Is the Family in Decline? (Demographics)
 
Estimated Number of Printed Pages: 15
 
TOPICS COVERED: I think this memo is sort of like a car crash. You're afraid of what you're going to see. You're not supposed to want to look. But you have to look. You just have to.

Here's the thing. Yes, when you read this memo, it will show you some very definite trends over time. Some of which seem grim; some which will seem not so bad, and some which will just surprise you. But you have to keep in mind that data like this, snapshots of demographics over time, is informative, but it's also inherently misleading, because it's automatically taken out of context. Before you make any judgments based on these numbers, consider the times in which these events occurred. Consider the other far more dramatic changes in families, societies, that were also going on. And please don't stop here: check out some of the related memos to see what we think all of this means.
 
MEMOS ON RELATED INFORMATION: Is the Family in Decline? (analysis), Family and Household Demographics, Idealization of the Family / Forecasts, What's the Family Going to Look Like?, Family Structures, Family Roles and Responsibilities
 
Links to Sources for this material are available below. Please also see The Factbook Sources page for further information regarding Factbook sources and their availability.
 
 

PAGE INDEX:

 
 

WHAT THE EXPERTS ARE SAYING

SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS OVER TIME – U.S.

SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS OVER TIME – INTERNATIONAL

 
 
 

WHAT THE EXPERTS ARE SAYING

 
 
 
The major global trends effecting families, according to a division of the United Nations, on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Family:
1. Changes in Family Structure
(including in that, delayed childbearing, decreased rates of fertility, smaller households, smaller families, delayed marriage, rising divorce, and rising single parenthood)
2. Migration
3. Demographic Aging
4. HIV/AIDS
5. Globalization 1.

 
In the U.S. and Western Europe, the United Nations' reported, "The family demography of modern society shows increasing variation in household types and more complex family life courses in recent decades. Family and household variation is, however, not a completely new phenomenon. In pre-Victorian societies, some family and households types - celibacy, single-parent families, reconstituted families - were as common if not more common than they are today, but the causes of their prevalence - mortality levels, economic constraints, ideological choices - were different from those prevailing today (Laslett, 1965). What is also different is the ideological attitude towards family variation. Modernisation has clearly led to an evolution from a uniform ideal towards tolerant acceptance of a variety of forms that is the outcome of individual choice." 2.
 
 
 
The U.N. report further determined, "Nuptiality has decreased considerably in most countries, mainly as a consequence of the postponement of the first marriage. In the second half of the last century the total first marriage rate fell in many countries from close to uniformity to half or even less. Also remarriage rates decreased. These spectacular declines in marriage and remarriage rates, however, should not be interpreted as a sign of disintegration of the family as a social unit. Marriage and remarriage appear to be replaced by other forms of unions, mainly consensual unions, or are postponed." 3.
 
 
 
Another scholar has determined,"Historically, cohabitation, marriage, and childbearing were all part of one inseparable package. Marriage and cohabitation were usually co-occurring [in the U.S.], and both were typically followed by the birth of children. These three trends reflect an unprecedented separation of cohabitation, marriage, and childbearing." 4.
 
 
 
As he further explained, "As the divorce rate soared after 1960, three other major trends started to emerge that were part of the 20th century's transformation in pair-bonding in the Western world: the rate of marriage decreased, while the rates of cohabitation without marriage and nonmarital births increased. In the U.S., the marriage rate (per 1000 unmarried women per year) decreased from approximately 80 in 1970 to a low of 50 in 1996. "The marriage rate generally rose and fell with the business cycle. The 1990s, with conspicuously low marriage rates in years of unprecedented prosperity, were exceptional" (Caplow et al., 2001, p. 68). A slightly greater drop occurred in the marriage rate in Western Europe. The percentage of cohabiting, unmarried couples in the U.S. increased from less than one percent in 1960 to over seven percent of all couples by 1998. The rates for Western Europe were higher, e.g., 19 percent in the U.K. (Hall, 1993)." 5.
 
 
 
A scholar in Europe made an almost identical point when he observed, "If we compare the 1960s and 1970s [in the Netherlands] with the preceding and the following decades, we can observe that the afore mentioned two decades take on a relatively exceptional position with respect to the high marriage rates and early family formation. Taking into account the marriage rates and family development patterns observed before the Second World War the developments of the 1970s and subsequent decades seem less dramatic." 6.
 
 
 
According to a United Nations' report on families in South America, "there have been some discussions claiming that we are witnessing a process of family “disintegration”. Actually, what is going on is a process of crisis of the patriarchal model of the family, a model that involved strong authoritarian tendencies. From the perspective of the patriarchal nuclear family, the decline in nuptiality and the increase in divorce rates, as well as the increase in the labor force participation of women - with the “danger” that they abandon their traditional (“naturalized”) roles of housewives, wives and mothers - can be interpreted as abnormal and expressing a situation of crisis. In such a situation, some voices express the urgency to intervene and “save” the family from the crisis. These voices are usually those of tradition and religion, with a strong sense of morally policing private life, and asking for ways to “strengthen” the family. For these voices, there is only one family to be strengthened: the monogamous heterosexual couple and their children, established once and for all. Other models of families are seen as deviations that point to the crisis. Such a simplified view of reality, however, has to be changed. New family forms are to be seen in part as the expression of choice and of more freedom on the part of the traditionally subordinate members of families, and it is their freedom and principles of democratic equality that have to be strengthened." 7.
 
 
 

WHAT THE EXPERTS ARE SAYING
SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS OVER TIME – INTERNATIONAL

 
 
 

SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS OVER TIME – U.S.

 
 
 
Seven or more people
The most common U.S. household size in 1900. 8.
 
 
 
Two people
The most common U.S. household size from 1940 to 2000. 9.
 
 
 
20.9 percent
of U.S. households in 1970 contained five people or more. 10.
 
 
 
Almost half
of the U.S. population lived in households of six or more people in 1900. 11.
 
 
 
Over half
of the U.S. population lived in households of less than three people in 2000. 12.
 
 
 
4.60
average household size in the U.S. in 1900. 13.
 
 
 
3.14
Average number of people in an U.S. household in 1970. 14.
 
 
 
2.59
average household size in the U.S. in 2000 – a decline by 44 percent from a century earlier. 15.
 
 
 
2.57
Average number of people in an U.S. household in 2003 – a small, but noticeable change within just the last three years. 16.
 
 
 
9.8 percent
of U.S. households in 2003 contained five people or more. 17.
 
 
 
One out of 10
In the U.S., about one out of every 10 households (9.5 percent) was a single-person household in 1950. 18.
 
 
 
One out of four
In the U.S., about one out of every four households (26 percent) was a single-person household in 2000. 19.
 
 
 
"From 1970 to 2000, the number of [U.S.] male-maintained family households and female-maintained family households both with no spouse present increased. During the same time period, the proportion of female-maintained family households with no husband present was more than double that of their male counterparts." 20.
 
 
 
81 percent
of all U.S. households in 1970 that were family households (meaning they have at least two members related by birth, marriage or adoption). 21.
 
 
 
6.0 million
Number of U.S. female-headed family households with no husband but with children present in 1990. That was 6.6 percent of all households. 22.
 
 
 
7.6 million
Number of U.S. female-headed family households with no husband but with children present in 2003. That’s 7.2 percent of all households. 23.
 
 
 
78 percent
of U.S. households in the U.S. were married couple households in 1950. 24.
 
 
 
69 percent
of U.S. households in 1970 were married-couple households. 25.
 
 
 
52 percent
of U.S. households in 2000 were married-couple households. 26.
 
 
 
57 million
Number of married-couple households residing in the United States in 2003. That is 76 percent of family households. There are actually more married couple households than there were in years past – 12 million more than there were in 1970 (45 million). But they grew at a far slower rate than other family households (average of 0.8 percent per year, compared with 3 percent per year for other family households). 27.
 
 
 
23 percent
of U.S. married couple households with children in 2003, down from 40 percent in 1970. 28.
 
 
 
52 percent
of U.S. children in 1998 by being raised by two parents in an uninterrupted marriage. That’s a decline of 21 percent points since 1972, when 73 percent of children were being reared by two married parents. 29.
 
 
 
45 percent
of U.S. households with children in 1970. 30.
 
 
 
35 percent
of U.S. households with children in 1990. 31.
 
 
 
32 percent
of U.S. households with children in 2003. 32.
 
 
 
From 1880 to 1970,
83 and 85 percent of U.S. children lived in a two-parent household. 33.
 
 
 
In 2001,
71 percent of U.S. children under the age of 18 lived in a two-parent home. 34.
 
 
 
In 1880,
six percent of U.S. children lived in a household without their parents. 35.
 
 
 
In 1970,
three percent of U.S. children lived in a household without their parents. 36.
 
 
 
In 2001,
four percent of U.S. children – 2.9 million – lived in a household without their parents. 37.
 
 
 
In 1880,
eight percent of U.S. children lived with their mothers and without a father. 38.
 
 
 
In 1970,
11 percent of U.S. children lived in a household with their mothers and without a father. 39.
 
 
 
In 2001,
22.5 percent of U.S. children lived in a household with their mothers and without a father. The rate of change has leveled off since about 1990. 40.
 
 
 
In 1880,
2.6 percent of U.S. children lived with their fathers and without a mother. 41.
 
 
 
In 1970,
1.1 percent of U.S. children lived with their fathers and without a mother. 42.
 
 
 
In 2001,
3.0 percent of U.S. children lived with their fathers and without a mother. 43.
 
 
 
52 percent
of U.S. children in 1998 were by being raised by two parents in an uninterrupted marriage. 44.
 
 
 
73 percent
of U.S. children in 1972 were by being raised by two parents in an uninterrupted marriage. 45.
 
 
 
52 percent
of U.S. married couples with a traditional home of an employed husband and housewife, in 1972. 46.
 
 
 
21 percent
of U.S. married couples in 1998 with a traditional home of an employed husband and housewife. 47.
 
 
 
32 percent
of U.S. married couples with husband and wife employed, in 1972. 48.
 
 
 
59 percent
of U.S. married couples with husband and wife employed, in 1998. 49.
 
 
 
More than half
In 1957, more than half of Americans viewed someone who did not want to get married as someone who was selfish, immature, peculiar or morally flawed. By 1976, fewer than one-third of a similar sample held such views." 50.
 
 
 
Less than one-third
In 1976, less than one-third of Americans viewed someone who did not want to get married as someone who was selfish, immature, peculiar or morally flawed. By 1976, fewer than one-third of a similar sample held such views." 51.
 
 
 
More than 3.5 births
The U.S. fertility rate during the height of the Baby Boom, in the late 1950s. 52.
 
 
 
1.8 births
The U.S. fertility rate 20 years later, in the mid-1970s. 53.
 
 
 
Between 2.0 and 2.1
The U.S. fertility rate from 2000-2004. 54.
 
 
 
More than 50 percent
of American women graduating from college in 1900-1919 who did not have children by the age of 40. 55.
 
 
 
30-35 percent
of American women graduating from college in 1920-1945 who did not have children by the age of 40. 56.
 
 
 
17 percent
of American women graduating from college in 1946-1963 who did not have children by the age of 40. 57.
 
 
 
26 percent
of American women graduating from college in 1980-1990 who did not have children by the age of 40. 58.
 
 
 
5.3 percent
of births in the U.S. were outside of marriage in 1960. 59.
 
 
 
Over 32 percent
of 1996 births in the U.S. were outside of marriage. 60.
 
 
 
Less than 5 percent
of U.S. children under age 18 in 1972 were living in a household with only one adult present. By the mid-1990s this had increased to 18-20 percent. 61.
 
 
 
18-20 percent
of U.S. children under age 18 in mid-1990s were living in a household with only one adult present. 62.
 
 
 

WHAT THE EXPERTS ARE SAYING
SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS OVER TIME – U.S.

 
 
 

SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS OVER TIME – INTERNATIONAL

 
 
 
In Greece, "Both family and household structures have changed considerably over the last few years. The number of households and families is increasing while their average size is becoming smaller as a result of growing rates for marital breakdown and fertility decline." 63.
 
 
 
Almost half –
According to Italy's national statistics agency, family size in Italy is almost half of what it was in the post-WWII era – 2.6 family members, down from 4.2. 64.
 
 
 
2.0
average number of children in a British family in 1971. 65.
 
 
 
1.8
average number of children in a British family in 2004. 66.
 
 
 
4.9
average family size in Lebanon in 1987, down from 5.2 in 1970. 67.
 
 
 
6.8
average family size in Jordan in 1992, down from 7.2 in 1986-1987. 68.
 
 
 
3.2
Japan’s average household size in 1980. 69.
 
 
 
2.7
Japan’s average household size in 2000. 70.
 
 
 
On the rise –
living alone in South America. From 1986 to 1999, the percent of those living alone increased from 11.3 percent to 15.5 percent in Argentina, from 11.9 to 16.6 in Uruguay, from 6,9 to 8,7 in Brazil and from 6.4 to 7.5 in Chile. Some of this may be due to an increasing population of elderly who live alone: Argentina and Uruguay have higher percentages of elderly than in other South American countries. 71.
 
 
 
3.3
The average size of an Australian family household, in 1992. 72.
 
 
 
3.1
The average size of an Australian family household in 1997. 73.
 
 
 
3.1
The average size of an Australian family household, in 2003 – no change in six years. 74.
 
 
 
85 percent
of children in Finland who live with married parents, in 1985. 75.
 
 
 
70 percent
of children in Finland who live with married parents, in 1999. 76.
 
 
 
29 percent
of Canadian families were childless in 1961. 77.
 
 
 
35 percent
of Canadian families were childless in 1991. 78.
 
 
 
Seven percent
of Canadian women age 35 to 39 had never married in 1961. 79.
 
 
 
13 percent
of Canadian women age 35 to 39 had never married in 1991. 80.
 
 
 
42 percent
of Greek households contained two adults and at least one dependent child in the 1990s. 81.
 
 
 
38 percent
of Greek households contained two adults and at least one dependent child by 2001. 82.
 
 
 
One out of two
of people in Greece lived in a household with dependent children in 1990. 83.
 
 
 
Two out of three
of people in Greece lived in a household with dependent children in 2000. 84.
 
 
____________________________________________________
 
1. See, for example, Stella R. Quah, "Major Trends Affecting Families in East and Southeast Asia," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (March 2003), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtquah.pdf
2. Robert Cliquet, "Major Trends Affecting Families In the New Millennium – Western Europe and North America," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003), pp. 25-26. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
3. Robert Cliquet, "Major Trends Affecting Families In the New Millennium – Western Europe and North America," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
4. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620
5. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620
6. Hans-Joachim Schulze and Peter Cuyvers, The Situation of Families in The Netherlands in 2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), p. 3. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_netherlands_schulze_cuyvers.pdf
7. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003) p. 21. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
8. Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, Demographic Trends in the 20th Century, US Census Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-4, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (November 2002), p. 137. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
9. Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, Demographic Trends in the 20th Century, US Census Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-4, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (November 2002), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
10. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
11. Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, Demographic Trends in the 20th Century, US Census Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-4, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (November 2002), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
12. Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, Demographic Trends in the 20th Century, US Census Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-4, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (November 2002), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
13. Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, Demographic Trends in the 20th Century, US Census Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-4, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (November 2002), p. 137. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
14. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 4. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
15. Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, Demographic Trends in the 20th Century, US Census Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-4, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (November 2002), p. 137. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
16. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 4. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
17. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
18. Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, Demographic Trends in the 20th Century, US Census Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-4, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (November 2002), p. 137. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
19. Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, Demographic Trends in the 20th Century, US Census Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-4, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (November 2002), p. 137. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
20. Reneé Spraggins, We the People: Women and Men in the United States, Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-20. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-20.pdf
21. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
22. Tavia Simmons and Grace O'Neill, Households and Families: 2000, U.S. Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR/01-8. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-8.pdf
23. Reneé Spraggins, We the People: Women and Men in the United States, Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-20. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-20.pdf
24. Reneé Spraggins, We the People: Women and Men in the United States, Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-20. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-20.pdf and Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, Demographic Trends in the 20th Century, US Census Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-4, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (November 2002), p. 137. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf and
25. Reneé Spraggins, We the People: Women and Men in the United States, Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-20. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-20.pdf
26. Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, Demographic Trends in the 20th Century, US Census Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-4, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (November 2002), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
27. Tavia Simmons and Grace O'Neill, Households and Families: 2000, U.S. Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR/01-8. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-8.pdf
28. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
29. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
30. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 4. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
31. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 4. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
32. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 4. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
33. Rose M. Kreider and Jason Fields, Living Arrangements of Children: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-104. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (July 2005), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-104.pdf
34. As of 2001. Rose M. Kreider and Jason Fields, Living Arrangements of Children: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-104. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (July 2005), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-104.pdf
35. Rose M. Kreider and Jason Fields, Living Arrangements of Children: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-104. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (July 2005), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-104.pdf
36. Rose M. Kreider and Jason Fields, Living Arrangements of Children: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-104. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (July 2005), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-104.pdf
37. Rose M. Kreider and Jason Fields, Living Arrangements of Children: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-104. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (July 2005), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-104.pdf and ________, Table 2, "Historical Living Arrangements of Children: 1880 to 2001," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/child/sipp2001/tab02.pdf
38. Rose M. Kreider and Jason Fields, Living Arrangements of Children: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-104. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (July 2005), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-104.pdf
39. Rose M. Kreider and Jason Fields, Living Arrangements of Children: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-104. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (July 2005), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-104.pdf
40. ________, Table 2, "Historical Living Arrangements of Children: 1880 to 2001," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/child/sipp2001/tab02.pdf
41. ________, Table 2, "Historical Living Arrangements of Children: 1880 to 2001," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/child/sipp2001/tab02.pdf
42. ________, Table 2, "Historical Living Arrangements of Children: 1880 to 2001," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/child/sipp2001/tab02.pdf
43. ________, Table 2, "Historical Living Arrangements of Children: 1880 to 2001," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/child/sipp2001/tab02.pdf
44. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
45. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
46. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
47. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
48. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
49. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
50. According to a survey. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 35.
51. According to a survey. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 35.
52. Barbara Downs, Fertility of American Women: June 2002, U.S. Census Department Current Population Reports, P20-548. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 1 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-548.pdf
53. Barbara Downs, Fertility of American Women: June 2002, U.S. Census Department Current Population Reports, P20-548. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 1 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-548.pdf
54. Barbara Downs, Fertility of American Women: June 2002, U.S. Census Department Current Population Reports, P20-548. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 1 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-548.pdf
55. Claudia Goldin, The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family, Mommies and Daddies on the Fast Track: Success of Parents in Demanding Professions, Special Issue of The Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science (Vol. 596) p. 23 (11/2004
56. Claudia Goldin, The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family, Mommies and Daddies on the Fast Track: Success of Parents in Demanding Professions, Special Issue of The Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science (Vol. 596) p. 23 (11/2004
57. Claudia Goldin, The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family, Mommies and Daddies on the Fast Track: Success of Parents in Demanding Professions, Special Issue of The Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science (Vol. 596) p. 23 (11/2004
58. Claudia Goldin, The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family, Mommies and Daddies on the Fast Track: Success of Parents in Demanding Professions, Special Issue of The Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science (Vol. 596) p. 23 (11/2004
59. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
60. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
61. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
62. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
63. Christos Bagavos, The Situation of Families in Greece, 2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), p. 1-2. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_greece_bagavos.pdf
64. ________, "Italy by Numbers . . . ," National Italian American Foundation News from Italy website (October 2002). Accessed at: https://www.niaf.org/news/news_italy/news_italy_october.asp on August 15, 2005.
65. ________, "Dependent Children: 1 in 4 in lone-parent families," National Statistics Online, National Statistics, United Kingdom (July 7, 2005). Accessed at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1163 on December 27, 2005.
66. ________, "Dependent Children: 1 in 4 in lone-parent families," National Statistics Online, National Statistics, United Kingdom (July 7, 2005). Accessed at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1163 on December 27, 2005.
67. Hoda Badran, "Major Trends Affecting Families El Mashrek El Araby," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003), p. 5 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtbadran.pdf
68. Hoda Badran, "Major Trends Affecting Families El Mashrek El Araby," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003), p. 5 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtbadran.pdf
69. Stella R. Quah, "Major Trends Affecting Families in East and Southeast Asia," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (March 2003), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtquah.pdf
70. Stella R. Quah, "Major Trends Affecting Families in East and Southeast Asia," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (March 2003), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtquah.pdf
71. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003), p. 4. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
72. ________, "4442.0 Family Characteristics, Australia," Australian Bureau of Statistics (updated March 15, 2005). Accessed at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/5087e58f30c6bb25ca2568b60010b303/e6a9286119fa0a85ca25699000255c89!OpenDocument on August 28, 2005.
73. ________, "4442.0 Family Characteristics, Australia," Australian Bureau of Statistics (updated March 15, 2005). Accessed at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/5087e58f30c6bb25ca2568b60010b303/e6a9286119fa0a85ca25699000255c89!OpenDocument on August 28, 2005.
74. ________, "4442.0 Family Characteristics, Australia," Australian Bureau of Statistics (updated March 15, 2005). Accessed at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/5087e58f30c6bb25ca2568b60010b303/e6a9286119fa0a85ca25699000255c89!OpenDocument on August 28, 2005.
75. Sirpa Taskinen, The Situation of Families in Finland in 2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), p. 2. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_finland_taskinen_en.pdf
76. Sirpa Taskinen, The Situation of Families in Finland in 2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), p. 2. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_finland_taskinen_en.pdf
77. Kimberly Abshoff and Mira J. Hird, "Women Without Children: A Contradiction In Terms?" Journal of Comparative Family Studies (June 22, 2000)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:68535835
78. Kimberly Abshoff and Mira J. Hird, "Women Without Children: A Contradiction In Terms?" Journal of Comparative Family Studies (June 22, 2000)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:68535835
79. Kimberly Abshoff and Mira J. Hird, "Women Without Children: A Contradiction In Terms?" Journal of Comparative Family Studies (June 22, 2000)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:68535835
80. Kimberly Abshoff and Mira J. Hird, "Women Without Children: A Contradiction In Terms?" Journal of Comparative Family Studies (June 22, 2000)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:68535835
81. Christos Bagavos, The Situation of Families in Greece, 2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), pp. 1-2. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_greece_bagavos.pdf
82. Christos Bagavos, The Situation of Families in Greece, 2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), pp. 1-2. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_greece_bagavos.pdf
83. Christos Bagavos, The Situation of Families in Greece, 2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), pp. 1-2. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_greece_bagavos.pdf
84. Christos Bagavos, The Situation of Families in Greece, 2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), pp. 1-2. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_greece_bagavos.pdf