor: Denise Santoyo
Copy Editor: Judy Selhorst
Typesetter: Marion Warren
Indexer: Teri Greenberg
Cover Designer: Michelle Lee
This project was conceived in 1997, when David Klein and Bert Adams, editors of Sage's Understanding Families book series, approached Lynne Casper about the need for a demographically focused book on the family. Lynne enticed Suzanne into collaborating on a proposal and enlisted Martin O'Connell to write Chapter 3, on childbearing. The project would never have been undertaken without the substantial commitment of resources by the Population Division of the U.S. Bureau of the Census. John Long, Robert Kominski, and Martin O'Connell deserve special thanks for their support.
During the 1998–99 academic year, we team-taught a graduate seminar in family demography at the University of Maryland, an endeavor that proved to be a lot of fun and also helped us to formulate many of the questions that most intrigued us about demographic changes in the family. After we completed a first-draft manuscript for this book, we wrote a Population Bulletin titled “American Families” (Bianchi and Casper 2000) at the invitation of the Population Reference Bureau. Our work for PRB gave us the perspective we needed to rework the introduction, Chapter 1, and the conclusion of the book. The insightful questions and suggestions of PRB editor Mary Kent not only improved our Population Bulletin but contributed to this book.
Thanks are due to John Haaga and Peter Donaldson of PRB, who provided a congenial sabbatical getaway for Suzanne that greatly assisted her in finishing work on the manuscript. This book also could not have been completed without the resources and encouragement provided by Christine Bachrach at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), and we are both deeply grateful for her support.
[Page x]Many people contribute to an undertaking such as this. We are especially indebted to our students and colleagues at the Census Bureau, the University of Maryland, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Special thanks go to Philip Cohen, who generated many of the tabulations that underlie the tables and figures in this volume. Philip also contributed to Chapter 1 through his collaboration with Lynne on a paper dealing with multigenerational households (Cohen and Casper forthcoming from Sociological Perspectives), to Chapter 2 through his collaboration with Lynne on the measurement of cohabitation (which appeared in Demography; Casper and Cohen 2000), and to Chapter 10 through his collaboration with Suzanne on trends in mothers' labor force participation (published in Monthly Labor Review; Cohen and Bianchi 1999). Liana Sayer, in collaboration with Lynne, produced the estimates of types and outcomes of cohabitation from the National Survey of Families and Households reported in Chapter 2. Liana also collaborated with Suzanne on the analysis of time diary data on time with children and time spent on housework (published in Social Forces; Bianchi et al. 2000) that appear here. Kristin Smith contributed to Chapter 7 through her collaboration with Lynne on a paper concerning children in self-care (Journal of Family Issues; Casper and Smith forthcoming).
Two individuals provided yeoman's service in putting the manuscript together, making editing changes, and correcting figures and tables: Beth Mattingly of the University of Maryland and Elizabeth Mumford of NICHD, both whizzes at MS Word, MS Excel, and working with good humor under pressure. Chris Morett generated some of the data for Chapter 9 while an intern at the Census Bureau in the summer of 1999, and David Cort and Liana Sayer provided invaluable service in tracking down references. We owe special thanks to Census Bureau colleagues Jason Fields and Kristin Smith for their assistance with analysis of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data. Jason assisted with the analysis of children's well-being (Chapter 8), and Kristin collaborated with Lynne on the analysis of child-care arrangements (Chapter 7). Thanks are also due to Cathy O'Brien, Jane Dye, and Joan Kidwell at the Census Bureau who assisted us in tracking down historical data and verifying numbers.
The final manuscript benefits from the thoughtful reviewer comments of two leading family demographers, Pamela Smock and Linda Waite. The project was launched and nurtured by David Klein and Bert Adams, with David providing extensive comments at various points. We also greatly benefited from the good humor and gentle prodding of our editor at Sage Publications, Jim Brace-Thompson.
[Page xi]Finally, our spouses contributed in two different but equally important ways. Matt, Lynne's husband, an aerospace engineer and ever a whiz on the computer, worked 24-hour shifts at some points, guiding Lynne through pesky tables and figures (better than that MS paper clip) and helping make sure deadlines were met (or missed by a little rather than a lot!). Matt also shopped, cooked, and did laundry so Lynne could have more time to devote to the project. Mark, Suzanne's husband, as always did extra parenting duty (almost without complaint!) when she inevitably allowed work on chapter drafts and manuscript revisions to spill over into “family time.” In the end, it is their support, day in and day out, that most contributes to our successes. The insights we have into how families are changing reflect their collaboration with us in the “big adventure”—crafting our own balance in work and family life.[Page xii]
Recently, one of us had the opportunity to attend the wedding of a close friend's daughter. As with most weddings, the event came off beautifully, despite the complexity of the seating arrangements required to accommodate all of the bride's and groom's various family members. The bride, age 29, was conceived outside marriage at a time when nonmarital births were less common than today. Her biological parents married shortly before her birth but did not feel financially able to care for her and therefore placed her for adoption. She was adopted as an infant and raised by two adoptive parents, who were present at the wedding.
In her mid-20s, the bride sought out her birth parents and discovered that subsequent to her adoption, they had two other daughters who were now of college age. The bride's two full biological sisters, whom she met as adults, were bridesmaids in the wedding. When the bride sought her birth parents, she found two biological parents no longer married to each other but open to a relationship with the daughter they had long ago placed for adoption. Thus her biological mother and her mother's cohabiting partner attended the wedding. Her biological father, who had subsequently married again, also attended the wedding, along with his second wife and their adopted 10-year-old daughter, who was the flower girl in the wedding.
Indeed, it is difficult to describe all the relatives of the bride who were present to witness her marriage. By some counts, the bride might be said to have had three mothers present at her wedding—an adoptive mother, a biological mother, and a stepmother (her biological father's current wife). When she established connections with her biological parents, she also found two biological siblings and another sibling not biologically related to her (the adopted daughter of her biological father).
[Page xiv]Needless to say, the groom's relatives had their hands full just trying to figure out how all the bride's guests were related to each other. Yet the groom's family was only somewhat less complicated. The groom's parents were divorced, and the groom's mother attended with her same-sex cohabiting partner. His father also attended the wedding, with his second wife and their 13-year-old son, the groom's half brother.
We begin our book with this example of family complexity, first, because it is a real-life example, not one we made up. More important, our rendition of the array of relatives at this wedding allows us to comment on the demographic perspective and illustrate several of the themes that will emerge as we track change and continuity in American family life.
The foregoing account provides a descriptive skeleton of the bride's family life in which the first order of business is merely to understand how the bride is embedded in various family relationships and how she came to be connected to so many different people that she could have a wedding at which the guests would include her three mothers, two (or three, if we count cohabiting relationships) fathers, and three siblings (two full, one adopted). Our example illustrates where family demographers first concentrate their efforts—on detailed description of family relationships—in order to anchor speculation, hypotheses, and theorizing about family change.
The demographic events experienced by the bride's and groom's parents and their connections to kin also point to several important transitions in family life, some of which have changed greatly in recent years. The story contains a transition to marriage; a nonmarital pregnancy; two adoptions; child rearing by biological parents, stepparents, and adoptive parents; two marital disruptions; remarriages; and both same-sex and heterosexual cohabitation. Trends in many of these behaviors form the core of what we describe about American families in this volume. During her childhood and young adult years, the bride experienced changes in living arrangements and connections to various kin. She was born to one set of parents but then lived throughout her childhood with another set of parents. Presumably, she spent time on her own before marrying at age 29 and now was moving into her own married-couple family. She developed connections in recent years of her life to kin not available to her earlier in life. The dynamism of family life is apparent in this example, as well as the complexity of U.S. family relationships and the nuances involved in studying them properly.
Absent from our discussion of the bride's wedding is an exploration of the emotional attachment the bride felt for each of her “mothers” and “fathers,” [Page xv]although one might presume some bond of affection between the bride and each of her kin, given that all were in attendance at the wedding. Demographic description of the family tends not to focus on meanings or emotions; rather, it leaves that to the purview of the social psychologist. Yet family demographer Frances Goldscheider (1995) argues that documenting and understanding family demographic behavior can help us to connect individuals and their societies and to forge the link between the micro behaviors of individuals and the macro structures of societies. Present in any demographic description of family events, including our example of a wedding, is plenty of grist for further research at both individual and societal levels. For example, would the bride's biological parents have been more, less, or equally as likely to place her for adoption if her birth had occurred today, when births outside marriage are far more common and presumably less stigmatized in U.S. society? And which parents will the bride feel obligation toward should they require assistance in their old age—all equally, her adoptive parents who raised her, or, perhaps, her biological mother, who may be the most needy if she ends up without a partner in old age? Conversely, will the bride be as likely as her biological father's other children, whom he raised, to receive a financial bequest from him upon his death?
After we describe U.S. family trends, how do we interpret them? What are their causes? What are the consequences, positive and negative, of recent changes in American families? As we shall discuss below, it is far easier to gain agreement on what family demographic changes have taken place in the United States than it is to achieve consensus on what those trends mean.Is the American Family in Decline?
Many of the trends in family formation and dissolution in the United States in the past few decades are not disputed, but discussion of the meanings of these trends has often taken the form of acrimonious debate about family life and the future viability of the family. David Popenoe (1988, 1993, 1996) has been one of the most outspoken proponents of the view that the American family is in crisis. He argues that the family as an institution in U.S. society is in unprecedented decline. Americans are in the process of rejecting the bedrock of family functioning, the nuclear family. Increasingly, the family is becoming ill suited to serve its two most important functions: rearing [Page xvi]children and providing sustained emotional sustenance to its members. Although not as outspoken as Popenoe, many family demographers have also voiced concern about the effects on children of some of the trends that so disturb him (Bumpass 1990; Cherlin 1999; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Preston 1984).
Others, particularly feminist scholars such as Judith Stacey (1990, 1993, 1996), argue that what is in decline is our normative idea of what a family is, or rather a particular historical ideological picture of the American family. This idealized conception, often referred to as the “Ozzie and Harriet” family, depicts a family as one in which parents marry for life, children are born inside the marriage, and the mother cares for the children in the home while the father works outside the home to provide for the family. This image, Stacey argues, is undergoing metamorphosis as we come to realize that the 1950s version of “ideal” family life is no longer viable, or even desirable. Those who offer this interpretation of family change are far more sanguine than Popenoe about the future of the American family. Although also concerned about negative consequences for children (see Cowan 1993; Stacey 1993), they are more likely to see the changing economy rather than the family as the culprit and are more likely to emphasize the positive aspects of changes in women's opportunities that have accompanied changes in their roles within the family.
Those on both sides of the “family decline” debate seem to accept the view that the 1950s version of the family was historically rooted in unusual times—bolstered by a vibrant economy and by the lack of opportunity afforded to women. That is, in the 1950s, discrimination against women in the labor market was widespread, and most women had few opportunities outside the home. At the same time, the post-World War II economy was expanding rapidly, creating many opportunities for even low-skilled male wage earners to command wages that could support a family (Levy 1998).
Along with economic conditions, family demographic behaviors were also unique in the mid-20th century (Cherlin 1992). Certain family behaviors today resemble behaviors of the 1930s more closely than those of the 1950s, for example. Family demographer Paul Glick (1975) has labeled the family demographic picture of the late 1930s as “gloomy”; he provides this description:
Many marriages had been delayed, so that the average age at marriage had risen, and a near-record nine percent of the women 50 years old had never married. Birth rates had lingered at a low level. … Lifetime childlessness was edging up toward 20 percent and many of the children whom some leading [Page xvii]demographers thought were merely being postponed were never born. (Pp. 15–16)
Why was the picture of delayed marriage and forgone childbearing gloomy? The implicit assumption of observers of marriage and fertility patterns in the 1930s was that delayed marriage and forgone childbearing were not what women wanted, but rather a result of the Great Depression and the dire economic constraints faced by young adults during that decade.
As Glick notes, the picture changed dramatically with the post-World War II Baby Boom, when marriage occurred at early ages, a very high proportion of women married, and fertility increased. But the description he offers of the 1930s is quite similar to what a demographer today might write about recent trends in marriage and fertility. However, in the early part of the 21st century, it is less clear that these trends would be described as gloomy. If current marriage and family changes are largely viewed as consequences of poor employment opportunities for young men, as some argue (Oppenheimer, Kalmijn, and Lim 1997), they might indeed be termed gloomy. But to the extent that delayed marriage and fewer children result from greater educational and labor market opportunities for women in the 1980s and 1990s, recent trends might be considered anything but gloomy.
Two tendencies often impede observers' understanding of family change and cloud the current debate about the meaning of family change. One is the tendency to forget history and instead project the present into the future. That is, it is often assumed, at least implicitly, that changes in the family have been linear over time and that they will continue, unabated, indefinitely. Often this is not the case, as the above comparison of the 1930s, the 1950s, and the present illustrates. The other tendency that limits consensus on the “disappearing” American family is the tendency of commentators to choose particular starting points to use in their assessments of change that will support the arguments they wish to make. For example, changes in certain family behaviors can be exaggerated or minimized depending on whether one charts the trends from midcentury, when a unique set of demographic and economic circumstances prevailed (early marriage, early childbearing, unprecedented economic expansion), or from some other time point. In this volume, we try to be cognizant of the facts that trends are not always linear and that many of our data series begin with the usual post-World War II period.
The family demographic perspective guides our selection of topics and interpretation of trends. We are sociologists with training and research careers in family demography, and both of us have spent a number of years [Page xviii]analyzing family patterns at the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Below, to orient the reader, we provide an overview of the demographic perspective and outline some of the theoretical traditions that have been most influential for demographers' understanding of family change. We also explain some of the terminology used throughout this volume and conclude with brief descriptions of the chapters that follow.A Note on the Demographic Approach to Studying Families
Family demographers study the changing composition of families, the ever-changing nature of intergenerational and gender ties that bind individuals together into familial and household units. The study of household formation, dissolution, and living arrangements that forms the core of family demography is ultimately the study of individual and societal well-being, for it is through these family ties and household groupings that resources are exchanged and less able members are cared for by more able members (Sweet and Bumpass 1987). Indeed, much of the family demographic work of the past few decades has examined the interrelationships of family change and socioeconomic outcomes for various segments of the population. Thus family demographers focus on marriage, divorce, child-bearing, and living arrangements in order to understand both why individuals behave as they do toward each other and why, when those individual behaviors are aggregated into nations, societies look similar or dissimilar, not only in their family configurations but also in their economic, political, and cultural institutions (Goldscheider 1995).
Family demography focuses on structure and process: family composition at points in time and transitions between different family statuses (Teachman 1993). Family demographers describe who lives together and how this changes over time. But also of major concern is how people come to be joined in families—transitions into and out of first marriages, into parenthood, into and out of cohabiting relationships, into and out of remarriages, and so forth.
Like most demographers, family demographers tend to think in terms of rates and “at-risk” populations; they tend to want to separate family change into components such as change in population composition versus what reflects change in the propensity or likelihood that some family event, such as marriage, occurs. Demographers also tend to categorize change as reflecting [Page xix]age, period, or cohort effects—that is, they tend to separate explanations of change into those that emphasize aging of the population (or life-course change of individuals); those that focus on broad, sweeping societal or time-period effects; and those that result as successively younger birth cohorts with different life experiences replace older cohorts. Demographers also think about life stages or life-course events in terms of duration of time (or person-years or -months) spent in certain states, such as married and living with a spouse or living in a single-parent family. This represents a unique way of thinking about the world that begins with careful description and then moves on to causal interpretation.
At the heart of careful description lies the concept of a “universe” (the denominator in a percentage) and the time period under consideration. Let us try to illustrate. In November 1999, the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch of the U.S. Bureau of the Census received a phone call from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's office about a disturbing news article regarding the decline of the American family. An Associated Press (1999) story heralded the results of a study by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (NORC) that found that just 26 percent of households were made up of married couples with children in 1998, down from 45 percent in the 1970s. The article also stated that NORC's results painted an even bleaker picture of marriage than recent Census Bureau figures, which reported that 36 percent of families were made up of married couples with children in 1997. A little more than a year earlier, an article had appeared in the Washington Post (Vobejda 1998) based on a Census Bureau report (Bryson and Casper 1998) declaring that the composition of the American family was stabilizing. The senator's office was calling to get the story straight. How could one article report the stabilization of the American family and then, just a little more than a year later, another decry its demise? And how could the two estimates (26 percent versus 36 percent) of the proportion of households with married couples and children be so different? Could the percentage of married-couple households with children really have declined by 10 points in a year?
The discrepancy, it turned out, was the result of a reporter's failure to take into account the difference in the denominators, or universes, for the two statistics. The 26 percent figure referred to the proportion of all households that included a two-parent family with children, but not all households include families. Persons living alone, for example, are not classified as families. The 36 percent figure actually referred to the proportion of all family households that contained married couples with children. When the focus is narrowed to only housing units that contain families, the percentage [Page xx]headed by married couples with children is higher than when all households—family plus nonfamily households—are considered. The Census Bureau report actually noted that 25 percent of all households were maintained by two parents with children, a figure very close to NORC's estimate of 26 percent. In addition, the Census Bureau report (and the Washington Post article) highlighted changes in the 1990s, whereas the NORC report (and the Associated Press story) focused on longer-term changes occurring after 1970. Thus when 1970 was used as a point of comparison, the two-parent family was seen to have declined substantially, but when the mid-1990s were the point of comparison, no change was noted.
The demographic perspective embodies a tendency to think in terms of rates and composition and a desire to separate these two components in explanations of change. What do we mean by that? Demographers often standardize for age composition in order to isolate “true” or “real” rates of behavioral change. For example, suppose the number of marriages decreases in the United States between two time points. A question that might arise is, Does this change represent a decline in the popularity of marriage? The demographer's first instinct is to ask the question, Has the population eligible for, or “at risk” of, first entering marriage shrunk in size or changed in some important way, causing the number of marriages to decline? For example, we know that first marriage is most likely to occur in young adulthood. What happens if the number of adults in the population between the ages of 20 and 29 declines, as was the case after the Baby Boomers passed through these ages? Marriages might decline just because there are fewer people in the age range in which first marriage is most likely to occur. For this reason, rather than examining merely the number of marriages, the demographer examines a rate, such as the first marriage rate of never-married females ages 20 to 29. If this rate of first marriage declines between two time points, we move closer to the interpretation that perhaps the popularity of marriage has declined.
But the inferential leap is still great, because most demographic behaviors, marriage included, are closely related to age and sensitive to shifts in the timing of events in individuals' lives. Hence family demographers have always been quite attentive to the age patterning of behaviors and to the importance of understanding the effects of shifts in age structure. Let's consider another example. The rate of first marriage for women in their 20s could decline either because more women remain single throughout their lifetime and there is more “nonmarriage” in the population or because a greater proportion of women are postponing marriage, perhaps in favor of doing other things, such as finishing school and getting established in the [Page xxi]labor market before they marry. One might be more comfortable drawing the conclusion that marriage is becoming less popular if the former behavior, more lifetime singlehood, seems to be what is happening rather than if the latter behavior, marrying at later ages, is reducing the marriage rate for young women (Oppenheimer 1997). That is, the timing of family demographic events in people's lives is important and influences how we interpret change.Theoretical Frameworks in Family Demography
Demography in general, and family demography in particular, is often accused of being merely descriptive. Demographers, it is claimed, have no theory. Like us, most family demographers claim homes in other disciplines, such as sociology, economics, anthropology, and social psychology, and frequently incorporate theories from these disciplines into their demographic studies. Family demographers, then, like most social scientists, have many theories about what causes individuals to behave as they do or what factors, demographic and nondemographic, impinge on historical and societal settings. Like other social scientists, demographers share the basic premise that good, sound, empirical description is the bedrock of theorizing. Without it, theories can often be spun to explain things that don't exist. To return to the above example, we must be sure that the likelihood of marrying is indeed declining before we can begin to theorize about why marriage is becoming less popular. If the declining number of marriages can be explained by a smaller population at risk or eligible to marry or by a shift in the age when marriage typically occurs, then a grand theory explaining why marriage is no longer valued is pointless. Much of the value of family demography, and indeed of this volume, is that it emphasizes making sure that there is a sound empirical basis from which to make claims about family change. Once we are certain about the nature and magnitude of family change, we can begin to theorize about the mechanisms causing that change.
This is not to suggest that all family demography has to contribute is description. Indeed, several theoretical strands that meld the demographic perspective with theories from other disciplines have been influential in explaining family change on the population level, and researchers often employ them to interpret changes in family behavior at the micro [Page xxii]level. Below, we discuss three of these theoretical perspectives: demographic transition theory, the life-course perspective, and family economic theory.
Researchers have long used demographic transition theory to explain family and fertility change on the population level. Recently, some scholars have suggested that the United States and Europe are engaged in a “second demographic transition” and have made modifications to the original theory to explain more recent family change (Lesthaeghe 1995).
Probably the most frequently invoked perspective for thinking about family change in the family demographic literature in the United States today is the life-course perspective. This perspective seems less a theory than an overarching framework for thinking about family change in the lives of individuals. The perspective jibes well with how demographers think: The life-course perspective's focus on transitions and trajectories and the importance of attention to historical settings and places parallel nicely the demographer's toolbox emphasizing rates, person-years of experience, and age, period, and cohort effects.
Finally, the microeconomic theory of the family offered by economists such as Gary Becker (1974, 1991; Becker, Landes, and Michael 1977) has become influential among family demographers in their assessment of family behavior in the past few decades and coincides with a growing interest in family behaviors within economics. Although this perspective has increasingly been criticized and modified by both economists (especially feminist economists) and family demographers outside economics, aspects of Becker's theory concerning why family members act as they do continue to undergird the choices of topics that family demographers study and interpretations of the behaviors of individual family members. Hence we also sketch the tenets of this perspective below.Demographic Transition Theory
Perhaps the main theory in demography is that of the demographic transition—the notion that a society moves from a high-mortality, high-fertility regime through a transitional phase in which mortality declines, first creating large population growth. Fertility ultimately follows suit until the society arrives at a situation in which mortality and fertility reach low levels and are again more or less in balance, as they were before the transition. Some family theorists, most notably Lesthaeghe (1995) and van de Kaa (1987), argue that Western countries such as the United States and European nations are experiencing a second demographic transition, motivated by some of [Page xxiii]the same factors that influenced the first transition from high- to low-fertility regimes but also with some marked differences in the causal mechanisms. Lesthaeghe (1995) argues that ideational change, in particular the increased value placed on individual autonomy, and to a lesser extent the goal of female emancipation or gender equality motivate family changes in the second demographic transition, changes that are unlikely to be reversed.
What characterizes the second demographic transition? Lesthaeghe charts three phases. The first, characterizing the 1960s and 1970s, witnessed an accelerated upswing in divorce, fertility decline, and delayed marriage. This was followed by the spread of premarital cohabitation and an increase in nonmarital births. Finally, in the last phase, reached only by some European countries (and the United States), there has been a plateau in divorce rates, more postmarital cohabitation replacing remarriage to some extent, some recuperation in fertility, especially at later ages, and an end to the decline in teen fertility. The results of these changes are an increase in single-parent families, with increased risk of poverty for children; more one-person households; and life-cycle transitions that are less strictly (or normatively) patterned and more complex.
Whereas the first demographic transition was motivated by a “quiet increase” in the importance of individual autonomy and a desire for improved child well-being, the second transition is much more adult focused. The emphasis on individual autonomy is more public, and increased “quality” is demanded of adult relationships (which makes it harder for individuals to sustain lasting commitments such as marriage). Individuals are also increasingly unwilling to accept the institutional control of the state or the church that characterized earlier periods. Finally, Lesthaeghe (1995) points to advanced consumerism and an increased market orientation as factors affecting the second demographic transition.The Life-Course Perspective and Family Demography
As early as 1906, with the work of Roundtree on poverty, “the family life cycle has been associated with family demography” (Teachman, Polonko, and Scanzoni 1987). The family demographer most influential in developing the family life-cycle approach in the United States was longtime U.S. Census Bureau demographer Paul Glick (1979: Fig. 5), who tracked the “typical” ages at which women of different birth cohorts made transitions between family life-cycle stages—for example, the average age at which [Page xxiv]women first married, had a first birth and entered the family-building stage of the life cycle, or experienced the departure of the last child from the household, signaling the beginning of the “empty nest” stage of family life. Glick's work was ahead of its time in focusing attention on important family transitions, but the family life-cycle approach was ultimately discarded as a conceptual model by demographers who found the focus on stages too constraining theoretically (Teachman et al. 1987). As families changed, many individuals' lives did not follow orderly sets of life stages, families were often broken by divorce long before one spouse died, children left home but returned again with some frequency, and increased cohabitation made transitions between “family” stages uncertain.
Family demographers have increasingly turned to a life-course perspective of the family that focuses more on transitions than on stages. Researchers who take the life-course perspective do not assume predetermined stages and are more interested in studying family behaviors by focusing on the number, timing, and sequencing of important family-related transitions that occur during individuals' lives. As Glen Elder (1985), a leading proponent of the life-course perspective, has noted, the concepts of trajectory and transition are central in the contemporary study of the life course. Individuals are viewed as following, over the course of their lives, life trajectories. Components of a life trajectory include work and family decisions. Individuals' family trajectories are marked by transitions (or what a demographer would more commonly call events). People make transitions from being unmarried to being married, from being childless to being parents, from being married to being divorced or widowed, and so forth. Researchers who invoke a family life-course perspective are interested in many of the same events that Glick studied to define family life-cycle stages. But life-course analysts prefer the trajectory concept—the notion that as we age, we all make pathways, and that individual pathways take different directions.
Trajectories are marked by sequences of life events or transitions, and individual trajectories are intertwined bundles of decisions about family and work. Any individual's life trajectory is also interlocked with the trajectories of others, especially significant others such as parents, spouses, and children. Interlocking trajectories connect persons across generations (consanguineal connections) and gender (conjugal connections). Because age, sex, and the notion of cohorts figure prominently in demographic rates, the focus on ties that bind across generations and across gender forms an affinity between family demographic analysis and a life-course perspective.
[Page xxv]The life-course perspective fits conceptually with certain methodological advancements in the study of the family—the increase in longitudinal studies of individuals and modeling techniques that share conceptual properties with the standard life table, a mainstay of demographic analysis. The focus on transitions, timing of transitions in terms of age, and durations between transitions converges with techniques demographers use to study population change. Demographers typically use life tables to study mortality, fertility, and nuptiality regimes. A life table focuses on how long a population “lasts” in a certain state (life in the case of mortality, marriage in the case of nuptiality) and the rate at which the population surviving in a state makes transitions between states. In life tables, duration in (and sequencing of) states as well as transition probabilities are important, just as they are conceptually to life-course analysis (Moen, Dempster-McClain, and Williams 1992). Increasingly, these are subject to modeling with a set of tools known variously as event-history models, survival analysis, and hazards models.
One final way in which the life-course perspective articulates well with an interest in family demographic change is in the focus on time and space, on the fact that family change or family life trajectories that are typical in one time period or historical setting may not be typical in another time or place. The family life cycle conceptualized by Glick, for example, was well suited to the analysis of mid-20th-century U.S. family behavior, with its low rates of divorce, relatively high rates of marriage and childbearing, and increasing life expectancy. It is not necessarily so fitting for analysis of family trends after 1965, as divorce and cohabitation rates rose, or earlier in the century, when premature death often broke a conjugal partnering before children left the household to form their own families.
The focus on the contexts in which work and family trajectories unfold allows life-course analysts to contemplate the different consequences that may attend family transitions in different historical settings. For example, the timing of childbearing that is optimal, or at least considered optimal, may vary between settings where child and maternal mortality is high and settings where such mortality is low. The focus on context fits well with the demographer's traditional focus on cohort—the notion that individuals born in a certain time (and place) may encounter unique experiences that carry through their lives and shape later behaviors.
Demographers have long paid attention to the “demographic metabolisms” of different populations—how rapidly they are replacing themselves or growing and the components of that growth (Ryder 1992), often with a somewhat deterministic, biological model as a frame. The life-course [Page xxvi]perspective offers a more probabilistic conceptual frame; individuals can take varying pathways, with different consequences attending their different choices.Economic Theories of the Family
The development of family economics in the 1960s was linked to several theoretical streams within economics: life-cycle theories of consumption, theories of human capital development and labor supply, and work on household production and time allocation (Willis 1987). A whole new literature sprang up that examined marriage and fertility behaviors and decisions about the use of time and the consumption of goods within the home.
Gary Becker's (1974) theory of marriage formalized the notion of a marriage market and introduced concepts such as the “gains to marriage” and a specialized division of labor in the household. Mincer and Polachek (1974) developed a theory that connected the family behaviors of women to their earnings position in the labor market. Easterlin (1973) explained fertility swings as resulting from changes in preferences for children caused by changing income aspirations and labor market conditions of birth cohorts. Becker et al. (1977) discussed divorce in terms of costs and benefits, expected gains to partnerships, and the role of uncertainty and imperfect information.
In this literature, marriage and divorce behavior was connected to changes in women's allocation of time between the market and the home. Concepts such as “comparative advantage” were invoked to explain gender differences in time allocation between home and market. The rise in women's labor force participation and the decline in fertility within marriage were discussed in terms of opportunity costs for women. Children were discussed as “consumer” or “producer” durables, requiring investment to realize current and future utility. Much of the legacy of this theoretical development remains in the lexicon of terms used to discuss family demographic change.
Economic theory was particularly influential in the analysis and interpretation of the rise in female employment and its possible connection to marriage and fertility behavior. Women's increased education and rising employment were seen as increasing the likelihood of divorce and reducing fertility. Labor market experience raised the value of women's time spent in the labor market and hence the cost (in terms of forgone wages) of spending time outside the labor market raising children. It also contributed to divorce [Page xxvii]because it eroded the complementarity of what men and women brought to marriage (Becker et al. 1997). Marriages, it was argued, were most likely to be formed and least likely to be dissolved when each partner saw an advantage to being married over remaining single. When a woman's comparative advantage in the home relative to the market was greater than her husband's, the couple would allocate more of her time to the home and his to the market, and both would have much to gain in marriage and much to lose upon divorce.
The economic theory of labor market search was also suggested as a theory for understanding delayed marriage (Oppenheimer 1988). With increased investment in schooling and poor prospects for labor market entrants, more recent cohorts of young men were taking longer to get established in the labor market, thereby increasing the uncertainty as to what kinds of economic providers they would eventually be. This extended the period between reaching adulthood and entering a first marriage.
As Lundberg and Pollak (1996) note, the common preference model served as the basis for economic theorizing about the family in economics at least until the model began to be challenged in the 1980s. The notion was that family members acted as though they were maximizing a single, shared utility function. Although the theorists acknowledged that family members might have divergent preferences, they minimized the problems this assumption afforded by postulating that a family had an altruistic head who allocated resources to members in such a way as to achieve their cooperation in maximizing a single utility function (Becker 1991). Income was pooled and then allocated to maximize family well-being. What happened within families was more or less a black box: Income flowed in and then families efficiently allocated resources to the purchase of goods and services, the consumption of leisure, and the production of children, all in accord with a common, shared preference for optimal family output.
Economic theories of the family were influential because they seemed to provide a conceptually elegant way of thinking about family behaviors, especially expenditure patterns and labor supply. However, like the family life-cycle concept, many aspects of the theory ultimately proved too limited theoretically and too tautologous to be useful for the analysis of family behavior (Lundberg and Pollak 1996). Hence this abstraction of family functioning has come under increased scrutiny for failing to theorize adequately situations in which adults within families have different and conflicting preferences. Empirical evidence showing that money is spent differently depending on who controls it, with more allocated to children's needs when women control a greater share, casts doubt on the income-pooling [Page xxviii]and single-utility-function framework. Empirical work has also raised questions about the strength of the causal role of women's economic independence in the movement away from marriage (Oppenheimer 1997; Sayer and Bianchi 2000). Bargaining models arising out of game-theoretic approaches to economic behavior are increasingly favored by some economists who analyze family behaviors (Lundberg and Pollak 1996).
However, many of the concepts and other aspects of Becker's (1981) framework remain firmly ingrained in the study of family economic behavior. For example, part of the calculus involved in selecting a mate no doubt does include the weighing of costs and benefits of a particular marriage, just as a cost-benefit calculus must also figure into decisions about exiting marriage. The notion of opportunity costs connected to the expenditure of time remains useful. Women (and men) who allocate time to the labor market have less time to allocate to the home. Although perhaps too narrowly economic, the notion that actors behave in certain ways to realize their preferences, within a budget constraint, helps to conceptualize family decisions as purposive, rational behavior of actors operating within conditions of uncertainty and constraint. The economic perspective thus has introduced a rigor of thinking into the family demographic literature, as well as attention to measurement issues such as sampling selectivity and unmeasured variables, that has enhanced empirical analysis and thinking about family demographic change.A Note on Data and Family Terminology
In developing the empirical examination of trends in family behaviors we present in this volume, the data sources we have relied upon most heavily are the family data collected annually in the March supplements to the Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is conducted monthly by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and in March of each year detailed family composition and family economic data are ascertained. The data gathered in this unbroken series of collection periods, dating from the late 1940s, have become, along with the data in the decennial U.S. Census of Population, the main data used by demographers who chart family living arrangements in the United States.
U.S. households and families comprise a wide variety of living arrangements, and to discuss them, we need to establish some standard definitions of key concepts. Given our reliance on data collected by the U.S. Census [Page xxix]Bureau, it would be useful to begin with an introduction to the specific ways in which that agency uses family terminology (see Bryson and Casper 1998). A household can contain one or more people—everyone living in a housing unit makes up a household. In most cases, the person who owns or rents the residence is known as the householder. For the purposes of examining family and household composition, the Census Bureau defines two broad types of households: family and nonfamily. A family household has at least two members related by blood, marriage, or adoption, one of whom is the householder. A family consists of all related people in a family household. The term nonfamily household is used to describe either a person living alone or a household in which the householder lives only with nonrelatives.
A family household can be maintained by a married couple or by a man or woman with no spouse in the home and may or may not include children. In contrast, a nonfamily household can be maintained only by a man or woman with no relatives at home. Prior to 1980, Census Bureau terminology referred to household members as primary individuals (if they were householders or related to the householder) and secondary individuals (if they lived in the household of someone to whom they were not related by marriage, blood, or adoption). Children include sons and daughters by birth, stepchildren, and adopted children of the householder regardless of the children's ages or marital statuses.
When we want to assess the different types of families and households and how they have changed, we look at the composition of households and families. When we want to know about the relationships and characteristics of persons in households, we examine the living arrangements of individuals. For example, if we wanted to know about children and families, we could ask the question, How many families have children? But we could also ask, How many children live in families? In the first case we are interested in family composition; in the second, we are interested in living arrangements.
If one reads the literature, one finds many suggestions about how families should be defined and what living arrangements should be classified as families. For example, Popenoe (1993), who is so concerned about family decline, argues for defining the family as “a relatively small domestic group of kin (or people in a kinlike relationship) consisting of at least one adult and one dependent person” (p. 529). He notes that many would not agree with his definition because it excludes married childless couples. Ryder (1987:117) argues for defining the family as two or more persons, each of whom is married to, a parent of, or a child of another member of the [Page xxx]coresident group. This is actually quite close to the Census Bureau's working definition of a family group, which is a count of family households plus related subfamilies (i.e., families within families, either married couples or parent-child units living in a family household) and unrelated subfamilies who live in someone else's household. However, this definition still leaves out some potential family members, such as married partners.
Cohabitation presents the biggest challenge to Census Bureau definitions of households and families because, by definition, those cohabiting have not entered into legal marriage. If parents are not married to each other, one will be classified as a nonrelative under Census Bureau definitions even when both live with their biological children in the same household. As we discuss in Chapter 2, cohabitation obscures the distinction between one- and two-parent families as well as the dichotomy between family and nonfamily households.
In the family history literature, there is also a somewhat different classification of family that emphasizes whether household groups are nuclear or extended. A nuclear family consists of a conjugal couple and their children. More complex living arrangements are variously named and described. For example, Steven Ruggles (1994) classifies households that include kin other than spouses or children as extended households. He also uses the term fragmentary to include nonfamily households and single-parent households with no other kin. We include data on multigenerational households in Chapter 1 but restrict our examination of extended families to those that contain two or more generations of adults.
Demographic data have strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, large data sets allow researchers to monitor family change on both national and state levels and to estimate the characteristics of even very small populations (e.g., cohabitors, single fathers) with a high degree of accuracy. The quality of federal data is also generally highly regarded. On the other hand, such large surveys are expensive, and cost constraints often prohibit collection of the more detailed information that researchers need to conduct in-depth research investigating causal mechanisms. Public funds allow agencies such as the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the National Center for Health Statistics to undertake massive data collection efforts. When budgets are lean, agencies are sometimes forced to cut back on the numbers or types of questions they ask. Entire data collection efforts, most notably vital statistics data collection on marriage and divorce, have fallen prey to budget cuts.
Another consideration for statistical agencies is the maintenance of the comparability of data over time. As time passes, some concepts become [Page xxxi]outdated, and although it might seem to make sense to change the way a question is asked, the need to maintain a consistent series of estimates may take precedence. If a survey is altered, one cannot be certain whether any observed change in the data is due to a change in the population or to a change in the survey. Many such surveys are used to monitor trends that have significant and far-reaching impacts, such as the unemployment rate. Wall Street routinely relies on the accuracy of this information to conduct business. Just imagine the problems that could be caused if a multimillion-dollar decision were made based on a change in the unemployment rate that occurred solely because someone changed the wording of a question.
From time to time, surveys also become politicized because Congress mandates the inclusion or deletion of questions on specific topics. For example, the 2000 Census long form included three new questions on grandparents raising grandchildren due to requirements of welfare reform legislation. The marital status question was deleted from the short form because there is no existing law or regulation that depends for its enforcement on the gathering of this information.
In this book we focus primarily on trends in the past two decades because recent trends are less well-known, trends for earlier periods are documented elsewhere (e.g., in the 1980 Census monograph on the family by Sweet and Bumpass , and in Cherlin's 1992 book on trends in marriage and divorce), and comparable data on a variety of family behaviors are plentiful. However, we shift our focus when it seems necessary to examine a longer or shorter time frame in order to understand and interpret recent change. The trends we document have different starting and ending points because the limited availability of some data and the lack of comparability of other data dictate the comparisons we can make. At times we would have preferred to use earlier or more recent data to extend our trends, but that wasn't always possible. The Current Population Survey is not readily available for original analyses before the mid-1970s;1 many of our comparisons use data from 1978, 1988, and 1998.
Whenever possible, we have used printed historical data from the Census Bureau supplemented with data from other surveys or other researchers to fill in the gaps. We use different sources of data collected by the Census Bureau, such as the Survey of Income and Program Participation, and the decennial census as well as supplemental vital statistics (information on marriages, divorces, birthrates, and death rates) to document family demographic trends, changes in family structure and living arrangements, and the growing diversity of families.[Page xxxii]Choices of Topics and Organization of This Volume
Our main purpose in this book is to provide an overview of the social demography of families and households in the United States. We seek to paint a comprehensive picture of U.S. families and households and the family-related behaviors of individuals. In doing so, we attempt to document how and why families have changed over the years. We also strive to place family change within the larger context of other social, demographic, and economic changes. Finally, we seek to demonstrate how changes in family behaviors give rise to new social issues and family-related social problems.
In Chapter 1 we discuss the sweeping changes in demographic, social, and economic events that have been linked to changes in family structure and living arrangements, highlighting how these changes are associated with increasing diversity among American families. We address how changes in family composition and demographic trends may be related to other cultural, economic, and sociological shifts in society, such as the sexual revolution, the women's movement, and the emergence of the aging of the population. In each of the subsequent chapters, we focus in more detail on subjects of particular interest to family demographers in the past two decades.
Chapter 2 focuses on cohabitation. Increases in cohabitation have been noted by the Census Bureau since it began tabulating the relevant data in 1960. The measures used to document this trend are outdated, however. In Chapter 2 we use data from the Current Population Survey to provide new and improved estimates of the increases in cohabitation in the 1980s and 1990s and discuss the meaning of cohabitation within a family context. Drawing on the findings of other research and analysis of the National Survey of Families and Households, we also investigate the relationships among marriage, divorce, fertility, and cohabitation.
Chapter 3, authored by Martin O'Connell, chief of the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, is devoted to trends in childbearing. The fertility level of American women in the past two decades has remained at an unusually low and unusually stable level, slightly below replacement fertility compared with the cyclical patterns exhibited during most of the 20th century. This lull in fertility swings belies some important transformations in the character of the American family and in the experiences of children who are born into families of widely differing [Page xxxiii]household compositions. Identifying the concerns of women in different socioeconomic groups toward childbearing offers a prospective view of the future of the family that can highlight the current diversity of American households.
In Chapter 4 we turn to the topic of single-mother families. In this chapter we use data from the Current Population Survey to document the rapid growth in mother-child families in the 1960s and 1970s, the continued but slower growth from the 1980s through the mid-1990s, and the stabilization that has occurred since then. We describe how entry into single parenting has changed over time, with widowhood being the primary cause of entry into single parenting early in the 20th century; the dramatic increase in divorce accounting for the rapid growth of single parenting in the 1960s and 1970s; and the delay in marriage and shift toward childbearing outside marriage creating more never-married mothers among single parents of the 1980s and 1990s. We document the economic well-being of single mothers and discuss how welfare reform has affected single mothers and their children.
Chapter 5 focuses on fathering, a topic that is increasingly engaging the interest of family scholars. In searching for ways to strengthen the American family, researchers and policy makers have turned their attention to fathers and fathering. In this chapter we use CPS (Current Population Survey) and SIPP (Survey of Income and Program Participation) data to examine three types of fathers: single, noncustodial, and married. We begin with a discussion of the increase in single-father families based on the Current Population Survey, but go on to describe what we know about absent, nonresident fathers. We also provide new data on married fathers' time with children and mothers' and fathers' views about father involvement with children.
In Chapter 6 we address grandparenting. Many more grandchildren are living with grandparents today than was the case a quarter of a century ago. We open this chapter with a discussion of how changes in mortality, fertility, and immigration changed grandparenthood over the course of the 20th century. Then we use data from the Current Population Survey to document the composition of households that included grandparents in 1997 to describe who seems to be supporting whom in these families and how they fare economically. We also discuss differences in grandparenting styles and the amount and quality of contact between generations.
In Chapter 7 we take up the important topic of child care. The demand for child care has increased dramatically in recent decades, due in part to the increase in labor force participation of mothers with young children [Page xxxiv]and in part to Americans' growing desire to educate children at younger ages. In this chapter we use data from the Census of Service Industries and the Survey of Income and Program Participation to document trends such as increases in the number of child-care centers, changes in the child-care arrangements parents choose for their children, and increases in the costs of child care since the 1980s. We also address such issues as what types of families use which types of care, how many “latchkey kids” there are, and how work schedules and other factors such as family income and family size affect the types of child care families choose. We draw on the research literature to discuss what is known about the quality, accessibility, and affordability of child care. We close the chapter with a discussion of how child care affects the well-being of children and their families.
In Chapter 8 we focus on child well-being, the issue that has sparked more heated debate about family change than any other. We use children as the unit of analysis and examine indicators of child well-being. We discuss the changing family living arrangements of children in the United States and also examine trends in children's economic security, educational performance, and health and risk-taking behaviors. We also include information on how children spend their time and the activities in which they engage. We present new data collected in the Survey of Income and Program Participation on children's participation in extracurricular activities, TV viewing and family rules about TV, and activities that parents do with children, such as reading to them.
Chapter 9 addresses the economic causes and consequences of changing family structure. American families are much more diverse than in the past, and some changes have resulted in increasing economic inequality among families. In this chapter we examine income differences among different household types, assessing the relative income advantage of dual-earning, two-parent families and the disadvantage of single-parent families. We use unique SIPP data on couples to document the changes in income for men, women, and children who experience marital disruption and provide a review of the literature on the economic consequences of divorce.
Finally, in Chapter 10 we focus on how men and women, especially parents, combine paid work and family responsibilities. Increases in women's labor force participation have meant that many more families today are being confronted with the challenge of combining work and family than was the case in the past. We explore trends in the labor force participation of married and single mothers, showing convergence between the two groups as married mothers' rates have increased rapidly. We also draw on [Page xxxv]time-use data to show trends in housework, documenting the decline in hours spent on housework by women, especially employed women, and the modest increase among men. Finally, we review the growing literature on how parents with jobs and children balance competing time demands.
Our goal in this volume is to provide enough detailed data to answer the “who,” “what,” and “where” questions about family change. We then attempt to place the discussion of family diversity and family change in the context of social, demographic, and economic change to begin to suggest answers to the “why” and “how” questions. As families change, societies are transformed. Taking stock of the family transformations of the latter part of the 20th century seems particularly useful as we try to assess family well-being and gauge the likely future of family behaviors in the 21st century.Note
1. Data for earlier years are not comparable for family measures.[Page xxxvi]
We began this volume with a description of a wedding, an event uniting a couple and bringing together a group of kin with a complex history of relationships. Our purpose was to illustrate that family relationships are diverse and multifaceted; families are groups of individuals knit together by overlapping histories, interconnections, and obligations. We asked how families had changed in the second half of the 20th century, focusing specifically on the past two decades, and entertained notions about what might have precipitated those changes. We outlined our approach in the introduction and discussed the broad societal shifts that formed the context for family change in the first chapter of this volume. In subsequent chapters, we covered a wealth of material. Perhaps the best way to conclude a book on the American family is to revisit several of the questions that motivated us at the outset.
One topic that has captured the attention of family demographers in the past decade is that of cohabitation, the topic taken up in Chapter 2. Perhaps the most important question about cohabitation is, What does the growth in cohabitation mean for the future of marriage? We would argue that it means relatively little if cohabitation is merely becoming a phase or a “space” that people typically occupy on their way to forming a first marriage or entering a remarriage. And certainly for many individuals, particularly those at higher socioeconomic levels, this appears to be what is happening. Most still eventually marry and delay having children until they do so. Children are still most often raised in marriage. The interesting question is whether cohabitation is being used differently—and whether it increasingly means something quite different—in poor and minority families, where it may more often be a substitute for rather than a precursor to marriage. [Page 312]And if it is being used as a substitute for marriage among low-income, less educated groups and minorities, is it a much weaker mechanism for obligating fathers to the care and support of their children?
A related question is whether there is a decoupling of marriage and childbearing under way. There certainly seems to be less pressure to marry before the birth of a premaritally conceived child, as evidenced by trends discussed in Chapter 3. But the eschewing of marriage before childbearing in the United States is not so extreme as in some other countries, such as Sweden. Again, the interesting question is whether this decoupling is occurring with equal probability for all socioeconomic, race, and ethnic groups. For example, as college-educated women delay childbearing, they have higher nonmarital fertility than in the past, yet most of their childbearing still takes place within marriage. This seems to be less true among less educated women (Martin 2000). And black women are much more likely than other women to forgo marriage and to have nonmarital births.
As the relationship between marriage and childbearing undergoes change, what happens to intergenerational linkages and extended family members' roles in the family? There is no question, as we have shown in Chapter 4, that more women will experience single parenting while raising children than a generation ago. When single parenting occurs, grandparents often provide support, and we have documented the increase in grandparents' involvement in rearing grandchildren in Chapter 6. Bengtson (2001) has recently argued that intergenerational family obligations and support may be increasing in importance, given some of the changes that seem to be permanently altering family life. For example, although the divorce rate stopped increasing two decades ago, it did not subsequently drop back to the low levels it was at prior to its steep increase in the latter 1960s and 1970s. Nonmarital childbearing, even if stabilizing, remains high. These trends, combined with increased longevity and the important role relatives play as backup caregivers in families (as documented in Chapter 7) suggest that much more attention must be paid to the ties that bind families across households and generations.
How do families balance paid work and child rearing in the United States? The short answer is “with difficulty,” yet they seem to manage to do it. U.S. fertility rates remain at replacement levels across cohorts, unlike in most European contexts, where fertility is declining and is well below replacement (Frejka and Calot 2001). In the United States, despite the increase in mothers' labor force participation, mothers still provide a large proportion of the care for young children. Only one-third of married mothers with children under age 6 work full-time and year-round. U.S. families increasingly use child-care centers, patch together care by relatives, and [Page 313]use enrichment activities for older children, perhaps to a far greater extent than has been acknowledged (as documented in Chapter 7). There is clearly a need for higher-quality child care, particularly if we expect all single mothers, even low-income mothers, to be employed when children are young. In the absence of much government and employer support for combining work and family—certainly less than in most Scandinavian countries—American families appear to “make do” and arrive at private, individualized solutions to the inherent time conflicts between market work and care of family (as we have discussed in Chapter 10). However, pressure may be mounting for more public recognition of the difficulties involved and for more support for parents faced with the dilemma of how to financially support their families adequately and still provide sufficient time for their children.
Are fathers' roles within families changing? Our answer is an unqualified yes. We can argue over the pace of change—whether fathers are doing enough on the home front or changing fast enough—but we have presented a variety of evidence in Chapter 5 that men's roles are changing. Again, the most important questions have to do with the pace of change and whether father involvement varies by socioeconomic status, race, and ethnic group. That is, are some fathers moving toward increased involvement with children while others are eschewing their responsibilities altogether? Do these “good dads” and “bad dads” align with race and class? We suspect not, at least not totally, although increased feelings that they should spend time with their children may be most characteristic of college-educated fathers. However, economic conditions (e.g., lack of resources for expensive child care) may also push lower-income, less educated men toward child rearing and, indeed, these men may always have had greater involvement in the family than we have heretofore appreciated. Black and Hispanic men face a greater challenge in being “good dads” than do white men mainly because so many more of them do not live with their children. In addition, they have more difficulty in the labor market and hence find it harder to fulfill the “good provider” role.
The question that has most concerned family scholars is, Has children's well-being been compromised by changes in the family? Much has been made of the lower level of well-being, on average, of children who grow up with one rather than two parents in the household (a topic addressed in Chapter 8). Yet some of these effects are quite small, with most children in both types of households performing well academically and exhibiting good social-psychological adjustment. Children's lives are clearly altered by the changed circumstances of families: Children today grow up differently than in the past. Yet it is unclear whether their lives are worse or better [Page 314]than the lives of children a generation ago. Some trends (e.g., alcohol and drug use) appear problematic, whereas others (e.g., increased parental time) suggest that children may be doing better than in the past. Again, an important and unanswered question is whether greater inequality separates the life chances of minority children and children at the bottom and the top of the income distribution more so than in the past.
What surprised us most as we reexamined family trends in preparation for writing this book was how little change was occurring in some of the standard indicators of family structure in the latter half of the 1990s (as shown in Chapter 1). So, for example, the long-discussed rise of the single-mother family and decline of the two-parent family—trends that many have argued seriously compromise children's well-being—seemed largely to have halted in the latter half of the 1990s, if only temporarily. In fact, as this book went into production in the middle of 2001, the Census Bureau had just released its latest statistics on the family, heralding a slight rise in the proportion of families with two-parents, the first such rise in decades. Nonmarital birthrates stabilized (even declined slightly) in the latter half of the 1990s, and living arrangements that continued to increase in popularity, such as cohabitation, seemed to be doing so at a decreasing rate.
This seeming “quieting” of family change interests us a great deal because it seems to have been largely ignored by much of the scientific community, and certainly in the rhetoric of policy makers. Have we merely hit a temporary lull in family change, perhaps due to the good economic conditions of the second half of the 1990s? Or have the transformations that so altered family formation and dissolution largely worked themselves out such that we can expect much more family stability in the future?
Our guess is the following: If one looks at the trends in the family that disturbed so many academics and policy makers—the increase in births outside marriage, increasing divorce, more single parenting—the large upswing happened during the 1970s, as discussed in Chapter 1. Change continued in subsequent decades, but at a slowing rate until the 1990s, when it slowed so much that it stopped. If the economy turns sour, there may be some small upswing in single parenting. Economic stress is destabilizing. However, a major change to affect the family in the latter part of the 20th century was the expansion of equal access to educational and occupational opportunity to women and minorities. The march toward equality is an ongoing project, but we have now had almost 40 years to adjust and to redefine appropriate gender relations within and outside the family.
The revolution of inclusiveness in the labor market rocked the family in the United States and elsewhere. Other factors also buffeted the family, the [Page 315]most important of which is perhaps the aging of society and the implications this has had for intergenerational relationships. Continued improvement in per capita material affluence of the population and increased educational upgrading also aided a revolution in expectations about how family life should work. If one returns to the notion we raised in our introduction, that the family is a complex set of gender and intergenerational relationships, one could argue that what most changed the family in the second half of the 20th century was the movement of women, especially mothers, into the paid labor force.
What is still changing in the family are behaviors related to the continued evolution of new gender relations within the family (see Chapter 10) and the intergenerational ties that result from changed gender relations in an aging society (see Chapter 6). Marriages continue to be delayed more so than forgone, at least among the majority of the population, because for many it makes sense to do so. Both women and men assume they will have labor force careers. Increasingly, those who are successful have more education. Parents' ability to provide their children with college educations as part of child rearing is increasing, and children's sense of entitlement to such education funded by their parents is also on the rise. Hence it is perhaps not surprising that financial dependency in young adulthood is extended and the period of experimentation with living arrangements, jobs, and relationships that might have ended by the late teens or early 20s for past cohorts now lasts well beyond those years for many in the population.
Women's greater access to education and jobs affected them first—they changed their behavior—and this now seems to be affecting men (see Chapter 5). Men generally seem to be changing their behavior toward families, increasing their participation in household work a little and their involvement with children a lot. But this type of change is slow and probably occurs across generations more than across individual life spans. Married fathers' time with children is increasing; the numbers of single-father families continue to rise, although they constitute only a small portion of households with children; fathers seem to be sharing custody of their children more often after divorce; and public policy is attempting to strengthen the financial and parental ties between unmarried fathers and their children.
Is family life so changed that what women do in families no longer resembles what their mothers did, and what fathers do is totally different from what their own fathers did for their families? No—women continue to devote more time to child rearing than do men, and most men continue to value and be valued for the financial support they can provide their families. But these relationships are changing toward more gender similarity, [Page 316]and in the process they are transforming what marriages look and feel like in contemporary society. At the same time, they circumscribe somewhat who chooses marriage for companionship, economic security, child rearing, and fulfillment of life's needs.
Our view is admittedly a rather sanguine, optimistic one. We see families as continuing to transform, sometimes with negative consequences, but usually in ways that make sense given changing contexts. For example, would a marriage system that has people entering at age 20 or 21 make sense today? Probably not, given that so many young adults have not completed their schooling or established themselves in the labor market by that age.
The most disturbing trend in the family may be that family behaviors may be bifurcating or becoming more dissimilar along economic and racial lines, but even this is not totally clear. There is some indication that there may be increasing nonmarriage and lack of involvement of both parents in raising children at the bottom of the income distribution as the economic fortunes of those at the bottom grow further from those at the top (a topic discussed in Chapter 9). However, we do not know a lot about what is causing this trend, and we know virtually nothing about the inter-generational consequences. In other ways, things have become more similar across the economic spectrum. Women's labor force behavior—the combining of motherhood and market work—has become less differentiated by economic position, as market work is increasingly defined as normative and necessary for all women regardless of class, race, or ethnicity.
In this volume we have painted with a broad brush, describing the family “on average.” We view this as a necessary first step. Were we now to proceed to a second book, we would examine the race, ethnic, and class variation in each of the topics we have addressed, assess the differential effects of each of these components on family change, and place them in international context. We have done that occasionally in this volume but not systematically, because that has not been our primary focus. However, given the rise in income inequality in the past decades in the United States, the large influx of immigrants in the last quarter of the 20th century and the resulting racial and ethnic diversity of the population, and the often parallel trends but quite different contexts of immigration and public policy in support of the family in other developed countries, we will disentangle many of the most interesting questions this volume has generated only by expressly examining the variation in the patterns we have observed, both inside and outside the United States.
References[Page 317]1995. “Voluntary Childlessness among U.S. Women: Recent Trends and Determinants.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, April 6–8, San Francisco.and .Administration for Children and Families. 2001. “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)” [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opa/facts/tanf.htm.Alan Guttmacher Institute. 1999. Why Is Teenage Pregnancy Declining? The Roles of Abstinence, Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use. New York: Author.1985. “Parent-Adult Child Relations as Affected by the Grandparents' Status.” Pp. 117–32 in Grandparenthood, edited by Vern L.Bengtson and Joan F.Robertson. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage..1987. “New Views on the Family Life of the Elderly and the Near-Elderly.”Journal of Marriage and Family49:227–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352295.1995. “New Views of Grandparents in Intergenerational Context.”Journal of Family Issues16:104–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251395016001006.2000. “Families in the Middle and Later Years: A Review and Critique of Research in the 1990s.”Journal of Marriage and Family62:911–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00911.x, , and .1999. “Maternal Gatekeeping: Mothers' Beliefs and Behaviors That Inhibit Greater Father Involvement in Family Work.”Journal of Marriage and Family61:199–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353894and .1997. A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.and .1999. “Nonresident Fathers and Children's Well-Being.”Journal of Marriage and Family61:557–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353560and .1971. Family Structure in Nineteenth-Century Lancashire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press..1982. “Determinants of Extended Family Structure: Cultural Pattern or Economic Need?”American Journal of Sociology87:1360–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/227597and .1992. “After Divorce: Investigations into Father Absence.”Gender & Society6:562–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124392006004003. [Page 318]1999. “Poll Reveals Another Sign of Changing U.S. Families.”Washington Post, November 26..1992. “The Relationship between Cohabitation and Divorce: Selectivity or Causal Influence?”Demography29:357–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061823and .1996. “The Influence of Parents' Marital Dissolutions on Children's Attitudes toward Family Formation.”Demography33:66–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061714and .2000. “The Transformation in the Meaning of Marriage.” Pp. 147–65 in The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation, edited by Linda J.Waite, Christine A.Bachrach, MichelleHinden, ElizabethThomson, and Arland T.Thornton. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.and .1986. “Adoption Plans, Adopted Children, and Adoptive Mothers.”Journal of Marriage and Family48:246–53.1989. Adoption in the 1980s. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics No. 181, DHHS Publication No. PHS 90–1250. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics., , , and .1998. “Male Fertility and Family Formation: Research and Data Needs on the Pathways to Fatherhood.” Pp. 45–99 in Nurturing Fatherhood: Improving Data and Research on Male Fertility, Family Formation, and Fatherhood, edited by Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Studies. Washington, DC: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Studies.and .1999. Trends in Premarital Childbearing: 1930 to 1994. Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 197. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office..2000. Fertility of American Women: June 1998. Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 526. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.and .1989. “One-Fifth of the Nation's Children: Why Are They Poor?”Science245:1047–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.245.4922.1047and .1994. Welfare Realities: From Rhetoric to Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.and .1992. “Linking Work Experiences to Facets of Marital Functioning.”Journal of Organizational Behavior13:573–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130604and .1999. “A New Work-Life Model for the Twenty-First Century.”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science562:143–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00027162995620010101992. “Men's Multiple Roles and Their Relationship to Men's Psychological Distress.”Journal of Marriage and Family54:358–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353067, , and .1991. “Effects of Maternal Employment and Child-Care Arrangements on Preschoolers' Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes: Evidence from the Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.”Developmental Psychology27:923–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1618.104.22.1682and .1960. “An Economic Analysis of Fertility.” Pp. 209–31 in Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries, edited by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.1974. “A Theory of Marriage.” Pp. 299–344 in Economics of the Family: Marriage, Children, and Human Capital, edited by Theodore W.Schultz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1981. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.1991. A Treatise on the Family.[Page 319]Rev. ed.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.1977. “An Economic Analysis of Marital Instability.”Journal of Political Economy85:1141–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/260631, , and .1999. “Scaling Back: Dual-Career Couples Work-Family Strategies.”Journal of Marriage and Family61:995–1007. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/354019and .1993. Small Change: The Economics of Child Support. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.and .1991. “Early and Extensive Maternal Employment and Young Children's Socioemotional Development: Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.”Journal of Marriage and Family53:1083–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353011and .2001. “Beyond the Nuclear Family: The Increasing Importance of Multigenerational Bonds.”Journal of Marriage and Family63:1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00001.x1991. “Inter-generational Solidarity in Aging Families: An Example of Formal Theory Construction.”Journal of Marriage and Family53:856–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352993and .1982. “Parent-Child Relations.” Pp. 115–86 in Research Instruments in Social Gerontology, vol. 2, Social Roles and Social Participation, edited by David J.Mangen and Warren A.Peterson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.and .1987. “A Residue of Tradition: Jobs, Careers, and Spouses Time in Housework.”Journal of Marriage and Family49:381–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352307, , and .1991. “The Economic Context of Labor Allocation: Implications for Gender Stratification.”Journal of Family Issues12:140–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251391012002001.1986. The Economic Emergence of Women. New York: Basic Books..1996. Saving Our Children from Poverty. New York: Russell Sage Foundation..1995. “Women's Gains or Men's Losses? A Closer Look at the Shrinking Gender Gap in Earnings.”American Journal of Sociology101:302–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/230726, , and .1997. “Percentages, Odds, and the Meaning of Inequality: Reply to Cotter et al.”American Journal of Sociology102:1154–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/231043, , and .1990. “America's Children: Mixed Prospects.”Population Bulletin45(1):3–42.1993. “Children of Poverty: Why Are They Poor?” Pp. 91–125 in Child Poverty and Public Policy, edited by Judith A.Chafel. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.1995a. “The Changing Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Single-Parent Families.”Marriage and Family Review20:71–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J002v20n01_041995b. “Changing Economic Roles of Women and Men.” Pp. 107–54 in State of the Union: America in the 1990s, vol. 2, Social Trends, edited by ReynoldsFarley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.1998. “The Rise in Women's Paid Employment in the U.S.: Trends, Causes, Consequences, and Future Prospects.” Presented at the conference conference conference “Model USA: Social Justice through More Employment?” at the John F. Kennedy Institute for North American Studies, Free University of Berlin, November 19.1999. “Feminization and Juvenilization of Poverty: Trends, Relative Risks, Causes, and Consequences.”Annual Review of Sociology25:307–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.3072000. “Maternal Employment and Time with Children: Dramatic Change or Surprising Continuity?”Demography37:401–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/dem.2000.00012000. “American Families.”Population Bulletin55(4):3–42.and . [Page 320]2000. “Is Anyone Doing the Housework? Trends in the Gender Division of Household Labor.”Social Forces79:2–39., , , and .1997. “What Did You Do Today? Children's Use of Time, Family Composition, and the Acquisition of Social Capital.”Journal of Marriage and Family59:332–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353474and .1986. “The Decline in Occupational Sex Segregation during the 1970s: Census and CPS Comparisons.”Demography23:79–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061409and .1996. “Women, Work, and Family in America.”Population Bulletin51(3):2–46.and .1999. “The Gender Gap in the Economic Well-Being of Nonresident Fathers and Custodial Mothers.”Demography36:195–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2648108, , and .1999. “Family Structure, Educational Attainment, and Socioeconomic Success: Rethinking the Pathology of Matriarchy.”American Joural of Sociology105:321–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/210314and .1999a. “Parenthood without Penalty: Time Use and Public Policy in Australia and Finland.”Feminist Economics5(3):27–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135457099337798.1999b. “Recent Changes in Unpaid Work.” Occasional paper, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia..2000. “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources.”Demography37:139–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2648117, , , and .1994. “The Declining Marital-Status Earnings Differential.”Journal of Population Economics7:249–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00517299and .1992. “Wives' Perceptions of Fairness of the Division of Household Labor: The Intersection of Housework and Ideology.”Journal of Marriage and Family54:570–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353243and .1991. “Measuring the Division of Household Labor: Gender Segregation of Housework among American Couples.”Journal of Family Issues12:91–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251391012001007and .1968. “Are Babies Consumer Durables? A Critique of the Economic Theory of Reproductive Motivation.”Population Studies22:5–25..1991. “Why Were Poverty Rates So High in the 1980s?” Working Paper No. 3878, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA..“Fighting Poverty: Lessons from Recent U.S. History.”Journal of Economic Perspectives.. Forthcoming.1991. “The Quality of Child Care: An Economic Perspective.” Pp. 145–74 in The Economics of Child Care, edited by David M.Blau. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.1997. “The Production of Quality in Child Care Centers.”Journal of Human Resources32:354–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1462191988. “Child Care Costs and Family Labor Supply.”Review of Economics and Statistics70:374–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1926774and .1991. “Child Care Demand and Labor Supply of Young Mothers over Time.”Demography28:333–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061460and .1998. “Trends in the Well-Being of American Women, 1970–1995.”Journal of Economic Literature36:112–65.[Page 321]1992. The Economics of Women, Men, and Work.and .2d ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.1990. “Maternal Labor Supply and Children's Cognitive Development.” Working Paper No. 3536, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.and .1979. “Occupational Segregation by Sex: Trends and Prospects.”Journal of Human Resources14:197–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/145642and .1997. “Swimming Upstream: Trends in the Gender Wage Differential in the 1980s.”Journal of Labor Economics15:1–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209845and .1982. “What's Happening to the Age at First Birth in the United States? A Study of Recent Cohorts.”Demography19:351–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20609761984. “What Are the Determinants of Delayed Child-bearing and Permanent Childlessness in the United States?”Demography21:591–611. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2060917and .1992. “On the Labor Market Effects of Immigration and Trade.” Pp. 213–14 in Immigration and the Work Force: Economic Consequences for the United States and Source Areas, edited by GeorgeBorjas, Jr., and Richard B.Freeman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press., , and .1999. Where Are They Now? What States' Studies of People Who Left Welfare Tell Us. Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief, Series A, No. A-32. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.and .1992. “Employment Resources and Housework in Canada.”Journal of Marriage and Family54:19–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353272.1995. “Juggling Jobs and Kids: The Impact of Employment Schedules on Fathers Caring for Children.”Journal of Marriage and Family57:321–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353686.1993. “The Exchange Value of Housework.”Rationality and Sociology5:302–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1043463193005003003.1999. “The Ties That Bind: Principles of Cohesion in Cohabitation and Marriage.”American Sociological Review64:333–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2657490and .1997. “The Demand for Multiple Child Care Arrangements.”Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Unpublished manuscript.and .2000. “Union Transitions among Cohabiters: The Significance of Relationship Assessment and Expectations.”Journal of Marriage and Family62:833–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00833.x1996. “Cohabitation versus Marriage: A Comparison of Relationship Quality.”Journal of Marriage and Family58:668–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353727and .1996. “A Comparison of the Household Work of Married Females: The Mid-1920s and the Late 1960s.”Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal24:358–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077727X960244002.1996a. “Are We Investing Less in the Next Generation? Historical Trends in Time Spent Caring for Children.”Journal of Family and Economic Issues17:365–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02265026and .1996b. “An Examination of Parent-Child Shared Time.”Journal of Marriage and Family58:227–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353391and .1998. Household and Family Characteristics: March 1997. Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 509. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.and .1999. Co-resident Grandparents and Their Grandchildren. Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 198. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.and . [Page 322]1995. “Divorce Law in the United States: A Focus on Child Custody.”Family Relations44:439–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/584999and .1990. “What's Happening to the Family? Interactions between Demographic and Institutional Change.”Demography27:483–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20615662000. “Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children's Family Contexts in the United States.”Population Studies54:29–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713779060and .1991. “The Impact of Family Background and Early Marital Factors on Marital Disruption.”Journal of Family Issues12:22–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251391012001003, , and .1995. “Redefining Single-Parent Families: Cohabitation and Changing Family Reality.”Demography32:97–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061899and .1995. “The Changing Character of Stepfamilies: Implications of Cohabitation and Nonmarital Childbearing.”Demography32:425–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061689, , and .1989a. “Children's Experience in Single-Parent Families: Implications of Cohabitation and Marital Transitions.”Family Planning Perspectives21:256–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135378and .1989b. “National Estimates of Cohabitation.”Demography26:615–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061261and .1991. “The Role of Cohabitation in the Declining Rates of Marriage.”Journal of Marriage and Family53:913–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352997, , and .1990. “Economic Burdens of Marital Disruptions: A Comparison of the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany.”Review of Income and Wealth36:319–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1990.tb00317.x, , , and .1991. “Wife or Frau, Women Do Worse: A Comparison of Men and Women in the United States and Germany after Marital Dissolution.”Demography28:353–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061461, , , and .1996. “Worsening American Income Inequality.”Brookings Review14(2): 16–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20080636.1992. “Black Grandparents Rearing Children of Drug-Addicted Parents: Stressors, Outcomes, and Social Service Needs.”Gerontologist32:744–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/32.6.7441985. “Black Grandmothers: Issues of Timing and Continuity of Roles.” Pp. 61–77 in Grandparenthood, edited by Vern L.Bengtson and Joan F.Robertson. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.and .1991. “The Intergenerational Family Roles of Aged Black Americans.”Marriage and Family Review16:311–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J002v16n03_06and .1979a. “The Emergence of Countercyclical U.S. Fertility.”American Economic Review69:318–27.and .1979b. “Will U.S. Fertility Remain Low? A New Economic Interpretation.”Population and Development Review5:663–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1971976and .1989. “Parental Choice of Self-Care for School-Age Children.”Journal of Marriage and Family51:65–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352369and .1993. “Working Wives and Family Income Inequality among Married Couples.” Pp. 195–221 in Uneven Tides: Rising In-equality in America, edited by SheldonDanziger and PeterGottschalk. New York: Russell Sage Foundation., , and .1998. “Who Gets Custody?”Demography35:147–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3004048and .1999. “The Impact of Wives' Earnings on Income Inequality: Issues and Estimates.”Demography36:173–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2648106and .Carolina Abecedarian Project. 1999. Early Learning, Later Success: The Abecedarian Study [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/embargoed/executive_summary.htm.[Page 323]1995. What Does It Cost to Mind Our Preschoolers? Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 52. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.1996. Who's Minding Our Preschoolers? Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 53. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.1997a. My Daddy Takes Care of Me! Fathers as Care Providers. Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 59. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.1997b. Who's Minding Our Preschoolers? Fall 1994 (Update). Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 62. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.1998a. “Co-resident Grandparents and Their Grandchildren: Grandparent-Maintained Families.” Working Paper No. 26, Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.and .1998b. Household and Family Characteristics: March 1998 (Update). Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 515. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.and .2000. “How Does POSSLQ Measure Up? Historical Estimates of Cohabitation.”Demography37:237–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2648125and .1994. Who's Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Fall 1991. Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 36. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office., , and .1994. “The Gender-Poverty Gap: What We Can Learn from Other Countries.”American Sociological Review59:594–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095933, , and .1998a. “State Estimates of Organized Child Care Facilities.” Working Paper No. 21, Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.and .1998b. “Work, Income, the Economy, and Married Fathers as Child-Care Providers.”Demography35:243–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3004055and .2000. “Cohabitation Transitions: Different Attitudes and Purposes, Different Paths.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, March, Los Angeles.and .“Dispelling the Myths: Self-Care, Class, and Race.”Journal of Family Issues.and . Forthcoming.1994. Going It Alone: A Closer Look at Grandparents Rearing Grandchildren. Washington, DC: American Association of Retired Persons..1999. Adoption, Adoption Seeking, and Relinquishment for Adoption in the United States. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics No. 306, DHHS Publication No. PHS 99–1250. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics., , , and .1934. The Twilight of Parenthood. London: Watts..1991. “Recent Trends in the Timing of First Births in the United States.”Demography28:513–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061420and .1978. “Remarriage as an Incomplete Institution.”American Journal of Sociology84:634–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/2268301979. “A Work Life and Marital Dissolution.” Pp. 151–66 in Divorce and Separation: Context, Causes and Consequences, edited by GeorgeLevinger and Oliver C.Moles. New York: Basic Books.1992. Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage.[Page 324]Rev. ed.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.1999. “Going to Extremes: Family Structure, Children's Well-Being, and Social Science.”Demography36:421–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/26480812000. “How Is the 1996 Welfare Reform Law Affecting Poor Families?” In Public and Private Families: A Reader,2d ed., edited by Andrew J.Cherlin. New York: McGraw-Hill.1985. “Styles and Strategies of Grandparenting.” Pp. 97–116 in Grandparenthood, edited by Vern L.Bengtson and Joan F.Robertson. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.and1986. The New American Grandparent: A Place in the Family, a Life Apart. New York: Basic Books.and1995. “Parental Divorce in Childhood and Demographic Outcomes in Young Adulthood.”Demography32:299–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061682, , and .2000. What Welfare Recipients Know about the New Rules and What They Have to Say about Them. Welfare, Children and Families: A Three-City Study, Policy Brief 00–1. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press., , , , , , , , and .1998. “Working Families in Transition: Husbands' and Wives' Hours on the Job.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, August, San Francisco.and .1995. “Attitudes, Values, and Entrance into Cohabitational versus Marital Unions.”Social Forces74:609–34., , and .1963. New Estimates of Fertility and Population in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.and .1999. “Marriage, Children, and Women's Employment: What Do We Know?”Monthly Labor Review122(December):22–31.and .2000. “In Whose Home? Multigenerational Families in the United States, 1997–1999.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, August, Washington, DC.and .“In Whose Home? Multigenerational Families in the United States, 1997–1999.”Sociological Perspectives, 45 (1).and . Forthcoming.1983. “Three-Month-Old Infants' Reaction to Simulated Maternal Depression.”Child Development54:185–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1129876and .1990. Foundations in Social Theory. London: Belknap.College Entrance Examination Board. 1995. National Report: College Bound Seniors, 1972–1995. New York: Author.1996. Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework, and Gender Equity. New York: Oxford University Press..1992. “Men's Housework: A Lifecourse Perspective.”Journal of Marriage and Family54:43–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353274and .Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. 1972. Population and the American Future: Final Report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Committee for Economic Development. 1993. Why Child Care Matters: Preparing Young Children for a More Productive America. New York: Author.1992. “The Effect of Child Care Costs on Married Women's Labor Force Participation.”Review of Economics and Statistics74:83–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2109545.“Considering Alternative Lifestyles: A Roper Center Data Review.”2000. Public Perspective, January/February, pp. 24–32.[Page 325]1998. “Parenting from a Distance: The Effects of Paternal Characteristics on Contact between Nonresidential Fathers and Their Children.”Demography35:187–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3004051and .1996. “Gender Inequality in Non-metropolitan and Metropolitan Areas.”Rural Sociology61:272–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1996.tb00620.xand .1997. “Same Data, Different Conclusions: Comment on Bernhardt et al.”American Journal of Sociology102:1143–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/231042, , , , and .1985. “Explaining Husband's Participation in Domestic Labor.”Sociological Quarterly26:81–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1985.tb00217.x.1986. “Changes in Men's Housework and Child-Care Time, 1965–1975.”Journal of Marriage and Family48:413–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352409and1993. “The Sky Is Falling, but Popenoe's Analysis Won't Help Us Do Anything about It.”Journal of Marriage and Family55:548–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353336.1981. “The Changing Pattern of American Mortality Decline, 1940–1977, and Its Implications for the Future.”Population and Development Review7:229–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/19726221990. “Interaction and Living Arrangements of Older Parents and Their Children.”Research on Aging12:3–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0164027590121001and .1991. “More and More, Grandparents Raise Grandchildren.”New York Times April 7, p. C12..“Interparental Relations as a Dimension of Parenting.” In Parenting and the Child's World: Multiple Influences on Intellectual and Socioemotional Development, edited by John G.Borkowski, SharonLandesman Ramey, and MarieBristol-Power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., , and . Forthcoming.1983. “Status Maintenance or Status Competition? Wife's Relative Wages as a Determinant of Labor Supply and Marital Instability.”Social Forces61:1186–1205..1993. “American Families: Trends and Correlates.”Population Index59:350–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3645248and .1996. Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2050. Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 1130. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office..1993. “Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Instability: A Test of the Unconventionality Hypothesis.”Journal of Marriage and Family55:399–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352810and .1992. “Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Stability in the United States: A Reassessment.”Journal of Marriage and Family54:178–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353285and .1982. “The Changing Faces of Fatherhood.” Pp. 425–45 in Father and Child Developmental and Clinical Perspectives, edited by Stanley H.Cath, Alan R.Gurwitt, and John M.Ross. Boston: Little, Brown..1999. Money Income in the United States: 1998. Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 206. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.and .1989. “Mother or Market? Effects of Maternal Employment on the Intellectual Ability of 4-Year-Old Children.”Demography26:547–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061257, , and .1993. “Taking Credit: Couples' Reports of Contributions to Child Care.”Journal of Family Issues14:421–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251393014003005, , and . [Page 326]1995. “Caregiver Burden: Grandparents Raising Their High Risk Children.”Journal of Psychosocial Nursing33(3):27–30.1996. “Grandparenting at Century's End: An Introduction to the Issue.”Generations20:5–6.1994. “Reframing Gerontological Thought and Practice: The Case of Grandmothers with Daughters in Prison.”Gerontologist34:685–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/34.5.685and .2000. “Selection and Attrition in the NICHD Child Care Study's Analyses of the Impacts of Child Care Quality on Child Outcomes.” Unpublished manuscript.and .1999. “Sibling, Peer, Neighbor, and Schoolmate Correlations as Indicators of the Importance of Context for Adolescent Development.” Unpublished manuscript., , and .1998. “How Much Does Childhood Poverty Affect the Life Chances of Children?”American Sociological Review63:406–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2657556, , , and .1991. “A Multivariate Comparison of the Involvement of Adult Sons versus Daughters in the Care of Impaired Parents.”Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences46:S259–69.and .Early Child Care Research Network, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 1996. “Characteristics of Infant Child Care: Factors Contributing to Positive Care-giving.”Early Childhood Research Quarterly11:269–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006%2896%2990009-5Early Child Care Research Network, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 1997. “Familial Factors Associated with the Characteristics of Nonmaternal Care for Infants.”Journal of Marriage and Family59:389–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353478Early Child Care Research Network, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 1999a. “Child Outcomes When Child Care Center Classes Meet Recommended Standards for Quality.”American Journal of Public Health89:1072–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.7.1072Early Child Care Research Network, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 1999b. “Effect Sizes from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston.1923. Mankind at the Crossroads. New York: Scribners.1973. “Relative Economic Status and the American Fertility Swing.” In Family Economic Behavior, edited by EleanorSheldon. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.1978. “What Will 1984 Be Like? Socioeconomic Implications of Recent Twists in Age Structure.”Demography15:397–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20611971980. Birth and Fortune: The Impact of Numbers on Personal Welfare. New York: Basic Books.1997. “The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done.”Atlantic Monthly, March, pp. 43–56..1997a. Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.and .1997b. “Work, Welfare, and Single Mothers' Economic Survival Strategies.”American Sociological Review62:253–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2657303and .1999. “The Changing Course of Fatherhood: Men's Experience with Children in Demographic Perspective.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, March, New York.1990. “Giving between Generations in American Families.”Human Nature1:211–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02733984and .1985. “Changes in the Organization of Men's Lives: 1960–1980.”Family Relations34:251–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/583899and .1968. The Population Bomb. New York: Sierra Club-Ballantine.. [Page 327]1988. “Grandchildren's Perspectives on Relationships with Grandparents: The Influence of Gender across Generations.”Sex Roles19:205–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF002901551985. Life Course Dynamics: Trajectories and Transition: 1968–80. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.,1999. “Raising Grandkids: No Day at the Beach.”USA Today, July 1, p. A1..1997. “Gender and Access to Money: What Do Trends in Earnings and Household Poverty Tell Us?” Prepared for the Conference on Reconfigurations of Class and Gender, August, Canberra..1986. Households, Employment and Gender: A Social, Economic and Demographic View. New York: Aldine.and .1983. “Marriage Trends in America: Estimates, Implications, and Underlying Causes.”Population and Development Review9:193–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1972920.1989. “Lesbian Mothers: Psychological Assumptions in Family Law.”American Psychologist44:941–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.6.9411996. The New American Reality: Who We Are, How We Got Here, Where We Are Going. New York: Russell Sage Foundation..Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 2000. America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.1990. “Beyond Separate Spheres: Feminism and Family Research.”Journal of Marriage and Family52:866–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353307.1991. “The Gender Division of Labor in Two-Earner Marriages: Dimensions of Variability and Change.”Journal of Family Issues12:158–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251391012002002.2001. Living Arrangements of Children: 1996. Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 74. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.2000. “Marriage and Divorce Rates in the U.S.: A Multi-state Life Table Analysis, Fall 1996 SIPP.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Demographic Association, New Orleans.and .2001. A Child's Day: Home, School, and Play (Selected Indicators of Child Well-Being). Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 68. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office., , , and .1999. “British Fathers and Children.” Working paper, Institute for Social and Economic Research, Essex University., , and .1985. “The Dynamics of Child Care Use and Some Implications for Women's Employment.”Journal of Marriage and Family47:143–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352076.1994. “Children as Public Goods.”American Economic Review84:86–90..1994. “Piecing Together Child Care with Multiple Arrangements: Crazy Quilt or Preferred Pattern for Employed Parents of Preschool Children.”Journal of Marriage and Family56:669–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352877and .1959. Family Planning, Sterility, and Population Growth. New York: McGraw-Hill., , and .2001. “Cohort Reproductive Patterns in Low-Fertility Countries.”Population and Development Review27:103–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2001.00103.xand .1986. “The Effects of Children on Wives' and Husbands' Allocation of Time.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, March, San Francisco.and .1997. “A Profile of Grandparents Raising Grandchildren in the United States.”Gerontologist37:406–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/37.3.406, , and .1997. “Labor Force 2006: Slowing Down and Changing Composition.”Monthly Labor Review120(November):23–38., [Page 328]1988. “Good Dads-Bad Dads: Two Faces of Fatherhood.” Pp. 193–218 in The Changing American Family and Public Policy, edited by Andrew J.Cherlin. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.,1995. “Changing Roles of Fathers.” Pp. 189–210 in Escape from Poverty: What Makes a Difference for Children? edited by P. LindsayChase-Lansdale and,Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. New York: Cambridge University Press.1987. Adolescent Mothers in Later Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752810, , and .1981. Teenage Sexuality, Pregnancy, and Childbearing. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press., , and .1987. “Paternal Participation and Children's Well-Being after Marital Dissolution.”American Sociological Review48:695–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095604, , and .1983. “The Life Course of Children of Divorce: Marital Disruption and Parental Context.”American Sociological Review48:656–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094925, , , and .1999. Ask the Children. New York: Morrow..1994. The Study of Children in Family Child Care and Relative Care: Highlights of Findings. New York: Families and Work Institute., , , and .1996. “Reconsidering the Increase in Father-Only Families.”Demography33:385–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061769and .1992. Assuring Child Support: An Extension of Social Security. New York: Russell Sage Foundation..1995. “The Effects of Child Support Reform on Child Well-Being.” Pp. 211–38 in Escape from Poverty: What Makes a Difference for Children? edited by P. LindsayChase-Lansdale andand .Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. New York: Cambridge University Press.2000. “The Future of the Family: Fragile Families in the 21st Century.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, March, Los Angeles.and .1997. “A Patchwork Portrait of Nonresident Fathers.” Unpublished manuscript., , and .Garfinkel, Irwin, Sara S.McLanahan, Daniel R.Meyer, and Judith A.Seltzer, eds. 1998. Fathers under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Garfinkel, Irwin, Sara S.McLanahan, and Philip K.Robins, eds. 1994. Child Support and Child Well-Being. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.1998. “A Brief History of Child Support Policies in the United States.” Pp. 14–30 in Fathers under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement, edited by IrwinGarfinkel, Sara S.McLanahan, Daniel R.Meyer, and Judith A.Seltzer. New York: Russell Sage Foundation., , and .1989. “Non-custodial Fathers; Ability to Pay Child Support.”Demography26:219–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061521and .2000. Welfare Leavers, Medicaid Coverage, and Private Health Insurance. Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief No. B-13. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.and .1988. “Historical Shifts in the Household Division of Labor.”Demography25:537–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061320and . [Page 329]1993. “How Badly Have Single Parents Done? Trends in the Economic Status of Single Parents since 1964.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, March, Cincinnati., , and .1975. “A Demographer Looks at American Families.”Journal of Marriage and Family37:15–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3510271979. “Children of Divorced Parents in Demographic Perspective.”Journal of Social Issues35:170–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1979.tb00820.x1977. “Marrying, Divorcing, and Living Together in the U.S. Today.”Population Bulletin32(1):3–41.and .1990. Understanding the Gender Gap. New York: Oxford University Press..1997. “Career and Family: College Women Look to the Past.” Pp. 20–58 in Gender and Family Issues in the Workplace, edited by Francine D.Blau and Ronald G.Ehrenberg. New York: Russell Sage Foundation..1989. “Living Arrangements among the Older Population.” Pp. 75–91 in Ethnicity and the New Family Economy, edited by Frances K.Goldscheider and CalvinGoldscheider. Boulder, CO: Westview.and .1995. “Interpolating Demography with Families and Households.”Demography32:471–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20616921997. “Family Relationships and Life Course Strategies for the 21st Century.” Pp. 73–85 in The Family on the Threshold of the 21st Century, edited by SollyDreman. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.1994. “Leaving and Returning Home in 20th-Century America.”Population Bulletin48(4):2–33.and .1991. New Families, No Families?Berkeley: University of California Press.and .1999. “The Leveling of Divorce in the United States.”Demography36:409–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/26480631958. The Fertility of American Women. New York: John Wiley., , and .1995. “Why Did Child Support Award Levels Decline from 1978 to 1985? A Comment.”Journal of Human Resources30:622–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1460382000. Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers. Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 212. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office..1997. “The Fall in Men's Return to Marriage: Declining Productivity Effects or Changing Selection.”Journal of Human Resources32:481–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1461801992. “Consumer Spending on Durables and Services in the 1980s.”Monthly Labor Review115(May):18–26..1999. “Welfare Restructuring and Working-Poor Family Policy: The New Context.” In Hard Labor: Women and Work in the Post-welfare Era, edited by Joel F.Handler and LucieWhite. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe..1982. “Divorce Risk and Wives' Labor Supply Behavior.”Social Science Quarterly63:16–27.and .1990. “Marital Disruption and the Employment of Married Women.”Journal of Marriage and Family52:657–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3529321995. “Gender Ideology, Marital Disruption, and the Employment of Married Women.”Journal of Marriage and Family57:31–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3538141998. “Does Housework Cause Divorce? Effects of the Division of Household Labor and Gender Ideology on Marital Stability.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, August, San Francisco.[Page 330]1998. “Play Ball? The Role of Sports in Children's Lives.”Vermont Quarterly12:16–17..2000. “Family a Priority for Young Workers.”Washington Post, May 3, pp. E1–2..1999. “The Effects of Marital Status Transitions on Men's Housework Performance.”Journal of Marriage and Family61:700–711. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353571.1998. “The Use of Grandparents as Child Care Providers.” Working Paper No. 84, National Survey of Families and Households, Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison..1994. “Men's Contribution to Family Work: A Re-examination of Time Availability.”International Journal of Sociology of the Family24:87–111..1985. “Continuity and Connectedness.” Pp. 31–48 in Grand-parenthood, edited by Vern L.Bengtson and Joan F.Robertson. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.1996. “On-Time, Off-Time, Out of Time? Reflections of Continuity and Discontinuity from an Illness Process.” Pp. 204–22 in Adulthood and Aging: Research on Continuities and Discontinuities, edited by Vern L.Bengtson. New York: Springer.2000. “Do Mandatory Welfare-to-Work Programs Affect the Well-Being of Children? A Synthesis of Child Research Conducted as Part of the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies.” [On-line]. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/newws/child-synthesis/index.htm., with and .2001. “The Effects of Early Maternal Employment on Later Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes.”Journal of Marriage and Family63:336–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00336.x, , and .1996. “Trends in Child Support Outcomes.”Demography33:483–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061782, , , and .2000. “Family Processes, Neighborhood Context, and Adolescent Risk Behavior.” Unpublished manuscript.and .1990. Who Cares for America's Children? Child Care Policy for the 1990s. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press., , and .1997. “Developments in Women's Labor Force Participation.”Monthly Labor Review120(September):41–46.2000. “Choice and Constraint: Fertility Patterns of Chinese American Women.” Ph.D. dissertation..Head Start Bureau. 1998. “1998 Fact Sheet.” [on-line]. http://www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/html/1998_fact_sheet.html.1990. “Marital Stability throughout the Childrearing Years.”Demography27:55–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20615521998. “Factors Contributing to Increasing Marital Stability in the United States.” Presented at the Conference on the National Survey of Family Growth, National Center for Health Statistics, October.1998. “The Impact of Husbands and Wives' Relative Earnings on Marital Disruption.”Journal of Marriage and Family60:690–703. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353538, , and .1995. Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers. Denver: University of Colorado., , , , and .1998. “Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States, 1995–1996.”Family Planning Perspectives30:263–70, 287. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2991501[Page 331]1993. America's Children: Resources from Family, Government, and the Economy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.1976. Fertility Tables for Birth Cohorts by Color. DHEW Publication No. HRA 76–1152. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.1998. “Economic Independence: Economic Status and Empty Nest in Midlife Marital Disruption.”Journal of Marriage and Family60:219–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353453, , and .1974. “Allocation of Time to Pre-school Children and Educational Opportunity.”Journal of Human Resources9:323–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/144690and .1980. “Parental Care of Children: Time Diary Estimates of Quantity, Predictability, and Variety.”Journal of Human Resources15:219–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/145332and .1984. “Power Dependence and Division of Family Work.”Sex Roles10:1003–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF002885211997. “Grandparent Involvement following Divorce: A Comparison in Single-Mother and Single-Father Families.”Journal of Divorce and Remarriage28:203–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J087v28n01_14and .1936. Medical History of Contraception. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.1998. “Grandparents as Caregivers.” Pp. 200–14 in Handbook on Grandparenthood, edited by Maximiliane E.Szinovacz. Westport, CT: Greenwood.1989. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. New York: Viking., with .1992. “The Demand for and Supply of Child Care in the 1990s.” Pp. 3–25 in Child Care in the 1990s: Trends and Consequences, edited by AlanBooth. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.1995. “Out-of-School Time: Risk and Opportunity.” Pp. 123–53 in America's Working Poor, edited by Thomas R.Swartz and Kathleen M.Weigert. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.1999. “Family Reading to Young Children: Social Desirability and Cultural Biases in Reporting.” Presented at the Workshop on Measurement and Research on Time Use, sponsored by the Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council, May, Washington, DC.1991. National Child Care Survey, 1990. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press., , , and .1994. Child Care Quality versus Availability: Do We Have to Trade One for the Other?Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.and .Ellen Eliason Kisker. 1994. “Comprehensive Services in Child Care Settings: Prevalence and Correlates.”Pediatrics94:1088–91.and1991. “Child Care in the United States Today.”Journal of Social Issues47(2):1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1991.tb00284.xand .“Public Policy and Family and Child Well-Being.” In The Well-Being of Children and Families, edited by Arland T.Thornton. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press., , and . Forthcoming.“The Demography of Fathers: What Fathers Do.” In Handbook of Father Involvement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, edited by C.Tamis-LeMonda and NatashaCabrera. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., , , , and . Forthcoming.2001. “How American Children Spend Their Time.”Journal of Marriage and Family63:295–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00295.xand . [Page 332]1992. “Price, Quality, and Income in Child Care Choice.”Journal of Human Resources27:71–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/145913and .1995. “The Effect of Income, Wages, and AFDC Benefits on Marital Disruption.”Journal of Human Resources30:19–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/146189and .1993. “The Structure of Intergenerational Exchanges in American Families.”American Journal of Sociology98:1428–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/230194, , and .2000. “Men's Flight from Children in the U.S.? A Historical Perspective.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, March, Los Angeles.and .1988. “Poverty and Living Arrangements among Older Women: Are Changes in Economic Well-Being Underestimated?”Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences43:S22–27.1991. “The Economic Cost of Marital Disruption: Why Do Women Bear Disproportionate Cost?”American Review of Sociology17:51–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.000411and .1985. “Family Caregiving to the Frail Elderly.” Pp. 194–246 in Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, vol. 5, edited by CarlEisdorfer. New York: Springer..1987. “After School Child Care in an Elementary School: Social Development and Continuity and Complementarity of Programs.”Elementary School Journal88:93–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461526, , and .1974. Becoming Modern: Individual Change in Six Developing Countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.and .1989. “Long-Term Trends in Occupational Segregation by Sex.”American Journal of Sociology95:160–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/2292172001. “Overworked Individuals or Overworked Families? Explaining Trends in Work, Leisure and Family Time.”Work and Occupations28:40–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0730888401028001004and .1994. “Grandparents Who Parent Their Grandchildren: Circumstances and Decisions.”Gerontologist34:206–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/34.2.2061996. “The Importance of Child Care Characteristics to Choice of Care.”Journal of Marriage and Family58:759–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353734, , and .1986. “Labor Supply and Marital Separation.”American Economic Review76:455–69.and .1998. “The Opportunity Costs of Childbearing: More Than Mothers' Business.”Journal of Population Economics11:161–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001480050063.1995. “The Prevalence of Grandmothers as Primary Care-givers in a Poor Pediatric Population.”Journal of Community Health20:383–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02260436and .1992. “Decline of Male Labor Market Participation: The Role of Declining Market Opportunities.”Quarterly Journal of Economics107:79–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2118324.1993. “Wage Inequality and the Rise in Returns to Skill.”Journal of Political Economy101:410–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/261881, , and .1985. Time, Goods, and Well-Being. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.and .1993. “Recent Changes in the Labor Supply Behavior of Married Couples.”Eastern Economic Journal19(2):185–208..1991. “Status Homogamy in the United States.”American Journal of Sociology97:496–523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/229786.1999. “Father Involvement in Childrearing and the Perceived Stability of Marriage.”Journal of Marriage and Family61:409–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353758. [Page 333]1988. “Social Policy and Children in the United States and Europe.” In The Vulnerable, edited by John L.Palmer, TimothySmeeding, and BarbaraBoyle Torrey. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.and1988. “Determinants of Household Division of Labor: Resources, Power, and Ideology.”Journal of Family Issues9:177–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251388009002002.1991. “A Nonlinear Effect of the Number of Children on the Division of Household Labor.”Sociological Perspectives34:205–18..1998. “Asian Grandparents.” Pp. 97–112 in Handbook on Grandparenthood, edited by Maximiliane E.Szinovacz. Westport, CT: Greenwood..1977. Work and Family in the United States: A Critical Review and Agenda for Research and Policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation..1995. “Demographic Change, Rising Earnings Inequality, and the Distribution of Personal Well-being.”Demography32:379–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061687and .1999. “Three Generations, One Happy Family.”USA Today, July 1, p. D8..1990. “College Students' Expectations of Grandparent and Grandchild Role Behaviors.”Gerontologist30:43–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/30.1.431995. “Mate Availability and Marriage among African Americans: Aggregated and Individual-Level Analyses.” Pp. 121–35 in The Decline in Marriage among African Americans: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Implications, edited by M. BelindaTucker and ClaudiaMitchell-Kernan. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.and .1999. “Time Spent in Parenthood Status among Adults in the United States.”Demography36:377–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2648060.1994. “Variation in the Consequences of Nonresident Father Involvement for Children's Well-Being.”Journal of Marriage and Family56:963–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353606.1995. “American Children View Their Grandparents: Linked Lives across Three Rural Generations.”Journal of Marriage and Family57:165–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353825and ,1997. “The Legacy of Grandparenting: Childhood Experiences with Grandparents and Current Involvement with Grandchildren.”Journal of Marriage and Family59:848–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353787and1998. “Grandparenting in Family Systems: An Ecological Perspective.” Pp. 53–69 in Handbook on Grandparenthood, edited by Maximiliane E.Szinovacz. Westport, CT: Greenwood., , and ,1995. “Self-Perception Changes among Sports Camp Participants.”Journal of Social Psychology135:135–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1995.9711416and .1991. “Quality, Cost, and Parental Choice of Child Care.” Pp. 127–43 in The Economics of Child Care, edited by David M.Blau. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.and .1982. “Grandparenthood: An Overview of Meaning and Mental Health.”Gerontologist22:59–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/22.1.591999. “Job Continuity among New Mothers.”Demography36:145–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2648104and .1981. “Family Extension and the Elderly: Economic, Demographic, and Family Cycle Factors.”Journal of Gerontology36:370–77.1991. “Does Marriage Really Make Men More Productive?”Journal of Human Resources26:282–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/145924and .1995. “Living Alone among the Elderly in the United States: Historical Perspectives on Household Change”Demography32:335–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061684. [Page 334]1994. “The Dynamics of Young Men's Condom Use during and across Relationships.”Family Planning Perspectives26:246–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135889, , and .Karen Oppenheim Mason. 1991. “Type of Child Care: Determinants of Use among Working and Non-working Mothers.” Working Paper No. 91–218, Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.and1998. “Nonparental Child Care: Contexts, Quality, Correlates, and Consequences.” Pp. 73–144 in Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th ed., vol. 4, Child Psychology in Practice, edited by Irving E.Sigel and K.Anne Renninger. New York: John Wiley.1988. “Fatherhood and Social Change.”Family Relations37:451–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/584119.1997. The Modernization of Fatherhood: A Social and Political History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1995. “Gendered Perceptions of Father Involvement in Early 20th Century America.”Journal of Marriage and Family57:223–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353830and .1979. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. New York: W. W. Norton..1974. “Home Investments in Children.”Journal of Political Economy82:111–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/260295.1977. “Parental Inputs and Children's Achievement.”Journal of Human Resources12:243–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/145387.1988. “Child Care for Preschoolers: Differences by Child's Age.”Demography25:205–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061289, , and .1989. “Women and Affirmative Action.”Journal of Economic Perspectives3:61–75.1995. “The Second Demographic Transition in Western Countries: An Interpretation.” Pp. 17–62 in Gender and Family Change in Industrialized Countries, edited by KarenOppenheim Mason and An-MagrittJensen. Oxford: Clarendon..1988. “Cultural Dynamics and Economic Theories of Fertility Change.”Population and Development Review14:1–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1972499and .1995. “Incomes and Income Inequality.” Pp. 1–58 in State of the Union: America in the 1990s, vol. 1, Economic Trends, edited by ReynoldsFarley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation..1998. The New Dollars and Dreams. New York: Russell Sage Foundation..1992. “U.S. Earnings Levels and Earnings Inequality: A Review of Recent Trends and Proposed Explanations.”Journal of Economic Literature30:1333–81.and .1997. “Poverty and Inequality Among Children.”Annual Review of Sociology23:121–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.1211995. “Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Dissolution: A Matter of Self-Selection?”Demography32:437–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061690, , and .1996. “Contextual Influences on Young Men's Transitions to First Marriages.”Social Forces74:1097–1119.and .1998. “Trends in Single Mothers' Living Arrangements from 1970 to 1995: Correcting the Current Population Survey.”Demography35:125–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/30040321999. How Families That Left Welfare Are Doing: A National Picture? Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief No. B-1. Washington, DC: Urban Institute..1996. Are They in Any Real Danger? What Research Does—and Doesn't—Tell Us about Child Care Quality and Children's Well-Being. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research., , and . [Page 335]1998. Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1998. Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 514. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office..1996. “Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage.”Journal of Economic Perspectives10:139–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.10.4.139and .1989. “Aging Parents and Adult Children: Research Themes in Intergenerational Relations.”Journal of Marriage and Family51:275–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352492and .1988. Measurement of Intergenerational Relations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage., , and .1993. “Marriage and Cohabitation following Premarital Conception.”Journal of Marriage and Family55:839–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3527662000. “The Implications of Cohabitation for Children's Well-Being.” Presented at the National Symposium Symposium “Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation for Children, Families, and Social Policy,” Pennsylvania State University, October.1996. “Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Role of Cohabitation in Premarital Childbearing.”Journal of Marriage and Family58:63–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353377and .1995. “Why Marry? Race and the Transition to Marriage among Cohabitors.”Demography32:509–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061671and .1999. “New Families and Nonresident Father-Child Visitation.”Social Forces78:87–116.and .2000. “Serial Parenting and Economic Support for Children.”Journal of Marriage and Family62:111–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00111.xand .1981. “Trends in Schooling: Demography, Performance, and Organization.”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science453:107–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716281453001051991. “Five Decades of Educational Assortive Mating.”American Sociological Review56:15–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20956701995. “Changes in Educational Attainment and School Enrollment.” Pp. 155–214 in State of the Union: America in the 1990s, vol. 1, Economic Trends, edited by ReynoldsFarley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Beth Anne Shelton. 1993. “Measuring Household Work: Recent Experience in the United States.”Social Science Research22:361–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ssre.1993.1018and1995. “Young Nonresident Biological Fathers.” Pp. 325–48 in Single Parent Families: Diversity, Myths, and Realities, edited by Shirley M. H.Hanson, Marsha L.Heims, Doris J.Julian, and Marvin B.Sussman. Binghamton, NY: Haworth..1999. “Births and Deaths: Preliminary Data for 1998.”National Vital Statistics Reports47(25)., , , and .2000. “Diverging Fertility among U.S. Women Who Delay Childbearing.”Demography37:415–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/dem.2000.0007.1999. School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students. Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 516. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.and .1989. “Determinants of Child Care Ideals among Mothers of Preschool-Aged Children.”Journal of Marriage and Family51:593–603. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352159and .1994. Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Labor Force and Income: 1990 to 1992. Current Population Reports, Series P-70, 40. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.and .1990. “Changing Female Labor Force Participation: Influence on Income Inequality and Distribution.”Social Forces68:1251–66.. [Page 336]1997a. “Trends in the Economic Well-Being and Life Chances of America's Children.” Pp. 49–69 in Consequences of Growing Up Poor, edited by Greg J.Duncan and JeanneBrooks-Gunn. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.1997b. What Money Can't Buy: Family Income and Children's Life Chances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.1989a. “Growing Up in Poor Neighborhoods: How Much Does It Matter?”Science243:1441–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.243.4897.1441and .1989b. “Poverty and the Distribution of Material Hardship.”Journal of Human Resources24:88–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/145934and .1979. “Extended Day Program in a Public Elementary School.”Children Today8(3):6–9.1996. “Racial Differences in Mother-Child Coresidence in the Past.”Journal of Marriage and Family58:1011–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353987and .1984. Disease and Fertility. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.and .2000. “Social Security, Economic Growth, and the Rise in Elderly Widows' Independence in the Twentieth Century.”Demography37:221–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2648124and .1995. “Growing Diversity and Inequality in the American Family.” Pp. 1–45 in State of the Union: America in the 1990s, vol. 2, Social Trends, edited by ReynoldsFarley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation., and .1995. “Women's Roles and Women's Poverty in Eight Industrialized Countries.” Pp. 258–78 in Gender and Family Change in Industrialized Countries, edited by KarenOppenheim Mason and An-MagrittJensen. Oxford: Clarendon., , and .1997. “The Feminization of Poverty: Past and Future.” Unpublished manuscript.and .1994. Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.and .1989. “Sex Differences in Poverty, 1950–1980.”Signs15:102–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/494566, , and .1997. “Poverty and the Marital Behavior of Young Women.”Journal of Marriage and Family59:582–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353947and .1993. “Some Women Marry Young: Transitions to First Marriage in Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan Areas.”Journal of Marriage and Family55:827–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352765, , and .1982. “Differential Patterns of Female Labor Force Participation Surrounding the First Birth.”Journal of Marriage and Family44:407–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3515491987. “Separate but Unequal: The Economic Disaster of Divorce for Women and Children.”Family Law Quarterly21:351–409.1995. “Extracurricular Activities and High School Dropouts.”Sociology of Education68:62–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2112764.1998. “The Effect of Child Support on the Economic Status of Nonresidents.” Pp. 67–93 in Fathers under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement, edited by IrwinGarfinkel, Sara S.McLanahan, Daniel R.Meyer, and Judith A.Seltzer. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.2000. “How Involved Are Fathers? Ideals, Realities, and the Relationship to Parental Well-Being.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, May, Portland, OR., , , and . [Page 337]1999. “Playing All the Roles: Gender and the Work-Family Balancing Act.”Journal of Marriage and Family61:476–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353763and .1974. “Family Investments in Human Capital: Earnings of Women.” Pp. 397–429 in Economics of the Family, edited by Theodore W.Schultz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.and .1994. Nurturing Young Black Males: Challenges to Agencies, Programs, and Social Policy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.1998. “Intergenerational Households Headed by Grandparents: Demographic and Sociological Contexts.” Pp. 3–18 in Grandparents and Other Relatives Raising Children: Background Papers from Generations United's Expert Symposium, edited by GenerationsUnited. Washington, DC: Generations United..1997. “Depression in Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: Results of a National Longitudinal Study.”Archives of Family Medicine6:445–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archfami.6.5.445, , , and .1993. Grandmothers as Caregivers: Raising Children of the Crack Cocaine Epidemic. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.and .1996. “Grandparents as Surrogate Parents.”Generations20:34–38.and .1998. “From Patriarchy to Androgamy and Other Myths: Placing Man's Family Roles in Historical Perspective.” Pp. 3–30 in Men in Families: When Do They Get Involved? What Difference Does it Make? edited by AlanBooth and Ann C.Crouter. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum..1989. Social Consequences of Psychological Distress. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.and .1992. “Successful Aging: A Life Course Perspective on Women's Multiple Roles and Health.”American Journal of Sociology97:1612–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/229941, , and ,1992. “Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System: A Review.”Journal of Economic Literature30:1–61.1995. “Cohort Trends in the Lifetime Distribution of Female Family Headship in the U.S., 1968–85.”Demography32:407–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061688and .2000. The Diversity of Welfare Leavers. Welfare, Children and Families: A Three-City Study, Policy Brief 00–2. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.and .1982. “Parents' Choice of Day Care Services.”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science461:125–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00027162824610000131981. “Marital Dissolution, Early Motherhood and Early Marriage.”Social Forces60:20–40.and .1991. After Marriage Ends: Economic Consequences for Midlife Women. Newbury Park, CA: Sage..1996. “Characteristic Features of Modern American Fertility.” Pp. 19–66 in Fertility in the United States: New Patterns, New Theories, edited by J. B.Casterline, Ronald D.Lee, and Karen A.Foote. New York: Population Council..1982. “Childlessness in the United States: Estimates from the National Survey of Family Growth.”Journal of Family Issues3:517–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251382003004006and .1979. “The Causes of Marital Disruption among Young American Women: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.”Journal of Marriage and Family41:355–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351702and . [Page 338]1983. “Complementarity of Work and Fertility among Young Mothers.”Population Studies37:239–52.and .1965. The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Planning and Research, U.S. Department of Labor.1992. “Wage Differentials in the 1980s: The Role of International Trade.” Pp. 39–69 in Workers and Their Wages: Changing Patterns in the United States, edited by Marvin K.Kosters. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.and .1984. Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950–1980. New York: Basic Books..1992. “Living Arrangements and Household Transitions among the Unmarried in Later Life.”Social Science Quarterly73:565–80..1987. “Household Structure among the Elderly: Race/Ethnic Differences.”National Journal of Sociology1:3–23.and .1934. Ris i befolkningsfragan. Stockholm: Bonniers.and .1999. Implementing the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996: A First Look. Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.and .National Center for Education Statistics. 1989. Digest of Education Statistics 1989. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.National Center for Health Statistics. 1995. “Advance Report of Final Divorce Statistics, 1989 and 1990.”Monthly Vital Statistics Report43(9S).National Center for Health Statistics. 1999a. “United States Life Tables, 1997.”National Vital Statistics Reports47(28).National Center for Health Statistics. 1999b. “United States Life Tables, 1998.”National Vital Statistics Reports48(18).National Center for Health Statistics. 2000a. “Births: Final Data for 1998.”National Vital Statistics Reports48(3).National Center for Health Statistics. 2000b. “Deaths: Final Data for 1998.”National Vital Statistics Reports48(11).National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 2000. How Do Children Spend Their Time? Children's Activities, School Achievement, and Well-Being. Research on Today's Issues No. 11. Washington, DC: Author.National Research Council. 1987. Risking the Future: Adolescent Sexuality, Pregnancy, and Childbearing. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.National Women's Conference Committee. 1986. National Plan of Action Update. Washington, DC: Author.1964. “The Changing American Grandparent.”Journal of Marriage and Family26:199–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/349727and .1988. “Main Trends in Time Use from the 1920s to the 1980s.” Presented at the meeting of the International Research Group on Time Budgets and Social Activities, June, Budapest..1995. “A Comparison of Marriages and Cohabiting Relationships.”Journal of Family Issues16:53–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192513950160010041998a. “The Consequences of Premarital Fatherhood.”American Sociological Review63:250–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/26573261998b. Marriage in Men's Lives. New York: Oxford University Press.Paul William Kingston. 1988. “Time with Children: The Impact of Couples' Work-Time Commitments.”Social Forces67:59–85.and1996. Non-custodial Parents' Participation in Their Children's Lives: Evidence from the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Vol. 1. Final report prepared for the Office of Human Services Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.and . [Page 339]1991. “Grandmothers Who Fill Void Carved by Drugs.”Washington Post, August 30, p. C12..1977. Fertility of American Women: June 1976. Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 308. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office..1990. “Maternity Leave Arrangements: 1961–85.” Pp. 11–52 in Work and Family Patterns of American Women. Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 165. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office..1991. “Late Expectations: Childbearing Patterns of American Women for the 1990's.” Pp. 1–18 in Studies in American Fertility. Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 176. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office..1993. Where's Papa? Father's Role in Child Care. Population Trends and Public Policy No. 20. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau..1987. Juggling Jobs and Babies: America's Child Care Challenge. Population Trends and Public Policy No. 12. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.and .1977. “New Evidence on the Value of Birth Expectations.”Demography14:255–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2060784and .1995. Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. New York: Routledge.and .1994. “Patterns of Commitment to Work and Parenting: Implication for Role Strain.”Journal of Marriage and Family56:101–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352705and .1993. “Why the Gender Gap in Wages Narrowed in the 1980s.”Journal of Labor Economics11:205–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/298323and .1998. “Husbands' and Wives' Resources and Marital Dissolution.”Journal of Marriage and Family60:674–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353537.1988. “A Theory of Marriage Timing.”American Journal of Sociology94:563–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/229030.1994. “Women's Rising Employment and the Future of the Family in Industrial Societies.”Population and Development Review20:293–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2137521.1997. “Women's Employment and the Gain to Marriage: The Specialization and Trading Model.”Annual Review of Sociology23:431–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.431.1997. “Men's Career Development and Marriage Timing during a Period of Rising Inequality.”Demography34:311–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3038286, , and .1995. “American Marriage Formation in the Eighties: How Important Was Women's Economic Independence?” Pp. 105–38 in Gender and Family Change in Industrialized Countries, edited by KarenOppenheim Mason and An-MagrittJensen. Oxford: Clarendon.and .1993. “Using the Service Economy to Relieve the Double Burden: Female Labor Force Participation and Service Purchases.”Journal of Family Issues14:438–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251393014003006.1996. “Normative Beliefs about Marriage and Cohabitation: A Comparison of Non-Latino Whites, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans.”Journal of Marriage and Family58:49–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353376.1983. “Changes in the Propensity to Live Alone: Evidence from Consecutive Cross-Sectional Surveys, 1960–1976.”Demography20:433–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20611121994. Parents' Jobs and Children's Lives. New York: Aldine.and . [Page 340]1995. “Fathers and Families.” Pp. 27–63 in Handbook of Parenting, vol. 3, Status and Social Conditions of Parenting, edited by Marc H.Bornstein. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.1943. “The Kinship System of the Contemporary United States.”American Anthropologist45:22–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1943.45.1.02a00030.1992. “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents.”Child Development63:1025–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/11315172000. “Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men.”Journal of Marriage and Family62:1052–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01052.x1978. “The Feminization of Poverty: Women, Work, and Welfare.”Urban and Social Change Review11:128–36.1988. “Farewell to Alms: Women's Fare under Welfare.” Pp. 493–506 in Women: A Feminist Perspective,3d ed., edited by JoFreeman. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.1999. “The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go to School” [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/pages/cqes.htm., , , , , and .Karen Fox Folk. 1994. “Class, Couples, and Conflict: Effects of the Division of Labor on Assessments of Marriage in Dual-Earner Families.”Journal of Marriage and Family56:165–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352711and2000. “Work and Family in the 1990s.”Journal of Marriage and Family62:981–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00981.x, , and .1996. “The Economic Consequences of Divorce: A Re-evaluation of Lenore Weitzman's The Divorce Revolution.”American Sociological Review61:347–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2096353.1987. Quality of Child Care: What Does Research Tell Us?Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children..1997. “Fatherhood Ideals in the United States: Historical Dimensions.” Pp. 33–48 in The Role of the Father in Child Development,and .3d ed., edited by Michael E.Lamb. New York: John Wiley.1983. “Husbands' Paid Work and Family Roles: Current Research Issues.” Pp. 231–333 in Research in the Interweave of Social Roles, vol. 3, Families and Jobs, edited by Helena Z.Lopata and Joseph H.Pleck. Greenwich, CT: JAI.1997. “Paternal Involvement: Levels, Sources, and Consequences.” Pp. 66–103 in The Role of the Father in Child Development,3d ed., edited by Michael E.Lamb. New York: John Wiley.1988. Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern Societies. New York: Aldine de Gruyter..1993. “American Family Decline, 1960–1990: A Review and Appraisal.”Journal of Marriage and Family55:527–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353333.1996. Life without Father. New York: Free Press..Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. 1999. Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation Before Marriage. New Brunswick, NJ: National Marriage Project.andDeborah Lowe Vandell. 1994. “Low Income Children's After-School Care: Are There Beneficial Effects of After-School Programs?”Child Development65:440–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131395and1988. “Shift Work and Child Care among Young Dual-Earner American Parents.”Journal of Marriage and Family50:133–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3524341989a. “Can We Make Time for Children? The Economy, Work Schedules, and Child Care.”Demography26:523–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061256[Page 341]1989b. “Some Economic Complexities of Child Care Provided by Grandmothers.”Journal of Marriage and Family51:581–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3521581994. “Employment Schedules among Dual-Earner Spouses and the Division of Household Labor by Gender.”American Sociological Review59:348–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20959381997. “The Work Schedules of Low-Educated American Women and Welfare Reform.”Monthly Labor Review120(April):25–34.and .1984. “Children and the Elderly: Divergent Paths for America's Dependents.”Demography21:435–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20609091993. “Demographic Change in the United States, 1970–2050.” Pp. 51–77 in Forecasting the Health of Elderly Populations, edited by Kenneth G.Manton, Burton H.Singer, and Richard M.Suzman. New York: Springer-Verlag.1998. “Changes in Assortative Mating: The Impact of Age and Education, 1970–1990.”Demography35:279–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3004036.1983. “Children's Prosocial Dispositions and Behaviors.” Pp. 469–545 in Handbook of Child Psychology, vol. 4, Socialization, Personality, and Social Development, edited by Paul H.Mussen and E. MavisHetherington. New York: John Wiley., , and .1996. “A Shortage of Marriageable Men? A Note on the Role of Cohabitation in Black-White Differences in Marriage Rates.”American Sociological Review61:973–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2096303.2000. “Recent Trends and Differentials in Marriage and Cohabitation: The United States.” Pp. 19–39 in The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation, edited by Linda J.Waite, Christine A.Bachrach, MichelleHinden, ElizabethThomson, and Arland T.Thornton. New York: Aldine de Gruyter..2001. “Increasing Fertility in Cohabiting Unions: Evidence for the Second Demographic Transition in the United States?”Demography38:59–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/dem.2001.0008.1993. “Short-Term Effects of Occupational Stressors on Daily Mood and Health Complaints.”Health Psychology12:126–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-622.214.171.1241998. “The Promise of a Multiple Roles Paradigm for Women's Health Research.”Women's Health: Research on Gender, Behavior, and Policy4:273–80.1997. “Effects of Daily Stress at Work on Mothers' Interactions with Preschoolers.”Journal of Family Psychology11:90–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3126.96.36.199and .2000. “You Can't Always Get What You Want: Infant Care Preferences and Use among Employed Mothers.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, March, Los Angeles.and .1993. “Connections: Kin and Cohort.” In The Changing Contract across Generations, edited by Vern L.Bengtson and W. AndrewAchenbaum. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.and .1991. “The Young Adult Years: Diversity, Structural Change, and Fertility.”Demography28:493–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20614191976. “How Old Is Too Old? Age and the Sociology of Fertility.”Family Planning Perspectives8:226–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2134315and .1989. “The Varying Connection between Marital Status and Childbearing in the United States.”Population and Development Review15:447–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1972442and .1990. “Cohabitation: A Precursor to Marriage or an Alternative to Being Single?”Population and Development Review16:703–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1972963and .1999. “Understanding the Juggling Act: Gendered Preferences and Social Structural Constraints.”Sociological Forum14:319–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021422930020, , and . [Page 342]1977. “Grandparenthood: A Study of Role Conceptions.”Journal of Marriage and Family39:165–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3510721992. “Why Did Child Support Award Levels Decline from 1978 to 1985?”Journal of Human Resources27:362–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1457391988. “Who's Doing the Housework?”American Demographics10:24–63.1993. The Demographics of Time Use. Ithaca, NY: American Demographics.1972. “Social Change as Reflected in the Use of Time.” Pp. 17–86 in The Human Meaning of Social Change, edited by AngusCampbell and Philip E.Converse. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.and .1999. Time for Life: The Surprising Ways Americans Use Their Time.and .2d ed.State College: Pennsylvania State University Press.1998. “Back to the Basics: Trends in and Role Determinants of Women's Attitudes toward Housework.”Journal of Marriage and Family60:205–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353452and .Rosemary Smith Nelson. 1985. “Child Care Arrangements and Children's Functioning: A Comparison of Self-Care and Adult-Care Children.”Developmental Psychology21:413–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-16188.8.131.523, , and1999. “Wives' Income and Marital Quality: Are There Reciprocal Effects?”Journal of Marriage and Family61:123–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3538881997. “Trends in Hours of Work since the Mid-1970s.”Monthly Labor Review120(April):3–14., , and .1987. “The Division of Labor at Home.”Social Forces65:816–33.1927. Standing Room Only. New York: Century..1975. Time of Transition: The Growth of Families Headed by Women. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.and .1990. Of Human Bonding: Parent-Child Relations across the Life Course. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.and .1990. Drawing the Line: Alternative Poverty Measures and Their Implications for Public Policy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press..1987. Prolonged Connections: The Rise of the Extended Family in Nineteenth-Century England and America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press..1994. “The Transformation of American Family Structure.”American Historical Review99:103–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2166164.1995. “Living Arrangements of the Elderly in America: 1880–1990.” Pp. 254–63 in Aging and Generational Relations over the Life Course: A Historical and Cross-Cultural Perspective, edited by Tamara K.Hareven. New York: Aldine de Gruyter..1997. “The Rise of Divorce and Separation in the United States, 1880–1990.”Demography34:455–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3038300.1992. “Race and Multigenerational Family Structure in the United States, 1900–1980.” Pp. 15–42 in The American Family: Patterns and Prospects edited by Scott J.South and Stuart E.Tolnay. Boulder, CO: West Wind.and .Mary Beth Ofstedal. 1997. “Grandparents Living with Grandchildren: A Metropolitan-Nonmetropolitan Comparison.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, March.and1982. “Fertility Trends.” Pp. 286–92 in International Encyclopedia of Population, vol. 1, edited by John A.Ross. New York: Free Press.1987. “Reconsideration of a Model of Family Demography.” Pp. 102–22 in Family Demography: Methods and Their Applications, edited by JohnBongaarts, Thomas K.Burch, and KennethWachter. Oxford: Clarendon.[Page 343]1990. “What Is Going to Happen to American Fertility?”Population and Development Review16:433–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/19728311992. “The Centrality of Time in the Study of the Family.” Pp. 161–75 in Family Systems and Cultural Change, edited by ElzaBerquo and PeterXenos. Oxford: Clarendon.1971. Reproduction in the United States 1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.and .1995. “A Surge in Growing Income Inequality?”Monthly Labor Review118(August):51–61..2000. “Man of the House.”Washington Post Magazine, May 7, pp. 6–11.1993. “Women's Power and the Gendered Division of Domestic Labor in the Third World.”Gender & Society7:434–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124393007003007.1998. “Sex-Specialized or Collaborative Mate Selection: Union Transitions among Cohabiting Couples.”Social Science Research27:280–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ssre.1998.0627, , and .1997. “Becoming Mothers and Fathers: Parenthood, Gender, and the Division of Labor.”Gender & Society11:747–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124397011006003and .1999. “Changes in Parental Time with Children, U.S. 1981–1997.” Presented at the annual meeting of the International Association for Time Use Research, University of Essex, October 6–8, Colchester, England.and .2000. “Women's Economic Independence and Divorce: A Review and Reexamination.”Journal of Family Issues21:906–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251300021007005and .1992. “First Unions and the Stability of First Marriages.”Journal of Marriage and Family54:281–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353059.1993. “Partner Choice in Marriages and Cohabitations.”Journal of Marriage and Family55:408–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352811and .1993. Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope., , and .1995. Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1991. Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 187. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.and .1992. “Women's Work Conditions and Marital Adjustment in Two-Earner Couples: A Structural Model.”Journal of Marriage and Family54:789–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353161and .1991a. “Legal and Physical Custody Arrangements in Recent Divorces.”Social Science Quarterly71:250–66.1991b. “Relationships between Fathers and Children Who Live Apart: The Father's Role After Separation.”Journal of Marriage and Family53:79–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3531351998. “Father by Law: Effects of Joint Legal Custody on Nonresident Fathers' Involvement with Children.”Demography35:135–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/30040472000. “Families Formed outside Marriage.”Journal of Marriage and Family62:1247–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01247.x1988. “Children's Contact with Absent Parents.”Journal of Marriage and Family50:663–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352636and .1992. “Conflict in Alzheimer's Caregiving Families: Its Dimensions and Consequences.”Gerontologist32:648–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/32.5.6481999. “After a Lifetime of Work, a Second Family to Raise.”USA Today, July 1, p. D8.. [Page 344]1990. “The Distribution of Household Tasks: Does Wife's Employment Status Make a Difference?”Journal of Family Issues11:115–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251390011002001.1992. Women, Men, and Time: Gender Differences in Paid Work, Housework, and Leisure. Westport, CT: Greenwood..1993. “Does Marital Status Make a Difference?”Journal of Family Issues14:401–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251393014003004and .1996. “The Division of Household Labor.”Annual Review of Sociology22:299–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.299and .1994. “Custodial Grandparenting: Implications for Children's Development.” Pp. 171–218 in Redefining Families: Implications for Children's Development, edited by AdeleEskeles Gottfried and Allen W.Gottfried. New York: Plenum.and1995. “Stability and Change in Temporal Distance between the Elderly and Their Children.”Demography32:29–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061895.1997. “Intergenerational Solidarity and the Structure of Adult Child-Parent Relationships in American Families.”American Journal of Sociology103:429–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/231213and .1998. “Intergenerational Solidarity and the Grandparent Role.” Pp. 144–58 in Handbook on Grandparenthood, edited by Maximiliane E.Szinovacz. Westport, CT: Greenwood., , and .1999. “Trends in Sexual Activity among Adolescent American Women: 1982–1995.”Family Planning Perspectives31:212–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2991568and .1997. “Child Poverty in Advanced Economies: The Economy, the Family, and the State.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, August, Toronto., , and .Smelser, Neil J., WilliamJulius Wilson, and FaithMitchell, eds. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.1996. “A Decomposition of Trends in the Nonmarital Fertility Ratios of Blacks and Whites in the United States, 1960–1992.”Demography33:141–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061868, , and .2000. Who's Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Fall 1995. Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 70. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.1999. “Home Alone: Reasons Parents Leave Their Children Unsupervised.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, March, New York.and .1989. “Women in the Labor Market and the Family.”Journal of Economic Perspectives3:9–23.and .1993. “The Economic Costs of Marital Disruption for Young Women over the Past Two Decades.”Demography30:353–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20616451994. “Gender and the Short-Run Economic Consequences of Marital Disruption.”Social Forces73:243–62.2000. “Cohabitation in the United States: An Appraisal of Research Themes, Findings and Implications.”Annual Review of Sociology26:1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.11997. “Cohabiting Partners' Economic Circumstances and Marriage.”Demography34:331–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3038287and .1999. “Marriage, Divorce, and Women's Economic Well-Being.”American Sociological Review64:794–812. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2657403, , and .1991. “The Child Care Preferences of Parents with Young Children: How Little Is Known.” Pp. 337–53 in Parental Leave and Child Care: Setting a Research and Policy Agenda, edited by Janet S.Hyde and Marilyn J.Essex. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.[Page 345]1989. “Divorce and Its Consequences: The Distribution of Risk between Women and Men.” Presented at the International Symposium on Status Passages and Social Risks in the Life Course, Sonderforschungsbereich 186, University of Bremen, October 2–5..1989. “The Hispanic Elderly and the Intergenerational Family.”Journal of Children in Contemporary Society20:55–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J274v20n03_061991. “Sociodemographic Differentials in Mate Selection Preferences.”Journal of Marriage and Family53:928–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3529981995. “Spousal Alternatives and Marital Dissolution.”American Sociological Review60:21–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2096343and .1994. “Housework in Marital and Non-marital Households.”American Sociological Review59:327–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095937and .1996. Balancing Act: Motherhood, Marriage and Employment among American Women. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.and .1993. “Who Helps Whom in Older Parent-Child Families.”Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences48(2):S64–73., and .1988. “Women's Employment and Family Relations: A Review.”Journal of Marriage and Family50:595–618. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352633.1990. “Sons, Daughters, and Intergenerational Social Support.”Journal of Marriage and Family52:420–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353036and .1985. “Women's Employment, Time Expenditure, and Divorce.”Journal of Family Issues6:307–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251385006003004and .1990. Brave New Families: Stories of Domestic Upheaval in the Late 20th Century. New York: Basic Books..1993. “Good Riddance to the Family: A Response to David Popenoe.”Journal of Marriage and Family55:545–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353335.1996. In the Name of the Family: Rethinking Family Values in the Postmodern Age. Boston: Beacon..1987. “Single Parents, Stepparents, and the Susceptibility of Adolescents to Antisocial Peer Pressure.”Child Development58:269–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130307.1995. “The Impact of the Frequency of Care Activities on the Division of Labor between Primary Caregivers and Other Care Providers.”Research on Aging17:412–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0164027595174003, , , and .1987. “Caregivers of the Frail Elderly: A National Profile.”Gerontologist27:616–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/27.5.616, , and .1987. American Families and Households. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.and .1990a. “Disruption of Marital and Cohabitation Relationships: A Social-Demographic Perspective.” Working Paper No. 32, National Survey of Families and Households, University of Wisconsin, Madison.and .1990b. “Young Adults' Views of Marriage, Cohabitation, and Family.” Working Paper No. 33, National Survey of Families and Households, University of Wisconsin, Madison.and .1998. “Grandparent Research: Past, Present, and Future.” Pp. 1–22 in Handbook on Grandparenthood, edited by Maximiliane E.Szinovacz. Westport, CT: Greenwood.[Page 346]1997. Growing Up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development. New York: Guilford.and .1993. “Family and Household Research: Life Course Events.” Pp. 15.1–5.14 in Readings in Population Research Methodology, vol. 4, Nuptiality, Migration, Household, and Family Research, edited by DonaldBogue, EduardoArriaga, and DouglasAnderton. New York: United Nations Population Fund.1990. “Cohabitation and Marital Stability in the United States.”Social Forces69:207–20.and .1987. “Demography of the Family.” Pp. 2–26 in Handbook of Marriage and the Family, edited by Marvin B.Sussman and Suzanne K.Steinmetz. New York: Plenum., , and .1989. “Gender and Perceptions of Grandparenthood.”International Journal of Aging and Human Development29:269–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/H9XB-9VL6-KFCQ-L60E1991. “Family Work: Women's Sense of Fairness.”Journal of Family Issues12:181–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251391012002003.1989. “Women and Men in Marriage, Work, and Parenthood.”Journal of Marriage and Family51:845–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353201and .1998. “A War Inside Your Head.”Washington Post Magazine, February 15, p. W12..1992. “Cohabitation and Marital Stability: Quality or Commitment?”Journal of Marriage and Family54:259–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353057and .1989. “Changing Attitudes toward Family Issues in the United States.”Journal of Marriage and Family51:873–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3532021983. “The Changing American Family.”Population Bulletin38(4).and .1995. “The Older Population.” Pp. 47–92 in State of the Union: America in the 1990s, vol. 2, Social Trends, edited by ReynoldsFarley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.and .1983. “Grandparents: The Family Watchdogs.” Pp. 63–74 in Family Relationships in Later Life, edited by Timothy H.Brubaker. New York: Free Press.1985. “The Contingencies of Grandparenting.” Pp. 135–49 in Grandparenthood, edited by Vern L.Bengtson and Joan F.Robertson. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.1980. “Death and the Family.”Journal of Family History5:313–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/036319908000500304.1996. “Mortality Decline in the Twentieth Century and Supply of Kin over the Lifecourse.”Gerontologist36:681–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/36.5.681.1998. “Grandparenthood over Time: Historical and Demographic Trends.” Pp. 23–39 in Handbook on Grandparenthood, edited by Maximiliane E.Szinovacz. Westport, CT: Greenwood.and .U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1965. Estimates of the Population of the United States, by Single Years of Age, Color, and Sex: 1900–1959. Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 311. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1970. Projections of the Population of the United States, by Age and Sex, 1970 to 2020. Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 470. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1972. Projections of the Population of the United States, by Age and Sex, 1972 to 2020. Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 493. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1974. Estimates of the Population of the United States, by Age, Sex, and Race: April 1, 1960 to July 1, 1973. Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 519. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.[Page 347]U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1982. Preliminary Estimates of the Population of the United States by Age, Sex, and Race. Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 917. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1989. Child Support and Alimony: 1985. Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 154. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1997. School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 1997. Current Population Reports, Series PPL, No. 102. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1998. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1998. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. Council of Economic Advisors. 1999. “The Effects of Welfare Policy and Economic Expansion on Welfare Caseloads: An Update.”Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 1997. “Household Food Security in the United States in 1995 and 2000: Guide to Measuring Household Food Security.”Alexandria, VA: Author.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2000a. “Children in Foster Care” [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/fc.htm.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2000b. “New Statistics Show Only Small Percentage of Eligible Families Receive Child Care Help.”HHS News [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/press/2000/ccstudy.htm.U.S. House of Representatives. 1986. Teen Pregnancy: What Is Being Done? A State-by-State Look. Report of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, House of Representatives, 99th Congress. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. House of Representatives. 1992. Grandparents: New Roles and Responsibilities. Select Committee on Aging Publication No. 102–876. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. Senate. 1992. Grandparents as Parents: Raising a Second Generation. Special Committee on Aging Serial No. 102–24. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. Senate. 1998. Teen Pregnancy: State and Federal Efforts to Implement Prevention Programs and Measure Their Effectiveness. Report prepared by the General Accounting Office for the Chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, GAO/HEHS-99–4. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.1987. “Europe's Second Demographic Transition.”Population Bulletin42(1).1996. “The Division of Child Care among Mothers, Fathers, and Nonparental Care Providers in Dutch Two-Parent Families.”Journal of Marriage and Family58:1018–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353988and .1988. “The Relationship between Third Graders' After School Care and Social, Academic, and Emotional Functioning.”Child Development59:868–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130254and .1991. “Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: Choices in After-School Care and Child Development.”Developmental Psychology27:637–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-16184.108.40.2067and .1974. “Time Spent in Housework.”Scientific American, November, pp. 116–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1174-116.1992. “Wife's Employment and Quality of Marriage.”Journal of Marriage an Family54:387–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353070and .2000. “Births: Final Data for 1998.”National Vital Statistics Reports48(3)., , , , and . [Page 348]1999. “Declines in Teenage Birth Rates, 1991–98: Update of National and State Trends.”National Vital Statistics Reports47(26)., , and .1977. “The Time-Poor: A New Look at Poverty.”Journal of Human Resources12:27–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/145597.1991. “Steep Increase Reported in U.S. Births.”Washington Post, January 20, p. A1..1998. “Traditional Families Hold On.”Washington Post, May 28, p. A2..1995. “Does Marriage Matter?”Demography32:483–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061670Waite, Linda J., Christine A.Bachrach, MichelleHinden, ElizabethThomson, and Arland T.Thornton, eds. 2000. The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.2000. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier and Better Off Financially. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.and .1991. “What Parents Pay For: Child Care Characteristics, Quality and Cost.”Journal of Social Issues47:33–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1991.tb00286.x, , and .1991. “Children and Marital Disruption.”American Journal of Sociology96:930–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/229613and .1969. “Homemaking Still Takes Time.”Journal of Home Economics61:621–24.1998. “Sexual Behavior among U.S. High School Students, 1990–1995.”Family Planning Perspectives30:170–72, 200. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2991678, , , , , , , and .1987. “Demographic Foundations of Family Change.”American Sociological Review52:346–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095354, , and .1997. “Strengths and Needs of Working Class African-American and Anglo-American Grandparents.”International Journal of Aging and Human Development44:149–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/3NQV-WJQV-0ELF-A4XAand .1987. The Birth Dearth. New York: Pharos.1995. “Sharing a Home: The Experiences of American Women and Their Parents over the Twentieth Century.”Demography32:281–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20617451992. “Marital Property: Its Transformation and Division in the United States.” Pp. 85–192 in Economic Consequences of Divorce: The International Perspective, edited by Lenore J.Weitzman and MavisMaclean. New York: Oxford University Press.1993. “Changes in the Male/Female Wage Gap, 1976–85.”Journal of Human Resources28:383–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/146209.1987. “Doing Gender.”Gender & Society1:125–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002and .1978. “Some Speculations on the Future of Marriage and Fertility.”Family Planning Perspectives10:79–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/21343281981. “The Validity of Birth Intentions: Evidence from U.S. Longitudinal Studies.” Pp. 51–59 in Predicting Fertility: Demographic Studies of Birth Expectations, edited by Gerry E.Hendershot and Paul J.Placek. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.1995. “Labor Force, Unemployment, and Earnings.” Pp. 59–105 in State of the Union: America in the 1990s, vol. 1, Economic Trends, edited by ReynoldsFarley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.1954. Cohort Fertility: Native White Women in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.1966. Fertility and Family Planning in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., , and . [Page 349]2000. “Economic Circumstances and Family Outcomes: A Review of the 1990s.”Journal of Marriage an Family62:1035–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01035.xand .1993. “Dan Quayle Was Right.”Atlantic Monthly, April, pp. 47 ff..1998. “Gender and Fairness: Marital Satisfaction in Two-Earner Couples.”Journal of Marriage and Family60:577–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353530, , and .1991. The Demand and Supply of Child Care in 1990: Joint Findings from the National Child Care Survey 1990 and a Profile of Child Care Settings. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children., , , , , and .1999. “The Correspondence between Intention to Avoid Childbearing and Subsequent Fertility: A Prospective Analysis.”Family Planning Perspectives31:220–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2991569, , and .1973. “A New Approach to the Economic Theory of Fertility Behavior.”Journal of Political Economy81:514–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/2601521987. “What Have We Learned from the Economics of the Family?”American Economic Review77:68–71.1994. “Innovation in Family Formation: Evidence on Cohabitation in the U.S.” Pp. 9–45 in The Family, the Market, and the State in Aging Societies, edited by JohnErmisch and NaohiroOgawa. Oxford: Clarendon.and .1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1996. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Alfred A. Knopf..1986. “Poverty and Family Structure: The Widening Gap between Evidence and Public Policy Issues.” In Fighting Poverty: What Works and What Doesn't, edited by Sheldon H.Danziger and Daniel H.Weinberg. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.and .1984. “Living Arrangement Choices of the Elderly: A Decision-Making Approach.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Western Ontario.1987. “Values, Perceptions, and Choice in Living Arrangements of the Elderly.” Pp. 180–98 in Critical Issues in Aging Policy: Linking Research and Values, edited by Edgar F.Borgatta and Rhonda J. V.Montgomery. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.and .1988. “Household Composition Choices of Older Unmarried Women.”Demography25:387–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061539and .1976. “The Significance of Grandparenthood.” Pp. 278–304 in Time, Roles and Self in Old Age, edited by Jaber F.Gubrium. New York: Human Sciences Press.and .1990. “Functional Capacity and Living Arrangements of Unmarried Elderly Persons.”Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences45(3):S95–101.and .2000. “Putting Fathers Back in the Picture: Parental Activities and Children's Adult Outcomes.” Pp. 97–114 in Fatherhood: Research, Interventions, and Policies, edited by H. ElizabethPeters, Gary W.Peterson, Suzanne K.Steinmetz, and Randall D.Day. Binghamton, NY: Haworth., , and .2001. “Children's Time with Fathers in Intact Families.”Journal of Marriage and Family63:136–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00136.x, , , and . [Page 350]1999. Are the Steep Declines in Food Stamp Participation Linked to Falling Welfare Caseloads? Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief No. B-3. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.and .1996. “A New Look at Parents' Time Spent in Child Care: Primary and Secondary Time Use.”Social Science Research25:260–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ssre.1996.0012and .
About the Authors[Page 369]
Lynne M. Casper received her PhD in demography and sociology from Pennsylvania State University in 1992. She is currently Health Scientist Administrator and Demographer in the Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). She has primary responsibility for research portfolios in the areas of family and households, cohabitation, child care, and fatherhood. She is also director of NICHD's training program in population studies and is program officer for many national data collection efforts. Her current research focuses on the meaning of cohabitation and how cohabitors view themselves. She has published numerous scholarly articles in the areas of families and households, cohabitation, fatherhood, child care, voting, and demographic methods. She previously spent 7 years as a Demographer and Statistician in the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch at the U.S. Bureau of the Census, where she was senior analyst for the families and households, child care, and voting programs. She has authored nearly a dozen Census Bureau Current Population Reports. She was awarded former Vice President Al Gore's Hammer Award for her work on fatherhood with the Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. She is currently a member of the NICHD Family and Child Well-Being Research Network and the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics.
Suzanne M. Bianchi received her PhD in sociology from the University of Michigan in 1978. She is currently Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center on Population, Gender, and Social Inequality at the University of Maryland and also an affiliate faculty member of the Women's Studies Department and the School of Public Affairs. Prior to taking her current position, she was a Demographer with the U.S. Bureau of the Census for 15 years and served as Assistant [Page 370]Chief for Social and Demographic Statistics in the Bureau's Population Division in 1993–94. She is currently directing research projects on American families' use of time and investigating inequality in parental investments in children. She is a noted expert on changing gender roles and has published two books on American women's work and family lives. Her recent publications explore the interrelationship between maternal employment and time with children; women's financial status and the probability of divorce; the gender division of housework; the relationships among marriage, children, and women's employment; the feminization and juvenilization of poverty; the economic well-being of nonresident fathers and custodial mothers; and children's use of time. She was guest editor of a special volume of Demography devoted to men in families in 1998. She served as President of the Population Association of America in 2000 and has chaired the Population and Family Sections of the American Sociological Association.
Martin O'Connell received his PhD in demography from the University of Pennsylvania in 1975. Since 1976, he has worked for the U.S. Bureau of the Census and is currently Chief of the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch. In this position, he directs all Census Bureau data collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination of data related to families and households, fertility, child well-being, and child care. These data are collected primarily in the Census Bureau's demographic surveys: the Current Population Survey, the Survey of Income and Program Participation, the American Community Survey, the Survey of Program Dynamics, and the decennial censuses. His current research concentrates on child-care and maternity leave issues and their relationship to labor force participation. Among his other continuing research interests are birth expectations, fertility projections, and out-of-wedlock childbearing. In the areas of child care and the labor force, he has published articles on the effects of employment cycles on parental child-care roles, maternity leave arrangements, child-care arrangements, and the consequential balancing acts in which working parents must engage. His research regarding out-of-wedlock births includes both methodological problems of demographic estimation and the relationship of such births to family formation and dissolution. He has also published several studies on the validity of birth expectations data for long- and short-term population projections.